96
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

A good way to is poll twice

what makes you think this is a good method for proving your claim that 2-3% of all voters were democrat voters who switched to green in past elections?

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

You are being so rude. Silence is linking all the data and graphs at you and you're spitting in their face.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

none of the data or graphs are proof that 2-3% of voters have voted green but would have otherwise voted democrat. demanding proof for a claim isn't rude.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

It's a good way of saying what people are thinking of doing, and that's exactly what was happening in Michigan a few weeks ago. Given how close the election is likely to be in that state, even a far smaller number of people voting G instead of D will throw the country for Trump.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

a small number of people voding r instead of d will give the election to trump, too.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.

The Green party could:

  • Run candidates in the Democratic primaries (the DSA has done this to considerable success at the state level)
  • Run candidates in districts where Democrats aren't running
  • Build up power by starting at a local level and winning elections there to create people with a base of supporters who can win in larger and larger areas

But they don't do those things in the US, and instead choose to run candidates where they effectively serve as spoilers

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.

this totally misses the point: if democrats are worried about losing to republicans, they should be trying to convince people to vote democrat instead of republican. if they're only worried about republicans getting into power and they believe this nonsense about splitting votes, they should vote for the greens.

i for one do NOT believe in this vote-splitting narrative. it assumes that the votes somehow belong to democrats and green candidates steal them. the votes belong to voters, and it's the job of parties to earn those votes, and using FUCKING ABHORENT tactics like keeping other parties out of debates or off the ballot are not how you earn MY vote. i'm sure many others feel the same.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

They need to be worried about both losing moderate and low-information voters to the Republicans and losing left-of-center voters to the Greens.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

it's not as though they don't know the policies green voters like. they're not losing left of center voters to the greens, tehy're choosing not to attract them and instead play dirty political games.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

they don’t do those things in the US

this is a fucking lie. do you get all your information about the green party from msnbc, or directly from the dnc?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

I've been watching the Green Party for decades. I see lot of behavior which looks like people running to be on the ballot. I don't see a lot of people running campaigns which look like they're designed to win.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I see lot of behavior which looks like people running to be on the ballot.

when JUST GETTING ON THE BALLOT is over half the fight, it's understandable that this is a lot of what they do. what do you think running to win looks like? hiring peter dao? nominating a candidate who already has both a good reputation and name recognition? if the greens did that, would you still tell them to "push for policy concessions," but drop out and endorse the democrat whether they get them or not?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Getting on the ballot is a VERY tiny step compared to what it takes to win. You can get on the ballot for a local election by paying a filing fee and asking a few friends to sign.

Actually winning means spending a huge amount of time talking with community groups, obtaining earned media, raising money, and actually convincing people that you can govern in a way that's better than the other candidates.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Getting on the ballot is a VERY tiny step compared to what it takes to win. You can get on the ballot for a local election by paying a filing fee and asking a few friends to sign.

the green party literally goes to court over ballot access at least twice a decade. you are either woefully misinformed or intentionally spreading misinformation

[-] zpoex@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

... You don't think telling someone else that their opinion is "a fucking lie" is rude or mean? I mean sure you can disagree with them, but like just don't be so angry lol

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

it wasn't an opinion. they stated a false fact. those are also known as fucking lies.

[-] zpoex@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Why are you so mean... just chill out damn

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

what did I say that was mean? someone else said I was rude and really don't get it.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
96 points (99.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5197 readers
896 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS