Did Joe Manchin Just Sink Biden's 'Build Back Better' Plan Again?
Plus: Why government responses to risk can create more harm than good, why Denver will no longer block illegal immigrants from starting businesses, and more...

In negotiations over Build Back Better 2.0, Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) is still running the show.
On Thursday, Manchin told Senate Democratic leaders that he would not support a series of tax increases or new initiatives aimed at curbing climate change, including subsidies for electric vehicles, tax credits for clean energy production, and penalties on businesses that spew methane into the atmosphere. The tax hikes, which would have been aimed at wealthier Americans, and the green spending were two of the more significant aspects of President Joe Biden's recently resuscitated "Build Back Better" agenda, but neither seems likely to pass without Manchin's support, The Washington Post reported.
In a statement to The New York Times, a spokeswoman for Manchin's office implied that the senator was worried about how more federal spending would further stoke inflation. Following the release of June's consumer price index data earlier this week, Manchin released a statement warning that "no matter what spending aspirations some in Congress may have, it is clear to anyone who visits a grocery store or a gas station that we cannot add any more fuel to this inflation fire."
As you may recall, Manchin's opposition to the Build Back Better plan scuttled it in the Senate last year. At that time, Manchin opposed pushing more spending through Congress with inflation ramping up and the federal budget deficit getting more bloated. With Democrats holding the slimmest of majorities in Congress' upper chamber (it's evenly split 50–50, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tie-breaking vote) any big-ticket legislation hinges on the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus, including Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.), who has also been skeptical of Build Back Better in the past.
In recent weeks, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the White House have been quietly negotiating with Manchin over a revamped package that would direct some new tax revenue to reduce the deficit. There's been no price tag attached to the seemingly-always-in-flux new package, but the Post notes that it would be significantly smaller than the $2 billion (but actually much more) in spending that the White House originally sought.
Other parts of the Build Back Better 2.0 plan do have Manchin's support, according to Politico, including a measure aimed at reducing drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries and a two-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies to ease the expected pain of rising insurance premiums this year. (One potential hitch: The extension of the insurance subsidies is likely to add inflationary pressure to the economy at a time when prices are already rising faster than they have in four decades, as Reason's Peter Suderman has detailed.)
The apparent shift in Manchin's thinking is probably not the final word on Build Back Better 2.0—Democrats will likely continue trying to pass some version of this package until the midterm elections in November, and perhaps even afterward—but it is yet another reminder of the power that the senator from West Virginia holds at the moment.
Here's another important reminder: Manchin's decision to block Build Back Better last year now looks absolutely correct, even though he was one of the few Democrats taking the threat of inflation seriously at the time.
By all accounts, the threat posed by record inflation to the American people is not "transitory" and is instead getting worse. From the grocery store to the gas pump, Americans know the inflation tax is real and DC can no longer ignore the economic pain Americans feel every day.
— Senator Joe Manchin (@Sen_JoeManchin) November 10, 2021
Manchin has also demonstrated a willingness to change his political calculus as the country's economic situation has shifted. Schumer and Biden, meanwhile, were pushing for higher taxes and new spending when they claimed inflation would be transitory—and are still pushing for higher taxes and new spending now that it's obviously not.
FREE MINDS
If we can't agree on what risks our government needs to address, might we end up compromising by agreeing to over-regulate everything, wonders Bonnie Kristian:
From mass panics over mass shootings to politically stoked fears of kidnappings, sex trafficking, and grooming, Kristian worries about ill-considered legislative responses which can do more harm than good:
That's bad in its own right, stifling ordinary life to prevent something already very unlikely to occur. But it's even more difficult to live with if it's based on a risk assessment you don't share, and living in a society as historically wealthy and complex as ours creates endless possibilities for risk assessments to differ.
The pace of change in modern life brings new risks to consider, which is more difficult than simply inheriting familiar wisdom, and our fragmented media consumption means those decisions are informed by different—even competing—informational feeds. This is how we end up with large blocs of the public demanding government protection from something that other large blocs, frequently with the data to prove it, don't see as a significant threat at all.
FREE MARKETS
Denver will no longer require applicants for business licenses to prove their legal immigration status.
A new state law that took effect on July 1 says municipalities in Colorado no longer have to comply with a 2006 state mandate that required proof of legal immigration status before receiving any public benefit, including a city business license, Colorado Politics explains. A spokesman for the Denver Department of Excise and Licenses told the website that he expects the change will "at least lead to a small increase in volume" of applications for food truck and restaurant permits.
No one should have to risk being deported because they want to start a legal business or hire employees. Kudos to Colorado lawmakers for undoing a poorly conceived law.
QUICK HITS
• Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita claimed that the Indianapolis doctor who helped a 10-year-old Ohio girl obtain an abortion could be in legal jeopardy for failing to fill out the proper paperwork about the procedure. But it turns out that the doctor did comply with the state's reporting law.
• Ivana Trump, the businesswoman who became former President Donald Trump's first ex-wife and the mother to his three eldest children, died Thursday in Manhattan at age 73.
• The Senate could vote next week to throw $52 billion in subsidies at computer chip manufacturers—even though they don't need the money and it won't solve current supply chain issues.
• Trump is reportedly considering launching his 2024 presidential campaign before this year's midterm elections, even though Republicans have been begging him to wait.
• Are we really doing this again?
LA County is planning to instate an indoor masking mandate on July 29. It would apply to all public indoor spaces: pic.twitter.com/8QHgVZropO
— Soumya (@skarlamangla) July 14, 2022
• Congress is one step closer to finally ending the Iraq War (and the Gulf War, too)!
NEW: The House just voted to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization as part of the defense bill.
It was included in a package of bipartisan amendments, along with repealing the 1991 Gulf War AUMF and a 1957 Middle East resolution.
— Connor O'Brien (@connorobrienNH) July 14, 2022
• A bad year for the stock market means the state pension crisis is about to be a major issue again.
• The Pennsylvania Senate race between Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz just keeps getting weirder:
Hey @DrOz ????
JERSEY loves you + will not forget you!!! ???? pic.twitter.com/YmaXfMpzUK
— John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) July 14, 2022
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
On Thursday, Manchin told Senate Democratic leaders that he would not support a series of tax increases or new initiatives...
The only one who's not economically illiterate?
Or the only one bound to be held accountable by his constituents.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra
money online visiting this site...> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Makes $440 to $780 per day on-line work which i received $21894 in one month online performing from home. I'm a daily student and work just one to a strive of hours in my spare time. everybody will do that job and online raise extra cash by simply
Open HERE:>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
And he takes a lot of verbal abuse from his own party for it.
Hell, he takes more abuse from the left than most Repubs do.
Him and the chick who bats for both teams
He does indeed.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (vsg-11) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line
visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
...yet another reminder of the power that the senator from West Virginia holds at the moment.
God bless gridlock.
Manchin is looking to himself re-elected.
How dare one Senator stop democracy. Total Bullshit.
This new dem talking point where a single no vote is subverting the will of the majority despite the vote being 49-51 without that vote is a hilarious narrative.
Who do democrats think they are tricking with those narratives? Shrike and jeff?
By the by -
"With Democrats holding the slimmest of majorities in Congress' upper chamber (it's evenly split 50–50, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tie-breaking vote)"
It's actually 48-50-2, with the 2 independents caucusing with the democrats, without actually being democrats. There are more republicans in the senate than there are democrats.
In a few months, it will be a lot more.
"Every Senator should be elected by nation-wide popular vote!"
Manchin was gerrymandered in
OK, global popular vote.
Or just Party members in good standing.
Funny thing, when the d's have the slimmest of margins they can pretty much pass anything they want. When the r's hold the house, the Senate and the presidency they never seem to have the power to roll back anything and can only pass tax cuts and more military spending. Don't look for any relief if the r's gain substantially in November.
"...Who do democrats think they are tricking with those narratives? Shrike and jeff?"
You forgot Joe Asshole.
..and HorseConch.
West Virginians need to be reminded that while Manchin is that one Democrat who is stopping BBB, his one vote is also the last one needed to keep Schumer as Majority Leader.
And a vote to confirm far-left executive and judicial nominees.
From mass panics over mass shootings to politically stoked fears of kidnappings, sex trafficking, and grooming...
If government and its media allies didn't stoke those unjustified fears, why would we vote for them to fix it all.
And if government schools wouldn’t do the “grooming” against constituent wishes…
Only one of these is the stated goal 0f the department of education
And the rest are found in the penumbra.
Did Joe Manchin Just Sink Biden's 'Build Back Better' Plan Again?
No, the Biden regime has been implementing it piecemeal.
^
But Reason is totalitarian leftist bullshit, so they run cover for The State (aka The Party) as instructed
Jeff? Put the cost of Joe's EOs at just over 500 billion.
Medicare changes, aca changes, student loans, etc.
Stupid auto correct changed CBO to jeff? Hate when it corrects to the last word I typed.
I was about to say I’d need a cite of Jeff saying anything critical of Biden.
Beating down Jeffy is almost a full time job. God knows his parents failed at it. That fatfuck needs to feel some pain.
Sink it? He needs to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Denver will no longer require applicants for business licenses to prove their legal immigration status.
Business licensing just gained yet another value: virtue signaling. Now we'll never get rid of it.
Claiming a business licsense is a public benefit shows you how the government views their relationship with the people a.k.a. serfs.
Noblesse oblige. Without the oblige.
The business license is only one small part of the "public benefits" that illegal immigrants can now get if they find their way to Colorado. How Reason pulled this one small gold nugget out of a giant turd amazes me.
Does this mean applicants will also not have to prove their age, species, or living status?
If you can't expect people to be biologists, how can you expect them to be immigration officers.
Seems like it’s kinda a libertarian virtue to make a government process less onerous, and open up economic opportunity to more people.
Except that illegals aren't people. They're clumps of cells. They don't become people until they get the proper paperwork.
There shouldn't be business licensing in the first place. And the fact that it exists makes it useful for exactly this type of political gate keeping.
