this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
268 points (98.6% liked)

politics

20461 readers
2566 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 38 points 9 months ago (2 children)

“Arizona” in the headline meaning some mining company and not all the people who live, work, and enjoy that region.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The article says Arizona, as in the government of Arizona. Bought out by mining companies? Absolutely, I'm sure. But it is still Arizona.

[–] jaybone 1 points 9 months ago

Haven’t companies in Arizona and New Mexico been doing this since the 1940s when the federal government and military was developing the first nuclear bombs?

[–] Boddhisatva 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Earlier this year, Arizona lawmakers sued the Biden administration over the newly created Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni

....

If successful, Arizona’s lawsuit would open Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni to more economic development, and specifically, livestock grazing and uranium mining.

The headline in no way implied that everyone in the state wants it. A reasonable reader would clearly assume that the state government wants it, and that is true. The lawmakers of the state of Arizona are suing the federal government so they can allow new uranium mines on tribal lands.

[–] Maggoty -3 points 9 months ago

Some lawmakers. Because with Democrats swiping state wide offices, lawsuits are about the only power they have left.

[–] NatakuNox 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We don't need more uranium. We have enough high quality uranium just sitting on top of enough missiles to destroy humanity 30x over. Let's use that uranium before digging more up.

[–] partial_accumen 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

We have enough high quality uranium just sitting on top of enough missiles to destroy humanity 30x over. Let’s use that uranium before digging more up.

We actually were for a couple of decades! It was started under Bush Sr and Gorbechev as the START I and START II agreement. source

During that time the USA and Soviet Union (and then Russia) agreed to dismantle a whole bunch of bombs and de-rate the nuclear material into civilian grade nuclear fuel. For decades the former warheads slowly burned up in American (and other countries) civilian nuclear reactors. It was one of the most hopeful things I ever saw from humanity. Growing up in the 80s we were sure we were going to die from nuclear ICBMs, and here were that same nuclear material safely breaking apart for our civilian electricity.

Then Putin happened, and all that stopped.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

They've got uranium fever.