Can I get a smug lecture on how you're choosing the third, disconnected track?

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Oh my God we need ranked choice voting, it should be a top priority but I never hear it even mentioned. It fixes so many issues and obliterates the 2 party system. But we just can’t have nice things.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    The current two parties in your amazing country don't want it, therefore it will never happen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Alaska has ranked choice voting. But the viable independent is in Nebraska and the dsa candidates are in new York, Colorado, and Michigan. Minnesota has had farmer-labor candidates since ever, but if you don't live in Minnesotta, we just call them democrats.

    We do need ranked choice voting. But it will not destroy the two party system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 128 points 1 month ago (47 children)

    I did my duty, i held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils.

    But there's no sensible reason to blame genocide opposing progressives instead of the genocide supporting DNC who stubbornly refused to advance policies their own base wanted.

    The DNC decided to risk democracy in order to save a genocide - possibly the single most irresponsible decision in the 21st century. Blame them, they deserve it.

  • source
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 month ago (41 children)

    Multiple groups can be blamed. The DNC deserves more blame than anyone who refused to vote, but all the people saying "if you vote for Kamala, you love genocide" deserve some blame too, because anyone with a brain knew that a lot more people were going to get hurt under Trump.

    Wonder who they'll run in 2028. If there's an election in 2028.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    I wake up every day not supporting a genocide. I wonder what's so hard about it for the DNC. Boy do they love killing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    It's the Zionists and their money. Conspiracy theorists were right all along unfortunately, with Israel doing everything possible to validate them.

    But in an election once the candidates are locked between

    "We'll give money to the Israelis and they'll kill Palestinians"

    and

    "We'll give money to the Israelis and they'll kill Palestinians, but also we want to get rid of Latinos and LGBTQ people, also poor people should lose the little healthcare they do have and hey there's probably more bullshit we're gonna pull, but some of it's so stupid we haven't even thought of it yet"

    I can't see how anyone with a brain would not vote against #2.

    Donald Trump won completely legitimately and in addition to the 77.3 million Trump voters, there are about 90 million other eligible voters to blame for the kidnapping of Maduro, the war in Iran, the stupid ass tariffs, and so many other things. That's what they all were willing to accept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    I can't see how anyone with a brain would not vote against #2.

    Because you've been around long enough to have been in this situation before. Voting #1 is at best a stop-gap measure. Option #1 doesn't do anything to fix the underlying problem, and in fact, the next time around, #2 is way worse. (As is #1.) And this pattern keeps repeating. It doesn't matter which you choose, you'll end up with #2, just a bit later. (We've reached the stage at which genocide support is the lesser evil, fer chrissakes.)

    As an analogy, the situation we have with the two parties is like a choice faced by person with Type 2 diabetes: Fall into a hypoglycemic coma right now and maybe die, or consume sugar by the spoonful. The second option is the correct choice, obviously. But next time around, it's the same choice, and again after that. This person can choose the lesser evil every time, but it still leads to death.

    So, painful and unlikely at it may be, some voters are thinking beyond the immediate moment and want to at least try to avoid the death of democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

    So, no matter what, we are just inevitably fucked regardless of what we do, so let’s just hammer on the gas harder to let fascism win and destroy everything and get it over with? Do you not see how that is just authoritarian absolutism?

    What kind of rollover defeatist cuck shit is this? Your stance is theologically conservative accelerationism, point blank.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    That's a bad faith interpretation.

    Parties are coalitions that change over time. The neoliberal wing of the Democratic party has been ascendant since the Clinton years. But they are declining now. And the sole reason is that their brand is proving incapable of actually winning elections. If a party keeps winning, the people running the party maintain credibility and business as usual just keeps trucking along. Parties can only undergo fundamental change after losing a few cycles. It took the 3 losses of the Reagan and Bush Sr. years before something like Clinton's triangulation strategy had any hope of winning support among the Democratic party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I’m still struggling to not read that as accelerationism. How is that not accelerationism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    An accelerationist wants capital accumulated in the hands of capitalists as quickly as possible, so as to ensure the contradictions of capitalism to occur as quickly as possible. Therefore an accelerationist would vote for whichever they considered to be the most competent capitalist - in most eyes, that would be Kamala.
    Accelerationism is not just "when you want a thing to happen faster".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Wow, you guys will blame anybody but the people actually in power. What the fuck?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Weird non-sequitor. Youre talking about accelerationism, I explain what it is and what an accelerationist would probably do. I'm sorry your lacking understanding of marxist sub-cultures lead to you... asking about it and being told what it is?

