And in “tell Us Something we Didn’t Already Know” news.
You must log in or register to comment.
I didn’t really know what the Green Party was until a few years ago. I originally thought Green meant pro-environment but it really just stands for green cash money from Daddy Vlad.
Wasn’t she cleared by the senate investigative committee for not taking funds from Russia?
I’m not sure if she was or wasn’t, but depending on the Congress, they may have also “cleared” the issue of SA with Brett Kavenaugh. Congress isn’t exactly a trustworthy primary source.
Currently the Democrats are in charge. If she was truly a Russian agent couldn’t they easily start another investigation to bar her from running?
Is that any worse than the other parties who pay billions to daddy bibi for the privilege of sucking his cock? Honest question.
As much of a problem Israel is the fact of the matter is Putin and the Russian state as a whole is well infinitely bigger. A coalition could remove Israel in an afternoon, Russia not so much.
What coalition? Is genocide not considered serious enough to assemble this afternoon coalition?
Compared to what is gained by otherwise ignoring it? Genocide in the Levant doesnt quite register for such actions yet. I aint happy about it either, but a lot of the problem is that there are still enough Silent, Boomers, and Gen X in governments who think that even criticizing Israel makes them at best aligned with Nazis making them hesitant at best towards making Israel a fucken parking lot.
I severely doubt such kids gloves would be used with most other countries in the region, with the exception of places like the UAE, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. But they have oil and may throw a hissy fit and will crash the world economy again. Seriously the worst thing about the end of colonialism is that the Arabian peninsula cant be colonized and the local authorities ignored.
The irony of complaining about genocide while at the exact same moment considering the possibility to “remove Israel”.
The irony of complaining about genocide while at the exact same moment considering the possibility to “remove Nazi Germany”.
Does that make it easier for you to see how what you’re saying is silly?
Israel is an apartheid regime that’s doing genocide… There were Jews in Palestine before Israel. Hating Israel and wanting it gone is not the same as wanting to kill and remove and entire people group. Killing an entire people group is what Israel stands for.
Also how crazy is it that the usa allows Israel to lobby it’s politicians with this much money.
The US killed more innocent civilians in 1 night of world war 2 then the total number of palestinians, militants and civilians combined, that Israel has killed in the entire 75 year history of it’s existence.
And true irony is complaining about apartheid when there are more Arabs on the Israeli supreme court then there are Jews living free in all of Palestine.
Well I’m not a fan of the US government either and won’t defend them. Don’t you think the goddamn atom bomb being dropped on a city is an insanely high bar for what atrocities are acceptable lmao
But what a weird argument. Think about what you’re saying for a minute: The US killed more civilians with a nuke before. Therefore, Israel can kill as many innocent civilians and children as they want. Yikes dude. That’s a bad argument and devoid of any real reason. You ok?
!Irony is complaining about apartheid when there are more Arabs on the Israeli supreme court then there are Jews living free in all of Palestine. !<
I mean Israel is in Palestine… So do you not think the Jews in Israel are living free?
You’re trying to justify genocide and apartheid. Really think about what side that puts you on.
Yes.
Why?
If the green party even actually cared about the shit they purport to care about, they’d have been pro nuclear. That’s all I needed to hear in order to know they were worth absolutely none of my attention.
They also be active more than one out of every four years. You NEVER hear a word about any of them between elections. They’re spoilers. Nothing more.
The veil is lifted finally.
What might have had some efficacy as an auxiliary party is if the organization promoted specific extant primary candidates, perhaps. To assist more progressive candidates in becoming the nominees for various electoral races. AND in local elections, not JUST the big one every four years like you said!
We’ve seen this work (to our detriment) with the ‘tea party’ -_- all i’m saying is, it pisses me off that we leave that kind of weaponry on the table when these fucking chud scum manage to pull it off.
“Green” and “pro nuclear” go together like peas and carrots. Unless one flunked elementary school science class.
Nah nuclear is relatively easy to deal with the waste, ublike say oil. Plus ignoring it is a legit method of dealing with the problem, worst case ya dump it in Wyoming nobody lives in Wyoming.
You may have misread the comment you’re responding to. Peas and carrots go together
Honestly though! Look at the region around Pripyat; that place is thriving.
Alternatively we could stash it in death valley where literally nothing lives, not even animals.
Stash, not drop: As nuclear technology progresses, we’ll get more efficient at using it as fuel and eventually the waste of today can become supplemental fuel of tomorrow, used much more thoroughly, and only be radioactive for a few hundred years instead of thousands.
They aren’t? Damn shame
Nuclear energy is the most expensive type of energy, you could have way more wind and solar energy (stored in batteries or hydrogen) for the same investment. And without waste that keeps radiating for the next millenia.
