this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024

113 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18854 readers

5287 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.
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.
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

• 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

113

Harris administration would rein in toxic PFAS chemicals, advocates say (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by MicroWave to c/politics

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Records of Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz instill hope that progress under Biden could be extended

Public health advocates are optimistic that a Kamala Harris win in the November presidential election in the US would lead to further regulation of PFAS toxic “forever chemicals”, on which the Biden administration has already taken unprecedented regulatory action.

In part that is based on past actions. Last year, Harris’s running mate, the Minnesota governor, Tim Walz, signed bold legislation prohibiting the use of toxic PFAS across a range of common consumer goods from menstrual products to food packaging – a measure that is considered by public health advocates to be among the “strongest bans in the world”.

Walz worked closely with victims of PFAS pollution as the legislation moved, said Sarah Doll, director of Safer States, which advocates for state-level regulations on toxic chemicals. “He has lived experience with the families … and just having that could bring a deeper understanding of the complexities and the challenges that we face,” Doll said.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -2 points 2 weeks ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/28/pfas-kamala-harris-forever-chemicals

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[+] givesomefucks -9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Her record also is that she's for M4A, now she's not

She used to want to ban fracking, now she doesn't.

She said a border wall would cause a humanitarian crisis, now she's fine with it

We can't count on any position Harris said she held is still being held.

I sure as hell hope she comes out against PFAS, but the way this week is going she's going to say they're really not that bad and holding corporations accountable for their pollution would t make any sense.

[–] Blackbeard 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

She said a border wall would cause a humanitarian crisis, now she’s fine with it

Demonstrably and objectively false. One Axios "article" crafted that wildly misleading headline, right-wing media propagated it, and here you are, dutifully amplifying it.

[–] Wrench 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yep. This is the user that 8 degrees of separation'ed every thread into a "Genocide Joe Bad" rant.

And now they're starting to do it with Harris too, now that talking points are coming out.

Surprise surprise.

[–] themeatbridge 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Hey, you know what? You're right. Politicians change their priorities, and usually it's based on what will earn them the most money or gain them the most power. So we should make it known that this is a priority, and that nobody gets elected without supporting public health.

So what's your plan to do that? ~~Vote for the guy who isn't even pretending to care about it? Because that's a stupid fucking plan.~~

My bad, I assumed you were a MAGAt

[+] Kyrgizion -11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Too late, there's a reason these are nicknamed "forever chemicals".

You can prevent new ones from being created, but there's enough out there to give us all cancer and then some.

[–] PlantJam 16 points 2 weeks ago

Good thing this wasn't the attitude about lead.

[–] NineMileTower 14 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, we might as well just shoot ourselves in the head and stop trying to fix anything at all. We're all so doomed, it's not even worth trying to change anything. /s

[–] themeatbridge 4 points 2 weeks ago

And they are already inside you. "Out there" is in our brains, our blood streams, our reproductive organs, we're all already contaminated. Our children are already contaminated.

Stopping PFAS and microplastic production is about saving future generations from the nightmare we have created for our kids.