![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yet another "most important election ever"
Climate disruption has got to be the most important issue of our age.
Here's my rough understanding of where the Presidential candidates stand on this issue:
Sanders: Very, very concerned about climate change, really feels that we should do something about it. But could be deterred if taking action affects people of low income. Score: 90
Clinton: Understands the issue well intellectually. Could be persuaded to do something about it, if it's politically expedient. Has enough foreign policy background to not be utterly dumb about working with other countries on this problem. Score: 80
Kasich: Grants that climate change might have something to do with human activity, thus would be mildly interested in hearing about how we could do something about it without at all disrupting economic progress. Score: 10
Trump: But it's so much more fun to just make fun of environmentalists. Score: -999,999
Cruz: Religiously opposed to the concept of trying to do anything about human-caused climate change. Perhaps believes, like James Watt, that the sooner we utterly destroy the environment, the sooner Jesus will come back? Or just that the Framers of the Constitution didn't intend for us to do anything about the weather? Score: -1,000,000
I'm not exactly sure about Kasich's score. It's hardly worth researching; he is going nowhere politically, as far as I can tell. (All I can think of for why he's still running is he must be thinking "I cannot believe I'm dropping out in favor of those complete goons.")
We could dither about the exact relative ranking of Trump and Cruz, but AFAIK they are both pretty appalling.
We could wring our hands about the fact that Clinton seems on-track to win the nomination in spite of not being as committed on this issue as Sanders is. But it's really clear that the Republican zombies have to be stopped. That means voting for whoever is the major-party candidate running against the Republican nominee.
Thus, if Hilary is the nominee, I will enthusiastically support her.
But I'm really glad I voted for Bernie, adding to the "yes doing something about climate change is politically expedient" pressure.
Here's my rough understanding of where the Presidential candidates stand on this issue:
Sanders: Very, very concerned about climate change, really feels that we should do something about it. But could be deterred if taking action affects people of low income. Score: 90
Clinton: Understands the issue well intellectually. Could be persuaded to do something about it, if it's politically expedient. Has enough foreign policy background to not be utterly dumb about working with other countries on this problem. Score: 80
Kasich: Grants that climate change might have something to do with human activity, thus would be mildly interested in hearing about how we could do something about it without at all disrupting economic progress. Score: 10
Trump: But it's so much more fun to just make fun of environmentalists. Score: -999,999
Cruz: Religiously opposed to the concept of trying to do anything about human-caused climate change. Perhaps believes, like James Watt, that the sooner we utterly destroy the environment, the sooner Jesus will come back? Or just that the Framers of the Constitution didn't intend for us to do anything about the weather? Score: -1,000,000
I'm not exactly sure about Kasich's score. It's hardly worth researching; he is going nowhere politically, as far as I can tell. (All I can think of for why he's still running is he must be thinking "I cannot believe I'm dropping out in favor of those complete goons.")
We could dither about the exact relative ranking of Trump and Cruz, but AFAIK they are both pretty appalling.
We could wring our hands about the fact that Clinton seems on-track to win the nomination in spite of not being as committed on this issue as Sanders is. But it's really clear that the Republican zombies have to be stopped. That means voting for whoever is the major-party candidate running against the Republican nominee.
Thus, if Hilary is the nominee, I will enthusiastically support her.
But I'm really glad I voted for Bernie, adding to the "yes doing something about climate change is politically expedient" pressure.
no subject
I've only ever voted for one Republican candidate, and that was Arnold Swarzenegger for his reelection bid. He did a really good job as governor here. (Okay, when I felt the election results from California wouldn't matter, I'd also write in Richard Nixon when I could, because he at least had previous job experience, and, heck, Watergate was incredibly mild in comparison to what goes on now.)
no subject
The only disadvantage of Sanders is that he might lose in the general election. Certainly it will be "interesting" if it's Cruz vs. Sanders -- the most conservative sitting senator vs. the most liberal sitting senator.
If you really care about a specific issue, write to your representatives every six months or so and encourage your friends to do so. They really do watch the mail, because they know that what people write about they're very likely to vote about.