Oh shit! Wait til they find out about the original highway projects.
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
-21 points (4.3% liked)
Conservative
481 readers
231 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
Summary so you don't have to endure it:
Ted Cruz is shitting himself because the Department of Transportation put this in a funding notice:
"Projects that have not sufficiently considered climate change and environmental justice in their planning, as determined by the Department, will be required to do so before receiving funds for construction," the document adds.
Thus "woke priorities" for the purposes of seething on Fox News.
I thought conservatives didn't like government waste? Seems like roads harmful to the environment shouldn't get built.
Personally I dont like the term "woke" because its overused and no one knows what it means, but we have crumbling infrastructure and imo that should be the priority here.
Do you believe in climate change?
Yes.
Do you agree that humans are accelerating it?
Thats my understanding, yes. I'm not a scientist. Cargo ships and cruise liners crossing the ocean is catastrophic, for example.
Okay cool. Wasn’t trying to be disingenuous, just seeing where you stood. There are more than a few that would subscribe to this community that don’t agree with that, so that’s why I asked.
Now that we have established that, personally I think if there is a “greener” way of doing something, that should be the standard moving forward. I see no issue with the federal government stipulating how the funding is spent in this instance.
I'm torn. It's the federal's money to do with as they wish and it's a fair stipulation, but highway infrastructure is not in a good state and adding stipulations when it's not in a good state is just making it worse.
Right? Isn’t that a simple solution?
Fix the infrastructure in accordance with “the green stipulation” and the feds fund it. And it starts asap. Then the roads are fixed AND it’s done in a way that doesn’t make our climate issues worse.
Everyone wins.
Why not support this?
Just takes more time and money, but yeah. Now that I've thought about it for a few days, it makes sense.
The only thing stopping it from being done is the current state government, though. The money is there as long as they do it the proper way.