    Anyway, speaking of blame...Seems like that's you? You blame voters for not voting for democrat, rather than blame the party for running an unviable candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's literally telling the Democrats to run, not walk, in the OTHER DIRECTION. If you don't communicate that, then, they accelerate in the wrong direction. Essentially voting for them no matter what their policy is the accelerationism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Because the goal is not to make the situation worse with the hope of later making the situation better. The goal is to hold people accountable for supporting genocide. The point is that we shouldn't be afraid of a short-term loss, because that can lead to superior long-term improvement. We shouldn't let the fear of a short-term loss prevent us from making the morally right decision today.

    Accelerationism would be deliberately seeking to collapse the current Democratic party. For example, by convincing a bunch of Democrats to stay home, not out of any real response to their actions, but simply because Democrats losing could shake up the political structure.

    The key difference is that one is simply not allowing the fear of being labeled "accelerationist" to prevent us from the right decision, while the latter is actually accelerationism.

    Accelerationism is meant to have a very specific meaning. Unfortunately, it gets used as a cudgel to argue that every short-term win must be obtained at any cost, even at the cost of superior long-term success.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Doing the exact same thing accelerationists advocate for sure seems like accelerationism to me. Saying you’re doing it for different reasons just feels like delusional self-righteous accelerationism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    at this point i’d take stop-gap

    this all gas no brakes into collapse is so much worse than milquetoast corpo democrat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Indeed, but there's never a good time for collapse. It wouldn't be any more enjoyable in 2030, if it were happening then instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    You’re literally just vomiting accelerationist rhetoric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Let's pump more CO2 to the air so the next ice age comes faster as a response overheating so we suffer the calamity instead of our grandchildren!!

    You are here playing 4D chess when they are playing 5+1D (I'm not there at all, just watching and getting side fucked by the crumbling world morality)

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago

    You still supported the extermination of a whole population that are currently getting exterminated. Despite the oppression of the groups you are mentioning none are facing eminent extermination with mass murder and starvation and the destruction of the majority . No wonder the rest of the non western world hate you american scums

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

    The elections are not a one time event. Yes, more people may suffer for 4 years, but if it builds momentum for an actually good 3rd party or at least reforming the DNC, it could have been worth it. But stupidly painting anyone who wants something better then just a Democrat win as an enemy that supports Trump ensures it can't happen. It's not that there are no rails to the third track. It's that people like the author of the meme actively rips them out with the "voting 3rd party is a waste of vote" bullshit. If you ask me, voting for more politically correct genocide is a waste of vote. If you are choosing for the lesser of two genocides, you are alredy fucked either way.

    No excuse for people who don't vote at all tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    if it builds momentum for an actually good 3rd party or at least reforming the DNC, it could have been worth it.

    Tell that to all the families of kids that died because of the DOGE cuts.

    We're going to hear people saying "it was a good strategy though - shame it didn't work out" while they're on voter lines being patrolled by armed guard, just like in Russia. Even if elections are for show, "both sides" people will not admit they were wrong.

    Voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote until that 3rd party has representatives in lower forms of government. The only bipartisan support we'll see during a 3rd party term is when both parties work together to undermine the 3rd party President. It's magical thinking to believe a 3rd party President will get anything accomplished without lower representation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    Take your strawman argument somewhere else. I never said or implied I was talking only about the presidential elections. You can vote for 3rd party president, sentaor, and congressman in the same election. Also for state and local 3rd party candidates.

