It is probably impossible to overstate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity.
The Democrats winning this election is in no possible universe sufficient for human survival and an end to industrial-scale murder and collective climate suicide, but it sure looks necessary.
Here’s her full quote, including her main point, which is the absolute urgency of going further than that, pressuring the whole system to do a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, not stopping with the election:
Saying we need to go way further than Democrats for success makes perfect sense. Saying there’s no point in electing Democrats, while pretending you think the climate is important, is a sign that you’re either lying on purpose or horribly and dangerously confused.
Edit: Fixed the image, I’m not sure why it won’t go bigger
If both are unsuitable for the climate cause, it doesn’t mean you get a 3rd option. It means the climate is irrelevant for this election.
In that case you lost the chance to have a climate relevant option many years ago.
Voting a 3rd party or not voting will not pressure the candidates to do anything for the climate now. Even the threat of letting the authoritarian fascist win comes too late, because third parties are already out.
Also, if the US doesn’t elect the democrat candidate now, trump will be elected and there will be no way of doing anything for the climate with the US any more, likely forever.
The ship has sailed. You can only choose how bad you lose now.
The whole US political system is unsuitable for dealing with climate change, but the Democrats are at least trying to some extent to push it in the right direction. Letting Trump get elected would be a massive catastrophe. That’s what I, and Greta Thunberg, and you, are saying, I think.
Coming out with “you’re intentionally ignorant” isn’t generally a good way to start the conversation, even if you don’t agree with the person.
voting a 3rd party or not voting will not pressure the candidates to do anything for the climate now.
Wrong, by losing votes the red and blue party are forced to change their policies to get votes back otherwise they lose elections. On the contrary if they don’t lose any support they are not really forced or motivated to do any change.
Also, if the US doesn’t elect the democrat candidate now, trump will be elected and there will be no way of doing anything for the climate with the US any more, likely forever.
Wrong, by losing votes the red and blue party are forced to change their policies to get votes back otherwise they lose elections. On the contrary if they don’t lose any support they are not really forced or motivated to do any change.
And the red or blue party still have a majority even though some votes go to third parties. I don’t see how that make them lose elections?
I think Greta Thunberg said it quite well:
The Democrats winning this election is in no possible universe sufficient for human survival and an end to industrial-scale murder and collective climate suicide, but it sure looks necessary.
Here’s her full quote, including her main point, which is the absolute urgency of going further than that, pressuring the whole system to do a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, not stopping with the election:
Full size image
Saying we need to go way further than Democrats for success makes perfect sense. Saying there’s no point in electing Democrats, while pretending you think the climate is important, is a sign that you’re either lying on purpose or horribly and dangerously confused.
Edit: Fixed the image, I’m not sure why it won’t go bigger
No, you’re intentionally ignorant.
If both are unsuitable for the climate cause, it doesn’t mean you get a 3rd option. It means the climate is irrelevant for this election. In that case you lost the chance to have a climate relevant option many years ago. Voting a 3rd party or not voting will not pressure the candidates to do anything for the climate now. Even the threat of letting the authoritarian fascist win comes too late, because third parties are already out.
Also, if the US doesn’t elect the democrat candidate now, trump will be elected and there will be no way of doing anything for the climate with the US any more, likely forever.
The ship has sailed. You can only choose how bad you lose now.
Relax. I am agreeing with you, or was aiming to.
The whole US political system is unsuitable for dealing with climate change, but the Democrats are at least trying to some extent to push it in the right direction. Letting Trump get elected would be a massive catastrophe. That’s what I, and Greta Thunberg, and you, are saying, I think.
Coming out with “you’re intentionally ignorant” isn’t generally a good way to start the conversation, even if you don’t agree with the person.
Wrong, by losing votes the red and blue party are forced to change their policies to get votes back otherwise they lose elections. On the contrary if they don’t lose any support they are not really forced or motivated to do any change.
Read what Greta Thunberg said
And the red or blue party still have a majority even though some votes go to third parties. I don’t see how that make them lose elections?
dood, the election contest is over now. you’re chasing ghosts of the past
Really? Who’s the president elect?
No dood, the contest, not the election itself smh