[worstspotgain]

Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote.

If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.

[swed420]

Unfortunately the passage of time has shown that lesser-evils "vote blue no matter hoo" is not even close to sufficient in addressing this crisis. Capital interests are to blame, and in the US, we have two political parties entirely controlled by capital. Other countries aren't much different.

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...

[worstspotgain]

You do realize of course that this is exactly the claim that someone who wanted to get the worst candidate in the history of the presidency (by a few orders of magnitude) elected would make?

[xracy]

You do realize that this is exactly the kind of feedback that people who are tired of the 'vote blue no matter who' refrain have been giving for years, that has been ignored.

Like the people who are getting voted for need to actually turn around and justify the vote we're making for them. And they've been failing to do that, and pointing to the thing that is clearly worse as a reason why they don't have to do better.

[worstspotgain]

Like I said for the other message, this just reads like a cheap trick to suppress the vote that can help address climate change.

If it was 2008 or 2012, maybe. It would have been stupid just the same, but McCain or Romney might not have been a death spell.

This time around, 95% of messages like this are from Trump/Putin/whatever trolls trying to get their guy in, to hell with the climate. If that's not you, apologies, but good luck convincing people you're just being misguided rather than disingenuous.

[xracy]

Except this has been the rhetoric of the Democratic party since 2008. And people are tired of it.

This is not 'gaslighting from a republican troll'. This is legitimate criticism from someone who has been holding their nose and 'voting blue no matter who', for the past 4 election cycles, and wants the Democratic party to wake up and not take their voters for granted. Cause every single time they do this, they have been alienating their voters, and making races that should be slam dunks into 'close calls'.

DJT shouldn't have 'toss up' odds, but Democrats won't grow a pair and deal with him like the felon he is. Instead they keep putting it back to the voters and doing the bare minimum to try and make themselves "slightly better than the worst people on earth"

I want real options, but that doesn't happen until democrats can actually make the legitimate policy changes they've been half-assing for the last 30 years.

[worstspotgain]

You're basically saying "there must be a third button here somewhere." The third button is in the primaries.

Right now you're just courting the self-destruction button. You're doing so on behalf of the self-destruction team, whether you're aware of it or not.

Misguided and disingenuous look the same and have the same effect.

[swed420]

Dems propped up Trump using their Pied Piper strategy coupled with Hillary's lousy campaigning "efforts." They dug their own grave, and it doesn't matter to the revolving doors of the machine in the grand scheme, since back to my original point, we have two parties of capital. Democracy is illusory.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h...

[worstspotgain]

OK tovarich, my regards to Vladimir.

[swed420]

Laughs in Chinese

[FeepingCreature]

I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump."

If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...

[grecy]

SpaceX doesn’t need a weaker FAA to keep launching very frequently, they’re already doing that.

A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.

[worstspotgain]

That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s

[FeepingCreature]

> That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax.

The thing is, I agree with you, but I don't think that's actually that convincing an argument. Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels. Green energy might go faster or slower, but that doesn't necessarily matter in terms of preventing very bad outcomes. I think the high-concept paths to mitigation are a lot easier to delay than the "business as usual" eco trend.

[worstspotgain]

> Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels.

No, he actually would [1][2][3][4]. And that's without even counting Putin. When they tell you who they are, believe them.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/trump-paris-climate...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/uaw-chief-slams-trump-over-...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-07-19/trump-pledg...

[4] https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-r...

[FeepingCreature]

I think the primary trend isn't based on the agreement but on the economic reality that solar panels are cheap and still getting cheaper. You can speed it up or slow it down, but it's not reversible at this point. You might have four years of slowboating, but that only matters if we're on the edge of disaster. If we're already committed to disaster, to the extent that we need radical interventions to plausibly achieve success, whether you slowboat the trend doesn't matter.

[worstspotgain]

You continue to claim that not voting or that voting for Hannibal Lecter is OK in that it's really some sort of a moonshot. After all you agree with me, right?

You do realize of course that if someone just wanted to get Hannibal Lecter elected, they would be making claims like these to suppress his opponent's vote?