• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle
    1. No self posts.

    I strongly think this rule should change, it is important we are able to humanize each other, make our own arguments. Self posts are important way to do that. I think some guidelines to keep it constructive and high effort is warranted but an outright ban I’m against.

    1. No meme/image/shitposting.

    I’m fine with this, but maybe a weekly mega thread to blow off steam in would be healthy?

    No calls for violence. Full stop.

    I understand the legal obligations here. I’ll also point out the president elect is openly calling for widespread violence. If some can say “cops should shoot/arrest/deport <xyz>” that is a call for violence.

    Mods, You have a hard, thankless job, so thank you.







  • I’m not American or weighing in on this, but I don’t think country is a legal term nor mutually exclusive with being a territory. England is a country despite being governed by the UK. Greenland is the same.

    If we look at the wiki for Country

    A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term “country” may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.[1][2][3][4] Most sovereign states, but not all countries, are members of the United Nations.[5] There is no universal agreement on the number of “countries” in the world since several states have disputed sovereignty status, limited recognition and a number of non-sovereign entities are commonly considered countries.[6][5]

    The definition and usage of the word “country” are flexible and have changed over time. The Economist wrote in 2010 that “any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies.”[7]

    Again, I am not making a claim about whether PR is a country specifically, just that being a territory does not disqualify it.


  • Unless I’ve missed something harris says she does not support a ban on fracking not that she wants to expand fracking. That’s an important distinction, as opposing fracking is not the same thing as supporting a ban.

    I think the article you linked contains An error, if you click through to the polling itself, you find this:

    More than four in ten (42%) Pennsylvanians support an outright ban on fracking.

    More importantly:

    Six in ten (60%) Democrats, 38% of independents, and even a quarter (26%) of Republicans support an outright ban.

    So among independents and Republicans support is actually quite low.

    Opinion time:

    So in my opinion harris stance seems to align more with the dominant view on fracking, that it should be discouraged but not outright banned and is especially a winner among independents.

    From a wider perspective, I think building up solar and wind has greater impact and takes less political willpower (later on in that polling you can see wind and solar are supported by 90+% of people). so i think harris is making a smart choice long term. Fracking doesn’t make economic sense in a world with established solar and wind infrastructure as even a small drop in demand can push fracking into unprofitable territory.

    You can see this somewhat in the current administration, people like environmentally friendly policy when it isn’t framed as environmental policy. There is a reason the biggest us climate bill ever is called the inflation reduction act and not the ghg reduction act.