this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
61 points (85.9% liked)

politics

19096 readers
4753 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
 

I think they do a pretty good job of holding his feet to the fire here. I'm not always a fan of the NY Times, but they do ride him pretty hard about his past statements.

Archive link: https://archive.is/SDntW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It’s very creepy. She’s definitely being nice to him. He’s desperately trying to come across as relatable and it’s not working.

**Sorry, I just want to clarify something. So women who don’t have children because they’re worried about climate change, that’s sociopathic? **

I think that is a bizarre way of thinking about the future. Not to have kids because of concerns over climate change? I think the more bizarre thing is our leadership, who encourages young women, and frankly young men, to think about it that way. Bringing life into the world has totally transformed the way that I think about myself, the way that I think about my wife. I mean, watch your grandparents interact with grandchildren — it is, like, a transformatively positive and good thing for there to be children in the world. And if your political philosophy is saying, don’t do that because of concerns over climate change? Yeah, I think that’s a really, really crazy way to think about the world.

Why isn’t everyone like me? That’s how the world should be. Unbothered by the extinction of all plant and animal life caused by rampant pollution and violently unsustainable industries which I will fight for during this critical time. Also, ain’t kids a hoot? Oh man, my kids make me just like Jesus. Whoops. Don’t print that.

[–] esc27@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The question is about a scenario where a person selflessly decides not to have kids because of how doing so would subject them to a worse quality of life and add to the demands we put on the planet.

His answer (as quoted here) selfishly explains how kids can enrich the lives of those around them, but does not discuss the experience of the kids at all.

And that's pretty much the whole conservative mindset... other people only matter if they can be used to your benefit. (I don't think i quite got that until just now...)

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

He’s a walking definition of “anecdotal evidence”.

Also, Trump and Musk have a fuck ton of kids & they haven’t learned shit.