this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
130 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4157 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 30 points 2 months ago

It should be one of patriotism considering the u s military a literally labeled climate change as our greatest existential threat.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago

I really liked her framing in this part of the speech. Another speaker said it similarly earlier in the week.

The Republicans fight for freedom of corporations to be deregulated and pollute our environment with reckless abandon.

The Democrats are fighting for freedom of people to live and be safe in their home environment. Safe to drink water, safe to breathe the air.

Highlighting the differences in how each party conceives of the notion of freedom could be a huge deciding factor in this election, and for that matter I think it’s critical for Dems to reclaim usage of the word from the republicans who have disfigured its meaning almost beyond recognition.

[–] HWK_290@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I mean, why not? The current tactic of making the catastrophic severity of climate change abundantly clear doesn't seem to be working on the ignorant American public, or even their homes sliding into the sea or being consumed by wildfires. Whatever works

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 5 points 2 months ago

I've thought for a while that the way to get assholes to change their mind is to appeal to stuff they already believe. They don't care about the environment or children. Arguing for that stuff isn't going to land. But if you tell them that like only AMERICA has the POWER to SAVE THE WORLD via TERRA FORMING they're more likely to be like "America fuck yeah!'

Belief is largely social for all of us. Unfortunately some people are kind of stupid and hang out in similarly stupid social groups.

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Glad to see it! I'm tired of MAGA tarnishing terms that have traditionally held a positive connotation.

[–] don@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

While I’m sure it’s possible, there’s little one can do to be more pro-corporation and less patriotic than be a republican.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They sure are sounding a lot like Republicans with all this talk of patriot and waving USA signs.

[–] silence7 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

OMG patriotism doesn't have to involve treason

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, but it does involve blind loyalty, which allows politicians to get away with a bunch of shit

[–] silence7 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lol no. Remember here: Democrats just forced a sitting President to not run for re-election

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The donor class forced a sitting president to not run for re election..

[–] silence7 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

He could have told the big money folks to piss off if he had popular support. He didn't

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He didn't have popular support.

[–] silence7 1 points 2 months ago

Exactly what I was saying, though I had a typo where I substituted "of" for "if"

[–] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This doesn't make any sense - fighting climate change isn't some local effort where if you suddenly stop doing CO2 emissions in your country, the country becomes suddenly safe. There needs to be a radical global cooperation for this, there's no place for patriotism here (in fact, what needs to be done is closer to cosmopolitanism).

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The key is that it can be both. Pushing the "your kids are screwed" message doesn't seem to be working. If hyping up Americans with patriotic messages gets them moving, I don't see that as a bad thing.

[–] silence7 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, it takes global cooperation, but the US is a very visible prosperous high-emissions country, so showing that it can be done in the US is absolutely critical to enabling global cooperation.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/climate/kamala-harris-climate-strategy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.FE4.KyYy._SrLSNFcKoW1
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support