• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1323 months ago

      This angle also needs to be considered). She’s not running in good faith. She’s essentially functioning as a 5th column to pull away voters who would otherwise vote for Harris.

      I’m not saying Harris shouldn’t be pushed on environmental issues. I am saying that trying to do that by voting for Stein is actively harmful to the goal of not letting the fascists win this election.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        813 months ago

        More importantly, if you are voting for her because of the environment, voting for stein is actually harmful to that goal because it helps trump win, which means instead of making baby steps in the right direction, we’ll run full steam in the wrong direction.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          93 months ago

          The Dems aren’t making baby steps in the right direction, though, look up the progression of natural gas exports under Joe Biden. They’re actively making big steps in the wrong direction.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            123 months ago

            One metric is the only thing you go by? Do you really think that climate change is driven solely by how much natural gas we export?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              43 months ago

              Ok, can you please give me other metrics? How many nuclear plants have been built? How much has been invested into new rail infrastructure, whether for freight or for passengers? Have there been any new tariffs on the import of electric vehicles? Any regulation against single family housing, against car dependency, or against meat consumption?

              Please, what metrics have improved, other than renewables being installed (at a much lower rate than in many countries)?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  53 months ago

                  There… are no metrics in the link you sent me… There’s “plans to reduce emissions by X year”, but no mention to progress so far. There’s “investment into carbon capture and sequestration” (famously known to not work) but no metric. There’s “a pause in the approvals for new natural gas projects” (but the ones approved keep opening up)…

                  Have you even read what you sent me?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    53 months ago

                    After decades of effort ending in failure, near-misses or small wins, Congress finally delivered transformative legislation to tackle the climate crisis in 2022. This would not have happened without Biden’s leadership, as well as the efforts of Congressional champions and countless climate action advocates and analysts.

                    Of course, the hard work of deploying climate solutions at the necessary speed and scale has only just begun. This task is now more difficult due to the divided 118th Congress, but the landmark legislation enacted by the 117th is secure for at least the next year. There are opportunities for the 118th Congress to deliver incremental progress through bipartisan clean energy permitting reform and Farm Bill reauthorization.

                    We either get this, or we get full steam the other way. I’m not blown away by what he has done, but arguing that he is going in the wrong direction just doesn’t align with the facts.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                23 months ago

                How many nuclear plants have been built?

                You do realize that Stein is against nuclear power and the Green Party constantly fear mongers against it?

    • TheLowestStone
      link
      fedilink
      613 months ago

      Most of the greens here on Lemmy convinced me to never consider a green canidate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        393 months ago

        I would absolutely vote Green but to do so would be unthinkable until we have ranked choice voting. We should band all the leftists together for one big push to get that enacted everywhere. Once we do that we can go back to our divisive bickering.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The trouble with supporting a third party – and I say this as someone inclined to support a third party – is that anybody who actually does it is either (a) an idiot who doesn’t understand the game theory of first-past-the-post voting, or (b) an incredibly fringe nutjob. The result is that all third parties absolutely destroy all their credibility and ruin any chance of getting more mainstream.

        If you’re a third-party-inclined person who isn’t an idiot or a nutjob, your only real option is to vote for Democrats in general, and ones who support ranked choice voting in particular (because you sure as Hell aren’t gonna get it from the Republicans), and then switch to your third party of choice only after ranked-choice voting is passed.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          My state is nowhere near anywhere close to being a swing-state. My vote for president carries very little weight. For this reason, I vote for whichever party actually aligns with my ideology.

          An acquaintance once tried to scapegoat me and my vote for Jill Stein as the reason that Donald Trump won in 2016.

          That’s not how the electoral college works.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            93 months ago

            Virtue signalling into the void. Don’t get me wrong, I did it too in 2012 because I was disillusioned with Obama and I live in a deeply blue state. But that’s all it is. You’re better off writing an encouraging letter to your candidate of choice, or talking to your neighbors about the city council, or any number of other things that might actually make a material impact on someone’s life.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              63 months ago

              It doesn’t do anything, but neither does voting for a Democratic president in a non-swing state. They could just leave the box blank too. They’re not choosing “should I check the president box or talk to my neighbors”, they’re at the voting booth, presumably because other races matter, and filling in the box because it’s there. None of the options in that race matter and the comment you’re replying to is explicitly about how it doesn’t matter, so why are you even complaining?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              Your point is that doing something is more effective than doing nothing? You sure got me there. I have to say that I agree.

