• MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t live in the US but just read her Wikipedia page - am I missing something Jill Stein seems way better than Bernie. Surprised I don’t hear HBs talk about her more seems like the best kind of candidate Burgerland could possibly produce.

    • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 month ago

      She has some typical green bad vibes around vaccines and nuclear, i think, and electoral politics is a void, outside of polling amount of non-genocidal electorate of the usa, its relatively useless. Plus we have pumpkin spice latte PSL

      • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        She’s right about nuclear. If you disagree you’re a fucking lib. This is my hot take, I won’t back down. The socialists who endorse nuclear in America are redditors and turbolibs.

        • itappearsthat@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          1 month ago

          There’s a difference between “nuclear will singlehandedly solve the climate crisis” and “nuclear can be in the mix idgaf” which more accurately describes most people here’s opinion of it.

            • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.

                • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants. We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.

                  • radiofreeval [any]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    17
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Solar panels have limited lifespans as well and are difficult to recycle. Also the issue is not limited resources. Even if oil was infinite there would still be a problem as climate change is the issue, not reliability. Uranium reserves still have quite a bit left and if China’s breeder reactor programs work, uranium is less of an issue. Also, nobody here is advocating for switching entirely to nuclear. Nuclear is only really a good option for places that get unreliable sun and wind and for that it works pretty well, provided work is done now.

          • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Nuclear is already in the mix. It’s not doing anything to help the situation. For it to actually do anything to alleviate the situation the pro nuclear position has to involve fucking sci fi technology and totally unworkable political projects. You are not getting a permanent nuclear waste storage facility and Thorium will not solve the energy crisis, therefore nuclear is not a panacea. Nuclear is a limited fuel source regulated by the most captured body in the entire universe. No climate solution can possibly involve leaning heavily into it. It just can’t. Just build renewable fucking energy. We don’t need to start 30 year long projects as stepping stones to converting the energy industry, that’s a time horizon that’s entirely out of step with reality, especially when you also expect and require the long projects to use sci fi technology that does not exist and for their reliable use have to finish political hot potatoes that the US has solidly avoided doing anything about for almost 100 years

    • DerRedMax [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      A big problem with Stein is that she only appears every four years to be the candidate and then goes back to obscurity until the next election. It seems that she has no interest in actually building a legitimate Green Party that could compete with or even form a coalition with the D’s and the R’s.

      At least Bernie is out there doing some kind of consensus building on things like healthcare or GND and backing other D-S candidates for lower office.

      The Green Party will never take the oval office without the support of Green mayors, governors, or people in congress.

      • It just seems like kayfabe to suppress any challenge to dems from the left.