RE: https://discuss.systems/@kali/115938577136219335

list of people who have supported any of this nonsense. just so that you know:

- practically the entire #USgreens party
- jill stein
- caitlin johnstone
- jeffrey sachs
- peter turchin
- jem bendell
- leon simons
- simon micheaux
- nate […]

#unlearn #helplessness and do not waste one moment of time on #USDemocrats, a party of learned helplessness & distracted diluted non response. It is not an option. In fact you always had #USGreens, #nination #secession parties, #Communist options & even #USLibertarian candidates. In #RCV states too.

Original post on discuss.systems

and for the #USgreens #libertarians #anarchists #nonvoters.

let me tell you a little secret only #enviromentalists know:

#capitalism is on it's way out, ok. as in it does not have much time left on this earth. it is eating itself. there are many different models to think about it and almost […]

i am not even sure if a connection to the #european #greens can ever be reestablished to be perfectly honest.

we feel SO betrayed and it wont go away, not when trump is gone, not when the war ends it is over.

#USgreens

I was talking to a number of Palestinians to do media projects. Bluesky deleted all of their accounts. I don't see myself here much longer. I'm at Mastodon under a different name.

If you get to read this, please come to Mastodon. #FreePalestine #USGreens #Gaza #PSL #Mastodon #Resistance #Intifada

#USDemocrats will never be anti-Israel ENOUGH. #USGreens need to take the hard position to #EndZionism and #EndNazism together and ruthlessly.

#USpoli

The correct response is for Europeans to support #Calexit, other decentralizing and secession movements, #USGreens and others who want to evolve the USA to a more sane federation more like Canada or Europe itself: one currency and army but diverse policies re social/family and infrastructure.

i hope in the near future when #trump is gone ALL you guys will remember what has been said by whom and when and who turned out to be a fucking traitor, putting a knife in the back of their entire community.

#USPOL

the only one in the room who ALWAYS, i mean ALWAYS insist on their #moralehighround are you dumb #USgreens anti #renewables #degrowth bitches. just constant bitching and complaining on everything possible is all that has ever been coming from YOU guys.

0 self awareness. 0.

i am so angry at my #doomer ex-comrades and i feel i can't let go. political betrayal is just the worst from of betrayal, you can't forgive. never.

#environmentalism #accelerationists #USgreens #doomers

i can just never forgive them, ever.

#USgreens

Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe Reveal Putin “Was Counting on a Trump Win” It’s funny, reading the two rehashes of the 2017 ICA that John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard released in the last weeks. There are parallels and common judgments between them (probably in part because the CIA one was limited to “CIA materials provided to congressional oversight investigations”). Both say the confidence level for the judgment that Putin “aspired” to help then-candidate Donald Trump win the election was too high. Both say John Brennan big-footed the process in a problematic way. Both complain about the short timeline. Both complain that “the highest classified version of the ICA had been shared with more than 200 US officials;” neither acknowledge that that was neither anticipated nor, presumably, the fault of Obama appointees, who were long-gone by the time Trump’s appointees disseminated it that broadly (and in fact other documents Tulsi released suggest that ICA drafters intentionally planned a less-classified version to be disseminated at that level, to avoid the problem Trump’s appointees complain about). Both complain about how the Steele dossier was added as an appendix, though (as I’ll show in a follow-up) they’re inconsistent about how they claim it was. But there are differences. the document from Ratcliffe — who released the first of the SRV documents contemporaneously with the HPSCI report that obsessed about them — doesn’t appear to mention them at all. The two reports treat three pieces of intelligence on which the “aspired” judgment was based differently (the CIA one may not treat one of the HPSCI complaints at all). As I’ll note in my main post on the HPSCI report, CIA treats one document that HPSCI considers problematic _as reliable_ but compartmented in a way that made inclusion problematic. Perhaps the most interesting detail you get from reading both in tandem pertains to one phrase in a document about which “a senior CIA operations officer observed, ‘We don’t know what was meant by that’ and ‘five people read it five ways,'” basically, about whether that phrase hade been read the correct way. As of a few weeks ago, in Ratcliffe’s report, the CIA was still trying to protect this intelligence, but not Tulsi. She declassified most of four pages of discussion about the phrase, with information about the access — the source was well-established, had authoritative access to something but second-hand access to this information, but for some reason the CIA was not able to clarify what the source meant by the phrase. The HPSCI Report complains that the ICA didn’t note that this person had an “anti-Trump bias” (emphasis original). And Tulsi declassified what the intelligence said (even though she hadn’t in the less classified version of the ICA she had released a day earlier). > Putin had made this decision [to leak DNC emails in July] after he had come to believe that the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory. The HPSCI memo goes on to complain that Brennan included this. It invents a number of other readings this could have meant, besides that Putin wanted to help Trump win. Maybe Putin _expected_ Trump to win, in July 20216 when no one else did? Maybe Putin counted on a Trump win _at the RNC_? They even tried to undermine the intelligence by claiming that all the things Putin did to tamper in the election could have served the other goals he also had. > None of the confirmed activities — leaks, public statements, social media messaging, and traditional propaganda — corroborate the ICA interpretation of the fragment, because these activities were all consistent with Putin’s objectives to undermine faith in US democracy, without regard for candidate Trump’s fate. Putin approved the DNC leak because he was counting on Trump to win, the fragment said, and HPSCI Republicans want to believe that maybe Putin just wanted to undermine faith in democracy. Well, anyway, as I said, Ratcliffe didn’t declassify any of _that_. He did send analysts back to review the underlying intelligence, and here’s what they said. > The DA Review examined the underlying raw intelligence and confirmed that the clause was accurately represented in the serialized report, and that the ICA authors’ interpretation of its meaning was most consistent with the raw intelligence. And Ratcliffe also backs the quality of the source behind this claim. > The DA Review does not dispute the quality and credibility of the highly classified CIA serialized report that the ICA authors relied on to drive the “aspired” judgment. So between them, Tulsi and Ratcliffe provided us something genuinely new. According to a reliable but ambiguous intelligence fragment, CIA got intelligence that said Putin approved the DNC hack-and-leak campaign “because he was counting on” Trump’s victory. Share this entry