The same regime that allows you to social signal about immigration status will allow the state to gatekeep against people who concealed-carry, or have the wrong view on gays, or protest the wrong laws, or do/don't inject the right/wrong chemicals into their body.
What do you mean no licensing? How can people be free if they're not asking permission and obeying commands?
Yup. None of the government's business who is buying and selling what.
Considering what I saw in Denver, I wouldn't be surprised if immigration status is removed, but you still need to prove that there's a government approved need for your business or some shit.
Who cares about the business license part of this. It's a panacea of welfare benefits, and the business license is one tiny part of the public benefits now extended to illegal immigrants.
"Hey, you can get medical care, mental health services, rental assistance, food stamps, living assistance... oh, and you can open a business too."
Reason: Polis is so libertarian and dreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeamy!
Exactly. Too bad Reason is so eager to virtue signal for illegals that they ignore this libertarian plank which they themselves have argued in the past.
Geez, you’re right. I didn’t think of it that way.
Overt is right.
No he’s not. You’re both fucking dishonest idiots.
No borders!!!
Every living thing on earth is a clump of cells. Except for single cell organisms. They’re not a clump.
That's not what the law does. Business license is one tiny small part of the larger package. It extends welfare benefits to illegal immigrants, it just so happens that a business license is a 'public benefit'. that reason pulled "business license" out of the long list of welfare extractions that are forcibly extracted from the populace from their taxes, and Reason calls this "libertarian" is fucked up beyond the pale.
I don't mind this change. I could see why a border city might do this, but since immigration enforcement is supposed to generally be a federal thing, and Colorado doesn't have an international border, in theory they should be able to assume that people coming to their state and starting a business are doing so legally.
I agree that among all the things that could happen, this is one of the less bad. But again, we should not overlook the roll that licensing is taking in the government picking and choosing winners or losers. So the licensing practices opened up to some more winners...ok...great...but why should we should not celebrate gatekeepers because they decided not to be douchebags for once.
Legal U.S. residency is no longer required to obtain state and local government benefits, professional licenses or business permits under a law that took effect July 1.
The 2021 law signed by Gov. Jared Polis makes available state benefits, including dental care, mental health counseling and family services. It also expands eligibility for property tax, rent and utility subsidies.
The estimated cost for expanding eligibility to immigrants is $12 million a year, according to a legislative analysis.
Oh that is absolutely dreadful and the inability to actually report accurately on that in the lynx is pretty fucking craven for whoever is running them today.
Yet entirely consistent with Reason's usual m.o.
“Most libertarian governor ever!”
-Reason staff
No international borders? Then why even bother declaring Denver as a sanctuary city?
Like four grafs down, you mean 2 trillion—not billion.
What's a few orders of magnitude among friends?
"A bad year for the stock market"
More wingnut.com lies. The stock market is the strongest it's ever been. Liberal capitalists like me and Warren Buffett are doing great.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Ivana Trump...died Thursday in Manhattan at age 73.
Down a flight of stairs. I had no idea she was in a position to know things about Hillary Clinton.
I thought the Trumps and Clintons were pretty close at one time.
A whole lotta people who want Americans to believe there is a significant difference between the two major political parties would really like that inconvenient fact to go down to the memory hole.
Cite?
It's something that's obvious from the sidelines. Team players like you can't see it because you're on the field.
Cite?
So you have a single cite of the whole Lotta people? Or are you just defending your team with his strawman?
And who exactly is saying the Clinton and trumps didn't used to be connected? This was well known prior to 2016. So who exactly is mike talking about there and who wants people to forget that fact sarc? It is well known. Who is denying it?
It’s the same people that think illegal immigrants are just clumps of cells. There’s so many of them, sarc doesn’t need to cite a single one.
So without your drivers license you're just a clump of cells too...right? Try harder, your point is absurd.
They’re in enough pictures together. Anne it was the voices in his head that were saying that. The commentariat certainly hasn’t.
How close?
i did too
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html
A Brief History of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton's Friendship
https://www.newsweek.com/history-donald-trump-bill-clinton-friendship-464360
Sarc talking about it likes it’s some kind of secret. Hell, even Trump discussed it openly during the 2016 campaign.
Is that really what happened? Wow. That's terrible.
The Senate could vote next week to throw $52 billion in subsidies at computer chip manufacturers...
Check their private investments.
Check the chip manufactuter's campaign donations.
Check the nationality of the chip manufacturers. Notice it didn't say the Senate was going to throw 52 billion dollars at American chip manufacturers.
Yes because one industry that is struggling to survive is chip makers. How many Robinhood millionaires have bought their Lamborghini by shorting chip manufacturers.
Yep...talk about a fad.
Trump is reportedly considering launching his 2024 presidential campaign before this year's midterm elections...
He's a plant.
Are we really doing this again?
DONALD TRUMP REFUSED TO WEAR THE MASK, THEREFORE THE OPPOSITE'S MANDATE IS VIRTUE INCARNATE
Long TDS.
Seems there's no vaccine or treatment. Further, unfortunately, it rarely seems fatal, much as the rest of us might hope otherwise.
That's the first citation I've seen, well-done!
No shit...if he had demanded schools close you would have seen teachers fighting like Infantry in Normandy landings to keep them open.
new initiatives aimed at curbing climate change, including subsidies for electric vehicles, tax credits for clean energy production
"Aiming at" and actually achieving are two different things.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that all of their claims about climate change are true, we are consistently seeing that the push for electric vehicles is bad by all of their stated metrics.
And clean energy other than nuclear is just a fantasy.
"Aimed at enriching favored industries and virtue signalling"
Also aimed at uncooperative American peasants who will not submit to their progressive overlord wanna-bees.
There was a study just pushed out that once you consider environmental impacts of batteries and impact from power plants, EVs are actually worse by mile slightly. And they are less reliable overall causing increased costs of ownership.
Not a concern for them. All the environmental effects are off-shored to China, and landfills full of toxic batteries aren't going to be located in DC.
But that Tesla guy is being a dick, and might even be a (gasp) MAGA type.
Well, he's obviously a fascist because he wants to buy the Twitter to, um. . . increase free speech. . . . Much like Hitler.
That kind of is the rub. "We aimed at X but somehow hit Y - wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more."
The House just voted to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization as part of the defense bill.
Geez, Dianne Feinstein isn't even out of the Senate yet and already her husband's defense contracts are trashed? That's cold.
Don't worry. He'll get some sweet Ukraine contracts.
Raytheon stock prices love Democrats and Neocons.
How much does the Big Guy get?
They pay him in pudding cups these days.
That reminds me. A few here were claiming Mr. Pelosi was going to get off the hook for his DUI because he hasn’t been charged immediately after his arrest. Let’s check the status of that story:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-husband-paul-charged-diu-crash-california
What will you do if the charges are dropped? Because knowing your luck with "gotchas" they're bound to be.
I mean the cops waiting for 3+ hours for his BAC to drop is already questionable.
They are already preparing a mistrial by charging him with DIU instead of DUI, so what has changed?
Diversity, inclusion, and...unhappiness?
The pace of change in modern life brings new risks to consider, which is more difficult than simply inheriting familiar wisdom
It's actually not, though. I'm finding that following "familiar wisdom" has been an effective strategy for most of my life, while all those who insist that traditional wisdom and such are outdated tend to be thoroughly miserable people.
I think you're mostly right here. "Familiar wisdom" is generally very high level rules. They're not things that are hugely time and place specific. "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff." could apply just as easily today as it could a thousand years ago. It's not a rule like how you go about mounting a steed or the proper configuration of a workstation.
like how you go about mounting a steed
That's what she said
AOC needed some training for steed-mounting, which I was happy to provide (at market rates).
She strikes me as an airtight girl.
Co2 proportion of atmosphere: 0.04%
Anthropogenic Co2 in atmosphere: 0.01%
Atmospheric Co2: 400 ppm
Minimum atmospheric Co2 needed for plant life to survive: 180 ppm
Atmospheric Co2 becomes toxic around 4000 ppm
Forcing the world into eco-socialism: priceless
A bad year for the stock market means the state pension crisis is about to be a major issue again.
Time for another bailout!
They'll get every dollar they've been promised. A loaf of bread will be $49, but they'll get every dollar.
"...A loaf of bread will be $49, but they'll get every dollar."
Shoulda' bought at $49 this morning...
The Pennsylvania Senate race between Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz just keeps getting weirder...
Don't try to distract me from the fact that they're two untenable choices.
That tweet by Fetterman is pretty funny though.
No one should have to risk being deported because they want to start a legal business or hire employees.
But...um...if they're not in the country lawfully, it isn't really a "legal" business....
That would depend on what the state business laws say, no?
Yeah. And so presumably it wouldn't have been a legal business if you were here illegally and immigration status was checked. But, I figured making that point was too pedantic even for me.
I have my moments.
An illegal immigrant started a business in my home town years ago. He was illegal so of course it was illegal. So the business was technically in his son's name.
Today its' one the largest prepared food companies in the world and the town's largest employer.
You were corrected on this last time you posted your story. Do you need me to do so again?
Illegals don't start businesses. That's a myth. No, they all soak up welfare while contributing nothing to society, and simultaneously steal jobs from Americans who are so willing to do menial work.
You're obviously a leftist liar who voted for Biden. It's all your fault.
Starting a business doesn't make you worth something or mean that you're being productive and producing anything. Sometimes your just taking advantage of small business grants and loans and then going bankrupt.
Your experiences don't define the experience of others.
Sick burn, dude.
Lulz
He’s such a badass!
So let's get rid of government small business loans and grants.
Yes.
Broken.
Is there a point to be found somewhere in your anecdotal critique of immigration policy?
He took our jobz!?
When your entire political outlook on immigration consists of Southpark soundbites, maybe you aren't actually educated.
lol
In addition to Jesse's point, I'd add, do you really think people losing their standard of living is something to laugh about? I get that creative destruction is inevitable and isn't going away. But, really, anyone who isn't a complete and utter douche doesn't celebrate the destruction. It may be necessary, but it's hardly something to laugh at.
do you really think people losing their standard of living is something to laugh about?
