this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025
1346 points (99.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

14041 readers
234 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 132 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

That would require Zohran to be ideologically liberal. I think it's pretty clear from a number of litmus tests that he's a socialist. It's much more difficult to go from being a socialist to a centist. Ideologically, being a socialist isn't merely a step to the left of liberal. It's a fundamentally different worldview which resembles American liberals in a few areas but only in appearance. E.g. both a liberal and a socialist might advocate for universal healthcare. The liberal feels that private healtchare is a defect of an otherwise functioning system. The socialist sees the system working as intended in that it enriches the oligarch class via private healtchare. Therefore the socialist sees public universal healthcare as removing a revenue stream from the oligarch class, diminishing its power in the process and reducing the scope of the capitalist system. The improvement to people's lives naturally follows as a consequence of that. From this perspective, it would be very difficult for a socialist to be convinced they should abandon universal healthcare because insurers would lose too much money like Obama did.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago (5 children)

He says he's a socialist.

Democrats say a lot of things that sound really, really good too... until they're elected, and then we realize they're shit-stains.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 53 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're not wrong and that could totally be the case but again, he's gotta be a really good actor to keep the socialist line when being grilled on some issues. It's certainly possible that he is. But I think he's leftist schtick is very different than Obama's. Only one way to find out. Vote for him if you're in NYC. 😁

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I badly want to be wrong, but there's something about these supposed progressives that changes when they get into office and suddenly are confronted with the possibility that they can 100% exploit their office to give their family generational wealth.

So while I'm cautiously optimistic, most of me is very 'I'll believe it when I see it'.

[–] DNS@discuss.online 34 points 2 months ago

I believe it's the progressives who realize they're an extremely small minority within the DNC, so you must swallow a few bitter loads to get certain stuff you believe in through while making backroom deals you would never do.

Ultimately it is up to the American People to shift the Overton window to the left. It is possible, but won't be easy as Democrats cave to Corporations and the media being billionaire owned doesn't help when you're a progressive.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

So while I’m cautiously optimistic, most of me is very ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’.

Pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This guy all ready comes from a well off family so it’s not like that I don’t think.

[–] pohart@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Most politicians do. Then again most politicians don't play leftist very well. I hope we find out.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

He says he’s a socialist.

Obama explicitly and repeatedly stated he was a capitalist

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The dems trying to take him out is evidence that he's real

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No, it isn't. They did the same with Obama, because at the time it was supposedly Hillary's turn.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This strikes me as something written by someone who doesn't clearly remember 2008. After Obama got the nod, Democrats largely cleared the field for him. They didn't spend months talking about how they didn't know who he was, or saying that they couldn't endorse him.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's fair.

I'm thinking before that point. They did everything could to tank his candidacy in the primaries but the voters overwhelmingly rejected Hillary.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

AFTER Obama got the nomination.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Exactly. This dude got the nomination and they're still not endorsing him.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Uh, were you around in 2008? That's definitely not what happened. If anything that's what happened to Bernie. Are you confusing Bernie with Obama?

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I was referring to the primaries, not the general. There was definitely a sense that it was Hillary's turn and they did their best to keep Obama's popularity from developing into a legitimate candidacy.

Not that it mattered. Obama was another smooth-talking son of a bitch, just like the rest of them.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think part of that is true and part of that is that they just don't get enough votes to actually do things.

Especially as just a Congressperson you can't change everything all at once. You don't have the same influence as a president. So you pick your battles.

People here get disappointed they didn't get enough done fast enough and then vote red in the next election hoping for faster change.

Well, we got faster change. Never seen change as fast as this.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think so.

People not voting comes down to living through the last eight years and both parties doing nothing meaningful about the fact that you're working 100 hours a week at three jobs and all you can afford is a roach-infested studio.

Why would you miss a badly needed day's pay?

As for the folks who switched to vote Trump. That was the only option for change that they had, and they knew from experience how shitty Biden/Harris were. Of course they switched.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They should have known that Trump was worse from term one...

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Can we hook him up to a dynamo? Free, clean energy.

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

Free?

McCarthy spins faster

It would also require a group of Republicans with the power to gag him every time he tries to do something.

Years ago, I saw a list that someone compiled of all of Obama's campaign promises and the results of them, and basically all but one he tried to do and was voted down by Republicans who threatened to shut down the government if Democrats tried to push it through. The one thing he promised and didn't even attempt to do was shutting down Guantanamo Bay. For everything else, the Republicans who controlled both the house and the Senate for 7 and a half years of his presidency shut him out. There's a reason that Trump spent the first two years of his presidency repealing every executive order that Obama made. Besides being racist and upset that a black man held any power in this country, of course.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's much more difficult to go from being a socialist to a centist.

Mussolini was a socialist, and I don't mean in a fake "national socialist" way (although yes, later he became that), I mean he was an important figure of the "Italian socialist party", editor in chief of the official party newspaper

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Well he didn't turn into a tinkering-around-the-edges liberal. 😄

I'm not arguing that people's views can't change. Rather I'm making this narrow point of the difficulty shifting towrds the centre from a liberal versus socialist position. I think one's much lower friction than the other. Both are possible.