          • TheHiddenCatboy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            83 months ago

            If you live in a deep Red or deep Blue state, you definitely aren’t responsible for Donald Trump’s win in 2016, BUT we need to defeat Trump, and we need every vote we can get, everywhere we can get it, so Trump finds it hard to steal the election, because we know he will.

            At least, if you live in California or Oklahoma, your nonsense vote won’t give us Trump, but unless you are CERTAIN you can throw your vote away, I’d ask you to look at your wife, sister, and/or mother and ask yourself if you want them subjected to Project 2025. If you don’t, and I hope you don’t, save the protest votes for your city/county/state governments where they might actually accomplish something.

        • azuth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          73 months ago

          If you’re a third-party-inclined person who isn’t an idiot or a nutjob, your only real option is to vote for Democrats in general, and ones who support ranked choice voting in particular (because you sure as Hell aren’t gonna get it from the Republicans), and then switch to your third party of choice only after ranked-choice voting is passed.

          The Democrats are going to give you ranked-choice voting so they can potentially lose your vote… Thank god you are not an idiot.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            83 months ago

            San Francisco has ranked choice voting because there’s no way in hell a Republican could win here. That’s what we should be aiming for.

          • TheHiddenCatboy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            63 months ago

            The Democrats give us nothing. We voters take.

            Maine and Alaska use RCV now, and while Alaskan politicians are trying to ratfuck the votes (because Sarah Palin lost to a Democrat under FPTP), both states have seen people not get a Republican thanks to their vote for Third Parties on the Left, as long as they at least grudgingly mark the Dem ahead of the Rep on the RCV ballot.

            Colorado’s going to vote on this this November, too, which means I can actually vote Third Party without being ratfucked by that choice. Then I’ll happily say 'Vote Green to hold Blue accountable, but make sure Blue shows up before Red so Red doesn’t ratfuck all of us on the Left."

            If you wonder about the constant use of ratfucking in my post, have a read and see what it means…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            The Democrats are going to give you ranked-choice voting so they can potentially lose your vote…

            Yes. That’s because the Democratic Party isn’t some monolithic machiavellian organization.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      133 months ago

      The Green Party sits on their ass until presidential election.

      They hold over 140 offices across 20 states. Seems a little disingenuous to claim that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        313 months ago

        Across an entire nation, they have 140 whole offices. They have more people on their party organizing committee than people in office. None of those 140 are even at the level of state legislature, despite there being many races with unopposed Democrats that only have a few thousand total votes cast in them.

        The last election for my state rep had 4,000 votes cast. He had a single opponent from a party I’ve never heard of who got 1,000 of them. There were more candidates running under that low name ID and sparesly funded local party than there were Green candidates. If they were a real party trying to advance progressive causes, this would be an ideal place to build local representation. Single-party state, tons of DINOs to challenge from the left, and low turnout that could make successful challenges possible.

      • TheTechnician27
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Wow, 143 elected offices is massive. Such prestigious positions as “Neighborhood Council”, “Conservation District”, “Town Commission”, “Planning Group”, “Park Commission” (Pawnee reference??), “Select Board”, “Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate”, “Water District Board of Commissioners”, “School Committee”, “Advisory Neighborhood Commission”, and gasp what’s this? The mayor of a California town of 22,000 people? Why if all of them banded together and moved to Connecticut (and somehow became popular with the residents there), they could collectively make almost 77% of an entire Connecticut General Assembly and literally no other offices including mayorships, governorships, all of the other state legislatures and the federal legislature, and all the god-knows-how-many positions in local governments.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          53 months ago

          So now the goalposts are moved from they don’t do anything but presidential candidates to they don’t do enough? Maybe if they had better funding they could run more candidates. Saying they do nothing but presidential candidates is still disingenuous no matter how much you want to belittle their othet work.