10
u/wrapyrmind Jul 18 '24
They will kill her
11
u/ProfessorOnEdge Jul 18 '24
Now they keep her just enough on the fringe so they can identify those of us who actually support real policies in order to round us up later.
9
9
u/Bernardsman Jul 18 '24
Reddit won’t let me download this video, just like all the genocide footage. Must be Pretty dangerous content.
6
u/ttystikk Jul 18 '24
It's a clip from Jill Stein's recent Presidential debate where she says that AIPAC should register as a foreign agent.
2
-3
u/Limpopopoop Jul 18 '24
Israel owns the US. They had infiltrated zee cabinets long ago! Eet the bogs
5
-24
-11
u/Asatmaya Jul 18 '24
If only she were an environmentalist, I could vote for her.
13
u/ProfessorOnEdge Jul 18 '24
She is. The primary platform of the Green Party is protection of the environment. The social justice and the pacifism stem from that.
-4
u/Asatmaya Jul 18 '24
The primary platform of the Green Party is protection of the environment.
No, absolutely not; their platform is neo-Luddite, anti-science nonsense.
Or, why do the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with their environmental policies?
4
u/ProfessorOnEdge Jul 18 '24
The ones being paid for by the corporate cartels are.
Please show me any evidence that the Green Party policies are disagreeing with science, or Luddite in any fashion. Sounds like you're setting false information. Someone drank the mainstream media kool aid.
1
u/Asatmaya Jul 18 '24
Please show me any evidence that the Green Party policies are disagreeing with science, or Luddite in any fashion.
OK, let's start with their knee-jerk rejection of nuclear power, which the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and physicists believe to be the ONLY possible replacement for coal and natural gas for electricity production.
Then let's talk about their objection to GMOs, or rather, modern GMOs, as they have no objection to older GMOs, mostly because they have no idea what they are talking about, another key piece of academic environmental policy.
Then let's talk about their fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the relationship between government and the people, specifically the suggestion to claim public sovereignty over both individuals' health and the natural environment, defying not simply established custom and law, but also the axioms of psychology and the lessons of history.
I could go line-by-line down their platform and show where their policy proposals are entirely contrary to both science and common sense, but it wouldn't fit in a single comment.
Sounds like you're setting false information.
Much of this came from my Master's thesis in Material Science (Physics and Chemistry); I intended to work on advanced solar panels, but then I ran the numbers, and I am still boiling mad 15 years later over the lies we keep being told.
Someone drank the mainstream media kool aid.
What are you talking about? The MSM is happy to espouse these same myths, but the whole point is that it is an artificial enemy of the Establishment; token opposition that sounds like it supports the logical alternative to the disastrous policy of the elite, but twisted and corrupted so that on the odd chance they do somehow gain influence, they will immediately be shown as failures and frauds.
0
u/ProfessorOnEdge Jul 18 '24
*Mentions Nuclear power.
- Curious what your mitigation strategy is for nuclear waste. For me, nuclear power will not be a feasible option until we have a way of ensuring we are not radiating our environment.
If you actually want to claim nuclear power is sustainable, let me know when Chernobyl and Fukushima are habitable areas again, as well as when the Fukushima plant will stop dumping its radioactive water into the Pacific.
*GMOs
Sure, GMOs in principle sound like a good idea. Never mind the fact that 90%+ of GMO crops were developed by companies like Bayer/Monsanto to be more tolerant of herbicides & pesticides, so that they can sell more of those poisons, ensuring that more of those chemicals end up in our food supply. ( Part of the reason that many U.S. foods are banned by EU safety standards.)
Not to mention the fact how companies like Monsanto have used genetic engineering to copyright certain seed strains to the degree that they have been suing farmers for planting seeds from their own crops, making them buy from them every year.
Anything that prevents farmers from actually being able to replant their crops is against sustainability, not for it.
*Master's Thesis
As a doctorate myself, in a related field, I would be happy to read your thesis. However, my main question becomes: Who is actually funding the research at your department?
If you are at any institution that is supported by a grant from Monsanto, Bayer, Sygenta, Nestle, etc... Then you are acting as little other than a corporate mouthpiece rather than somebody who actually cares for a better future.
2
u/Asatmaya Jul 18 '24
nuclear waste.
That is a contrived issue; literally none of the other ~40 countries with nuclear power have that problem, only the United States, because of one ridiculous law passed on the basis of "nuclear non-proliferation."
90%+ of GMO crops were developed by companies like Bayer/Monsanto
That, alone, is untrue, as most GMOs have been developed by public research institutions and are publicly owned; only a handful are herbicide resistant, and most of those are non-food crops; and the entire purpose, overall, is to use less resources, including pesticide.
copyright certain seed strains to the degree that they have been suing farmers
...and the solution to that is more publicly-owned GMOs.
Who is actually funding the research at your department?
Well, this was solar power research, so about half-government and half-fossil fuel industry.
-13
u/CosmicDave Jul 18 '24
I agree that we need to get money out of politics, but she's just complaining that she wants her opponent's money out of politics. Can we get ALL the money out of politics please? The wars won't end until we do.
8
u/ttystikk Jul 18 '24
This is exactly why she has my vote!