Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naturegirl1999]

There’s still a Green Party, right? If we can all agree that both main options are bad, why not vote for someone better? It’s gotten to the point where the “two parties” are basically the same party pretending to be separate

Don't vote for the anti-vax party

Is the Green Party anti fax? I didn’t know that, I thought they were just environmentalist

[martinuzz]

Faxes use electricity and are thus a danger to the environment.
Green Party only wants mail carrier pigeons.

[Starver]

(And, dear Ninja...)

Is the Green Party anti fax? I didn’t know that, I thought they were just environmentalist

Thermal paper is harder to recycle...

:p

[Naturegirl1999]

Auto correct screwed it up, I meant to ask if they are anti vaxx. I like when a typo allows me to learn via someone teaching me that thermal paper is harder to recycle, also that faxes use thermal paper, also that thermal paper exists

[Starver]

(We knew  )

I don't think it's all green-types, but you can see how those who tend towards "don't disturb nature" might veer towards one degree or other of decrying certain 'unnatural' medical interventions. Either for themselves, as a matter of principle, or because it encourages there to be a whole lot more people in the world messing it up (an external policy).

OTOH, there are people who are Anti-Vax because of very wrong ideas, and I'm sure some of those have both very right and very wrong ideas in the Green arena too.


I'll be honest, I don't know the Full Official policy list of the US Green Party (because, frankly, I can't ever see it being relevent to me other than discussions like this). I would not be surprised if it featured such an extreme, though, because being small-c conservative in your general list of conservation matters just isn't going to excite anyone, is it?

Being Anti-Vax is probably going to hoover up some people. Perhaps more than they lose from being it?


[1] No, they (probably) wouldn't actually kill people, but anyone who succumbs stops/never starts reproducing, etc, etc...

[martinuzz]

I doubt a environmentalist party nescessarily attracts more people with a 'don't disturb nature' stance.
take care of the environment =/= don't disturb nature

At least over here it doesn't.  Groen Links (the dutch 'green' party) isn't known, at all, for having affiliation with anti-vaxxers.

Usually green parties consist of rather well educated people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's really only three types of people who vote third party (as opposed to not voting at all) in the US: hardened but essentially honest political operators, ideological extremists of the relevant stripe, and nutjobs. As such, each of the "major" third parties (Libertarian, Green, and Constitution) have a pretty sizable contention of nutjobs.

Thus the Libertarians consider it controversial to not pledge you'll pass an executive order against drivers license enforcement and the Greens at least want to "consider alternative methods of medicine". Constitution doesn't really count because they're openly Christofascist and thus are all nutjobs, but I suppose if one was a regular Republican voter they might find it nutjoby that Constitution are paleocons and thus want to eliminate social security entirely while withdrawing the US from the world and not doing imperialism anymore.

[dragdeler]

-

[scriver]

I just remember them taking a pro-anti-vax stance in the 2016 elections

[Naturegirl1999]

Do the democrats have anyone who cares about the environment?

[misko27]

The Speaker of the House would get the job as long as the Speaker is still in-term. While it's California and not the federal government that is handling Pelosi's district, there's nothing normal about the President casually suggesting we cancel democracy to begin with. If the House can't get reelected then they're all gone, and Chuck Grassley of the Senate becomes President.

Of course, by that point I imagine Trump will just have Congress arrested anyway. You know, that's an interesting hole in our electoral law, just don't allow the election to happen and you effectively abolish the House immediately and the Senate over the next couple of years.

This is a bit old, but it recently came to my attention that this is not a viable stratagem, as, given the 1/3 of the Senate currently running for re-election would lose their position, this would effectively put Senate Democrats into the majority and thus Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy would be next in line for President pro tempore.

However the rule which makes the oldest serving member of the majority party pro tempore is a custom: they could freely appoint Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris. In fact there's no requirement in statute or the Constitution that it be a current member of Congress: they could if they so desired throw the office to Hillary Clinton or Al Gore if so inclined, but in practice they'd almost certainly elect Biden.

Which, to be honest is almost a more terrifying loophole, but not one the Trump Administration can take advantage of easily.

[Starver]

I doubt a environmentalist party nescessarily attracts more people with a 'don't disturb nature' stance.
take care of the environment =/= don't disturb nature

Well, it was the active Anti-Vax, not the 'hands off' that probably attracts more people. From my admitedly limited knowledge of the US conglomerate of opinions.

For what it's worth, the UK's Green Party looks to be fairly sane on Health issues. They fully support vaccinations (including the HPV being given also to boys), and though they support 'personal choice' on many of the things mentioned, they certainly don't seem to be enabling self-destructive decisions - indeed, they insist upon "properly informed choice".

Having refreshed myself with their literature, I remain undisappointed with their thinking. One of the more sensible parties, over here (still unlikely to get more than one MP for the foreseeable future[1]) and I don't at all regret the times I've voted that way.

But I find it hard to believe that there's any benefit in being a sane national political party in the US. It looks like it'd put you at a distinct disadvantage against all the others that quite clearly aren't.


[1] But that's FPTP... they have a whole lot in Local Government, including the London Assembly, had up to seven in the EU, until that got shut off, and even have two members in the House Of Lords!

[Naturegirl1999]

Why do sane political parties get a disadvantage here? I don’t think I’m the only American who would like a sane political party. Wierd, you’d rather a sane political party instead of the ones we have now, right?

[Starver]

I'd rather there be sanity everywhere.

Emperical evidence suggests to me that it's just not very likely to happen that way in your particular jurisdiction.

[Naturegirl1999]

I'd rather there be sanity everywhere.

Emperical evidence suggests to me that it's just not very likely to happen that way in your particular jurisdiction.

I’d rather there be sanity everywhere too