General US Politics

[Etrurian emperor]

12 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Yeah, I don't really understand why nowadays people put so much stock into what the politicians "truly believe", rather than what they will actually do in office. I don't give a fuck if a politician is enacting/pushing a policy because they believe in it or if the reason is merely because the electorate wants it. In the end what matters is what is being done. It's completely natural that politicians do what the population wants them to do.

That's a double edged sword though. How many populist politicians actually believe in the damaging ideas they promise to implement? I'm fairly sure that few of the Brexiteers honestly believe in the glories of Brexit, instead they saw an electoral opening to exploit and thus did it regardless of the costs.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, XRay said:

The email things sounds like a mishap rather than something intentional. Humans are not perfect. I agree it would not look good on anyone's resume, but I do not think it is something unforgivable or something that automatically disqualifies a person.

I elaborated on this a bit before your post.  Did you disagree with something in there?

[Nobody]

8 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That's a double edged sword though. How many populist politicians actually believe in the damaging ideas they promise to implement? I'm fairly sure that few of the Brexiteers honestly believe in the glories of Brexit, instead they saw an electoral opening to exploit and thus did it regardless of the costs.

But that doesn't contradict my point. A politician that campaigns for brexit will vote for it even if they disagree with it, because that's what they promised the electorate that voted for them; it would be dumb to vote for them expecting them to follow their actual beliefs rather than what they promised to do. Therefore, what they will do matters way more than what they actually believe.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Nobody

[XRay]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I elaborated on this a bit before your post.  Did you disagree with something in there?

I do not disagree with your reasoning, it just feels a little harsh to not vote for someone over a few policy issues if the politicians overall supports policies you agree with.

For example, I disagree with how most Democrats are just demonizing guns and they have not done much compared to Trump in countering China so far, but just because I am dissatisfied with how Democrats have handled these two issues I care about, I would still vote for them because they support policies I agree with a lot more often than policies I disagree with.

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

I'm not even talking about her policies, I'm talking about her as a person.

Between her bad attempts to connect with the youth(Her "Pokemon GO to the polls!" line) and her pulling out hot sauce on The Breakfast Club was uh... it was pretty uncomfortable.

There's a level of fakeness people tolerate in politicians when it comes to their public personas, and Hillary crossed it more times than not. At a certain point, you just come across as desperate and unlikable. Pete Buttigieg got raked across the coals for his fakeness in this election, and his path forward after New Hampshire was pretty dire, even though policy wise he wasn't too far off from the current frontrunner.

Maybe I just do not care about them in terms of their personality. I elect them because they are championing the ideas I believe in. If they are a little weird or quirky or awkward, that is fine.

As a politician, being a charmer helps, but I am not electing them just because they are a charmer. I do not care how they perform in debates or how well their public speaking is either. As long as they are not super mega assholes like Trump, I do not really care about how politicians are as a person.

1 hour ago, UNLEASH IT said:

I hope Sanders drops out now. The longer he runs, the more fractured democrats will be in November

I think it is fine for him to stay in the race right now. There are still a few more states to go, so he is not out completely yet I think?

As for fracturing Democrats, I think if Biden and Bernie can have a civil debate and it does not turn ugly, I do not think it will cause Democrats to fracture that badly.

[eclipse]

Just now, XRay said:

I do not disagree with your reasoning, it just feels a little harsh to not vote for someone over a few policy issues if the politicians overall supports policies you agree with.

For example, I disagree with how most Democrats are just demonizing guns and they have not done much compared to Trump in countering China so far, but just because I am dissatisfied with how Democrats have handled these two issues I care about, I would still vote for them because they support policies I agree with a lot more often than policies I disagree with.

I think we're going to have to disagree here.  The stuff that's out in the wild, malware-wise, is pretty nasty, and that's just consumer-grade things.  I don't want to think of the damage that could be caused by sloppy security policy.

[Moblin Major General]

28 minutes ago, Nobody said:

But that doesn't contradict my point. A politician that campaigns for brexit will vote for it even if they disagree with it, because that's what they promised the electorate that voted for them; it would be dumb to vote for them expecting them to follow their actual beliefs rather than what they promised to do. Therefore, what they will do matters way more than what they actually believe.