Do you think desperate people making a dangerous and risky journey to a place that offers better opportunities for them and their family, only to find themselves arrested and sent back to their miserable conditions, is something to laugh about?
No. I don't think that means they deserve admittance to our country, but I don't think their situation is a cause of entertainment. A person who isn't a sociopath replacing social signaling for genuine empathy can generally differentiate between not taking delight in others' misery and making that misery license to destroy others' lives.
No, amd I’m further disgusted with people like you that encourage and enable that kind of behavior. Their suffering is on you.
I agree. However, claims one’s job was taken when no such theft occurred is fair game for criticism.
Ohmigaad!! They said their job was taken rather than they were severely underbid by Third World laborers working off the books and willing to live twelve guys to a two bedroom house! Can you even? They like totally deserve to be mocked and humiliated!
Find me an American who really wanted any of those jobs.
So, a completely open border, run by criminals, leading to well-documented damage to local and national social infrastructure, is the solution to this "labor shortage"?
I’d suggest teaching you a lesson by taking away your livelihood, but you probably live off welfare and are possibly a benefits cheat.
Well, there is one way to avoid all risks of being deported...
You're right. The government should absolutely offer amnesty to these entrepreneurs.
You should show your commitment to the cause and move to the ahithole country of an illegal. Then they can take your place.
Fruit of the poison tree and all that
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/what-council-inclusive-capitalism
"People will say that the establishment is driven by greed alone and that their associations are fragile and based only on individual self interest. They will say that crisis events and shifts in social and political trends are random, not the product of deliberate engineering. They will say that elitists will never be able to work together because they are too narcissistic, etc.
All of these arguments are a coping mechanism for the public to deal with evidence they cannot otherwise refute. When the facts become concrete and the powers-that-be admit to their schemes openly, some people will revert to confused denial. They don’t want to believe that organized evil on such a scale could actually be real. If it did, then everything they thought they knew about the world might be wrong."
"In the past two years in the face of extensive global crisis events the “new order” establishment globalists have been talking about has arrived, and with almost no fanfare or mention in the mainstream media. The beginnings of global government already exist, and it’s called the “Council For Inclusive Capitalism.”
Lately, many analysts myself included have been highly focused on the World Economic Forum and their role in the global government agenda. Mainly because WEF head Klaus Schwab is such a loudmouth and he can’t help but talk about future plans for centralization.
As I have noted in past articles, the elites within the WEF got way too excited about the covid pandemic, thinking that they had the perfect crisis to implement numerous globalist policies in the form of the Great Reset. As it turned out, covid was nowhere near as deadly as they initially predicted during Event 201, and the public was not as submissive and compliant as they had hoped we would be. The WEF let the cat out of the bag too soon.
So, onward we go, with crisis after crisis like dominoes falling until we get to the one event that they think will drive the masses to accept world governance. And while the WEF is regularly attended by top level globalists, they are more of a high level think-tank, the Council for Inclusive Capitalism appears to be about implementation rather than theory."
"The CIC is led by a core group of global leaders they refer to as “The Guardians” (No, I’m not joking, this is real).
Members of the CIC have included: Mastercard, Allianz, Dupont, the UN, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), CalPERS, BP, Bank of America, Johnson & Johnson, Visa, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Mark Carney, the Treasurer of the State of California and many more companies around the world. The list is extensive, but what it represents is a kind of corporate led government with a congress of corporate representatives mixed with pliable political leaders.
One of the top missions of the CIC has been to change our economic models to “promote equity and inclusion.” Hilariously, proponents of the CIC argue that “too much wealth has been accumulated into the hands of too few people and this proves that existing capitalism does not work, yet THEY are the very people that rigged the system to centralize that wealth into THEIR HANDS. They aren’t “capitalists,” they are an aristocracy. Do you really think that these people are going to build a whole new system that doesn’t continue to benefit them?"
The people telling them to tax the rich, promote equity and inclusion, and end capitalism are the billionaire bourgeoisie, bankers and aristocrats, and the yet rank and file Democrats and lefties never seem to clue in to that.
When you are at the levers of power, it doesn't matter that you are a billionaire. Do you think these Davos elites have to worry about which 3 Michelin Star restaurant they will eat at this weekend? Do they have to figure out how they will pay for their stay at the Langham in Boston's Financial district next weekend? Of course not.
All these people are doing is creating a new system of entitlement. In a capitalist country, crass blowhards like Elon Musk get to stay at the elite hotels. But in their "Stakeholder Capitalism" model, the Union representatives and politicians and Diversity czars all get to do the same, and the Elons will be taxed out of polite company if they don't take care of those stakeholders.
"The idea that there is an agenda for global government among the financial and political elites of the world has long been called a “conspiracy theory” within the mainstream and the establishment media. And sadly, even when you can convince people to look at and accept the evidence that banking institutions and certain politicians work together for their own purposes, many folks will STILL not entertain the notion that the ultimate goal of these power mongers is one-world empire. They just can’t wrap their heads around such a thing.
People will say that the establishment is driven by greed alone and that their associations are fragile and based only on individual self interest. They will say that crisis events and shifts in social and political trends are random, not the product of deliberate engineering. They will say that elitists will never be able to work together because they are too narcissistic, etc.
All of these arguments are a coping mechanism for the public to deal with evidence they cannot otherwise refute. When the facts become concrete and the powers-that-be admit to their schemes openly, some people will revert to confused denial. They don’t want to believe that organized evil on such a scale could actually be real. If it did, then everything they thought they knew about the world might be wrong."
Elons will be taxed out of polite company if they don't take care of those stakeholders.
More likely the Elons will be replaced by someone moving back and forth between their seat in the bureaucracy and senior management positions in "private" industry.
But don’t you dare call that fascism!
— Jeffdeesarc
I mean, these guys are smart. They'll catch on.
My CEO has mentioned its competitors, or competitive pressures exactly zero times since I've started working at this Too Big to Fail bank. But not a week goes by where he isn't sending out some performative message about ESGs, protecting reproductive rights, or doing our part for Diversity.
Almost 270,000 troops are not fully vaxxed and face discharge:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/13/more-260000-troops-not-fully-vaccinated-many-face-discharge-under-biden-administration-mandate/
Oh, and then there's this:
Army is reducing its endstrength due to inability to reach its recruiting goals:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/30/army-reducing-its-numbers-in-face-of-recruiting-difficulties/
Neither story mentions abysmal retention rates.
Brandon is doing great.
It's probably more likely due to the shitty quality of life in the Army more than anything else. The Air Force has sky-high retention rates right now, for instance, due to all the economic uncertainty.
Quality of life is shitty in the Army, certainly. But it's only made more shitty by having to sit through "extremism in the ranks" training and "transgender training."
https://twitter.com/FlagLadyofthe/status/1547946412528152579?t=KVkX5JTVjTc30M1_06Rcrg&s=19
1)
Inspired by @kristina_wong 's post about US Military recruiting problems I thought we could take a walk down memory lane.
Let's go, ...
[Links]
The United States military spent nearly six million man-hours on an extremism “stand-down” and “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) training since President Joe Biden took office, according to Department of Defense (DOD) data.
https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/services/files/7FBCF19B-37D7-4BB4-82DF-270D4DDFDE87
#partyofscience #it'snotacult
When you spend 6 million man hours shitting on your recruiting base, you probably shouldn't be surprised that your recruiting base isn't interested in joining the military.
Extremists are the military's recruiting base?
Maybe that's the problem right there.
Those you call "extremists" would be mainstream only six years ago. Thus, maybe it's not the recruits who are becoming the extremists.
BTW, can you define what a woman is?
No, extremists are extremists. Such as Oathkeepers, Stormfront, Patriot Front, and the like.
BTW, can you define what a woman is?
Sure. A woman, referring to gender, corresponds to a person who adopts the appearance and social conventions of those commonly associated with members of the female sex.
Good enough for you?
And you think a lot of the military is made up of Oathkeepers, Stormfront, and Patriot Front people? I take it you don't know many military people?
And I wasn't talking about gender identity. I was talking about what is the definition of a woman. You included the term "female sex" in your answer. So let's go with that. What is you definition of what constitutes "female sex?"
My understanding is that what prompted this 'extremist' review was the fact that of those charged with crimes for the Jan. 6 riot, a disproportionate number of them were veterans. So it is worth looking into.
https://www.newsweek.com/more-50-current-former-military-members-have-been-charged-capitol-riot-1601295
And no I don't think *a lot* are Oathkeepers or Patriot Front types. But there shouldn't be any IMO.
And I wasn't talking about gender identity. I was talking about what is the definition of a woman. You included the term "female sex" in your answer. So let's go with that. What is you definition of what constitutes "female sex?"
Well, 'woman' is used in discussions of gender identity.
Sex is determined by biology. So a female has XX chromosomes, males have XY chromosomes (except in rare circumstances).
This whole game of asking people to "define a woman" is just a giant fallacy of equivocation - where the interviewer (and the audience) are expecting one definition - the one based on sex - while the subject of the interview is giving another definition, one based on gender identity. And when the two definitions don't agree, we are led to believe that the interviewee is some crazy left-wing nutball for not giving the "simple, common-sense" definition (the one based on sex), when that is not the only correct definition.
Ah, so a couple of people now makes a whole. Well, when you have a "scary white supremacist around every tree" narrative need, I guess a couple people can be used to craft the support for that narrative. I call this the "kernel of truth" justification.
And it's not a giant fallacy, you just have to claim that to justify the absurdity of the whole sex/gender religion the left is embracing.
I am glad to see that you understand that sex is biologically determined and not based on feelings.
Gender, though historically tied to sex, can be looked at as something different if we want to look at the idea of gender stereotype behavior, because that's really what it is. Gender is a spectrum between masculine and feminine behavior. Someone can act more masculine and someone can act more feminine.
And, ironically, we all sway along that scale depending on situations and responses to stimuli. There are instances where my behavior would fall on the more feminine side, and times where my behavior is more masculine. We all fit into that dynamic.
However, my behavior doesn't change the fact that I'm still a male/man. I can never become a female/woman simply by cosplaying gender stereotype behavior. To claim such is absurd.