    And of course the DOGE fearmongering. Oh no, we can't vote for change because of DOGE cuts! Sure, countless poeple are dying because of lack of healthcare, pollution, homlessness, ... But we can't try to do anything about that, because we will die of DOGE cuts! /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Be upset that I'm reminding you of the failures brought on by protest and 3rd party voters. The vast majority do nothing between elections except post online about it.

    DOGE and Iran wouldn't have happened if Kamala was elected. Think of that every time you're at the pump looking at those higher prices, if you're old enough to drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Be upset that I’m reminding you of the failures brought on by protest and 3rd party voters.

    The democrats lost because they ran a dogshit candidate and refused to change course from any of their many unpopular fantasies, yet you freaks insist they're absolved of all guilt. The party cannot fail, it can only be failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    People have been electing democrats on and off for over a century. Yet it changed nothing. But sure, 3rd party voting is the thing that can't succeed. Doing the same thing again and again hoping for a different outcome is clearly the smarter thing to do.

    But sure, if we just accept genocide and vote for it, at least the gas will be cheaper. Sure. Why not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    People have been electing democrats on and off for over a century. Yet it changed nothing.

    Wrong, and there's literally decades of legislation that you can review to see for yourself.

    Go vote for 3rd party local government officials. If you want a 3rd party to be viable, this is the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Wrong, and there’s literally decades of legislation that you can review to see for yourself.

    Yeah, decades of things like:

    • Foreign interventions
    • More fracking
    • No universal healthcare.
    • No codified Roe v Wade.
    • increased police budgets
    • Increased military spending
    • Crackdowns on peaceful protesters
    • Legislation making it illegal to be homeless
    • Just straight up genocide

    But hey, at least they'll sign the Paris Agreement (they wont do anything to actually achieve the goals set out by it though), so you can feel good about yourself as the president drone-strikes another wedding

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Anyone with a brain knew the Dems were gonna lose supporting genocide. Even Trump met with the Palestinian imams the Harris campaign snubbed. Even Trump said there had to be a ceasefire. Sure, he was lying, but Biden & Harris wouldn’t even do that?

    It would have been a lot cooler if she hadn’t thrown the election in a highly predictable manner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    So, you’re mad the dems had a level of transparency on their politics and didn’t lie straight to iur faces saying they wouldn’t do something they were obviously going to do?

    That’s fucking stupid, you see that, right? If you’re going to dight that fight, at least do it better, is all I’m asking, because you’re being a dumbass about it. You’re hitting yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    No, you're missing the fucking point. You JUST SAID that the Dems couldn't take those positions because they would lose BUT THE REPUBS TOOK THOSE POSITIONS AND FUCKING WON SO YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Getting emotional is usually a good seen you feel confident in what you’re saying. I believe you. You’re so right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Under the Biden/Harris leadership, Israel bombed every single school and hospital in Gaza and put in action the most brutal phase of the genocide, while whitewashing it all at the same time with their help. Tell us about it dipshit, how would less people get hurt under Harris? I would love to hear it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'd say it's the party in power is actually doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    Well then you don't understand how American politics works. It's the entirety of the US government. It's laws put in place by Democrats that Trump is using. And it's not like the Ds aren't crossing the aisle every other week to vote with Rs on some heinous shit. And it's not like the Ds ever pulled back on military expansion, or expansion of ICE and DHS, or domestic surveillance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Add some realpolitik:

    The GOP largely controls the messaging, due to owning the majority of media, as well as being more likely to have degrees in communications and sales, while Democratic candidates tend to have degrees in hard sciences.