But they coincidentally line up a lot more often than not. What the electorate or the party wants isn't the end-all be-all of politics. Sometimes politicians need to trust their judgment, even if it means breaking a campaign promise. The unfortunate thing is, that hardly happens, anymore, and as a result, voters on both sides have become cognitively dissonant in regards to what they should be asking for and what they want.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

What the electorate wants is SUPPOSED to be primarily what the politicians representing them should fight for but it is most certainly not the case in the US... you've been asleep if you think that.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Johann]

On 3/11/2020 at 12:46 AM, eclipse said:

This wouldn't be too bad.  If Biden does wind up with the nomination, I hope he picks a strong VP candidate.

Yeah, who he picks to bring with him, including cabinet members, will play a big role in how well his presidency goes. Governance that actually makes huge positive changes is largely hard to do (even when the issue isn't complex, like legalized gay marriage), but bad governance is so easy and happens constantly. I don't think there's a high ceiling for what he (or any other moderate candidate) would do, but there's no question that his lowest lows wouldn't be as bad as Trump's.

[XRay]

2 hours ago, Johann said:

Yeah, who he picks to bring with him, including cabinet members, will play a big role in how well his presidency goes. Governance that actually makes huge positive changes is largely hard to do (even when the issue isn't complex, like legalized gay marriage), but bad governance is so easy and happens constantly. I don't think there's a high ceiling for what he (or any other moderate candidate) would do, but there's no question that his lowest lows wouldn't be as bad as Trump's.

I wonder if he will pick anyone further left to help solidify and unite Democrats. Can he pick former presidential candidates as Vice President? Can he pick Bernie right now even though they are competing still? I would not mind Warren either. If he picks Warren as VP right now, I wonder how much that would affect Bernie.

Or maybe it is better if he picks someone more moderate like Harris or Klobuchar to secure independent voters? Probably should stay away from Bloomberg though cause all that cash Bloomberg just spent simply does not look good in my opinion.

Bernie seems popular with independents too I think? So if he picks Bernie, Biden can secure both the left wing of the Democratic Party and independents in the middle too, which seems like the most logical choice.

If Bernie won the nomination though, I am not sure who he should pick.

[Johann]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

I wonder if he will pick anyone further left to help solidify and unite Democrats. Can he pick former presidential candidates as Vice President? Can he pick Bernie right now even though they are competing still? I would not mind Warren either. If he picks Warren as VP right now, I wonder how much that would affect Bernie.

Or maybe it is better if he picks someone more moderate like Harris or Klobuchar to secure independent voters? Probably should stay away from Bloomberg though cause all that cash Bloomberg just spent simply does not look good in my opinion.

Bernie seems popular with independents too I think? So if he picks Bernie, Biden can secure both the left wing of the Democratic Party and independents in the middle too, which seems like the most logical choice.

If Bernie won the nomination though, I am not sure who he should pick.

Yes, he can pick other candidates for VP; he himself was one when Obama picked him. For VP, I could definitely see Harris, maybe Buttigieg or Klob, or someone who wasn't running. Stacy Abrams, for instance, was approached a while back, if I recall, but I don't think she was interested. I don't think he'll pick Bernie or Warren though, since both clash with him a lot-- here's a famous exchange between Biden and Warren over predatory lending and bankruptcy protection for consumers (Biden siding with lenders, Warren with consumers):

That aside, Warren will definitely stay in the Senate because she's amazing there, and she'll have zero issues holding her seat. I would LOVE the idea of Senate Majority Leader Warren.

The primary is basically over, it's a Biden candidacy, so I'm too lazy to think of who he'd pick for VP.

[XRay]

3 minutes ago, Johann said:

I don't think he'll pick Bernie or Warren though, since both clash with him a lot

That is a shame. It seems like it could have been the best way to solidify Democrats and secure a good portion of the independents too.

