I'll never understand this. You live on this planet! Why wouldn't you want it to be livable, you goddamn FOOL!
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
187 points (99.5% liked)
politics
30163 readers
3228 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There’s a lot of video of Reagan talking about climate change and how it will need to have both side to work on it, that it will be the major 20th century problem, etc. … and the edge fund (fully invested into petroleum) saw it as an attack on their profit and bought the politicians.
Did a DDG search for video and came up empty. Articles - plenty. Video - nothing. You?
https://climatecontroljournal.com/did-ronald-reagan-think-that-the-earth-was-warming.html
That’s just for a quick search
There’s so much more profit to be made if you exploit the environment, and the oligarchs plan on the consequences not catching up to them before they die of old age. (At least, not any consequences they can’t buy their way out of.)
It makes me so sad seeing nature being destroyed for fucking profit. I can't even put it into words
It's so incredibly shallow and awful. They don't even seem to give a shit about their own offspring.
Narcissism is a plague
laissez-faire capitalism doens't actually work if externalities need to be factored in the price
Laissez-faire capitalism is a cancer.
It's also impossible, since it has two contradictory meanings: a market with no regulations, and a market free from barriers to entry. But an unregulated market will always degenerate to an oligopoly, and oligopolists always end up rigging their markets.
That's why my definition of a libertarian is someone who doesn't understand second-order effects. Their whole world view is doggy-doggy horsey-horsey linear relations. It's even dumber than being crudely mechanistic.
For all of my life, the cons basically coded caring about the environment, about animals, as being gay. I don't think it was ever otherwise.
I've been vegetarian for decades, now, too, and I knew pretty much what to expect, and I can assure you - virtually every omnivore man (and quite a few women, too) more or less eventually gets around to insinuating that I am not quite manly enough because of it.
And not just cons, but yeah, virtually all of the cons do this. Just watch how the likes of Jesse Watters focuses on things like crossing legs, FFS. There are certain types of men (and women, too, unfortunately - they don't get a pass on this either) that will just obsess on this kind of thing, nonstop. They are constantly running their weird version of gaydar on all kinds of behaviors, including caring about the environment.
republicants really and truly don't have a damn thing to actually campaign on. this kind of shit is all they got.
Yeah, but men in women's sports and men in the girl locker room and men in the women's bathroom and transgender for everybody!!!!
Not "A woman". A specific woman. If you read the first line of the post, it's conflating him with AOC. So they put his face on AOC.
a congress full of 'aoc' types? hell yea, bring it.
I know, right?
Indeed.
She's (very) attractive AND smart so of course the cons think comparing someone to her is an insult, LOL.
It's sour grapes.
It makes me laugh because they always want to pretend that all liberal women are unattractive, overweight, screaming harpies with blue hair and a septum nose ring and are childless cat ladies {and insert whatever other stereotypes here}, etc...
Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever seen a more attractive woman in politics than AOC. I mean, she's almost impossibly attractive. And they are absolutely fixated on trashing her as often as they can.
I think the cognitive dissonance is crushing them. 🤣
The GOP playing to their incel base.
These fuckwits have absolutely lost it but I honestly prefer them just being out in the open with it instead of the false pretenses of good Christian boys like before.
Greggy certainly rubbed one out to him before posting that.
Yes.
Is this the author's first interaction with wingers?
That's also why they are trying to claim he's vegan.
If you don't eat meat, that means you are gay or a woman. Either one is bad if you are expected to be a "real man", obvs. If you don't eat meat, you'll be a soy boy and probably your penis falls off. It's just science.
Caring about anything but sportsball or hunting/fishing or trying to score with women or customizing your ride or whatever is going to put you in the running for being not manly.
So caring about the environment = you are gay or a woman.
So caring about the environment = you are gay or a woman.
I'd love to have seen someone try that line of reasoning on Teddy Roosevelt.
He probably would get a pass since he liked to shoot animals. If he was vegan and a defender of the environment - that would definitely mean he's gay.
As an ALPHA MALE I WAS going to Vote for Talarico but THIS picture PROVES I should vote PAXTON instead! He'll bring RESPECT to the Office!
Probably a lot of magats aroused by this pic. Which is totally cool, but they should definitely love themselves and others more for it
Oh it was a face-merge with AOC; like what folks have done with Charlie Kirk.
Though they DID also force-feminize Talarico with whatever the hell this is <-- Warning: Very Transphobic
This has nothing on what folks have done with Kirk
What, are they implying that that's his heaven?
The takeaway is to stop focusing on cis het white men as the only viable option. Republicans will always freak out and say outlandishly bigoted things, there is no controlling it. So stop catering to it.
To the Guardians of Pedos, there's not much worse than a woman so yeah...
I grew up near a kid that had a lot of very warped and demented views and behaviors, but he really thrived on calling everyone he didn't like "a woman" during a few years in junior/senior high school.
He'd say "don't be such a woman" with extreme disdain.
Okay, so he's a kid of a certain age and upbringing right? And this was the 80s. You know, whatever. However, his mother would say the same shit. And this kid's younger sister.
My mother was doing everything not to scream at this lady, LOL...they were nearly the same age, and old enough to know how much worse things used to be for women. Apparently this other woman did not give a fuck; she wanted to prop up the patriarchy...
Ironically, this accentuates his masculine facial features.
The Nazis said that a lot of things (flat-roofed houses, quantum physics, sans-serif typefaces and then fraktur typefaces) were “Jewish” and thus had no place in the Reich. The MAGA equivalent seems to be “trans”
One of the first things attacked under the Nazis was trans.
So this is the equivalent of the Nazi attacks on trans.
The famous book burnings? That was a trans thing.
So yeah, this round of conservatives are not all that creative; they are following in the steps of their forebears.
TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS are you voting for us yet? TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS TRANS how about now? TRANS TRANS TRANS
Yeah, no kidding. It's such a tired argument they are making.
They found all the bathroom bills brouhaha worked for them, though, as they were losing the gay marriage thing, so they really doubled down on it. They've been harping on the trans thing for ten years now?
I'd do him. Or her. Or them.
And all that caring about the environment gives me the horn.