y'all might have forgotten but i remember and i will never forgive.

www.emptywheel.net/2025/07/25/tulsi-gabbard...

#tulsigabbard #jillstein #USgreens

Unintended Consequences in a Complex World * * * LISTEN ON SPOTIFY LISTEN ON APPLE PODCASTS LISTEN ON OTHER PLATFORMS * * * * * * #### **Frankly 91 April 18th, 2025** #### **Description** As current events continue to accelerate around us, there is no better time to pause and view the rapid changes unfolding around us through a broader, systemic perspective. It’s only by slowing down and adopting this holistic lens that we can begin to meaningfully prepare for what lies ahead. In this short edition of _Frankly_ , Nate dives into the theme of unintended consequences across energy, environmental issues, and social movements. Through this lens, we understand the importance of looking two or three steps ahead of today’s actions and see the - sometimes unwanted - ripple effects in the future. Why are some movements facing backlash in today’s political landscape, despite decades of progress and education? What lessons can we draw from these outcomes to become more effective agents of change? And how do we stay grounded in humility and openness as we navigate further unexpected consequences in the future? (Recorded April 16, 2025) #### **Show Notes** PDF Transcript 00:07 - What Can’t Happen, What Won’t Happen, What Might Happen Frankly 90 01:05 - Peak Oil (TGS episode with Art Berman) 01:08 - Shale Oil 01:32 - The Carbon Pulse (Frankly 44) 02:20 - WEF (World Economic Forum) 02:24 - Net Zero 03:17 - Wokeness 03:30 - U.S. Native and Minority Populations 03:57 - 2024 Election of Donald Trump 04:30 - Foreign Students Studying in the U.S. Fear Deportation 04:56 - Harvard University 05:12 - U.S. Pulling Out of War in Ukraine 05:41 - Russia's Natural Resources

@anlomedad there you go.

www.thegreatsimplification.com/frankly-original/91-unin...

the US green are cooked and the german green just don't want to hear it.

Original post on mastodon.social

i just need to enter these names in the search here to find the usual, privileged, white male dudebros sharing this antiscience tinfoil hattery.

dimitry orlov
jill stein
jeffrey sachs
nate hagens
art berman
jem bendell
simon michaux
caitlyn johnstone
nina turner
tulsi gabbard
roger waters
the […]

Original post on mastodon.social

so if you ever promote any of these ever again, you seem slow, ignorant, didn't do your research and i don't need that in my life and hece am just. not. interested.

dimitry orlov
jill stein
jeffrey sachs
nate hagens
art berman
jem bendell
simon micheaux
caitlyn johnstone
nina turner
tulsi […]

here is a list in case you cant use google.

dimitry orlov
jill stein
jeffrey sachs
nate hagens
art berman
jem bendell
simon micheaux
caitlyn johnstone
nina turner
tulsi gabbard
roger waters

there are probably 300 more i forgot about

#degrowth #climatecrisis #russianassets

like literally had 1000000000000 reasons to diss the #dems and what are they going for: #zelensky & #woke of all issues.

literally brainwashed by the kreml.

#USgreens

one might think that the #USgreens are trying to be less of a #russianasset after all that happened now, but they are doubling down. i should make a list of names that i just never want to even accidentally scroll over ever again.

jeffrey sachs is also a person that should just shut to fuck up.

if you don't want me to blow the fuck out every time #natehagens or #jillstein opens their mouths make them STFU.

Jill Stein Campaign Manager Argues Electing Trump Was ‘Better Outcome’ Than Harris and ‘Re-Electing Genocide’ A campaign manager of Jill Stein argued that despite the faults of President Donald Trump, things would have been worse under Kamala Harris.

the audacity of this dumb bitch.

#jillstein #usgreens #itoldyouso

www.mediaite.com/news/jill-stein-campaign...

😑

#USgreens #deepgreen #deepadaption #justcollapse #talkcollapse #collapse

so you just found out that the #russiantolls you guys accumulated on your feed don't really like you. my god. who could have possibly predicted that one!!! the learning process. it's almost interesting. almost.

#natehagens #USgreens

there we go. they have gone officially insane.

#natehagens #deepadaption #USgreens

#USGreens #Israel

Green Party: Walz is no leader on climate change Green Party leaders challenged the perception of vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz as a leader in the climate crisis and said Gov. Walz's place on the Democratic ticket signaled that a Harris admin...

#USGreens noted that the #Walz administration in #MN approved a state permit for the controversial tar sands crude oil #Line3Pipeline in 2020, after Walz had campaigned against it in his 2017 run for governor." #Environment #FossilFuels

www.gp.org/green_party_.... #USGreenParty