[Nobody]

Don't know if this is actually relevant to you guys, but last week Trump met with a Brazilian official who was just confirmed as having coronavirus. Bolsonaro is getting tested for it, but apparently Trump doesn't think he has any reason for doing it, despite being in the same room as the man, and posing next to him for a photo (https://www.instagram.com/p/B9c_wc3nFKT, man on the right is the one with COVID19)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/trump-coronavirus-photo-brazilian-aide-bolsonaro-contact-latest

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Nobody

[Shoblongoo]

55 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Don't know if this is actually relevant to you guys, but last week Trump met with a Brazilian official who was just confirmed as having coronavirus. Bolsonaro is getting tested for it, but apparently Trump doesn't think he has any reason for doing it, despite being in the same room as the man, and posing next to him for a photo (https://www.instagram.com/p/B9c_wc3nFKT, man on the right is the one with COVID19)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/trump-coronavirus-photo-brazilian-aide-bolsonaro-contact-latest

 

It’s relevant insofar as the only way to make Trump do anything is to make him feel like it affects him personally

Edited March 13, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Johann]

3 hours ago, XRay said:

That is a shame. It seems like it could have been the best way to solidify Democrats and secure a good portion of the independents too.

The divide between far-left and moderate Dems isn't going to keep many from voting for whoever the candidate is, though. The feuding we've seen on the campaign trail is pretty standard stuff, we see this every 4 years, really.

Since Bernie's rise in 2016, the ideological split between these two factions has been highlighted, and in other countries, they would have been in separate parties. But we've got a two party system and splintering only one would give all the power to the GOP. Remember also that GOP people always fall in line, no matter what. Party loyalty is above all else to them, which is why Trump became and remains president.

[Shoblongoo]

11 hours ago, Johann said:

The divide between far-left and moderate Dems isn't going to keep many from voting for whoever the candidate is, though. The feuding we've seen on the campaign trail is pretty standard stuff, we see this every 4 years, really.

Since Bernie's rise in 2016, the ideological split between these two factions has been highlighted, and in other countries, they would have been in separate parties. But we've got a two party system and splintering only one would give all the power to the GOP. Remember also that GOP people always fall in line, no matter what. Party loyalty is above all else to them, which is why Trump became and remains president.

The GOP had its ideologue vs. establishment moment with the Tea Party back during the Obama years.

And it resolved with the rise of Trump and the ideologues taking over the party + everyone getting in lock-step behind them.

But if you look back at Republican politics during the Clinton and the Bush and the early Obama years; you see basically the same thing you're seeing now on the Democratic side. Where you had this deep schism in the party between a moderate wing that was trying to reach across the aisle to the liberals on one side and the hardline conservatives on the other, and the party's overall ability to function  hamstrung by the fact that the moderates and the hardliners were often too busy fighting eachother to present a unified front against the Democrats. 

Democrats will get there. Its taking them an obnoxiously long time, but they'll do it.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Johann]

On 3/13/2020 at 10:53 AM, Shoblongoo said:

The GOP had its ideologue vs. establishment moment with the Tea Party back during the Obama years.

And it resolved with the rise of Trump and the ideologues taking over the party + everyone getting in lock-step behind them.

But if you look back at Republican politics during the Clinton and the Bush and the early Obama years; you see basically the same thing you're seeing now on the Democratic side. Where you had this deep schism in the party between a moderate wing that was trying to reach across the aisle to the liberals on one side and the hardline conservatives on the other, and the party's overall ability to function  hamstrung by the fact that the moderates and the hardliners were often too busy fighting eachother to present a unified front against the Democrats. 

Democrats will get there. Its taking them an obnoxiously long time, but they'll do it.

It'll definitely take longer than the Tea Party for sure, since they were astroturf'd. Very few people with excessive wealth want to fund a movement that'll ultimately tax the shit out of them, of course.

[XRay]

On 3/14/2020 at 7:54 AM, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Isn't Democracy meant to be Populism? The rule of the many, where everyone gets a vote.

Also, I'm back. What did I miss?

22 hours ago, XRay said:

According to Wikipedia, populism is characterized by the conflict between the "people" and the "elite." Basically, it is another way of saying anti-establishment.

Democracy basically means the government derive its authority from the people or citizens, commonly via voting. Democracy is a spectrum and can be blurred with other forms of governments like oligarchies or plutocracies, depending on how strict you define who the "people" or "citizens" are. It can be defined as narrowly as during the Roman Empire where you would hardly call it a democracy (even if you are part of the lucky few citizens, you had little say), or it can be as broad as most liberal democracies today, or it can be somewhere in between like the United States in the past.

