• jabeez@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Oh for sure, he was following Clinton’s lead, so that’s why it’s somewhat funny to hear people talking about him like he was some kind of super environmental progressive, when that just wasn’t the case, or it at least isn’t how he ran, which was really quite the opposite.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, I agree. I’m also not sure that running as a super environmental progressive would have been possible at the time. We were just coming out of the timber wars, where the timber industry had spent millions convincing the US that a few hippies chained to trees trying to prevent the last bits of old-growth redwoods from destruction were the problem.

      It was a different time and we were very desensitized to the concept of hippy punching etc.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      How high do you have to be to erase everything al gore did to prove he wanted to do something about climate change? Why are you rewriting history like this? It’s preposterous

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You’re the one rewriting history. Al Gore didn’t run on climate change. Ordinary voters don’t give a single shit about climate change in 2000. There was never any chance Gore was going to spend his political capital on climate change legislation.

        The most we would have gotten from him is more incrementslism on the topic, like we got from Obama and Biden. The op is utterly delusional for posting such garbage.