Gender, though historically tied to sex, can be looked at as something different if we want to look at the idea of gender stereotype behavior, because that's really what it is. Gender is a spectrum between masculine and feminine behavior. Someone can act more masculine and someone can act more feminine.
That is exactly right. We agree.
However, my behavior doesn't change the fact that I'm still a male/man. I can never become a female/woman simply by cosplaying gender stereotype behavior. To claim such is absurd.
You will never be a biological female, no. But above, you just said that gender is a "spectrum" between masculine and feminine behavior. So, let's suppose that a biological male deliberately chooses to behave, according to the "gender spectrum", in a manner that is alllllll the way to the 'feminine' side of the spectrum, such that this person's behavior is, to most people in common social settings, indistinguishable from a typical biological female. Why shouldn't this person be regarded as having a gender of 'woman', while agreeing that this person's sex will always be male?
Your "understanding," as always, is flawed.
The DoD's own investigation found fewer than 100 service members with any association with extremist organizations- which is something that anyone associated with the military already knew.
And, the "extremists in the military" trope didn't start on J6. During the Obama administration, insider threat briefings were changed to include things like the Boston Tea Party as "domestic terrorism" and the Sons of Liberty as "extremist organizations." Google it. You'll find a copy of the air force training slides that say exactly that.
And, while I don't agree with what they did or associating with an organization like the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys, it's certainly not beyond understanding how some veterans would gravitate toward them. The current crop of vets spent the better part of their best years fighting bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while assholes like you didn't lift a fucking finger or give up a goddam thing, only to be continuously shit on by the Obama administration, who had nothing but contempt for the military, only to be further disgraced by the Brandon administration's shameful and dishonorable Afghan withdrawal. Which was followed by his disrespectful ass looking at his fucking watch during a dignified transfer of 13 dead US service members who died during his abortion of a wothdrawal.
You are a piece of shit, Jeff. The military is made up primarily of white, middle class who love mom and apple pie and the USA. Some of them are assholes, but the majority of them are good, patriotic people who volunteered to serve their country so idiot pieces of shit like you can make up nonsense definitions of gender identity.
Oh good grief. Nowhere did I ever even imply that there were anything but a small number of extremists in the military. Do you doubt this? No you don't, you even admitted that they themselves found about 100 extremist members in the military. I hope they were kicked out.
And, the "extremists in the military" trope didn't start on J6.
No it didn't. It actually started back in the late 60's. That is when the military first started instituting policies regulating the types of affiliations soldiers could have. Look up DOD 1325.06. So don't even start with this bullshit about "it's all the Democrats' fault because they hate the military". That is just a right-wing trope that they trot out every election cycle in order to manipulate people's emotions. Trying to weed out members of the military who belong to suspect groups has been going on for over 50 years in a completely bipartisan manner. In fact it was Reagan's DOD that investigated the military in order to weed out KKK members.
And yes, members of the military by and large are ordinary people who love their country. Just like most Americans. They're not a privileged class of people who deserve worship. In fact it is unhealthy in any democratic system to have excessive reverence for the military. I'm grateful for what they do, just like I am grateful for all the great things everyone does on a daily basis.
Jeffy, YOU are an extremist. Beyond being an open borders lunatic, you’re also always come down on the side of pedophiles on issues released to them. Such as allowing child molester illegals into the US, allowing pervert teachers to groom small children on schools, etc..
There is nothing mainstream about you and your beliefs. So your condemnation of patriotic people has no value or credibility.
So since sex (male and female) is determined by biology, but gender (man, woman, other) is determined by appearance and social conventions, it is possible for a male to be a woman, it is possible for a female to be a man, and it is possible for either a male or a female to be "neither" of the two genders.
Gender has always referred to biological sex until the last ten years, when you guys started playing language games in order to normalize your perversions.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
So ever since the 12th century or so, the word "gender" has referred BOTH to biological sex, AND to "a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits", which is not necessarily about biological sex alone.
So ever since the 12th century or so, the word "gender" has referred BOTH to biological sex, AND to "a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits", which is not necessarily about biological sex alone.
Which doesn't actually differentiate the two, you fat lefty-simping fuckwad.
"A woman, referring to gender, corresponds to a person who adopts the appearance and social conventions of those commonly associated with members of the female sex."
So if "she's" got a dick and balls but identifies as female you're cool with "her" competing against women, and showering with young girls in the female lockers?
"extremists are extremists. Such as Oathkeepers, Stormfront, Patriot Front"
Patriot Front are the FBI, Oathkeepers are less "extremist" the SPLC and your average Blue Check Democrat, and Stormfront is a web forum for edgy kiddies, not an organization.
I know you know that their "extremists" are anyone who opposes your party.
Patriot Front are the FBI,
lol no they're not
Oathkeepers are less "extremist" the SPLC and your average Blue Check Democrat,
lol no they're not
and Stormfront is a web forum for edgy kiddies, not an organization.
lol Stormfront has been around as an organization in various incarnations for decades.
https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/stormfront
Stormfront is a web forum for edgy kiddies, not an organization.
lol Stormfront has been around as an organization in various incarnations
Is “various” the word that tripped you up? “Incarnations”? It’s weird you contradicted your point with your own words, which is another clue for the debate if you’re being dumb or dishonest.
Cite?
"Sure. A woman, referring to gender, corresponds to a person who adopts the appearance and social conventions of those commonly associated with members of the female sex.
Good enough for you?"
Nope. And I feel the same about doctors and pilots. In all cases, when I get into a critical relationship with any of them, I expect the real thing.
In all cases, when I get into a critical relationship with any of them, I expect the real thing.
What is the "real thing"? When you get into a critical relationship with a doctor, do you want someone who has a Ph.D. in physics? Someone who has a J.D. in law? Someone who has an M.D. in medicine? They are all doctors. It depends on the nature of the 'critical relationship' doesn't it?
Same thing with pilot. Do you want a pilot who can fly a Cessna? A pilot who can fly a Boeing 777? A pilot who can fly a space shuttle? They are all very different types of pilots.
This is exceptionally pathetic.
Swing and a miss Jeffy! No pun intended.
Future headline
"ccp disables army batallion by misgending us soldiers"
Illegal immigrants starting businesses, lazy bums sitting on their asses hardest hit.
So what? Starting a business doesn't mean that you're not a lazy bum, ask any dealer, and you're still in the country illegally.
Is this trying to asseet every illegal immigrant starts a business and no citizens do? If not, what the fuck is the point of your comment?
Their diligence is not what is at issue.
Here is another reminder: Boehm the birdbrain reluctantly voted for Brandon. People like him are why we have 9%+ inflation. Thanks assholes.
What do you (and everyone else) think inflation would be if Trump had a 2nd term?
My guess: It was coming anyway, but Trump wouldn't actively enact policies to make it worse. The president's power in minimal here so I'll say ~8%.
Energy issues are around 30% of the estimated PPI increase, it is probably larger. Those Americans who refuse to go back to work is the other. So all in the energy attacks and paying Americans not to work Joe pushed forward with Pelosi and Schumer is probably 40% of the problem.
If trump actually expanded domestic drilling like he was doing, it would be maybe 50% as a number.
So somewhere in the 4% range of inflation mostly off of the shut down recovery and the terrible covid spending. A lot more manageable.
That is my best guess.
Solid answer. Thanks for putting some thought in to that.
There is also the consideration on what russia would have done. Would they have invaded? Who knows.
The issues with the ESG countries like Sri lanka and Ghana would still be an issue, but exports from Europe wouldn't be as hampered without the hit to Ukrainian fertilizer.
Honestly hard to judge all aspects.
Solid answer? Seriously? Massive money printing for COVID "stimulus" is something Trump supported, and he even wanted his name on the checks. Of course, the idea that we would see no energy inflation under Trump is something that Jesse pulled out of his ass.
The best you can say about a 2nd Trump term is that maybe Putin would have delayed his invasion for a few more years. Putin got frustrated at having to explain everything to Trump, but in Trump he at least had someone who he thought might listen to his demands.
I stand by my comment. He may not be correct, but it was more educated than my "uhh maybe a little less" guess. I respect that.
Energy issues are around 30% of the estimated PPI increase, it is probably larger. Those Americans who refuse to go back to work is the other. So all in the energy attacks and paying Americans not to work Joe pushed forward with Pelosi and Schumer is probably 40% of the problem.
Yeah, there still would have been energy inflation no matter who won the election. As people returned to work from the pandemic, they would have consumed the same (if not more) fuel as before, but now they have more dollars to spend from all of the stimulus spending. Hence the inflation. That would have happened regardless.
And the pandemic unemployment insurance program was approved in the 2020 CARES package and expired last summer, so that would have happened regardless of who won as well.
I think you are right with your original thinking. Inflation would have been maybe 7-8% and not 8-9%.
Put another way, the inflation rate of the Euro was 5% at the end of 2021, before the Ukraine war, and is now 8%. Which is similar to what it has been in the US. Obviously the European inflation rate has very little, if anything, to do with who won the US election.
Thanks! Another solid answer. You and Jesse both brought up points and facts I haven't thought of or wasn't aware of.
Speaking of...I wonder how inflation of the dollar affects the Euro? They are vassals of the US empire. We definitely seem to be in the same recession cycle.
Not even close. But at least you admit that Trump is better than Biden.
Trump would have partnered with Democrats to get the infrastructure bill done, and more Republicans would have gone along with it as a result.
I think you are probably about right. $100 oil shouldn't mean $5 gas. Biden has fucked everything up, but a lot of this was coming anyway.
Some inflation was coming.
Energy cost and supply chain issues are 100% man made, intentional problems for which there is no legitimate excuse whatsoever, and the response of the powers that be is "everything is going according to plan, fuck you peasants".
This is WAR being waged on normal people worldwide, and we just sit here and take it.
What do you (and everyone else) think inflation would be if Trump had a 2nd term?
Oh come now, you know the correct answer. It is 0.00%. Because Trump is just that awesome.
Nice snark to a valid question.
He’s a far leftist Trump hater. And honesty was never one of his attributes.
"What do you (and everyone else) think inflation would be if Trump had a 2nd term?"