Populism as a political ideology emphasizes the "us versus them" mentality, while democracy as a political ideology refers to how a government derives its authority or power. You can totally have a populist dictatorship, for example Nazi Germany.

14 hours ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Yeah, and according to Wikipedia, Gamergate is still classed as a "Hate movement against wimmins", rather than what it actually was: A Consumer Revolt against overwhelming corruption in mainstream video games journalism. The reveal of "GameJournoPros" speaks for itself, really. I'd sooner trust Urban Dictionary to define an adult activity than trust Wikipedia to define a political term.

A few times in the previous posts, you two talk about "The People" as if it's a mysterious and undefined concept that can mean whatever those "eeeeevil populists" want it to mean. But Trump won the hearts of the working class by trying to do right by American workers. I personally don't think he's done enough in that regard, and I wish there was a better alternative who wants to try and outdo Trump at the good Trump wants to do. But the literal worst possible choice won on the left, unfortunately. Bernie winning that would be the best option, and Hillary coming back for round two would be the funniest option. The old guy who can't remember where he is or who's who? Watching him is just sad.

Donald Trump is a Civic Nationalist, and America was founded on the ideals of Civic Nationalism. You know, the belief that a Nation is a set of ideals held by a people rather than a group of people or the land they're on. I might be British, and I might take a vacation in America. I might coordinate with a Japanese friend of mine to have our vacation in America at the same time. We would be a pair of foreign tourists together, travelling around and seeing the sights without integrating. But if we got houses in America and moved there permanently, if we sung the American anthem and got jobs and bought guns and waved flags and believed in the American Dream and "Acted American", then we would effectively be Americans now according to the principles of Civic Nationalism. We'd be just as American as the neighbouring family who's been there for two generations and the other neighbouring family who's been here for a lot longer. People there would see us as Americans, and we would get to be slandered by massive megacorps that hate America, and the America-hating fans of those America-hating media megacorps.

Why do America-haters hate Americans so much, anyway? They throw their usual buzzwords around, but I don't think I've ever heard an actual argument against America. Besides the "America has bad bits in its history therefore it's bad now" argument. I probably don't need to explain why that one's a load of nonsense.

13 hours ago, XRay said:

Wikipedia is not the best source, but it is quick and convenient, and unless you offer a better source that says otherwise, I think Wikipedia's definition sounds about right.

It is not a mysterious or undefined concept. It has a pretty clear definition. However, that definition can be fluid.

I am not sure what you are trying to argue with the rest of your post, but I just wanted to highlight the difference between populism and democracy since that was the question.

And Trump is not a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism is the idea that the nation is composed of people who subscribe to the same set of core political values, regardless of religion or ethnic background. Trump's action is much more in line with ethno nationalism, and his core supporters in the far right are definitely ethno nationalists.

For context if any others are reading.

47 minutes ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Lie.

That, right there, is a lie. And it will keep being a lie, no matter how often it is said.

If you go to a far-right ethno nationalist website, you will find pages of people calling Trump a worthless spineless sham because he has failed to build the wall in time or do anything about the declining white birth rate in America.

They are the ethno-nationalists who want America to be white, and they hate Trump because his goal isn't their goal. Trump isn't doing what the far-right ethno-nationalists want, because Trump is not a far-right ethno-nationalist. Trump wants to make America better for "The Americans", regardless of their ethnicity, and regardless of how that upsets megacorps. Megacorps know they can dupe stupid people into defending them and attacking people in the way of whatever terrible thing they want this week by throwing around buzzwords like "far-right" and "alt-right" and "super-duper-giga-right".

You might not understand why it's immoral to slander Trump's supporters and wear out words like ethno-nationalist and far-right, but you should.

By the way, when are we moving this Trump discussion to the US politics thread? We were told to do that, so we should probably do that soon.

I am not sure if you are just being sarcastic, refusing to follow the news, or just trolling at this point. His negative comments about Mexicans, implementing the muslim ban, praising Scandinavia countries while talking down against "shit hole" countries in Latin America and Africa, gross neglect of Puerto Rico, the contrast in handling of the War on Drugs targeting minorities and opioid crisis affecting largely white Americans, diverted military funds to building the stupid wall, and the list just goes on.

