this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
180 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3480 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

....what? I'm saying the claim that this is a performative gesture to score conservative votes is made up.

But since we're on the center of biological diversity, I'm going to question this site's information too.

Biden Administration Waives Laws to Rush Border Wall Construction Through Texas Wildlife Refuge

Section 2 of the document linked in my post above has the location for the barriers/walls/roads/whatever you want to call it. I noticed that a few of them mention the refuge, but none of them mention going through them - only going up to the border... and that's it.

"useless, medieval wall " - from the site.

Explicitly not what this construction is. This site's motivation is questionable.

[–] Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Multiple news outlets are now reporting that it will, in fact, be going through the refuge based on available mapping.

The government's motivation is questionable.

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

[–] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No. This is the relevant section in your link -

Environmental advocates say structures will run through public lands, habitats of endangered plants and animal species like the ocelot, a spotted wild cat.

“A plan to build a wall through will bulldoze an impermeable barrier straight through the heart of that habitat. It will stop wildlife migrations dead in their tracks. It will destroy a huge amount of wildlife refuge land. And it’s a horrific step backwards for the borderlands,” Laiken Jordahl, a southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Wednesday afternoon.

This is no different than linking to your original source. AP isn't claiming it's going through the refuge. AP is stating that the environmentalists are saying it will. There's a difference

I'm not sure what your contention is... AP is not even supposed to claim anything. They verify information with sources they consider reliable. You can just claim anyone they reference is unreliable.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)