Not sure the relevancy of hypotheticals as compared to the reality being faced.
It's relevant to me because voters compare the current reality to their speculated hypothetical alternative in order to choose. So I was curious how posters here felt as there are some well researched, well thought-out posters here that I learn from. There's some dumb assholes too though.
WTF?
When a Name Gives You Pause: Racialized Names and Time to Adoption in a County Dog Shelter
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01902725221090900?journalCode=spqc
So the abstract claims that people are racist against African American dogs.
Also "Perceptions of Black names are likewise tied to slower times to adoption, with this effect being concentrated among pit bulls, a breed that is stereotyped as dangerous and racialized as Black."
I think I may have spotted a small flaw in the study's rationale, what do you guys think?
Party of Science indeed.
Who the F keeps shelter names anyway?
Lily became Kitty Roos
Penelope became Smudgie
Miracle became Jinxie
All were great pets whose original shelter names were discarded. Even if Jinxie had been named Moesha I would have adopted her
Your name is Toby!
Toby.....Toby....Toby Chu? Toby Wong?
Ok..something woke up in my brain....what is that from?
Kunta
This HAS to be one of james lindsay's hoax papers. If its not, academia has gotten even worse than I thought possible.
So many things pointing to sophistry in the name of finding a racism. But some of the best...
"We find that as dogs’ names are increasingly perceived as White, people adopt them faster. Conversely, as dogs’ names are increasingly perceived as nonhuman (e.g., Fluffy), people adopt them slower. "
So the variables are "white sounding" vs "random adjectives"? And somehow random adjectives are not white sounding? Fluffy isnt something a garden variety white-picket fence family is naming their dog?
"Perceptions of Black names are likewise tied to slower times to adoption, with this effect being concentrated among pit bulls, a breed that is stereotyped as dangerous and racialized as Black. "
Nevermind the confounding variable that pitbulls are slow to be adopted period as they are absolutely associated with randomly snapping and biting kids in the face...also the people that frequently have them and mistreat them frequently use them for fighting or guarding drug houses, which you might not know when adopting a dog...
"The construction of certain dogs, such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, and pit bulls, as dangerous is directly connected to American ideologies of race, gender, and class”
Or is it directly connected to the people owning them using them to guard drug houses because an angry mistreated rott is a really good way to tear up someone who wants to steal your shit.
Seriously people. "Social Psychology Quarterly"..."American Sociological Association"...This is the stuff they are unironically pushing. Indoctrination and brain rotting.
Great point
So the rescue pit bull "og cracka killa" has no shot at adoption?
Only in the most erudite demographic
Is this a James Lindsay goof again?
Whenever I adopt a dog I end up changing the name. One dog we adopted was named Lynette.
Our first wave of animals were all named after universities.
Cambridge
Berkeley
Harvard
Vanderbilt
Oxford
Brown
Cornell
Juilliard
"Brown"
That's a shitty name
One of my college roommates always had a corgi and it was always named after an Irish boxing legend. The one he had when I was in school was Sullivan.
No "Howard"? Racist!
No Oral Roberts?
I got a boxer named Chauncey Billups. Cuz he looks like Chauncey Billups.
Strange things are afoot with the Democrats #Shes10 story:
WATCH: The mother of the Ohio 10/y rape victim tells Telemundo's @MariaVargasPion that the child "is fine", and "everything they say about (Gerson Flores) is a lie."
https://twitter.com/BonillaJL/status/1547643268040560640
Yeah, this story still doesn't feel quite right.
And the fact that the doc in Indiana met reporting requirements doesn't change the basic lie:
The child did not need to go to Indiana to get an abortion. Ohio law permitted her to get one there.
There's also this:
"The 10-year-old initially sought treatment from an Ohio doctor but was unable to receive abortion services because she was just over six weeks pregnant, the cutoff imposed by a new Ohio law. The doctor then asked Bernard for help — “and so the 10-year-old girl was soon on her way to Indiana to Bernard’s care,” the Star reported."
Why didn't the Ohio doctor report the abuse? Previous reporting said the mother reported it to CPS. Isn't the Ohio doctor a mandated reporter too? There really hasn't been much info on the Ohio doctor who seems to have really dropped the ball here.
The indiana doctor reported the rape july 2nd, but listed the attackers age as 17.
She also filed with the state on the last day of the reporting period, and one day AFTER the story went live.
This story sure doesn't help fix the "abortion clinics are shady as shit" stereotype.
They marked the illegal immigrant who raped her as a 17 year old minor when he was a 27 year old adult.
Even Reason's reporting here is disgustingly defensive too. The WH made the statement over a week ago. When asked for proof, they could provide none. The states AGs could provide none. This, in the moment, is a lie even if you can back stop it with fact later. Just like if my one son tells me "The car is in the garage." knowing that his brother took it out. It doesn't matter if the car is pulling in the driveway and will be in the garage before I get there, "The car is in the garage." is still a lie.
Another interesting kerfuffle or angle: Mom and Gerson didn't/don't want an abortion and, it turns out, the state can step in and confirm or forbid any permanent, life-altering medical course of action.
I think the illegal immigrant part is pretty important to the story, as well as the identity of the Ohio doc and his role. The IN doc won't identify him, and I haven't seen any reporting that says who he is and what role he played other than calling the IN doc for help. He doesn't seem to have made any kind of report of child abuse. The abortion part is almost irrelevant, except that it's the thing that made all this public.
My take is, they're all illegal. Mom- or whoever- knew she was being sexually abused by Fuentes or someone else in the household, which is why she suspected she was pregnant. The doc in Ohio is responsible for shipping her off to Indiana to avoid Ohio law enforcement, because they're all illegal and the Ohio abortion ban nonsense is just a convenient excuse. If the abortion happens in another state and the reporting is done in another state, it's less likely it will become an issue for Ohio law enforcement, because bureaucracy.
The IN doc fucked it all up by getting her stupid face on TV and talking about it.
Doesn't help that the career politician, the adult in the room, went front-and-center with an unsubstantiated story like some reality TV diva.
The doc in Ohio is responsible for shipping her off to Indiana to avoid Ohio law enforcement
It's possible that the Ohio abortion doctor would refer a patient out of state over a new law that he doesn't understand yet, whether or not the abortion would be legal in Ohio, to cover his own ass.
Of course this is pure speculation, as is everything about this story because we don't have any hard facts and the facts reported by the media are of questionable veracity.
By the way, I'm still not ruling out the possibility that this story is made up and they arrested a patsy to lend it credibility.
She also filed with the state on the last day of the reporting period, and one day AFTER the story went live.
Sorry, this wasn't supposed to be here. Stupid reason comments.
Yeah, that's still a possibility. But they really stepped in it with this one.
Not only because of the increasingly messed up story, but also because it forced a clarification of Ohio's law, and now they can't use that excuse anymore.
Wasn't she referred before Roe was overturned?
The Indiana doc is a prominent activist who's made over a dozen media appearances since Dobbs, half of which were before the case at hand
There's other problems with the Ohio Doctor story. For instance, Ohio's cut-off is definitionally NOT six weeks, it's "detectable heartbeat." Which can come as early as six weeks but generally takes a bit longer.
And if an Ohio doctor is examining a 10 year old sufficiently to know there's a heartbeat, that doctor is much more involved than simply hearing that she's past six weeks. That's beyond the fact that there's a consensus that a pregnant 10-year-old is sufficient to meet the exceptions under the Ohio law.
Ohio law does not mention age. It's the same for 10-year-olds as for everyone else.
Ohio has exceptions for health of the mother, and the health risks to a 10 year old would certainly fall under those. It doesn't mention age but Ohio came out and said they would consider the health risks to a 10 year old to fall well within their exemptions.
"the health risks to a 10 year old would certainly fall under those."
Says you. I can understand a doctor not taking a chance on that.
Correct. 10 year olds are also able to get an abortion if her life or health is threatened. Just like the law says.
That's a big "if".
Not to mention narrowing the date of conceptions to the exact day is likely impossible. Even if you knew the exact moment of ejaculation.
the girl was raped by the mother's boyfriend.
Most likely.
But none of it changes the lie that she had to go to IN to get an abortion that was legal for her to get in Ohio.
It's not a lie. The Ohio law makes no exception based on age.
It is a lie. The Ohio law makes exceptions based on life *and* health of the mother.
But not on age.
Mom's Boyfriend is the most dangerous person in the lives of American children.
And fetuses.
No, Mom is the biggest threat to fetuses.
No, DEMOCRATS are the biggest threat to all living beings.
Party of Science update: New Hawaiian law takes the control of the Mauna Kea observatory away from astronomers and gives it to a panel that must include Indigenous Hawaiians who oppose it in their sacred spaces.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01926-2
Science!
This is one of my pet peeves about Democrats, who claim to be the party of science, and the party against religious intrusion into government (and society). But as soon as some noble indigenous warrior puts on a robe and starts chanting about sacred places, Democrats get all squishy inside, and bend over to accommodate their mythical stories (and native political maneuvering).
That has been devastating for physical anthropology.
So they can just adjust the CO2 readings back to Indigenous levels and the climate problem is solved, right?
Pete Buttigieg launches $1B pilot to build racial equity in America's roads
https://www.knkx.org/national/2022-06-30/pete-buttigieg-launches-1b-pilot-to-build-racial-equity-in-americas-roads
I'm glad he solved all those other problems. He did an especially great job on the shipping issue, and I'm sure he's got the railroad strike fully managed.
What the fuck does that even mean?
It means there’s yet another flag signaling virtue.
With our money.
Blacktop is now equivalent to Sambo
That's "Sambx".
Oddly enough painting roads to be white will have a larger effect of combating global warming than switching to an all electric fleet
Surely you can't be serious
Don't call him Shirley.
Arizona Dem Rep: If You Marry a White Guy, You Ain’t Latina Anymore
https://mobile.twitter.com/rubengallego/status/1547235185162338305
https://twitter.com/RubenGallego/status/1547237218347286531
I'll let the wife know....
Haha same. Wait till they our family photo...
