With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.
And in “tell Us Something we Didn’t Already Know” news.
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.
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.
But people here don’t want to address that because it disrupts their narrative.
The truth is, no matter what she did or didn’t do, the hostility would be the same because she’s not Harris.
They get upset at anyone who isn’t pledging their vote to Harris, and that’s the real reason behind all the hate here. In fact, look at your downvotes for asking a simple question. lmao
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep. Funny how Democrats are just as desperate as the Republicans (who always try to get rid of Libertarians) to make sure we have fewer choices to vote for.