144
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Azal@pawb.social 13 points 4 months ago

I remember a time when I thought Captain Planet villains were hyperbole.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Ah, so we're upping the ante to Extinction Cult now? This is over the top cartoon villainy. 'If God wanted those animals they wouldn't be in-" shutthefuckup

[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

"States' Rights." The old reliable excuse for doing heinous shit.

[-] massacre@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

GOP putting the "Conservation" back into "Conservative" again...

/s just in case

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Since its passing, the ESA has been credited for saving 99 percent of its listed wildlife including bald eagles, peregrine falcons, grizzly bears, humpback whales, and numerous other species crucial to the U.S. and global ecosystem.

Tony Carrk, Executive Director of investigative Accountable.US, a progressive nonprofit research group, says that his team has observed Leo and his network attempt to “take over the courts, but also expand his reach in this far right, extreme conservative agenda that is intended to put more power in the hands of big corporations.”

In 2022, Leo’s 85 Fund donated $150,000 to the Heritage Foundation — the conservative Washington think tank that is leading Project 2025, which is meant to function as Republicans’ policy road map if they win back the White House this year.

The agenda says Congress should “take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations.”

Leo’s 85 Fund also gave $200,000 in 2022 to the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a right-wing outfit that touts itself as “nonpartisan” while slamming ESA regulations seen as an impediment to fossil fuel companies.

When discussing legislative opposition to the ESA, Robert Dewey, Defenders of Wildlife’s vice president of government relations, emphasizes how the law was grounded in science, not politics.


The original article contains 996 words, the summary contains 227 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
144 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19096 readers
2554 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