I thought we had a hunger problem around the world?
https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...ns-to-cut-livestock-numbers-by-almost-a-third
https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...ns-to-cut-livestock-numbers-by-almost-a-third
I can’t keep up, but….
- Thread starter paindonthurt
- Start date
- Status
How much of our beef is important from the Netherlands? We eat American beef in our house.
The Supreme Court proved they got our backs today. And stomachs. Don't worry, be happy. Or be a vegan. It's all good.
The Supreme Court proved they got our backs today. And stomachs. Don't worry, be happy. Or be a vegan. It's all good.
Probably none of the beef from the Netherlands is important to us and not much is imported to us either.
But they aren’t just trying to do this in the Netherlands.
But I agree the Supreme Court is doing their actual job. Judging actions and not making laws.
But they aren’t just trying to do this in the Netherlands.
But I agree the Supreme Court is doing their actual job. Judging actions and not making laws.
The article said the Netherlands were the EU largest meat exporter. I guess that is not all beef and probably not much of it is exported here but if they significantly reduced their cattle I bet it would raise prices.
Just wait until the Securities and Exchange Commission gets their “Enhancement and Standardization of Climate Related Disclosures for Investors” Rule in place. That will be fun.
One of Biden’s advisors said on TV yesterday that Americans need to stand firm and keep paying high gas prices to support “The Liberal World Order”
I have never in my life thought there would come a day we had to ask other country's to help feed our babies. No matter how they try to spin it our country is ****** up.
https://www.amazon.com/End-World-Just-Beginning-Globalization/dp/006323047X
Highly recommended....fascinating
Highly recommended....fascinating
Time to can the filibuster?
Seems like Congress is going to have to be far more specific and delegate less broad authorities to federal agencies (they aren't going away and still are necessary for both parties)...also known as doing their job. It's a big short term disruption, but hopefully for the better in the long run.
No matter which take you have on policy, seems to me that the 60 vote threshold is going to kneecap getting anything done to the detriment of all Americans. Take it back to 51, let a handful of of middle road politicians be squeaky wheels in policy development, and force compromise with the threat that legislation has an actual chance at passing with a true majority vote. Senate minority representation is still preserved with Wyoming having the same influence as NY or CA. Make Congress finally put up or shut up instead of hiding behind the unrealistic 60 vote threshold where policy is promised but never delivered.
Seems like Congress is going to have to be far more specific and delegate less broad authorities to federal agencies (they aren't going away and still are necessary for both parties)...also known as doing their job. It's a big short term disruption, but hopefully for the better in the long run.
No matter which take you have on policy, seems to me that the 60 vote threshold is going to kneecap getting anything done to the detriment of all Americans. Take it back to 51, let a handful of of middle road politicians be squeaky wheels in policy development, and force compromise with the threat that legislation has an actual chance at passing with a true majority vote. Senate minority representation is still preserved with Wyoming having the same influence as NY or CA. Make Congress finally put up or shut up instead of hiding behind the unrealistic 60 vote threshold where policy is promised but never delivered.
Hoo boy let me tell you about this one...
If this actually holds up the way as it is written today, my work life is going to suck for the next few years. Will be interesting to see how the recent EPA SCOTUS decision impacts this as well as just general appeals process. I get some of the value in the requirements that the SEC is putting out there, but disagree strongly that this is the SEC's court and am skeptical that investors care as much about this data in the context of SEC filings as the SEC claims it does. Plus, climate/emissions data just doesn't get produced as quickly and reliably as pure financial information does. The folks that produce this info are on a year lag at best right now. They'll die when you tell them they have 2-3 weeks.
If this actually holds up the way as it is written today, my work life is going to suck for the next few years. Will be interesting to see how the recent EPA SCOTUS decision impacts this as well as just general appeals process. I get some of the value in the requirements that the SEC is putting out there, but disagree strongly that this is the SEC's court and am skeptical that investors care as much about this data in the context of SEC filings as the SEC claims it does. Plus, climate/emissions data just doesn't get produced as quickly and reliably as pure financial information does. The folks that produce this info are on a year lag at best right now. They'll die when you tell them they have 2-3 weeks.
The word liberal is only always bad in the US, if you are sucked in by far right talking points, but there is some nuance and truth around certain usages of the word that don't even come close to meaning Bernie Sanders or far left "liberal". Recognize that in the US it is weaponized to generate outrage by politicians and media that do not care about the truth.
Consider two things:
1) The liberal world order established after World War II simply means countries follow a rules-based international order, and don't get to invade neighboring countries, breaking international law or committing war crimes.
2) The US is a country based on liberal democracy: Liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)[1] or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of expansion in the second half of the 20th century, liberal democracy became a prevalent political system in the world."
Consider two things:
1) The liberal world order established after World War II simply means countries follow a rules-based international order, and don't get to invade neighboring countries, breaking international law or committing war crimes.
2) The US is a country based on liberal democracy: Liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)[1] or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of expansion in the second half of the 20th century, liberal democracy became a prevalent political system in the world."
There are some fringe left folks who consider child bearing a crime against the environment. I'm not sure it they want humanity to just die off so the earth can just be itself or what. I do think that they are fringe, but I also thought far right loonies were more fringe than they appear to be these days so who knows?
Surely it will raise prices short term.
And they will rise bc the demand for beef is still there. And when the demand for beef is still there and the supply goes down, some other entrepreneurial spirit in another land will figure out how to raise and sell cattle. Cycles. Sure as the sun rising in the East.