Neither storage “solution” is currently adequate for fossil fuel replacement and may never be for high-density populations. Nuclear is less impactful than burning hydrocarbons or damming rivers and fearmongering about radioactive waste products isn’t helpful because, again, every nuclear accident or leak to date has been less harmful than normal exhaust from coal-burning plants and riparian habitat destruction.
If we had kept investing in an actual energy solution we would have gen-IV reactors already and the waste concerns would be even lower.
Posting an extra comment to say nuclear waste is not an issue either. Here’s two good videos on the topic that show through example how much it isn’t an issue.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k&pp=ygUXa3lsZSBoaWxsIG51Y2xlYXIgd2FzdGU%3D
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&pp=ygUXa3lsZSBoaWxsIG51Y2xlYXIgd2FzdGU%3D
Additional comment against nuclear: water cooling, which is a real problem in a warming climate. Rivers will dry up or flood. And near the coast with rising sea levels is also difficult, using salt water. Besides, there are plenty of sustainable alternatives with a cheaper price tag, so why bother?
Energy is energy. It doesn’t matter what it comes from. It comes from an exchange of entropy. It all must create heat. Arguably solar only takes the heat that would be hitting the earth anyway, but it creates more electricity the more it absorbs, so having a lower albedo is better, which will be higher than what the ground would have been.
Also, yeah obviously some places aren’t ideal for a nuclear plant. That’s not an argument against it. That true for literally every energy source. You can’t build a solar plant in the shade. You can’t build a wind farm where there isn’t wind. Etc.
Which ones are sustainable and cheaper? They cost similar amounts per twh, and most cause more deaths. Nuclear creates, by far, the least pollution, including wind, solar, and hydro. Wind and solar also require something to provide baseline power, which is probably batteries. That requires mining lithium, which is very limited, or using some other battery technology which also have issue.
Nuclear is baseline power, clean, sustainable, cheap, and safe. The waste is easy to deal with and only exists in small amounts, most of which will be neutral in a very short period. The only reason not to like it is because we’ve passed laws to make it expensive and take a long time to build, but that’s artifical and promoted by dirty energy. The whole anti-nuke movement is paid for by dirty energy, which should tell you something.
Nuclear is expensive because we’ve made it expensive. The most expensive part is bureaucracy. Running nuclear plants is cheap. Even still, the price of nuclear around the world is competitive. If you scroll down to the regional studies, nuclear looks even better. In every place except the US that has nuclear, nuclear is the second cheapest, with large-scale PV the only one higher (which doesn’t price in solutions to provide baseline power, which nuclear has built in). The US has (purposefully) made nuclear appear expensive because laws have been paid for by dirty oil companies.
Nuclear is also one of the safest and cleanest energy sources. If you include negative externalities into the cost (which is never done but should be) nuclear is amazing.
Yes, AND, Nuclear is also cheaper in cost of human lives per gigawatt hour!
EVEN SOLAR AND WIND KILL MORE PEOPLE PER GIGAWATT HOUR THAN NUCLEAR.
(Hydro admittedly kills less people per GWh than nuclear, though - but not every place has that option.)
Hydro causes a whole host of other issues though. It requires changing the environment in a very direct way. There are methods to reduce the issues, like fish ladders and things like that, but it’s an immediate shift of an area from a running river to essentially a lake with a waterfall.
And in order for hydro’s effects to be most easy to curtail, you need very specific terrain topology - such as where I live, in the Springfield area of Massachusetts, there’s a hydroelectric dam on the Connecticut River in South Hadley/Holyoke (the two sides of the river at that section):
The dam was built where there were natural falls. So the dam leveraged the fact that the change in water elevation was natural and already extant prior to the dam’s existence. They’ve had a fish elevator system for longer than I’ve been alive, too. Rather than changing how the hydrological system worked in the area, the dam stabilized it upstream such that the water level up the Connecticut River from there is more consistent than it used to be before - whenever there’s more water than usual, the dam can increase spill rate.
The city of chicopee, across the river from holyoke and just north of springfield, also has a hydroelectric dam, also built where there were natural falls. This region is pretty good for stuff like that, and our electrical supply is much hardier as a result!
Nah, even the wikipage shows double the price compared to solar or wind. Which isn’t surprising when you look at the basic technology of each energy type. And they all have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy.
Stop lying. No it doesn’t. Unless you can’t read the graph, it’s very similarly priced to the rest. Solar is significantly more expensive at low capacity but cheaper at high capacity. It’s approximately equal to coal and wind, depending on capacity. Nuclear can be cheaper than even the cheapest offshore wind.
