Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Infidel Dog

  1. 11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

    But it is optional.  I haven't heard about a Trudeau decision (cite?) but the thread was about a US Congress decision and Joe Biden's potential veto, and its effects on the decisions of pension fund managers.  Those decisions are still made by the fund managers, based on whatever they see fit. 

    Worldwide, I'm sure other jurisdictions are different.  I'm pretty sure the UK is.

    Again, the cite is already posted above ^^^. Right after:


    Today it all depends on where you live - Canada or America.

    Canada's globalists and wannabe Socialists in charge have jumped on ESG with both feet and there aren't a lot of options:."

    I wrote that in reply to a comment from Hodad and then I continued talking about America.

    But yeah if you're talking about what's optional even in America you should be aware of which way the momentum is swinging globally. I believe they've also withdrawn choice on ESG in parts of Europe.

    And I believe that's the direction Biden would like to take it given the opportunity. 


  2. 18 hours ago, bcsapper said:

    I could be wrong about this, so I'm happy to be corrected, but hasn't that always been the case?  Haven't all pension funds, (teachers, unions, government employees, etc) always been run by fund managers with no input at all from those paying into and expecting a pension?  At best they get an annual statement, after the fact.

    Nothing has changed except there are more options.  It still behooves a pension fund manager to act in the best interests of the members. 

    In Canada Trudeau has removed the option of refusing ESG so that appears to be new. In America, depending on who's in power, the membership might still have the option of pressuring the leadership not to go ideology over profit.

    But even if the Biden regime does offer an option to their friends in union leadership of refusing ESG there is still the possibility of drip, dripping towards a monopoly of ESG the way they did with social media. At this point leadership can simply throw up their hands with a smile on their face and say 'sorry guys, you're building windmills. Oh...and your pensions will be a little less. Sorry about that."

    • Like 1
  3. 59 minutes ago, Hodad said:

    So are you conceding that you misunderstood the topic? That, indeed, Biden is not forcing retirement funds to do anything related to ESG? Because you definitely didn't provide a link or address that issue.

    The link is 5 posts up from this one and just above the post where you started whinging.


    WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday voted to overturn a Labor Department rule that permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider climate change, good corporate governance and other factors when making investments on behalf of pension plan participants.

    President Joe Biden said Monday that he will veto the Senate bill if it comes to his desk — the first veto of his presidency."

    Nationalist is correct. If a union member's union invests in a pension fund he donates to throughout his working life and the funds go to an ESG compliant company like say Black Rock or Vanguard he has no option but to accept it. There is no choice for that guy. Biden passed a law allowing his choice to be taken away from him.

    Not that you asked but Trudeau applied the force of law demanding acceptance of ESG even harder.

    I repeated that last bit of information on choice so Sapper could hopefully hear it this time. I think he might be going for the record of not reading what's in front of his face though.

    I'll just copy and paste next time, Sappy and we'll run a counter for you. 

    • Thanks 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Hodad said:

    Can I ask how this is an example of the government meddling? ESG-focused funds aren't a government creation or product. It's just an option in the marketplace. 

    About half of consumers are willing to pay a premium to do business with companies that have positive ESG programs and that number is going to continue to go up. Employees--top talent--increasingly factor ESG into their career decisions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that there is a market for investing that takes ESG into account. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow fund managers to factor in that value and future market value. 

    Now I realize that it gets less clear cut when fund managers are working with other people's money, but It's also true that fund management styles and approaches have always been differentiators between funds. Organizations that don't want to be involved with these funds can make the market decision to choose others. It seems to me that legally prohibiting fund managers from considering ESG (rather than letting the market do the work) would actually the government interference. 


    Today it all depends on where you live - Canada or America.

    Canada's globalists and wannabe Socialist in charge have jumped on ESG with both feet and there aren't a lot of options:

    Canada’s pension fund will punish ESG failings

    In America the fight goes into another gear with Republicans winning the house. ESG is referred to as woke capitalism and the opposition describes it like this:


    Republican critics of the Labor Department’s new rule say it undermines 401(k) retirement funds by allowing investment managers to put ideological issues such as climate change ahead of investment returns.

    “The last thing we should do is encourage fiduciaries to make decisions with a lower rate of return for purely ideological reasons,” Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, the Senate’s lead sponsor of the bill, said earlier this month.

    But yeah, for and against in America by those that matter seems to be a left or right, 50/50 split.


    The final vote in the Senate was 50-46, with two Democratic senators crossing party lines to support the repeal bill: Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. Both are up for reelection next year in conservative-leaning states.

    Senate overturns federal rule on ESG investments, Biden vows to veto

  5. Also, ESG isn't necessarily optional.

    Consider if you belong to a union in America for instance and that union puts its pension fund in the hands of some big money management company, like say Black Rock or Vanguard. And suppose they like the idea of the ESG racket for their own devious, globalist friendly purposes. 

    So your pension fund is what's at play and you personally have very little choice.

    • Like 1
  6. I assume you're talking about the Democrat, April Runoff, Primary.

    In the first election Vallas finished on top.

    Johnson was second and current mayor Lori Lightfoot was knocked out.

    What's suspected is that Brandon Johnson, being not just far left but black will inherit the Lori Lightfoot vote surging him to the front.

