No, Harris said she wouldn’t ban it - that’s not the same. Part of the reason we’ve ramped up production in the US is to stabilize global energy prices that were wildly climbing after Russia invaded Ukraine. If we hadn’t, there would be much broader global pressure on Ukraine to capitulate and cede part of its territory to Russia.

If she’d said in the debate that she’d support banning fracking, it would have sent global oil prices spiraling upwards just on the threat of it.

We get Putin out of Ukraine, we can start stepping away from fracking. But a permanent ban is unlikely for just this reason we find ourselves in now - geopolitical events may mean we have to do it again in an emergency. Without such an emergency there’s still a lot we can do to stop it outside extreme situations.

Yeah, I suppose that could be it. Also, I don’t think that people realize that if a major party candidate called for a ban on fracking with the on-going war in Ukraine still an issue, it would send energy prices across the world skyrocketing. One of the whole reasons we’ve been ramping up production in the US is to stabilize oil prices.

Yet another reason it would be really nice if Republicans quit playing games about aid and support for Ukraine. The quicker Russia withdraws troops, the quicker we can step away from fracking.

Um, the Democrats stopped a pro fracking bill…

Pretty sure they’re referring to individual donations where those companies are the employer.

Thanks! I can get a little snarky sometimes but generally assume adding more information to a discussion is more helpful than not. :)

But the whole point is that they are here “legally”, so Vance is just telling more lies and is going to get people hurt or killed.

My fingers are crossed that he and Trump lose and the voters of Ohio turn on him, and then we never have to hear from him again.

“blue maga”

Oh, you’re one of those. Figures.

You mentioned donations, not me.

Sure, let me just Google that for you…

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-launched-pro-jill-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-green-party-presidential-candidate-cooperates-in-russia-probe-into-2016-election

https://ballotpedia.org/Jill_Stein_presidential_campaign,_2016/Russia

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-allies-jill-stein-green-party-democrats-ballots-battleground-states/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/10/metro/jill-stein-new-hampshire-ballot-republican-help/

So no thoughts on perennial sorta kinda candidate Stein making the Green Party a laughingstock then? Or the fact that with her campaign only surviving with the help of GOP operatives and Russian propaganda campaigns, she’s actually making it harder to take third party candidates seriously at any level of government?

Not true when it comes to Congressional races. I did a post a couple days ago about a bill that three Dems just introduced https://lemmy.world/post/19772020

I would suggest you do your own research, but she’s run several times, has no real experience or qualifications, and has been shown multiple times to be benefiting (either knowingly or unknowingly) from both GOP operatives and Russian interference.

Personally I fully support third parties - if they do more than just show up as spoilers every four years. Jill Stein has been doing zilch to push the Green Party forward except in presidential election years. And as a result she’s doing more harm to folks who want more options than not.

Yeah, to be relevant they need to win some elections in large cities and state legislatures. That would be the base necessary to start winning congressional seats and then work up from there. Because the Jill Stein narcissism tour every four years is clearly doing more harm than good.

And it would be the best thing in the world for the Dems. They need cogent and real opposition and right now they’re just running against crazies - which is important, but doesn’t do much for establishing an agenda. A functional Green Party would actually help pull the Dems back more to the left.

Thank goodness - I thought maybe I was the only one who saw that!

Yahoo News is an aggregator, so difficult to gauge. The source of this particular article is a site called semafor.com.

I’d never heard of it before so looked into it - Check out the section on China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semafor_(website)

Too true. I have however noted to the admins/makers of the bot that links like this (also the New York Times and others) often include “/opinion/“ in the URL so it should be fairly straightforward and easy to at least address those. Low hanging fruit and all that.

While I don’t have a problem with this article in particular, the MBFC bot is still not making a distinction between opinion pieces and news articles which is problematic.

How do you think legislation happens? This isn’t just “three people”, this is a sitting Democratic Senator and two Democratic Reps. All with long histories in the party. Hell, Beyer was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. These aren’t nobodies.

And they’re not just “saying that they’d like to do something”, this is actual legislation that was submitted in both the House and Senate. These kinds of bills may have to be introduced a number of times before they pass but Dems are the only ones doing the work to at least try and if nothing else keep the issue alive and active as a discussion.

This is how the legislative process works all over the world, and if you can’t or won’t bother to understand that, than I can’t imagine there’s anything else really for us to talk about.

Not quite.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-3/ALDE_00013640/

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

The 24th amendment was a special case as it only applied to federal elections (so technically state office elections could still have a poll tax). There was also a question of voter qualification being outside the generally interpreted meaning of “times, places, and manner” so a statute wouldn’t be enough, but an amendment would.

RCV I think could generally be understood to be covered under “manner” and so Congress can do that without amendment for Congressional races.