The graph showing nuclear getting more expensive at higher capacity does show something interesting though. I can’t say what causes that,
but I assume larger plants have more bureaucracy to deal with, which artificially increases their cost.(Edit: I even read it wrong I think. It shows as more are installed they got more expensive, which implies a temporal relation. More laws restricting nuclear make it more expensive, which is not surprising. Nuclear would be very cheap if it stayed at the same cost as the minimum was.) It may be something else. It’s hard to say. Nuclear is basically right on the middle of the cost axis though.
Removed by mod
I hate how they’ve spammed their way into turning this community into 90% conversations about irrelevant 3rd parties.
Every post is either by them or something meant to dunk on them.
This is really tough to see, especially when in other countries the other Greens are actual, viable parties.
That’s such a ridiculous claim that I bothered to count.
There’s been 4 posts about anything regarding 3rd parties out of 31 in the last 24h and that’s much MORE than usual!
Sounds like you’re just hypersensitive about being reminded that the two party duopoly is only ALMOST complete 🙄
Yes that was hyperbolic, I see these posts on my feed on a daily basis, and it’s filled with dozens of rehashed comments bickering about the validity of third parties. It’s getting far more attention here than it deserves when there are tons of actual, real political issues in the world.
I’ll be the first to say that I hate both major parties, but I have the political literacy to understand that the way to fix it is not by voting for someone with questionable ties to Russia that seems to pop up out of nowhere every four years.
If you guys actually cared to solve the issues you’d be campaigning to first and foremost get electoral reform to make third parties even remotely viable instead of trying to work within this extremely broken, barely democratic system. You’d also be doing work at a local level where real change can be made to movement rather than just throwing a candidate out for president every election. You won’t do that though because you’re all a bunch of weird idealists with fantastical views of how politics work. I’m interested in following news thats grounded in reality
If you guys
I’m not one of “those guys” advocating specific 3rd party candidates. Sadly, none of the current choices are viable.
I’m just pointing out your overreaction, which is just as much of a distraction from the REAL issues you pretend to care about.
actually cared to solve the issues
Yeah, because mentioning 3rd parties means that you don’t care about anything else at all. What a galaxy brained take 🙄
campaigning to to first and foremost get electoral reform to make third parties even remotely viable instead of trying to work within this extremely broken, barely democratic system.
That’s exactly what I’m doing, depending on how wide your definition of “campaigning” is. Just because I correct your hysteria doesn’t mean that you have to create a strawman of me that totes loves Jill Stein or whatever 🙄
You’d also be doing work at a local politics where real change can be made
In my case, “local” is part of Denmark, a country with a much better election system. Doesn’t mean that I can’t have knowledge and opinions about US politics and the kinds of absolutist “us or them” language that bears some of the responsibility for the duopoly surviving in spite of what the vast majority of the population wants.
Also, just FYI: assuming that everyone is able to be active in local politics beyond online discussions reeks of privilege and ableism.
rather than just throwing a candidate out for president every election
Again lumping me in with a group to which I don’t belong.
You won’t do that though because you’re all a bunch of weird idealists with fantastical views of how politics work
Aaand again. Are you going for some kind of record in strawmen and jumping to conclusions? Because if so, you’re doing an excellent job so far.
I’m interested in following news thats grounded in reality
Me too. I’m also interested in discussing the news using language grounded in reality, rather than weird hyperbole making a small minority out to be a dominant force and tormentor ruining everything.
As much as I’m tempted, I’m not interested in getting to a debate with you about this. For someone mad about me ‘jumping to conclusions’ you sure made a whole lot of assumptions about me that aren’t really true.
Whether my rant was directed at you, or one of the handful of other Jill Stein nutjobs on here doesn’t really matter, I’ve said my piece.
Have a great day.
They’re not even American, yet telling us how we should vote. That’s about as bad faith as it gets.
For someone mad about me ‘jumping to conclusions’ you sure made a whole lot of assumptions about me that aren’t really true.
Which ones specifically? I did you the courtesy of being specific about how and where you were wrong about me. If you’re gonna go “no you!”, it would behoove you to do the same rather than being as vague as a teenager posting on Facebook on a bad day.
Whether my rant was directed at you, or one of the handful of other Jill Stein nutjobs
I specifically informed you that I don’t consider any of the third party candidates viable and have not said anything to the contrary to indicate that I support Stein in any way. I don’t, for the record.
I’m not interested in getting to a debate with you about this.
Because you don’t have any counterarguments. You just lie, misrepresent, and demand that everyone believes you. Which seems to be working in this case since it’s taking place in a pro-DNC echo chamber almost half as tribalist as the fascist ones.
I’ve said my piece.
Now I have too. Have the day you deserve.
This has to be some kind of chatgpt essay blend. How are you able to write so much based on so little? All your comments are like walls of text responses to like one liners. I just don’t get it. How? How do y’all have so much time on your hands???