There are also articles on Trump's rise being propelled by ethnonationalism from academia, one source here, and another source here. Here is an abstract and here is another abstract.

And that is not how slandering works. For me to slander, I have to make malicious statements that I know is in direct contrast with the truth, and I have more listed more than enough sources to back up my claim. Not all Republicans and Trump supporters are racist ethno nationalists, but many of them are.

[Tryhard]

6 hours ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Lie.

That, right there, is a lie. And it will keep being a lie, no matter how often it is said.

If you go to a far-right ethno nationalist website, you will find pages of people calling Trump a worthless spineless sham because he has failed to build the wall in time or do anything about the declining white birth rate in America.

By the way, when are we moving this Trump discussion to the US politics thread? We were told to do that, so we should probably do that soon.

They are the ethno-nationalists who want America to be white, and they hate Trump because his goal isn't their goal. Trump isn't doing what the far-right ethno-nationalists want, because Trump is not a far-right ethno-nationalist. Trump wants to make America better for "The Americans", regardless of their ethnicity, and regardless of how that upsets megacorps. Megacorps know they can dupe stupid people into defending them and attacking people in the way of whatever terrible thing they want this week by throwing around buzzwords like "far-right" and "alt-right" and "super-duper-giga-right".

You might not understand why it's immoral to slander Trump's supporters and wear out words like ethno-nationalist and far-right, but you should.

Well, there isn't really anything anyone could do about a declining "white birth rate".

The way I see it: ethno nationalists support Trump so much as in he's the nearest stop to where they want to go, in the same way that communists support Bernie Sanders even if they know he isn't the "real deal".

He may not be their ideal, but he certainly is better than those gosh darn minority-sympathising libs. They are the ones that are against white men and for the destruction of western civilisation, after all.

I see a lot of talk about how the ethno nationalist types are going to abandon Trump, but the types like David Duke and Richard Spencer seem willing to overlook that, because are they going to vote for Biden? The one who they unironically think is commie scum somehow? The most you can hope for is that they don't vote for Trump. I've spoken to a few alt-right types and maybe the ones I've seen are the exception but they seemed more than willing to overlook Trump's relationship with Israel and The Wall in favour of attacking anything to the left of him instead.

He also seems quite friendly with megacorps actually, that's why he has Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil leaders in his administration. That's the type of thing I expect someone like Hillary Clinton to do, actually.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

Why are white people worried about becoming a minority in America. Are minorities treated badly in this country or something 🤔

Edited March 16, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Why are white people worried about becoming a minority in America. Are minorities treated badly in this country or something 🤔

Gee, I wonder if being wiped out by disease, being enslaved, or being deported back to Europe would ring a bell.

People who do not learn history are bound to repeat it; I mean, it is pretty hard to learn history if it is being constantly distorted and obscured.

They probably know Europe does not even want immigrants from shithole countries like the United States anyways, where the country cannot even provide adequate health services to its populace. Those uncivilized Americans also use toilet paper instead of bidets and quite a few of them even refuse to vaccinate themselves, which is totally gross and unhealthy. If we do not want Americans spreading their feces and measles around, we should probably ban them from coming to Europe.

This post is sarcastic.

[DehNutCase]

Strictly speaking, even the majority is treated badly. The median American probably has it a lot worse than the median European, even if the average (mean) American doesn't.

 

Warning, huge off-topic post incoming:

If you can get into the top percentiles then life is probably more comfortable in the US than anywhere else, so much so that the average (mean) American might well live a more comfortable life than the average (mean) European, but that's just the dude living a 10,000 point life carrying hundreds of 10 pointers. The problem with US vs. Europe is that it takes a lot of, say, 20 pointers to match one 10,000 pointer, and for a while now (not sure if it's stopped in the recent decades) the most brilliant and capable people tend to migrate to the US. Doesn't really matter if the US treats 95% of its population like shit if it has access to the best 5% of the entire damn planet.

And I imagine part of the reason that happens is precisely because America is so messed up for the median American. If there's a limited amount of resources to go around then it's distribution and not production that affects how many of whatever thing you get, and a brilliant and capable person would want to be in a country where the top percentiles get the vast majority and the rest get to share table scraps. It helps that America has the most resources to go around, too. (Like, imagine you know that you're good enough to be in the top 0.1% anywhere, are you going to stay in a place where being top 0.1% gets you, say, 10x more than a 50% guy or in a place where being top 0.1% gets you something like 10^10 times more stuff?)

