Politics/Religion Consolidated Megathread Extravaganza

[Lokmar]

He was the right candidate in 2016, but not in 2024.

There is nobody else worth taking a gamble on.



For all his faults, he's still the right person in 2024.

Agreed. I could support DeSantis but he'll be literal hitler just like Trump by the time the media gets their say. The media will paint him as even more racist and unhinged than they've painted Trump. They'll say that at least Trump is not homophobic.....even though they've said Trump is homophobic! LOL!

[Frood]

There is nobody else worth taking a gamble on.



For all his faults, he's still the right person in 2024.

Agreed. I could support DeSantis but he'll be literal hitler just like Trump by the time the media gets their say. The media will paint him as even more racist and unhinged than they've painted Trump. They'll say that at least Trump is not homophobic.....even though they've said Trump is homophobic! LOL!

Plus DeSantis has started getting groomed by the Rhinos and Neocons.... and he seems to enjoy it.

[Herman]

He was the right candidate in 2016, but not in 2024.

Thinking back, I was told the same thing in 2016. In fact, I was told the right guy was Ted Cruz. I voted Ted Cruz in the primary.

Ted Cruz is not committed to the working class movement. That was and still is the Republican Party today. Trump created the movement, but it is time for the second generation to lead. I believe Ron Desantis is that leader.

[Herman]

Prog hypocrisy in action.



Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a prominent supporter of "defund the police" movement, married one of her campaign's security guards earlier this month.



The congresswoman's office disclosed on Sunday that earlier this month Bush married Cortney Merritts, "a security specialist who was paid more than $62,000 by Bush's campaign in 2022," the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

[Herman]

House votes to kill Biden's 'woke' ESG investment rule that props up 'phony climate movement'

House voted to kill Department of Labor rule; Senate will take it up next



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-kill-bidens-woke-esg-investment-rule-props-up-phony-climate-movement">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- ... e-movement">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-kill-bidens-woke-esg-investment-rule-props-up-phony-climate-movement

The House voted Tuesday to kill the Biden administration's controversial rule that encourages private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environment, social and governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions for tens of millions of Americans.



The Department of Labor rule is widely seen by Republicans as part of the Biden administration's push to inject "woke" ideology into all aspects of government. Under the rule, fiduciaries who make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies' approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.



Republicans say that's a recipe for tanking millions of investment accounts, and on Tuesday, House GOP leaders called up a resolution aimed at killing the rule, which passed 216-204. Only one Democrat voted for it.

[Frood]

Janet Yellen has indicated during an impromptu visit to Ukraine to meet Cokehead Vlod that she would explore avenues to funnel nearly a third of a trillion dollars worth of illegally frozen or seized Russian assets so Vlod can snort ching out of God's bum crack.

[Frood]

I think this is the last straw humanity has....

[DKG]

House votes to kill Biden's 'woke' ESG investment rule that props up 'phony climate movement'

House voted to kill Department of Labor rule; Senate will take it up next



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-kill-bidens-woke-esg-investment-rule-props-up-phony-climate-movement">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- ... e-movement">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-kill-bidens-woke-esg-investment-rule-props-up-phony-climate-movement

The House voted Tuesday to kill the Biden administration's controversial rule that encourages private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environment, social and governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions for tens of millions of Americans.



The Department of Labor rule is widely seen by Republicans as part of the Biden administration's push to inject "woke" ideology into all aspects of government. Under the rule, fiduciaries who make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies' approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.



Republicans say that's a recipe for tanking millions of investment accounts, and on Tuesday, House GOP leaders called up a resolution aimed at killing the rule, which passed 216-204. Only one Democrat voted for it.

Manchin opposes it, so we will see what happens in the senate. If the senate passes it, there will be people not investing in there 401k plans.

[Oerdin]

No surprise that Tru-dump is corrupt about bought by the Chinese Communist Party.

[Frood]

House votes to kill Biden's 'woke' ESG investment rule that props up 'phony climate movement'

House voted to kill Department of Labor rule; Senate will take it up next



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-kill-bidens-woke-esg-investment-rule-props-up-phony-climate-movement">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- ... e-movement">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-kill-bidens-woke-esg-investment-rule-props-up-phony-climate-movement

The House voted Tuesday to kill the Biden administration's controversial rule that encourages private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environment, social and governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions for tens of millions of Americans.



The Department of Labor rule is widely seen by Republicans as part of the Biden administration's push to inject "woke" ideology into all aspects of government. Under the rule, fiduciaries who make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies' approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.



