Former House Dem staffer, currently handling government relations on climate and energy at The Wilderness Society. CT native. Views expressed here are my own.
This is the type of shit that needs no words to troll itself.
This is actually real… he’s really posting infomercials plugging this…
Using America’s 250th Anniversary too…
More like… “As my dad tanks the economy as fast as he can, nothing is more patriotic than getting your hands on some Don Jr Gold to celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary in case it’s our last”
This is SNL material or even better #smokefleet material
BURGUM: Understand -- there are times in North Dakota when the wind does not blow and the sun doesn't shine
KING: Of course. That's where batteries come in
•The U.S. Senate may hold a floor vote TODAY which would overturn a 20-year moratorium on sulfide-ore copper mining on 225,000 acres of Superior National Forest land in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) Wilderness in northern Minnesota. The Boundary Waters is the most visited Wilderness in the United States.
🛶 Enjoying the Minnesotan/Canadian wilderness by canoe or other lesser watercraft is one of our nations greatest available pastimes, and one I have personally enjoyed my entire life. We must protect these public lands from the rapacious capitalists threatening to turn them into a poisoned wasteland.
•This vote in Congress would open the door to copper mining at the headwaters of this entire ecosystem. This kind of mining produces toxic pollution, including acid runoff and heavy metals, that can contaminate nearby waters.
•The Boundary Waters supports a major outdoor economy that sustains thousands of jobs and generates over a billion dollars a year - built on clean water and intact public lands. But this vote would clear the way for toxic mining that puts all of that at risk. It would also set a dangerous precedent, making it easier to roll back protections for public lands across the country, including wilderness areas, national monuments, and national parks.
•This is a defining moment. If you care about clean water, public lands, and protecting places we can’t replace, now is the time to speak up.
•Protect the Boundary Waters, and vote NO on House Joint Resolution 140. Let’s save this treasured place for all of us—forever. https://t.co/JhNAR6Za2O
🎯 Apologists trying to credit Orbán for conceding are intentionally missing the point. He would’ve done anything to stay in power had he thought it possible. Hungarians made it impossible. Trying & failing to destroy democracy receives no credit. He didn't stop; he was stopped.
In Pennsylvania just one court has had to reject the government NINETY TIMES IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS as they kept detaining people “without cause, without notice, and in clear violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
I’m told by another big city DA what’s next: Minneapolis police will arrest the ICE agents who fired the shots and they will be indicted. Qualified immunity only applies if conduct is “reasonable.” This wasn’t.
Okay so,
1) an American citizen exercises his First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and his Second Amendment right to bear arms, out of apparent concern that a tyrannical federal government is violating basic protections afforded under the Constitution
2) after coming to the aid of an unarmed woman who's been shoved to the ground by a masked federal agent, the citizen -- impaired by pepper spray, holding nothing but a cell phone -- is dragged to the ground by a group of other masked agents
3) during the scuffle, shortly after one masked agent removes the weapon from the restrained citizen's person, several other masked agents open fire, unloading 10 shots from close range and killing the unarmed citizen
4) despite video evidence, a spokesman for the federal government says the citizen approached agents with a gun, provoked a violent confrontation, and planned to "massacre" law enforcement
You really want to defend this? Go ahead. Just know, you look like an absolute fool.
@Kodo278155@ThunderousAppl3@BNicDan@CryptKeeper_06@cturnbull1968 The “cop” who threw himself in front of her car despite conflicting orders to “leave” and to “get out of the car”? How do you explain the fact that her wheels were clearly turned away from the officer? Come on. You can’t be this fucking stupid.
@SwipeWright Absolutely braindead take, and anyone who has ever driven a car and turned a wheel would know what you’re saying is absolute horseshit. She was trying to get away.
A six year old is an orphan because the government shot the mom, and now they are lying about it. This conduct will go down in infamy like the govt agents who kidnapped native kids, or those who incarcerated Japanese Americans. Shame, forever.
I don’t think the Trump administration will attack Denmark either. But I don’t for a minute blame Denmark for taking the threats seriously. More importantly, this “oh he’s just threatening to attack a NATO ally in service to his own narcissistic craving for legacy acquisitions, he’ll never actually attack” isn’t the defense some people on this site seem to think it is. It is flat-out *outrageous* and indefensible for an American administration to be saber rattling against a NATO ally in order to intimidate them out of territory.
To be doing this not only in the context of the immediate aftermath of the Venezuela operation but in the broader context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is beyond grotesque.
And I gotta say there are a lot of people who claim to still be Reaganite foreign policy conservatives around here who are awfully silent about this.
@mattyglesias "The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Sierra Club." Not sure it's fair to say this was the position of "green groups" -- the vast, vast majority of them supported the IRA.
I enjoyed your NYT op-ed, but I have some disagreements.
First, I disagree with the way you equate the left and right's "identity politics," as you put it. At its best, the left's version of "identity politics" is a liberal corrective. It's rooted in the civil rights, feminism, and gay rights movements. Each of these is about making good on the Enlightenment's ideals and liberal principles you espoused in your piece.
The right's "identity politics" is the opposite. It's about exclusion, not inclusion. Since it's about bloodline ethno-nationalism, it's fundamentally illiberal. To equate the two as "identity politics" misses this critical distinction, which feels vital to your piece. I would argue that the left's project is necessary in an unequal society that already has racist and sexist structures built in, as well as the legacies left by previous illiberal eras. Regardless, whether you believe in structural racism, your piece obscures some important moral distinctions between these two projects. This seems essential for an op-ed about liberalism.
Second, I've seen many non-white conservatives denounce the rise of Groypers. But where was this energy when the racism, sexism, and homophobia were targeted at Blacks, Latinos, gays, women, and other minorities? They were told to shut up; that this was "woke ideology" gone too far. Just yesterday, the unveiling of the Barbara Rose Johns statue, which replaced the Robert E. Lee statue, was widely criticized here as "wokism." Is that not a natural and logical step to creating the kind of society you said you want to see?
Conservatives have mocked or minimized these concerns and appealed to free speech. But when the attacks are targeted at Indian or Jewish conservatives — which I also think are wrong — suddenly "people need to speak out." I agree that people should speak out against this, but I would also like to see consistency.
My third disagreement, related to the above, is that you treat "American ideals" as uncontroversial and settled. I agree with certain conservatives about one thing: some of our founders would be shocked if they were suddenly dropped in 2025 and learned that their words resulted in a society where Blacks are free, women can vote, and LGBTQ+ people are in government. The liberal ideals you espoused, and I ultimately share, have always been contested and renegotiated through political struggle. The Constitution itself is a record of this process (e.g., 13th and 19th amendments).
Yet, in this last election, you supported Donald Trump, who came into power by stoking white resentment. At the very least, he does not always share your view of what it means to be an American (the very title of the piece). You ask conservatives to disavow the Groypers and "speak out," as you see censorship as an unjustifiable solution to this problem. But have you spoken out about Trump's rhetoric about Somali citizens? Or when conservatives like Randy Fine denigrate Muslims? We are in an ongoing negotiation about what it means to be an American. You ask people to speak out against anti-Indian American hatred, but I wish you would do the same for others.