 

The combination of a lax immigration policy + the US's old (not sure if it still exists) reputation as the cutting edge of just about everything means that, yes, the US gets a lot of useless dredge immigrating into the country, but the US also gets some of the most useful people in the world. Additionally, the US gets them from other countries, so it's actually a two-fold benefit. The US gains someone extremely valuable, and that other country loses someone extremely valuable.

Take the list of nobel prizes for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

US leads by a huge margin, but part of that is the sheer number of people who were born in another country and then immigrated to the US. If they hadn't done that, and, assuming they'd have the same productivity in their home countries, then the US would've lost a nobel prize and their home country gained one.

 

I imagine Scandinavia would be a better place to retire to once you've decided to stop being so capable and ambitious, though. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by DehNutCase

[XRay]

4 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

the US gets a lot of useless dredge immigrating into the country

I have not seen you in a while!

Personally, I favor open borders to keep menial labor prices low. Most Americans are not willing to go out there and do farm work even at minimum wage. If we can pay foreigners with less money to do jobs most Americans do not want to do, I think that is still a massive win for America even if the foreigners send money back home. With more people in the United States, it would also increase domestic demand and make the economy more resilient. Foreign workers still need to eat and a place to sleep, so they cannot just send everything they earned back home, and much of their earnings go back into the domestic economy anyways. And if we can convince them to stay here permanently and get their families to immigrate here, then all their earnings will stay in the United States and they do not have to send it to anywhere else.

[DehNutCase]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

I have not seen you in a while!

Mostly sitting in the F/GO section of the forums & occasionally updating my Crimson Flower LP. Which has gotten to the point where Byleth could solo entire maps without assistance, so I'm assuming nobody is actually interested anymore.* Three Houses has a distinctly... odd... difficulty curve, in that the hardest map was like 5 maps in or something.

*Well actually it got to that point around time Byleth hit level 20, but it wasn't as obvious back then.

 

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Personally, I favor open borders to keep menial labor prices low. Most Americans are not willing to go out there and do farm work even at minimum wage. If we can pay foreigners with less money to do jobs most Americans do not want to do, I think that is still a massive win for America even if the foreigners send money back home. With more people in the United States, it would also increase domestic demand and make the economy more resilient. Foreign workers still need to eat and a place to sleep, so they cannot just send everything they earned back home, and much of their earnings go back into the domestic economy anyways. And if we can convince them to stay here permanently and get their families to immigrate here, then all their earnings will stay in the United States and they do not have to send it to anywhere else.

I should mention that I don't really mind foreigners, I'm calling them 'useless' in the sense that the US in aggregate doesn't really care about them, similar to how the US doesn't really care about its own citizens. Ordinarily healthcare is a huge concern for a government since people are a very valuable resource, but the value of individual people is actually very low for the US as an economic entity, since they're so easy to replace for the US. (Even easier than China or India, yeah, they have like a billion each, but the US has the full population of the planet to draw from.)

Hell, not caring about its own citizens isn't even a PR issue because of the way the US is setup. If you don't have money you don't deserve healthcare/food/etc.

 

When you have like 8 billion people to draw from you wouldn't really care even if you had to replace the entire population once in a while.

[Ingen]

I've seen some of the discourse about topics relating to climate change. In general, I wish people would talk more about the solutions rather than the problem.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Ingen said:

I've seen some of the discourse about topics relating to climate change. In general, I wish people would talk more about the solutions rather than the problem.

I think one easy policy to implement immediately is to increase taxation on gasoline and carbon in general. I have voted in favor for every single tax increase on gasoline in California, and I still think those taxes increases are not enough.

Governments around the world also needs to stop propping up the coal industry because it is not really viable economically anymore.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/14/21177941/climate-change-coal-renewable-energy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds
https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-investors-and-insurers-back-away-the-economics-of-coal-turn-toxic

Another important policy to implement is to improve public transportation and invest in high speed rail. These are not cheap, but they are crucial in my opinion to help cut the demand for cars.