The Georgia process actually required the Dems to go through an appeal, so I’m sure it wasn’t cheap.

She’s on the ballot, or has write-in status in 42 states. Dems only managed to successfully kick her off the ballot in 2 states.

The Democrats don’t spend millions in legal fees to sue “fringe candidates” off of the ballot.

Yeah, media refusing to cover a candidate tends to impact their polling. Big surprise.

You’re getting really unhinged in the comments for people just making sure the democrats are doing the opposite, which is what you’re implying they would do.

I suspect you’re getting upset because you know the Biden admin advanced some of Trump’s worst policies, and you don’t want anyone pointing that out.

It wasn’t meant to convince you. It was meant to show the lurkers you’re full of shit. I’m confident they get the picture.

Blocked.

Defending the oil lobby’s anti-nuclear propaganda is really not helping you.

https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

https://rpmanetworks.com/atomkraftclonesite-english/docs/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-war-on-nuclear-power/

https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/opposition-to-nuclear-energy/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-lobby-opposes-state-subsidies-for-nuclear-power-producers-1493145109

https://climatecoalition.org/who-opposes-nuclear-energy/

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/big-oils-electric-fight-against-coal-and-nuclear-1513304200

the claim that the oil industry paid anyone to stop nuclear is a right wing lie.

Oil lobby bot confirmed.

Nuclear is not capitalists’ “biggest outfit.” You’re thinking of oil, and they pay astroturfers to convince people like you to be anti-nuclear.

I don’t assume unlimited funds. I know that the only way we can actually address climate change is to overthrow the capitalists driving the pollution. Ending their wars would provide far more than adequate funding, even before wealth redistribution.

I can’t imagine being so uninformed that you believe the advantages of nuclear energy has no scientific basis. On par with the flat earthers.

It’s easy to tell who’s been propagandized, because they care more about how much it will cost than actually saving the planet.

I’m not concerned about economic sense. I’m worried about keeping the planet habitable.

Cheaper long term, yes. Higher upfront cost.

The backup is nuclear.

I don’t really care what it costs. We’re trying to save the habitability of the planet. Damn the cost.

Stein and the Greens are also rabidly anti-nuclear, continuing to repeat outdated and debunked nonsense. We can’t plausibly maintain this level of energy use on renewables alone.

That being said, the writer’s claim that Harris is better on climate than Stein is absolutely ridiculous. The Biden/Harris admin set records for fossil fuel extractions, strongly support fracking, waived environmental protections to build Trump’s border wall faster, and want to ban imports of EV’s and solar panels. Plus, their escalating militarism is a carbon nightmare.

Rhetoric won’t save us.

Since it’s going to be shit either way, remember that getting Greens to the 5% threshold is attainable.

Removed by mod

I care that anyone would feel any sympathy for that monster. They shouldn’t.

I’m convinced they’re already collecting data for it. I can’t think of any other reason for the massive drop in system performance on Windows 11.

I don’t care that she was threatened. I’m confused that anyone would give a shit, after she’s spent her career devoted to death & destruction.

You can see her policies on her website: https://votesocialist2024.com/

I love how y’all say De La Cruz doesn’t have a proven record, and shouldn’t be supported based on her promises. But when I point to Harris’ record, I’m supposed to believe her promises.

Pick one, and be consistent.