    However...Vallas is the law and order guy. Johnson is pretty much defund the police. That's becoming a big issue in Chicago. I wouldn't make any bets on this one just yet.

  7. 3 hours ago, robosmith said:

    IF that were true, you HAVE the CHOICE to invest elsewhere,

    Why? Did somebody say you didn't?

    As I understand it that's one of the problems with ESG. People and organizations can pull their investments. I think money managers and others in on ESG want a monopoly so that you have no place to go but them.

  8. Absolutely. Choose to be as silly as you want. Mortgage your home if you like. But when the money's all gone and you don't actually have any of this equity you were promised or for that matter even a pension maybe you'll agree that the crooks that put you in that position didn't deserve so much choice. 

    Like I said I'm not for Bernie Madoff style choice.

  9. The problem is a lot of the money being played with here by the globalist woke isn't actually the money managers' money. Much of it is pension money and such. It's from investments.  

    I think I heard somewhere that Black Rock, I think it was had to pull back from ESG because investors were withdrawing funds.

    • Like 1
  10. This longer lines for blacks thing is starting to look like the ol' Prog trick of creating a problem then offering some bogus solution that just makes the problem worse.

    How would you solve what you see as this problem, that I say your guys have manufactured in Harris county, for example, R&R?

    Ballot boxes on every street corner in black districts? Another thousand mules to pick them up, maybe?


    • Like 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    In 2020, Texas decreed there would be ONLY ONE drop box per county. That means ONE drop box for Harris County with 6M residents, and ONE for small rural counties with a few thousand.

    The line in Harris County (mostly black) was significantly LONGER. That was their alternative to waiting in line to vote in person.

    So it isn't one line for whites and one longer line for blacks peppered as policy throughout the South then, as you insinuated.

    You did your 3 stooges fallacy of hasty generalization thing again. You found one incident that may or may not have some truth to it and inflated it to be a false much, much larger issue.

    And even if true the lawfare push for ballot boxes is a dem thing. They pushed it in during the pandemic. So again, physician heal thyself.

  12. 1 minute ago, reason10 said:

    In my small Florida town, I've never seen a long line at the polls, (my precinct being tallied at a local elementary school cafeteria.) About thirty miles south is a large town where there are long lines all over the place.  It's all in the leadership.

    Are you saying they're breaking the 14th amendment where it concerns 'equal rights under the law?"

    I don't think you are but I'd like that clarified.

  13. 2 hours ago, reason10 said:

    The longer lines aren't due to any law. They are due to blue districts being so incompetent and stingy that they do not provide for enough paid campaign workers and enough voting sites. Long lines are due to the law of supply and demand. If you pay shit, you're going to get shit.

    That would account for longer lines in different districts. If that's all he's talking about. But that's a Democrat problem. Candace Owens calls that "the voter plantation" where blacks have been forced into districts by Democrat policies. That is strictly a Dem thing.

    R&R may not be saying there are 2 lines in a counting station; one for whites and one longer one for blacks but he definitely was insinuating  it. And that would be...D184fOe.gif

    Now it is true there was a time when the 14th amendment could be and was at times ignored by Southern Democrats but over the years the laws concerning the 14th have been strengthened. "Equal rights under the law" is solid now. Everywhere under the law in America.

    If he's saying somebody is breaking that law, who's he gonna charge? His own party. Because that's who would appear to be responsible if anybody is.

  14. 20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    What do YOU KNOW about minorities voting in the South?

    I'm guessing you've heard NONE of the news reports on Fox Lies.

    Tell you what. You show me the law that says Blacks anywhere in America have to stand in voting lines longer than whites and I'll stop saying:



  15. 39 minutes ago, Contrarian said:


    NASA should hire you. :lol:

    It is if you agree with him. Which I do. Not exactly sure what he means by corrupt but I do often see them jumping off the fence they're sitting on to quote leftist talking points at me.

    Maybe not NASA, but if an actual, for real, conservative politician said that I'd vote for him. "Good one. I'd holler from the crowd. Now tell us about the fake conservatives."

  16. Not a fan of Vox. But I'll read it.

    So I read...and then he mentioned the Bangladesh study. I'm familiar with that study. The guy is a lot more confident in that one than I am.

    It does have the fact that it was performed during covid. Then what? As I recall the people administering the study were involved in some sort of connected but not medical program. I got the impression they were activists. The vox guy's big point against the 6 other studies done during covid from the meta study was you couldn't trust that people wore the masks. But he trusts Bangladeshi villagers to always tell the truth? Why? When I read about that one it smelled like there was a lot of confirmation bias behind it.

    Also even if you're determined to throw yourself at the feet of the Bangladeshi study and grasp its ankles as the final word it's still 6 to 1. Well maybe 6 to 2. I don't know the other one he mentions but from the description the critique would be the same. They also couldn't be sure how much mask use was actually in play.

    And why are we being asked to dismiss the many other studies done on flus? Because they're not covid? OK, but why? What's so different about Covid that it makes mask studies on flu irrelevant? The Cochrane review doesn't think they're irrelevant. Why is this guy trying to pass himself off as the superior authority without giving us clear and full reasoning as to why he's so sure flu studies on masks don't tell us anything about masks on Covid.

    Masks don't work. The bulk of current science supports that. And you look stupid if you wear one. 

  • Create New...