    The very moment the DNC did anything to hinder the genocide, every news stations would have a picture of local and national Democratic candidates with photoshopped Hitler mustaches.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

    The ones wanting a different track better vote in the primaries then, instead of just complaining about the party as a whole after the ticket is settled.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Way too many people in the fediverse don't even know what the primaries are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Lots of states won't let you vote in primaries unless you declare a party. We should start the messaging there. Declare a party, if only temporary, to vote for who you think is best during the first go around. Treat it as first past the post.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    LOL. Lucy already pulled that football TWICE. The first time they rat fucked Bernie. The second time they didn't even have primaries. You have got to be fucking insane to be saying "voting in primaries is our chance for change". Are you fucking daft?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Almost like the presidential primary isn't the only primary. The rise of the DSA is showing what primaries can do. And listen I'm not saying they're perfect and will fix everything, but their a whole hell of a lot better than the options we've had.

    Also don't misunderstand you are right about Bernie and well the whole not having a presidential primary, but there's no reason you can't try to use the tools available within the system to marginally improve the circumstances of the working class AND pursue more radical action. You can do both

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah, you can. But you can also just focus on the thing that has always worked and will always work which is interest convergence. We must make politicians suffer for going the wrong way and benefit from going the right way. Civil Rights was passed by a bi-partisan coalition because they knew if they didn't things would get much much worse for them, not at the ballot box, on the street. Women got suffrage without voting. Labor had to fight literal paramilitary combat to get us weekends. That's how it works. Sure, vote. But don't waste so much time on it and certainly don't waste time trying to convince people to vote or convince people that "blue no matter who" is moral or that "sign up to be a Democrat, add your name to their roster and then vote in their convoluted and rat fucked primary system". Let people vote their conscience and focus on raising their consciousness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago*

    Voting takes like an hour every 2 years, it's really not that hard. And yes on election day some areas have very long lines, but everywhere has some form of mail ballot and/or early voting.

    It's so easy there's no reason not to go do it. I've spent more time switching a license at the DMV than voting has ever taken.

    Also not a single one of those movements existed in a political vacuum. The threat of violence did exist, but so did the threat of politicians losing their positions. Honestly outside of the labor movements/skirmishes everything else you listed existed well within election politics. The movements were absolutely necessary to effect change, but not an either/or situation by any measure. Both was necessary

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There is always the secret option!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    I love how Americans live in this world where not supporting the ongoing Israeli genocide against the Palestinian civilian population is somehow a radical fantasy.

    Reminder, the D guy has that guy tied to the tracks because apparently that’s where he thinks he should be. There has been plenty of time to get him out of the way, but the party is like “nah, leave him there. It’s better that way”.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Its a logic test. Not a creative problem solving tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    The trolley problem is, emphatically, not a logic test.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Its a thought experiment meant to elucidate or test an argument or theory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    No, it's a philosophical dilemma used to talk about ethics. It's completely terrible as a tool for what you're proposing, since all it does is create a strawman like the one OP has made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    ... its defined as a thought experiment and I was the one saying it wasnt a tool.

    W/e youre protesting too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You were the one saying it was a logic test. You then went on to call it

    a thought experiment meant to elucidate or test an argument or theory

    Which would make it a rhetorical tool, wether you want to call it that or not.
    Which is why I pointed out you're wrong.

    W/e youre protesting too much.

    I think I'm gonna have to use this one whenever someone disagrees with me. What a copout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    schrodinger's cat, thats a rhetorical tool?

    Youre not even disagreeing with me youre just protesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    schrodinger’s cat, thats a rhetorical tool?

    I dunno know, would a salmon still be a fish if it had legs? Since we're just saying shit that has nothing to do with what's going on.
    We're talking about the trolley problem, the philosophical dilemma. You're the one arguing it's something else.

    oure not even disagreeing with me youre just protesting.

    you're not even doing the thing you're just doing a synonym.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What do you call a Nazi collaborator?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    While it is true that centrist democrats don't really see other ethnicites as people speaking broadly, they'll still view an individual immigrant as a person.

    When I go over to a democrats home they can be ignorant about what's happening with migrants, but there no doubt in mind I'll get to leave safely.

    I celebrated thanksgiving with one of my friend's family that is conservative, and there was a part of me that wondered if I would get to leave alive. It's as if they were trying to rage bait me by saying the most heinous shit while brandishing guns and holding their holster when I turned to speak. Another time, I was with my partner's family and her brother who's a manager of a grocery store was complaining that he wished he could ban all non English speakers from coming into the store.

