This keep being mentioned like it’s one person mandating such oppressive laws that everyone hates. This is a properly legislated law, with lots of popular support. So why would not taking a stand against it be any more problematic than taking a stand against it?
This is more symptomatic of the core problem, where the prevailing attitude is that the “correct” side is obvious and anyone who disagrees simply doesnt exist in the discussion. At least the proponents of parental rights in education are willing to debate the subject, rather that just pretend everyone agrees with them.
Neither would “blacks”, but politicians and pollsters still pander to “the African American vote” every election.
Regardless of why the segment exists, the point is they’re just seeing a way to appeal to potential customers. You and I may not think it’s a legit market segment, but those within it do. So such companies arent necessarily pushing/promoting a social agenda, they’re merely trying to capture what’s already there.
I dont like the social politics at all, but I can [almost] never fault capitalism for doing it’s thing.
That is why I pointed out “current identity group politics”. Blacks and Hispanics have been seen as market segments since decades ago. This particular trans(?) group is “new”. Also, it’s so small that it would make more sense to market bud light to old ladies if it were that the company’s intent was to expand its customer base.
This was already posted (to which you even replied). And again, it’s likely because the campaign backfired so miserably, regardless of it’s subject. There’s zero reason to think the company’s response has anything to do with social politics.
Let me get this straight. The company puts on a marketing campaign that includes a transgender dude that annoys the hell out of most of the customers. The company puts the two idiots in charge of the campaign on “leave.” Then it tries damage control with what it thinks are patriotic commercials with horses running around the countryside. And this has nothing to do with social politics?
Basically, yes. There is zero indication that this marketing campaign was targeted at you and I, pushing some sort of pro-trans agenda on us. It was targeted, trying to appeal to and attract customers from the trans market. They want more beer drinkers, and dont really care where they come from. And this is what the marketing campaign was about.
Everything after that is in response to the massive blowback they received, not due to some sort of change of heart walking back their nonexistant pro-trans agenda. All they did is quickly shift focus to preserving the market share they already have.
They’re merely trying to navigate the existing realities of social politics just like everyone else, not participate in social politics let alone try to be the one leading the charge.
The trans and trans supporters market is not “so small”, or it never would’ve gotten the traction it has. And I’m guessing market research shows it’s a demographic they lag in, making them an obvious target for a marketing campaign.
DeSantis’s office called the lawsuit “yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters” and added it was “unaware of any legal right” for a company to hold on to “special privileges.”
If Americans want to make investment decisions using environmental, social and governance factors, that’s fair enough. It’s a free country. The problem is having a hidden agenda that applies to everybody else. A new analysis says that, even in non-ESG investment vehicles, many asset managers proxy vote in favor of woke shareholder proposals to do racial audits or strangle fossil fuels.
The table nearby shows the score. It’s from a report by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, which examined “4,814 non-ESG branded funds” to see how proxy votes were cast on “50 of the most extreme ESG-oriented shareholder proposals from 2022.”
Among the top 40 most active voters, the report gives an A grade to Dimensional, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, and Fidelity, a signal that they respect savers and investors who have differing views on today’s heated political debates. “We don’t believe that we should dictate company strategy,” Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley recently said regarding climate change. “It would be hubris to presume that we know the right strategy for the thousands of companies that Vanguard invests with.”
This seems to take it too far in the opposite direction. This Petras is apparently a popular grammy award winning artist. Regardless of why they might have chose her over other options, she’s legit famous. Unlike that wierdo who’s only claim to fame is pretending to be a woman; that is why there was such blowback on Bud Light, he didnt merit being famous in the first place.
New York City leaders have boasted about using worker retirement savings to advance their climate agenda. They may come to regret it after several city workers this month sued their pension funds for putting climate over financial returns.
Good news for property owners in general but especially farmers.
The Supreme Court rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in a unanimous decision Thursday.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, brought by a couple prevented by the EPA from building a home on their own land near Priest Lake, Idaho because it contained wetlands, considered the scope of the agency’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, which defines what “navigable waters” can be regulated under the CWA. Plaintiffs Chantell and Mike Sackett, who have spent 15 years fighting the agency’s rule in court, allege the EPA has overstepped the authority it was granted when Congress enacted the CWA in 1972—forcing them to stop construction on their land or face fines.
The Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, determining their land is not covered under the text of the CWA, which gives the EPA authority to regulate “navigable waters.”
And a good stick across the nose to the Ruling Class, although it will fall on deaf Biden nostrils (just carrying on the metaphor, instead of mixing them). The Supremes not only reversed the Biden Maga-Expanansion of the EPA, they kicked it in the go$%#$ by confirming that adjacent wetlands have to be adjoining.
The BCF does not appear to have a dog in this fight, so I doubt the President will give a hoot, and will let it go wth nothing more than a disjointed, incoherent-at-best, statement.