And they will rise bc the demand for beef is still there. And when the demand for beef is still there and the supply goes down, some other entrepreneurial spirit in another land will figure out how to raise and sell cattle. Cycles. Sure as the sun rising in the East.
Right. And if you don't like a particular politician, you'll take whatever ammo you find along the way. I'm not a fan of Joe, but I'm also not chomping at the bit to assert that he's declaring some new world order when he's actually just using a proper description of international workings. I feel more and more like we are a population that is unable or unwilling to do any critical thinking. I have blinds spots, I'm sure, but I'm hopeful that I've enabled my close friends and family to call them out if they see them.
Yep.
And progressives dislike that a lot. They tend not to be fans of many liberals— and especially Biden.
And progressives dislike that a lot. They tend not to be fans of many liberals— and especially Biden.
You should probably need 60 votes to do something like purposefully raise energy costs. Our poor and middle class are much poorer than they should be right now and will be for the foreseeable future because we have a political class that is insulated from them and just callous about what it means to discourage energy production and increasing refinery capacity.
On the other hand, since we have automated a path to fiscal insolvency, the filibuster is going to make it impossible to change path, but I think the politics make it more or less impossible anyway.
horshack said:
Wonder no more. We can attest that you do.
Please don’t whine about the “far-right” misusing the true meaning of “liberal” when it’s actually the far-left that has taken the word and turned it into something it is today. True liberalism is closer to today’s conservatives than it is today’s liberals/progressives. Today’s liberals are more akin to socialists/communists. Maybe that’s why they’d rather hijack the term “liberal” knowing people wouldn’t want to associate with the idea of socialism.
Disagree
Have congress be on record as raising costs on the poor and middle class and then vote them out. The successful party will be rewarded when policy works and penalized when it doesn't. Tip the 50/50 party support we have now to the party that will on record push through policy that benefits the poor and middle class.
As of now, both parties talk a lot but ultimately get blocked by 40 senators leaving decision making to a battle between executive and judiciary (my common gripe among the past several admins is that the president simply does too much - but this is largely Congress' fault). That just allows congress rehash the same messages over and over while doing nothing but fundraise for re-election and play up the identity politics game that has us all at each other's throats. Nothing gets done except recycling the same ruling class and promises on either side. Honestly they probably like it bc Congress is more theater than policy making. Why work when you can grandstand, collect your check, and keep your job?
If my choice is delegate broad authority to agencies or force congress to work and paper up the agency specifics, I choose force congress to work. But work will only create results with a 51 threshold. It's too easy for an obstructionist coalition to form requiring only 40 votes as it stands today. If we combine removing broad authority from agencies and enable congress to continue to stall itself out with a dumb voting threshold, that just makes everything worse.
Have congress be on record as raising costs on the poor and middle class and then vote them out. The successful party will be rewarded when policy works and penalized when it doesn't. Tip the 50/50 party support we have now to the party that will on record push through policy that benefits the poor and middle class.
As of now, both parties talk a lot but ultimately get blocked by 40 senators leaving decision making to a battle between executive and judiciary (my common gripe among the past several admins is that the president simply does too much - but this is largely Congress' fault). That just allows congress rehash the same messages over and over while doing nothing but fundraise for re-election and play up the identity politics game that has us all at each other's throats. Nothing gets done except recycling the same ruling class and promises on either side. Honestly they probably like it bc Congress is more theater than policy making. Why work when you can grandstand, collect your check, and keep your job?
If my choice is delegate broad authority to agencies or force congress to work and paper up the agency specifics, I choose force congress to work. But work will only create results with a 51 threshold. It's too easy for an obstructionist coalition to form requiring only 40 votes as it stands today. If we combine removing broad authority from agencies and enable congress to continue to stall itself out with a dumb voting threshold, that just makes everything worse.
Last edited:
Going to be great for private equity and private companies competing with public companies. Going to really suck for non-accredited investors, but hey, don't can't have the lowly peons pulling down $250k a year have a good place to invest outside of real estate.
If you don't realize there is a push for a "progressive" new world order in all the messaging out there you are not paying attention. The zeitgeist now defines people how they think they should behave based on the color of their skin. It now allows for a white man to call a black man a white supremacist. It defines gender based on behavior instead of biology and those behaviors are stereotypes themselves. Fascist call people that don't agree with them fascists. Every word is subject to a new definition, such as the word "liberal". Words have no meanings. You are now suppose to hate your neighbor if they don't think like you do. And all the populous just needs to bend over and say "thank you sir, may I have another" while the rules do not apply to their leaders.
This is ahistorical. The far right didn't assign the term liberal to US "liberals". It was essentially a successful messaging campaign for people with illiberal views to be able to somehow claim the name of liberal and have other people more or less concede it. That's why you see some people on the right and left use the term classical liberal, by which they mean the more or less historical, dictionary based meaning of liberal, to distinguish them from the modern political definition which is more or less the opposite of liberal.
I guess seeing Baptists call themselves baptists made a bunch of illiberal *** holes think, why can't we do the same thing?
If you voted for Biden bc you didn’t like trump or just didn’t vote for trump and helped get Biden in, you are to blame for what’s happening.
No ****. Which is why the Constitution calls for 2/3 and more.
My comments are solely directed to passing legislation and the ridiculous threshold the Senate has set themselves via rule. I never got the impression that the founders intended a 60 vote threshold when reading Article 1 Sec 3.
My comments are solely directed to passing legislation and the ridiculous threshold the Senate has set themselves via rule. I never got the impression that the founders intended a 60 vote threshold when reading Article 1 Sec 3.
- Status
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.