Republicans say that's a recipe for tanking millions of investment accounts, and on Tuesday, House GOP leaders called up a resolution aimed at killing the rule, which passed 216-204. Only one Democrat voted for it.

Manchin opposes it, so we will see what happens in the senate. If the senate passes it, there will be people not investing in there 401k plans.

The lefty government here I'm Australia are upping taxes on superannuation (forced and unforced 401k type program) for anybody with 3 million or more (just over 2 million USD) in their retirement accounts because the lefties reckon they're not paying enough and dodging taxes.



The grabs are on, now. Anything on the books is fair game, even if it's not fair game or shouldn't be.



It's class persecution.

[Herman]

One for Shen Li and folks like her.

[Oerdin]

What a complete corrupt shit show.

[Anonymous]

Ninety seven percent of climate scientists aint saying there is a climate crisis, One hundred percent of prog billionaires and their paid for political lackies are saying there is a climate crisis.



~~~~



Summary: Using "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused" to argue against fossil fuels is illogical and unscientific. It:



1. Falsely equates some climate impact with catastrophic climate impact

2. Ignores the huge benefits of fossil fuels



If someone tries to intimidate you into opposing fossil fuels by saying "97% of climate scientists agree," trying asking them:



1. What exactly do they agree about—do they agree there's a "climate crisis"?



2. Do you agree we should also factor in the benefits of fossil fuels?

Nobody has tried, much less succeeded. I have plenty of assertions regarding man's impact on the climate to be grossly overstated and the doom and gloom tales of where it will lead us if it's not addressed.



Alex is right of course, as are you. Doubting the panic-mongering is proper, the climate change argument is being used more as a cudgel than a proper argument. Carbon emissions make up a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gasses for one thing, the overwhelming majority of those gasses is in fact water vapour which accounts for three quarters of all greenhouse gasses. Water vapour is also by far and away the largest contributor to carbon dioxide as well, since a fairly decent amount is held in suspension in the sea water and released into the atmosphere as sea water heats up and becomes steam. And there is a fuckton of our surface covered in the stuff for the sun to to to work on a daily basis. Man's contributions to the carbon dioxide content are measurably minimal by comparison.



"Well, less carbon dioxide means the seas won't heat up as much, we must pull back on our emissions to keep things nice and frosty on Mother Gaia..." yeah, jam that argument sideways. Sea water is still going to heat up and release carbon dioxide in amounts that dwarf mankind's efforts. What is more, if geological inspection of arctic ice core samples are to be believed, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is lagging some 800 years behind the ocean temperatures. Meaning that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is a reflection on what the ocean temperatures were doing back in the middle ages... a long time before Leonard Nemoy started bitching how we were all going to freeze to death "because muh climate change".



And let us be abundantly clear; cold kills far more people than heat does. A one or two degree increase in global temperatures in the next hundred years might mean a shorter trip to the water's edge, something I'm sure our monied leaders have factored into their penchant for buying waterfront property. They don't seem too worried and I'm not either. Fact is, I'm currently amusing myself for shits and giggles in a plant nursery. It might interest the odd greenie to know that there is a thriving business going in carbon dioxide emitting equipment because plants just love that shit and tend to fare better in a CO2 rich environment. As in they get bigger, yield better fruit etc. Oh, and produce more oxygen, can't forget that.



The only tangible advantage I might potentially see in climate alarmism would be if the nimbyists reined in some of the associated pollutants that went along with it. I'm a big believer in clean air and water... only these cunts aren't interested in that and would rather set up moneygrabbing schemes based around carbon credits. Fine: they can go with that grift if they must, but I know it for the bullshit it is and won't entertain it. Fossil fuels are not the cleanest solution to our energy problems, but they are far from the boogieman these wankers are pretending they are. They are also more reliable and more readily switched on and off on a dime than so-called "green energy" (which involves a fossil fuel component anyway).



There is a climate crisis of sorts, a manufactured panic I'd call it. And let's be honest - as we head into a solar Maunder Minimum (traditionally associated with lower solar energy reaching this rock), a few more ppm of CO2 floating about is something that might help us survive the bitterer winters that come with it.



And if the actual scientific data I'm interpreting is wrong, so what? We'll all of us be long dead before it hits. Why on earth would we spend our years making ourselves miserable over a problem we shall never see?

[Anonymous]

No surprise that Tru-dump is corrupt about bought by the Chinese Communist Party.

[Herman]

The vast majority of Californians do not want their governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, to run for president.



A new Quinnipiac University survey revealed the eye-opening news this week. The poll found that 70% of California voters do not want Newsom to run for the White House in 2024; only 22% said they do.