The funny thing about his claims is that every single latino/caucasian family i know lists their kids as latino to help them with future scholarships and such.
The long game.
We absolutely do, and have been playing that game since pre-K. If they’re giving out “free” money because my kids check a particular box, and they meet the qualifications for checking that box, I’m going to take it. It’s their game and their rules.
In fact, a few years ago the admissions director at our kids’ private school called us to “verify” that our kids are Latino. You know, so the school can make sure to check all the right diversity boxes. I told him that they are absolutely Latino. Their mother is Brazilian, they both have Brazilian citizenship, we have a bi-lingual home. He was a bit taken aback because he had absolutely no idea.
A couple weeks later, my wife and kids got an invitation to the “minority council” or some like shit. My wife laughed hysterically while chucking that bitch in the trash.
So you're White Hispanics like George Zimmerman?
Is the point of Latino vs Hispanic to include Brazilians? Shouldn't Haitians be Latino too then?
If it's regional, then Virgin Islanders, Jamaicans and Haitians would be Latino. If it's based on Spanish speaking, Brazilians wouldn't be, but it would cover all the Afro Cubans.
Admixture with the natives of everything south of the US would rule out many Brazilians and Mexicans, and exclude most all of the Spanish empire "Mexican Americans" (like tejanos).
Progressive racialization is a shit stain.
The party of anti-racism for racial segregation and race essentialism
But that's "good" racism.
A low key great part of that interaction between AOC and the professional troll dude the other day is that her ginger, cuck-y, beta male fiancee was right there next to her to entire time, heard everything the trolly dude said, and didn't say a single word or make any move whatsoever to intervene on her behalf. He seems like the white version of that weird looking creature Elizabeth Nolan Brown is allegedly married to.
Didn't react in the slightest. Just kept walking without even a glance back.
The comments are sad. Her real crime is not being a Democrat and toeing the line. Interesting how Democrats shame blacks and Latinos that don't stay in line. But it's those icky conservatives that are racists.
I suspect that some of these assholes are actually racist at their core, with dedication to the purity of whatever skin color, nose shape, and eye slant they feel define true "people".
The vast majority are. Who the fuck spends time thinking about shit like that except racists?
What about BB lack women who like...nevermind
Evolution! Science
https://twitter.com/espiers/status/1547917822545707008?t=9-P8VGEK97PK1Ox42CnsHA&s=19
This is a wild misreading of that Times poll to begin with, but if you conflate civil rights with pronoun etiquette and are completely unaware that you’re parroting a transphobic GOP talking point, maybe step back from the keyboard.
[Link]
Also, I’ve been in many meetings about Dem messaging this year and pronouns were mentioned exactly zero times. Keeping trans people from getting killed is an issue though!
And just a note on survey design: I can't find the actual script, but if you ask voters about "cultural issues" vs things like inflation, and do not define "cultural issues" they wall assume you're referring to something petty and stupid, not core civil rights issues.
If you wanted a better reading re: the cultural war (which is not a petty superficial thing; it's about who has power and who doesn't) ask about gas prices vs. abortion. They are apples and oranges, but that's more illustrative.
First reply:
@Jsta912
Pronouns in the bio. Of course.
No Ukraine or Pride flag though so I'm confused. Doesn't that make her far right?
Pronouns and blm, so I guess it's good enough
When are you going to share you kill-list? Brandybuck and jeff are at the top. I'm sure I'm on there. Who else do you plan to murder?
Oh, I’ve gotta be on the list, for sure.
sarcasmic just knows his mute list was trendsetting.
Replies:
"It's funny the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline appears above that, because it would seem The Washington Post is busy trying to dim the lights, or worse, pull the plug on them."
"Remember the media frames all of its reporting from the perspective of straight white conservative men"
.........
Wapo, a blatant left wing propaganda machine, is not sufficiently woke for these people. *chefs kiss*
These people must check under their bed for straight white conservative men every night.
Kinky
Corporate Journalism dies in Sunlight.
"Democracy dies if we don't get our way"
Yes...with all the poignancy of Don't Taze Me Bro
Maybe stop framing every miniscule sleight, most of which only exist in your head, as an existential attack on "trans people" that will literally get people killed, and people might take your concerns a bit more seriously?
Just a suggestion.
What, act reasonable and potentially solve a problem, thus eliminating a hot political issue?
This is a wild misreading of that Times poll to begin with, but if you conflate civil rights with pronoun etiquette and are completely unaware that you’re parroting a transphobic GOP talking point, maybe step back from the keyboard.
"Twitter nobody tosses word salad in Fareed Sakaria's face."
No one should have to risk being deported because they want to start a legal business or hire employees.
Without proper paperwork, illegals are just clumps of cells. How can a clump of cells run a business?
Has anyone ever claimed that illegals aren't human, or are you strawmanning again?
That's straw cell-clumping.
They are dehumanized around here on a daily basis, it seems.
For example, remember that stunt about Greg Abbott putting illegal immigrants on a bus and sending them to DC? What was the reaction to that stunt around here? It was fairly positive - "make DC see in person the consequences of their failed border policies!" and the like. But, did anyone stop to think: did anyone ASK the immigrants if they WANTED to go to DC or not? Did it matter? In what other context would we consider an act of a governor taking a random migrant, sticking him on a bus and sending him to a faraway city without his consent, to be anything OTHER than an act of kidnapping?
They were human beings used as props UNWILLINGLY for a political stunt. And it was praised and applauded around here. Because their rights and their dignity is secondary, because they were illegals.
That is just one small way in which illegal migrants are treated as if they were less than human.
I am hesitant in choosing the source I am using for this (since that seems to be a big point of contention in this site's comment section), but since the quote itself is the same, I will pick the first one Google gave me - https://www.businessinsider.com/migrants-thanking-texas-gov-abbott-free-charter-bus-ride-dc-2022-4
""I am very thankful to the governor," Reydel Grau, a Cuban man who traveled nearly a month to reach the US, told the New York Times. "His help is very much welcomed." "
It's doubtful that every single person that was bussed feel the exact same way, but even the organizations receiving these people in DC think it was a good idea - "“In a way, it’s actually perfect,” Bilal Askaryar, a spokesman for the migrant-aid collective Welcome With Dignity, told the Times. “Unintentionally, Governor Abbott sent them to one of the best places in the nation to welcome people.”"
Whoops, I grabbed that second quote from another source about the same stuff, here you go - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/greg-abbott-immigrants-washington-dc-1343263/
So what? Since the migrants, when they arrived in DC, weren't greeted by a bunch of assholes, instead they were greeted by some kind volunteers, that makes the kidnapping justified?
You're doing the exact same fucking thing. They were essentially kidnapped and used as pawns *UNWILLINGLY* in this political stunt, and all you can say is "they weren't treated so bad, so what's the big deal?"
" They were essentially kidnapped"
Alright, now I am starting to understand why people other than JesseAZ talk *at* you instead of with you.
Were they given a choice in the matter? Yes or no?
Yes - "The governor's office clarified that the program is completely voluntary for migrants and would happen only after they had been processed and released by the Department of Homeland Security."
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/06/greg-abbott-texas-border-title-42/
Well that is the first I had heard of that claim. I still find it questionable that the program was completely "voluntary" if the alternative to the stunt was to be deported.
If you continue to ignore when people tell you you’re wrong, you can continue to be wrong while feigning ignorance. One of the many different ways Lying Jeffy is dishonest.
Jeffy, one of your precious illegals brutally raped a nine year old girl multiple times. Based on your previous statements here, you’re ok with that. So you have no moral high ground. At every turn you defend policies that enable rapists and pedophiles.
Why don’t you address THAT?
It's always rhetorical tricks with Jeff... but really fucking stupid ones a three-year old would see through.
Jeff's got a narrative. If you even genuinely challenge the narrative, even if inadvertent, he will go full righteous asshole on you.
I get angry when people here start dehumanize migrants and treating them like dirt. Guilty as charged. It is a fucking disgrace.
One of your illegals serially raped an ultimately impregnated a little girl. Your support helped enable that, so some of the guilt is yours.
Im sure you have some nauseatingly smarmy, tortured justification for you evil.
No, he will never give a straight answer. That's why I have him on mute.
As opposed to the hourly humanizing of the bundles and bundles of straw you triumphantly flog
“did anyone ASK the immigrants if they WANTED to go to DC or not?”
Yes. As was stated at the time. But now you’re pretending it wasn’t discussed so that you can lie some more. It’s all you do.
I thought if we raised the minimum wage that wouldn't increase prices
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/pay-raises-getting-smaller-could-151500003.html
The government on Wednesday reported that inflation soared 9.1 percent in June — the biggest 12-month jump since November 1981. Prices rose across the board, but not because of salary increases, which have actually leveled off in recent months.
That matters because if prices and wages keep pushing each other up, the Federal Reserve — already under tremendous strain to rein in inflation — might be forced to move even faster to ramp up interest rates, throwing people out of work and thrusting the economy into a painful recession. Instead, slower wage growth could help bring down prices and ultimately mean less sting for the average worker.
"What do wages have to do with prices?"
- Any random progressive
Rip off the fucking bandaid. Recession now!
After what they’ve done to make this happen, we should just take whatever we need off of the democrats.
Wages are not pushing inflation up. Inflation is pushing wages up, but they can't keep up because we're throwing trillions of dollars into the system.
There's also the problem of our waning ability to force our will on the rest of the world, which means other countries are increasingly demanding to be fairly paid for the resources and products they supply us.
Bunch of fucking Putin stooges!
Manchin stands on principle. And that principle is that a wealthy man like him who gets his wealth from coal shouldn't be taxed highly nor should his business be adversely affected.
Whether in practice his resistance leads to favourable outcomes is highly secondary.
SRG is a steaming pile of lefty shit.
And that principle is that a wealthy man like him who gets his wealth from coal shouldn't be taxed highly nor should his business be adversely affected.
The monster!
I don't really give a shit what his motivations are. If he does something to slow or stop some of the insane spending, that's a good thing.
that principle is that a wealthy man like him who gets his wealth from coal shouldn't be taxed highly nor should his business be adversely affected.