Being not from America, you have NO PLACE telling people how they should vote. And no one has the obligation to take nothing you say seriously at all.
Never told anyone how to vote, so you can pack that strawman away.
We have a saying over here: when America sneezes, Europe catches a cold.
We live in an interconnected world where what the world’s foremost superpower does profoundly effects literally billions of people.
There’s nothing weird about a European being interested in and knowledgeable about American politics.
Dismissing my input based on geography alone ON THE INTERNET makes it a good thing that no one has the obligation to take anything a fool like you says seriously at all either.
Riiiiiight. You do know your comment history is public, right? Because aside from the metric fuckton of misinformation that is removed when you post, you CLEARLY have an anti-democrat and pro socialist agenda to push on an election that you have nothing to do with.
Go sit down. When Denmark becomes relevant to our election, we’ll call you.
Many of them are surprisingly silent on the matter.
It’s refreshing.
NOT VOTING FOR HERRRRRRRRR
Are we sure that that’s not her secret Lemmy account? Lmao
I’ve seen that person around. Serious cringe vibes.
I don’t see them in the comments. They’re probably on lunch break with that linkerbaan person.
Removed by mod
Fair point and solid burn. POINTS!
Jill Stein
Is Killingkilled the Green PartyJill Stein is the latest in an interminable line of Green Party fucknuts “killing” the Green Party.
Next.
Was there anything there to kill?
A bucket full of russian mob money.
deleted by creator
anybody really care?
Read the room bud.
No we don’t. The green party wasn’t even that alive
So one might say:
She’s killing it 🕶️
She’s reducing it, the first and best r
One might, but should one?
At least she’s doing one good thing?
She was a major reason Trump won over Hillary, and she is still taking more votes from democrats than republicans.
That’s defiantly a way to look at it.
New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New Republic:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://newrepublic.com/article/186004/green-jill-stein-2024-election?
if you’re telling me that there’s a compromised candidate who isn’t pursuing the stated goals of their party or the best interests of their voter base, I- I- I-'d I’d have to cock an eye at you and wonder what your agenda was fella
pure nonsense, imagine
just glad my party isn’t one of those, whichever one that’s convenient for the reader
Given the ridiculous amount of money being poured into anti green sentiment and lawsuits by the Dems, it seems like they’re threatened.
Maybe we can have a somewhat left wing party when Dems lose again and can’t blame the greens or Bernie bros or other scape goats for their own failure to represent popular policies.
Threatened by Russian shills and spoiler campaigns by useless candidates that talk a lot and say nothing?
Yeah.
That’s a lot to be treated by. Especially when democrat hangs in the balance. Your lady is busted bro. The truth is out.
Go sit down somewhere.
Removed by mod
My “owners?”
Care to explain exactly what you meant by this?
Would you ever under any circumstance, not vote dem?
I vote for who I believe has the collective best interest of this country in mind, while holding the office with dignity, humility and respect for the individuality of this country’s citizens.
If they’re a democrat- I’m voting for them.
If the Green Party offers someone that can prove that they intend to take the job seriously, and doesn’t just pretend that shit matters one year out of every four…. I’d be happy to give them my support.
Until then, it’s democrats down the line.
So then you’re voting green, right? More people in office than any other third party.
No. I’m not voting for a spoiler Russian shill or a spoiler place holder.
JFK JR doesn’t even register as qualified in my book.
Harris all the fucking way to a living breathing democracy. After that, we start over and see what we have.
But your Green Party is a fucking joke. It’s over. Stein destroyed it.
Popular policies like investing into green energy, capping prescription drug prices, appropriately regulating business, helping students with the price of college, raising taxes on the wealthy and helping first time homebuyers get a house?
Sure, trump did two of those, Biden has done one but promised more, and those don’t touch the problems Americans actually have, like affording rent and groceries while dealing with record inflation and failing economy for all but the wealthiest. If Dems kept half their promises they’d still be 80s Republicans, but at least people wouldn’t be becoming homeless at the fastest rate in US history.
Really? Which two did Trump do?
Arguably Biden has done more than two of those things. At least, not for the lack of trying.
Or maybe we will just get neo-fascism and the violent persecution of left wing america.
That’s going to happen regardless if you keep electing liberals while thinking left wing policies are too unpopular to pass. Hitler was appointed by a liberal.
Ever hear the term beefsteak nazi?
in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were “large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats” and that “many of the storm troops were called ‘beefsteaks’ – brown outside and red within”.
See also : Alexander dugan’s red-brown-green alliance of industrial union-focused leftists (red), ecologically-minded agrarians (green), and the far right (brown) which saw the russian hard left communist party merge with russia’s hard right neo-nazi party.
AKA : Red fascists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi
