Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Maybe instead of being a dick, you could just answer my non-rhetorical question.
As someone in STEM, how can I support a UCP nominee who doesn't believe in the science of climate change?
This has nothing to do with the NDP. This is on the UCP. Provide me with a fiscal conservative, socially liberal, Alberta-first candidate and it's a shoe-in. But the UCP has catered to the lowest common denominator but it's my fault for bringing this up instead of blindly voting for terrible candidates?
And now I need to decide between voting for a party candidate I disagree with, wasting my vote on a party that can't get majority, or a candidate that is willfully and proudly ignorant that he doesn't believe in science.
|
I don't really know anything about the claims made re:climate change by UCP, but for argument's sake, lets assume they are dumb and as bad as you think.
I'm not trying to convince you re:UCP, but as a voter, you're really going to discount an entire party and the other 1000 policies they have over one fact you disagree with? No party will align perfectly with one person, but seems a bit short sighted to use one belief (that literally likely has the least tangible impact on provincial policy of any) and make your decision on that?
Its like last time when all the people who went bat**** over the GS-alliances issue even though it impacts like 5 people per district, meanwhile we've completely glossed over much more important issues as voters.
Even if you're in STEM, there are a whole host of policies and economic impacts that provincial parties can have, climate change is pretty low on the totem pole for provincial politics impacting.
Congrats NDP, we wasted millions/billions of dollars by closing our coal plants early, all while China builds more plants in a month than we'll close in total.