This sounds like a solid principle to live by. I have no problem with it and in fact support it.
"Wholesale inflation surges 11.3% in June, accelerating more than expected"
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/wholesale-inflation-surges-11-3-june-accelerating-more-expected
Brandon's doing great.
The Pennsylvania Senate race between Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz just keeps getting weirder:
I'd say fuck Snooki to the commentariat, but you've probably already done that.
Uvalde cops continue to cover themselves in glory; one checks it phone, the other uses hand-sanitizer as the gunman keeps firing:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/cop-checking-phone-in-uvalde-video-was-husband-of-slain-teacher-official/ar-AAZzZPo
Washing his hands of it, a la Pilate?
Bet he wishes it worked on a conscience.
Very good. Very good indeed.
"Are you the King of the Shooters?"
"If we can't agree on what risks our government needs to address . . . "
Here's a thought, just work on the few actually assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution.
If, and only if, they can fix those, we might consider an amendment or two to let them try a new area. (but I hope not)
Fuck Joe Biden.
116 days.
Fuck Joe Biden.
No one should have to risk being deported because they want to start a legal business or hire employees.
They are risking being deported because they entered and remained in the country illegally.
No one should have to risk being deported because they ate McDonald's and took a dump.
No one should have to risk being deported because they bought a used Subaru.
No one should have to risk being deported because they bought lemon-scented Joy Ultra.
Hey, this sort of sophistry is limitless.
What if they walked around inside the Capitol on Jan 6?
Death
I see we have found the loophole
the state pension crisis is about to be a major issue again.
This can't be true. They used all those billions in free COVID money to fix these problems, right? RIGHT?
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita claimed that the Indianapolis doctor who helped a 10-year-old Ohio girl obtain an abortion could be in legal jeopardy for failing to fill out the proper paperwork about the procedure.
The lefties are spinning their wheels furiously to make this story true. It is complete and utter bullshit.
Even if it *is* true, it doesn't change the lie that she needed to go to IN to get an abortion that would have been legal in Ohio.
Not in the made-for-TV* movie.
*TV includes MSNBC and CNN
You are speculating that it would have been ruled legal. Ohio's law makes no mention of age.
Occam's razor suggests it's not true.
I posted a long comment in a mostly dead thread last night that I suspect few people read. The summary:
Since 1881, there have been 27 cases of 9 year old's getting pregnant... worldwide that's an average of 0.19 9yr old pregnancies per year since anyone bothered to start keeping track.
What that essentially means is the rarest of the rare occurrence no only happened in 2022, but happened in the most contentious political district on the planet in 2022.
That's the equivalent of the DNC sending a Thursday afternoon memo to abortion activists saying, "We need to win the lotto , and we can't just win any lotto in the world, it has to be the lotto in Ohio, and you have to win it before 5pm on Friday"
Then at 4:48pm, with a roomful of press standing about, an abortion activists bursts into the room waving a winning lotto ticket from Ohio.
There's something very, very wrong with this story.
Which thread? I would like to read the entire thing.
I agree the whole thing is beyond belief, and that any explanations offered or evidence presented makes it worse, not better, and less believable, not moreso.
this.
To summarize, it was a breakdown of statistics vis a vis the rarity of girls under 12 getting pregnant, let alone menstruating. It's rare as hensteeth. Rarer than the rarest of rare.
And most health departments don't even list "teen pregnancy" rates-- or perhaps better written, break down teen pregnancy rates for <15. The WHO, most state health departments talk about teen pregnancy and break it down to aged 15-19.
Some will list <15, but you'll see a dramatic dropoff in numbers. Ie, you go from thousands or tens of thousands, to dozens. Logically, we know girls are going to get pregnant at 12-14 because most girls being menstruation around 11-12. Anything before that is considered anomalous and called "precocious puberty". It happens, but it's VANISHINGLY rare.
So start running the numbers based on the known statistics that I could find and the idea that a 9 yr old girl got pregnant, required an abortion, was denied and had to be spirited to Indiana... and it happened 15 minutes after Roe V Wade was overturned and Ohio's restrictive abortion law went into affect... yeah, something smells off.
It IS vanishingly rare, so much so that it's just really not believable.
But every single thing they release to corroborate it makes the story even worse, not better, and even makes the abortion angle irrelevant.
I can't say "it's not true" because by design there are various unfalsifiable parts to the story, along with some parts that are: that being we have an arrestee who apparently confessed.
But just the general facts of the case, a 9 yr old girl was impregnated, in Ohio, in July of 2022, days after Roe V Wade was overturned, highlighting the limits of Ohio's abortion restrictions which had JUST come into affect, (which wouldn't have banned abortion in this case anyway)-- the number of planets and stars that would have had to align themselves to make this story wall-to-wall fact is mind bogglingly unlikely, that all of my bells are ringing on this one.
Oh, and I should add, they didn't just bring in the winning lottery ticket... from Ohio, at 4:58pm on Friday afternoon, two minutes before the deadline, that lottery ticket's date has a smudge on it making it hard to read. It appears to be a legit ticket, but the date is smudged, and no one will let you verify it further. It's a winning ticket, don't ask questions, accept it, shut up and move on with admitting we were right.
One bone to pick:
A woman can get pregnant and have a baby as soon as she begins ovulating, or producing eggs.
Egg cells (oocytes) are produced as soon as the ovaries form in utero. A woman can get pregnant as soon as she begins ovulating, or developing ova, mature egg cells.
Yes, but generally speaking (THE EXCEPTION DISPROVES THE RULE!) menstruation occurs alongside ovulation:
So I'm very well aware with "averages" vs the entire range. I don't doubt that there are 9 year olds who are either ovulating (14 days away from their first period... soooo, yes, she got pregnant "before she menstruated") but again, it's rare and doctors call it "precocious puberty". So when you pop up 2 minutes before the closing bell with a case that sits way on the left side of the flat part of the bell curve, I'm going to judge you quietly.
Common sense dictates that a 'perfect storm' politically charged story involving an event with a vanishingly small chance of occurrence that appears at the exact time and location necessary to make a point is in all likelihood completely contrived. The people perpetrating this hoax simply identified a situation that fits their claim, but is unfalsifiable due to medical privilege and privacy law. It doesn't matter if it is true. The story just has to viable long enough to be sufficiently repeated. We have seen the exact same strategy before with the Kavanaugh hearings.
Read The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury. Ironically, I would believe someone claiming to have traveled to the future before I would believe this particular lefty invention.
Her rapist has been arrested and charged and has confessed. That's going pretty far to perpetrate a hoax.
HerA rapist has been arrested and charged and has confessed.I had to fix that for you.
Unfortunately, 10 year-olds get raped. Even more unfortunately, it is not particularly uncommon. Due to medical privilege and privacy laws It is unfalsifiable that that same 10 year-old is the person that obtained an abortion. The doctor that made the claim would be in violation of HIPAA if the claim could be proven to point to a single individual.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Someone was arrested for a rape... of a 9 yr old.
We're told a pregnant 9 yr old who was raped was taken to an Ohio abortion clinic, denied a legal abortion due to recently passed law that went into affect when Roe was overturned.
She traveled to India where, we are told A 9 yr old received an abortion.
Those are a set of facts, some of which might be related, or might be unrelated. According to many in the Ohio legal community, she wouldn't have been denied an abortion in Ohio because her condition would have fallen within the medical exception of Ohio law.
We can't get the name or identity of the 9yr old girl for obvious reasons. As I said, we've been presented with a winning lottery ticket, but the date is smudged and we're not allowed to verify it.
Here's an entire plausible alternative:
9 yr old girl was raped. 9 yr old girl was, in a rare state of development and in the condition of "precocious puberty". 9 yr old was impregnated. 9 yr old was taken to clinic where abortion activist worked, knew that the abortion would be 100% legal but wanted to make a point. Phoned up associate in Indiana, also an activist, they consulted and decided to send the girl to Indiana while claiming to a compliant journalist that she was "denied" an abortion. Story went out like wildfire, before any arrest was even in the system-- or anything had been legally reported. Get it to the press first, then cross the Ts and dot the Is.
Here is another entirely plausible story:
10 year old girl was raped. 10 year old girl goes to doctor in Ohio looking for an abortion. Doctor, unsure about the rapidly changing state of abortion law in Ohio, decides to play CYA and send the girl to another state.
No need to invent conspiracies.
Ohio law makes no mention of age. There is no exception based on age.
There is no question at this point that the story is true. Give it up. You're looking silly.
It's also true that a whistleblower from Facebook testified before Congress.
There is no question at this point that the story is true.
Yes. So it has been reported.
And so there is no problem with you providing proof. If you manage to do so, I will apologize and prostrate myself in front of a donkey.
There is no question at this point that the story is true.
When they start saying this, I become even more convinced it is a lie and that it is known to be a lie. If there is proof, you don't have to tell me it is true, you could just show me.
Why on earth would the abortion have been reported to the police if it was questionable that it was legal to perform? Why would a doctor, knowing this, violate the confidentiality of a patient by identify a unique situation that could only apply to a single girl?
The only evidence presented by NPR in confirming the story that a 10 year-old girl had an abortion is the supposed testimony of a Columbus police detective at the arraignment for her rapist a single day after the abortion took place. NPR is very fuzzy on the details of why the rape was not reported for 5 weeks and 2 days or why it was reported by the mother to Franklin County Child Services instead of directly to police.
And where is NPRs outrage for a child-victim or her mother being asked to incriminate themselves while cooperating with police? It's outrageous that they not have legal representation. There is a virtual smorgasbord of outrage to be had for this situation. Except, of course, about the abortion at the center of the controversy, because that went off without a hitch.
Silly. You look silly.
Wait, what? How did we pull "including a city business license" out of that pile of dogshit?
So, holy fuck me sideways. Jared Polis wants to leave me alone, except for taxing me and handing out benefits to anyone who did an endzone dive across the border? The fucking fuck, Reason?
Fuck you, Reason, with your bullshit "he's so libertarian and dreeeeeamy!"
Jared Polis, libertarianism's big government statist hope.