    Both are not the best, but I can speak freely with democrats whereas a conservative may blow my head off if I say something they disagree with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Dems have supported ICE for decades and still do

    A ton of Dems are actively throwing trans people under the bus, joining Republicans in voting for Apartheid toilet bills and shit

    Dems have also wholeheartedly supported the War on Terror that killed and displaced millions of people and have barred muslims from conventions even last year simply for being muslims

    Obama had more deportations than any other presidents and this was touted as a dunk on Trump. Obama also introduced the cages. For children.

    Their 'support' for BLM was also completely performative. When it came to actual action, BLM protests were violently crushed, organizers criminalized or killed, police budgets skyrocketed and nothing fundamentally changed

    Remember the ratchet system. Republicans make things worse. Dems make sure they never get better.

    Y'all got an extremely shitty choice to make. Republicans need to be ousted. And expect better from these motherfuckers that call themselves Democrats too.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    The truth of the matter, as it's often the way, it's there's nuances

    • If you're in a blue safe seat - vote third
    • If you're in a swing state - vote blue no matter who
    • If you're in a red state - vote blue no matter who
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    This is the way. As a voter it often feels like your vote doesnt matter. But the thing is focus on local elections. Vote in every election your allowed. Especially those off season elections have low turnout, and your vote matters much more. This is how you get demsoc candidates into positions of influence who can work their way up.

    The republican party is full on fasc. No matter where you are dont vote for them. Make the red states have to cheat so obviously that the courts have to get involved. Swing states vote blue, but if you were voting in the local elections, and primaries theres a good chance your blue candidate isnt a centrist. If your in a solid blue state vote for the third party to show the centrist dems that you dont want a centrist, and that their hold is precarious. If youre lucky to have a leftist candidate on the ballot in a blue state vote for them.

    This is the best way to tell the party how to win. They will ignore you, and they will fight you. But if their base votes hard left consistently they have to listen, or they lose to leftists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Why did the democratic party leadership tie the palestinians to the upper set of tracks? Sure seems like they could have chosen not to do that? But since they knew they'd get a pass from voters like OP, and thought they could still win while taking those aipac bribes, they decided to cash those aipac checks, right? And they are STILL doing it, isnt that right?

    People like u/godric (OP) like to pretend this trolley problem just arose out of nowhere, but it didnt did it. It was contrived to be this choice. Kind of like a hostage situation with the party's own voters-- voters who overwhelmingly do not support war crimes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Regardless of strategic validity, I think "accept genocide X to postpone genocide Y" is just not a very hopeful message, and thus is not likely to encourage voter turnout or any political action

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    More importantly, when someone proves that they're willing to trade human lives for the sake of power, why wouldn't you assume they will make the same trade for yours? When someone tells you they're a snake, believe them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Every politician does this because every cycle uses utilitarian choice. They try to support the greater good, and that will disenfranchise people/entire groups of people.

    We're inching towards climate wars because of how we treat our planet. It'll only get worse unless we stop this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Farther up the tracks, long ago already crossed, lie the remains of every single flag tied to the Paris Climate Accords.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    The Climate Accords were a pointless do-nothing treaty with nothing to make any country uphold its' obligations. Signing it or not meant nothing and means nothing. While being signatories the US under the democrats never even approached upholding the accords. After Biden got elected he handed out fracking contracts like nobodys' business, so it pretty clearly did not matter to him or the party. There is so far only one country slated to reach the goals set by the accords and you're going to cry foul at what country that is.

    edit: You can downvote the comment all you want, it does not make it less true. The Climate Accords has no provisions to make signatories follow it, the US has never come close to begin to approaching the goals set by the accord, Biden did hand out a bunch of new fracking contracts, and there is only one country so far that is expected to hit the goals set by the accords. Have you actually read the Paris Agreement?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The Progressive Except Palestine line.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›