josef

[josef @joesev]

@CowcatEsq @RepAngieCraig Those are strawman arguments. I never said mining shouldn't exist anywhere. The point is specific: sulfide-ore copper mining has a 100% pollution rate, and this one sits upstream of America's most visited wilderness. That's worth opposing on its own merits. Please reconsider

[josef @joesev]

@CowcatEsq @RepAngieCraig It's an example of what sulfide-ore copper mining does to waterways everywhere it's been done. 100% of these mines have resulted in acid mine drainage. That is what the picture is of. The proposed Twin Metals site sits in the watershed that feeds directly into the Boundary Waters

[josef @joesev]

@PMiller3205 @Ilhan The pollution will be - that is the point of the protections in this area

[josef @joesev]

@JLBnEspi @babylon_slim @RWPUSA It was formed by a bipartisan initiative. You are blinded by partisanship and have lost touch with logic, always searching for the talking point. Sad

[josef @joesev]

@hwy12guy @KellyMorrisonMN The pollution will be

[josef @joesev]

@mitcheyman33 @BamjcastA @amyklobuchar Mining is not sustainable like tourism. What will you tell your grandchildren when they need to move due to the mine being closed and tourism declining as a result of 500 years of irreversible pollution?

[josef @joesev]

@RepPeteStauber Absurd use of scripture

[josef @joesev]

@mitcheyman33 @amyklobuchar It’s in the watershed. Every mine of this type in existence has resulted in pollution in nearby watershed without exception

[josef @joesev]

@plastikspork @dawsonsmith4 @CoryPowPow88 @Ilhan The effects on the mine will be in the BWCA. Can you post to clarify that while the mine will not technically be in the BWCA, the pollution will? If you don’t, I question your focus on accurate information.

[josef @joesev]

@JLBnEspi Two wrongs don’t make a right. There should be protected spaces in an increased polluted world. Where do you hold the line? This space belongs to all of our children and should not be polluted.

[josef @joesev]

@bfkallio @Ilhan The pollution will be IN the BWCA. Your semantic argument is unneeded and is on equal footing of the opposite propaganda. Why not qualify it further by saying “the mine won’t be in the BWCA, only the pollution will”

If that’s true why lift the moratorium at all.

[josef @joesev]

@JLBnEspi Change your profile photo

[The Wild North @TheWildNorthTV]

Today we rage and mourn, tomorrow we continue the fight to protect our pristine public wilderness. This is Clare from Sawbill Canoe Outfitters, who sends hundreds of wilderness-seekers safely into the #BWCA every season. And she’s my neighbor. https://t.co/pNdXyBcglB

[josef @joesev]

@bfkallio @Ilhan As its turns out water moves, and in this case directly into the BWCA. 100% of these mines have pollution. Not a single one has not resulted in pollution. Change your profile photo Brian

[josef @joesev]

@bigfattysmooth @amyklobuchar Incorrect

[josef @joesev]

@CoryGenelin @RepAngieCraig Agreed, the exact placement is irrelevant. It affects the watershed of the BWCA. This is not good for the BWCA

[josef @joesev]

@hwy12guy @RepAngieCraig Its exact placement is irrelevant. It directly affects the watershed of the BWCA.

[josef @joesev]

@CowcatEsq @RepAngieCraig It affects the watershed in the BWCA. Its exact placement is irrelevant

[Dean Phillips @deanbphillips]

Kudos to the Young Dems and Young Republicans of Connecticut for showing America how we move forward from these dark days.