Jesus fucking Christ that's like the least libertarian thing you can do: Extend 100% of your welfare benefits to people who don't pay taxes into the system.
Does it make it any better knowing that it is still cheaper than the money and materiel being supplied to the Ukrainians.
So, holy fuck me sideways
I'll be by around 11:30 tonight
There's no evidence illegal immigrants get any welfare benefits, maaaaaan!
Um, Colorado passed a law where they explicitly don't ask if you're a legal immigrant before handing out welfare benefits.
See, maaaan, that's proof, maaan, there's no one in Colorado listed as an illegal immigrant on the welfare rolls, maaaan!
So... what exactly makes Jared Polis so "libertarian"
LIke, he doesn't like, care if you're gay and shit, man.
Ok, that's one tiny thing, can you give me anything else?
Gay. Gay! Like, GAY!
Great, I understand, is there anything else?
Pfft, what else is there, maaan? Why you gotta ask me these bummer headtrip questions, maan? Why are you so obsessed with who's gay, man? *snicker*
How does he feel about sex workers?
I'm sure he's 100% on board, and if that sex worker is an illegal alien, that sex worker can start a cam-site but is now eligible for rent assistance, food stamps, healthcare, dental care utility assistance and on and on and on. So libertarian! *swoons and bats eyes*
You may have hit upon a great Proggie fetish opportunity. Vids of immigrants having anal sex while eating government cheese. Even Nancy "Death Valley dry" Pelosi could get wet watching that.
Enter Jeff to explain how You just love you some Team Red
Come on, man. Polis hit the Reason trifecta: weed, ass sex, and open borders.
Polis dramatically extended the welfare state to include the entire population of the planet... yet he's "the most libertarian governor out there"
https://www.kktv.com/2022/07/07/new-colorado-retail-delivery-fee-causing-issues-small-businesses/
Polis signed into law a 23 cent tax on any retail deliveries. As if the state gas taxes, sales taxes and other consumptive taxes out there weren't enough. But totes libertarian, bruh.
You should have seen how much vehicle registrations skyrocketed. In 2007, I was registering my vehicle for about $65. In 2015, that went up to $210.
One reason for all these taxes and fees is that Colorado actually has incredibly low income and property taxes relative to much of the country, and TABOR limits what the Democrat-dominated legislature can actually pass. So all these extraneous fees are how the state tries to pay for all the shitlib goodies these neo-yuppie/neomarxist shitheads want.
He's also skeptical about COVID restrictions. So there's at least two things.
Really he's just an old timey left-liberal, but the base of his party is so crazy right now that he's the only ledge the liberaltarians that run this publication can cling to while screaming, "SEE - LIBERTARIANISM IS FOR DEMOCRATS TOO! WE'RE NOT JUST REPUBLICANS COMFORTABLE WITH WEED AND BUTT SEX!"
He's also skeptical about COVID restrictions. So there's at least two things.
So was Reason. Skeptical of lockdowns and restrictions. Skeptical, they were.
Skeptical of those icky right wingers complaining about daddy government's reasonable restrictions to our liberty for the sake of community health. With very few exception here at Reason, they were quiet about the clear authoritarian policies; especially since their team was pushing it. Their team = Far left progressives.
Took them 6 months to even get to "skeptical"
"Lyondell would shut Houston oil refinery early on major equipment failure -sources"
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/lyondell-would-shut-houston-oil-refinery-early-major-equipment-failure-sources-2022-06-07/#:~:text=Lyondell%20spokesperson%20Chevalier%20Gray%20said,%2Dterm%2C%22%20Gray%20said.
Brandon's doing great.
In a few years the only choices for disposable bags will be paper or babyskin.
What's a baby? I thought they were just clumps of cells.
Good point. "Paper, or Cellulose?"
Just a take on this comment:
No one should have to risk being deported because they want to start a legal business or hire employees. Kudos to Colorado lawmakers for undoing a poorly conceived law.
If you're not legally allowed to work in this country, starting a business is not legal.
Not commenting on anything else regarding business licensing or otherwise.
But fucking Reason can never make an immigration argument based on the actual law, it's all OBL style wide open borders with zero thought given to the rule of law, or whether those people who walk across the border are legally allowed to work, or if they aren't whether they and their employers are not both breaking the law...
Let 'em all in! And then you have a guaranteed underclass of slave labor that you can only pay under the table. Or if they're law-abiding cannot work legally and so can't possibly be independent of any governmental largess and survive.
Fucking think 2 steps instead of just one Reason.
Dude, who cares about the business license part of the deal. There's no need to get your blood up about an illegal immigrant that wants to pay his own way by opening a food truck.
The business license is one small part of the veritable constellation of services and welfare benefits they get with Colorado's law. The "business license" part of it is one shriveled grape in the entire bunch.
I think the bigger stupidity there is what Paul pointed out, that the law actually allows illegal immigrants access to all state benefits as well. If it was just about business licensing, I'd say "OK (but better to get rid of business licensing altogether)". If the feds want to stop them, they can, but I don't think a state is obliged to refuse business licenses based on immigration status.
Exactly, when I read the subhed on this post, I thought, "Ok, start a business license, cool." then I saw "any public benefit" and thought, "Hoooold the fuck on a second."
That's precisely the point, Diane.
Fucking open border advocates all give a sob story about "they're just trying to make a better life" or some shit then completely and totally elide the entire part after letting them across the border.
Then what?
They can't work legally. Letting them work illegally puts employers who actually follow employment laws at a disadvantage and fosters a huge black market.
Just saying "Hey, don't ask status" then means people who cannot legally work, therefore who cannot legally be contributing to the pie, are allowed services. Does this not seem like a massive moral hazard?
What about schooling for children of people who are here illegally? It's both an expense and causes other difficulties. For example, the whole teaching in English or in native languages, which is a big problem no matter which way you go. At least here where lots of the recent school aged immigrants are in Spanish-only or Spanish-first homes.
What about the effect on the currently existing poor? Bringing in illegal labor drives down the real and, worse, the perceived value of lower-skills jobs. Someone starting out, without an education, without a good work history has no power to start at the bottom and move up, or to demand a higher wage for a particularly nasty or dangerous job if the market gets distorted by bringing in illegal labor every time there is any wage pressure.
What about the rampant victimization of migrants on their way here? Coyotes might be the worst people in the world.
What about skilled labor? H1Bs have been abused endlessly since they were massively expanded all the way back in the Clinton administration to suppress tech wages and to allow companies to offload training onto the employee, demanding "you need this degree" or "A phd in xyz" for a job else they'll import someone with a degree from some technical school in Bangalore.
What about racism? Is it really racist to talk about any of this?
Geez, man. Reason could cover a million interesting topics regarding immigration. Instead, they bring on an intern in Arizona, give her a sample article with the most banal take on all of it, and tell her to rewrite a hundred times so she can meet her thrice-fornightly article quota.
They should just hire OBL to write those articles. He's better at it than Ms Harrigan.
I really don't care about people working here illegally. If you're here to work and make an honest living, OK. Someone wants to hire you and it's their right to use their resources as they see fit. I'm just annoyed at glossing over the terrible anti-libertarian parts to make it all about that.
Not to say I think all of your concerns are invalid. I think the practically best solution would be to allow a lot more people in to work and try to eliminate "unofficial" border crossings as much as possible.
These aren't "my" concerns.
They're just concerns. Brainstormed, examples of goddamned near anything other than the infantile "just let everyone in" message Reason is pushing. Because just letting everyone in is not the same as your solution. And it's not a two sides thing, it's a lots of sides thing. It's a dodecahedron thing. It's a handful of those weird ass 20 sided dice fantasy gamers use thing.
Let people work, let lots of people in. OK how many do we let in? A million? A hundred million? Unlimited? How do we decide? If it's skill based who decides what skills? If it's not what do you base it on? First come first served? If so, what about people already here? What about people here LEGALLY, do they get preference over those who broke the law to come here? How do you convince people that's fair if so? Aand if not, how do you convince the other group of people that it's fair?
What about hiring illegals, do they just suddenly all get green cards? Or do they stay illegal and we just allow it? And, if so, which other employment laws am I allowed to just ignore? What benefits are these immigrants allowed to participate in? Do they get unemployment? Do they qualify for disability if they get sick, or worker's comp if they get hurt? And who pays for that? Because if you have to cover those with withholding ... you can go on ad nauseum. There is SO MUCH HERE to sort out.
Fundamentally, the Reason "let illegals go" argument doesn't address the endless list of associated immigration issues but, more to the point, just allowing illegal immigration without addressing all of the other issues is absolutely not about being good to the immigrant. It is about a giveaway to businesses who are willing to participate in a black market for illegal labor. It creates an underclass of people with no way up, which is easily exploitable.
You just cannot allow completely free immigration without addressing the other issues surrounding it. So a magazine that's going to advocate for massive immigration several times each week ought to examine those, many, many, different externalities.
So, you would be OK, though, if much more immigration were made legal?
The vast majority of your concerns would be alleviated if the illegal labor were simply declared to be legal.
And it is noteworthy that many of these benefits are actually federal benefits that are administered by the states. When states give out federal dollars to illegal aliens, in general all taxpayers are footing that bill.
Is it the job of Colorado to enforce Federal immigration law?
You're saying a state can pick and choose which laws to enforce? Does that mean Denver can bring back redlining like the 50s?
No, but it would be nice if they would. Someone needs to.
Some democrats may want to take note Manchin is also one of the nations most popular politicians. Not being bat s--t crazy socialists might be a good thing.
6uild 6ack 6etter or is it build back broken....because that's what we'll end up with. The liberal/ neo-Bolsehvic/woketards only destroy.
As for the 10 year old pregnant girl/abortion story.....HOAX. Never happened. Just like the so called Holocaust.
Selling a teenth behind the 7Eleven is entrepreneurial.
I'll have you know I wash my asshole regularly!
Is that what a teener is called in the lower 49?
I don't know what either a teenth or teener is.
I'd guess... dime bag?
Need to watch some more Trailer Park Boys or Letterkenny to figure out what ML is talking about.
You mean after Mike is done with it?