Hacker News Reader

Comment by ntsplnkv2 | Hacker News Reader

The green party has terrible candidates and often I disagree with their policies.

I'm not going to vote for someone just because they're different from the establishment if they have positions I find ridiculous.

View on HN

Its pretty well known among environmentalists that the American green party isn't "green" enough. Its not a truly environmentalist party that puts environmental issues above human issues. A environmental party must be anti-consumerism and anti-materialism. It should be against growing the human economy but instead making it more efficient. That means doing hard things that hurt human appetites/sensibilities but are better for the planet (ie. limited human migration, decreasing imports).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

And you agree with policies of other two parties?

Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.

There are certainly things I don't agree with with the options available.

This idea that candidates need to perfectly represent everyone's opinions is just absurd. I don't agree with everything that Hillary did or that Trump is doing. That doesn't mean everything they did was bad or good.

But to suggest Jill Stein as a viable alternative when she has some dubious backing doesn't really empower choosing the 3rd party, does it?

Yeah, thats fair. I'm with you on that. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely, you just go with the one that agree the most with or disagree the least with.

I guess you talk about Russia as dubious backer.

You really believe that the POTUS (notably Jill Stein and the Green Party) could be paid by Russia to enforce Russian policies to the detriment of US citizens ?

This idea is as crazy as the idea that China invented global warming to harm the USA economy.

From https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0111/93244...

Back in 2012, almost three years before he declared that he was going to run for the White House, Mr Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

There is a legitimate investigation into Russia interference in the election. Many have already been charged, and probably many more.

You really believe that nothing happened and there wasn't a concerted effort by Russia to significantly impact the election?

Whether or not the POTUS or candidates were complicit is one thing, but it's very clear that a significant impact on this election was made.

Why would an agent of that concerted effort admit that it was ongoing or impactful?

So wouldn't a ranking vote system work better?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

There's no evidence any primaries were 'rigged'.

Hillary got more votes, and some DNC people were catty about Bernie over private email.

I even voted Bernie, I just can't stand seeing claims repeated without evidence. Put up or shut up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com