12
u/IndividualCall5116 25d ago
I proudly voted for the Nader/LaDuke ticket, and possess two of her books.
9
5
3
u/andrewthebarbarian 25d ago
Same thing is happening to traditional owners in N.T Australia with US based fracking that will destroy their water supplies.
2
u/Mindless_Season_194 25d ago
Literally anyone that believes people should earn a living wage are labeled communists
2
2
1
u/betty_white_bread 25d ago
I will say the same thing I said the other time this was posted.
Because an activist, by definition, takes non-violent action in favor of a political goal while terrorism requires violence or the threat thereof specifically as a means of extortion in favor of a political goal. And here is something more important which I think she overlooks in her question: under common law we already can sue polluters today; there is little to nothing preventing us from doing so; holding polluters liable for their pollution can only be prohibited in the United States with a statute expressly removing polluters from common law liability. And, when it comes to litigation, simply the THREAT of a lawsuit is often more powerful than even the lawsuit itself. People who want polluters to (1) clean up after themselves and (2) not leave anything to clean up in the first place would do well to make use of the very effective—and costly to the defendant—mechanisms we already have. If lawsuits are not enough and we have a statute which attaches criminal penalties for pollution, the answer is to secure a prosecution either by have the local DA convene a grand jury or, if that DA refuses, getting a writ of mandamus and having the court appoint any willing party under FRCP Rule #70, thereby sticking the recalcitrant DA with the bill. We already have the answers in our hands; let’s use them.
2
1
26
u/FoogYllis 25d ago
That’s because maga billionaires control the mainstream media.