this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
322 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23551 readers
3174 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And in “tell Us Something we Didn’t Already Know” news.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 83 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 87 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (3 children)

"Green" and "pro nuclear" go together like peas and carrots. Unless one flunked elementary school science class.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (10 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 7 months ago (13 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Wasn't she cleared by the senate investigative committee for not taking funds from Russia?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago

Jill Stein is the latest in an interminable line of Green Party fucknuts "killing" the Green Party.

Next.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

Jill Stein ~~Is Killing~~ killed the Green Party

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Was there anything there to kill?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A bucket full of russian mob money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

At least she's doing one good thing?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (5 children)

She was a major reason Trump won over Hillary, and she is still taking more votes from democrats than republicans.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Read the room bud.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›