That just means fewer conservatives inside the store. Which makes it more likely normal people will actually feel comfortable in there again. Fewer red hats and less exposed back fat rolling around on hover-rounds will make for a nicer shopping experience for the actual human customers.
…I say allegedly because I won’t discount the use of false flag tactics by either side to make the other look bad. But the threat was basically, “I placed bombs in your stores, put the Gay Pride displays back up or they’re going off”.
Thanks for the downvote,so good to know people here care about the truth & accuracy in reporting. 🙄
It’s not the backlash that hurt their sales, it was them being cowards and removing displays that tanked their sales because everyone saw them being cowards and kneeling down to psycho conservatives.
Stand by your principles or you’ll just anger everyone
Exactly. They pissed off bigots by putting up the pride displays, and pissed off progressives by taking them down. They couldn’t pick one side, so they angered both.
“While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry,” Steinhafel wrote.
He added, “The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests.”
Gay rights activists and loyal Target shoppers were furious with the company after it contributed $150,000 to MN Forward , a political group that has endorsed and is paying for ads for the Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.
Emmer, who will face the winner of the Democratic gubernatorial primary and an independent candidate in the general election this November.
I’m gonna skip over Emmer’s endorsement of a Christian rock band that basically called for gay people to be executed because this quote has already gotten kind of long, but there’s one other bit that jumped out at me here,
Large corporations have only recently been legally allowed to contribute to campaign advertising, after the Supreme Court in January reversed a century of campaign finance reform that had limited the money that could be spent by private companies and unions.
The more I think about this, the more it seems like Citizens United and the floodgates of campaign and general politicking cash that it dumped on all of us and the way it basically forced corporations into these donations as a way to maintain the kind of political access their competitors get (no corp wants to be the only one not donating when they need a favor) really explains so much of the political and cultural insanity we’ve seen since 2010
Not from America so please someone explain to me, I read Biden wanted to forgive student loans but somehow it didn’t get through. Sure it would be much better if the loan is forgiven, but now it is not, shouldn’t you still pay back what is owned? They really think they can just not pay and expect no consequences?
Of course everyone involved knows they will face consequences, but they may feel those consequences are better than the payments. Courts can’t garnish paychecks that don’t exist and a ruined credit rating only matters if you were ever going to be able to afford to buy a house or car in the first place. Afaik actual jail time isn’t really a thing for defaulting on a loan. If the only leverage the government has to get people to pay the loan is to threaten their future financial security, then anyone who thinks the initial promises of security is bogus has nothing to lose.
There’s also some people who are willing to take the hit just to send a political message.
That said, I suspect nowhere near 62% of borrowers will actually meaningfully boycott in any way.
These loans are out right predatory. I was offered a 12% interest rate 7 years ago and have friends who’ve been offered 16%!!!
Yes you can say just don’t sign it, but we’re 17 years old we can’t comprehend how much affect a 16% interest rate will have on you in 8 years and you’ve been told all your life college is the goto life path and you have to do this to get a “good job” and live a good life.
I agree we should payback the money we loaned, but taking advantage of genz via predatory loans for wanting a higher education is downright criminal in itself.
Adding onto this a lot of us will struggle to make these payments. I have 20k in loans and I haven’t paid a dime on EVER. Now I suddenly have a second car payment out of nowhere!
He didn’t want to. He wanted to go thru the motions. If this mattered he would have executive ordered it and forced Congress to override. Even the Supreme Court can’t force the federal government to collect a debt/tax. And given the state of Congress there was no way Congress would override it.
Biden not only wanted too, but he made sure he had a backup plan. He found a loophole in Clinton era legislation that allows a president to create income based repayment plans. It’s not quite forgiveness, but it’s the best he can do with Republicans controlling the house. apnews.com/…/student-loans-debt-college-cancellat…
If you want true loan forgiveness, vote Democratic.
As I said, he could have instructed them to just not act on or pursue any payments. Let Congress vote to force the executive to do something deeply unpopular.
If the next president reverses the order, then all these people are in the same position and might owe additional interest. Banks know this, so they will hold it against anyone seeking credit. Congress doesn’t even have to vote.
With the income based repayment, they aren’t considered delinquent on their loans, interest doesn’t build, and there is a path towards having the debt forgiven eventually.
This. For all the shit he did, Trump expanded the executive powers through EO more than any modern president ever has. Biden could have 100% EO’d student loan forgiveness, damned the consequences but chose not to.
I grew up in the area, and Salina/Huchinson are bizzaroland!
Corrupt politicians and priest fighting with crazy wiccans and witches. Curses, salt mine stories affecting things? All kinds of lunacy in that region
I have heard several accredit this in part to the fact that this area is at the intersection of the 70/135 freeways that are two of the largest drug trafficing highways in North America, I believe historically. And the cops are corrupt AF too
I’m really glad I’m not going through this now, but I would boycott if I were. I fully support these people and hope to goodness they get the relief they need!
That was a really good article. I think all the corrupt assholes in Marion must be feeling some regret because people are digging into everything now and there’s nothing they can do to stop it.
It would be nice to get out under the thumb of behemoths like Northrup and Lockheed. Motherfuckers build $1 proprietary bolts and charges the government $700 for that bolt. It’s fucking gross and it’s even grosser that it’s still going on. We need startups and new innovations to break to spending cycle STAT
Completely normal behavior for peaceful supporters of a law-abiding citizen. Who wouldn’t do some friendly doxxing to support their absolutely innocent leader.
I’m curious how the public funding element of this works. Does the government end up owning/profiting off of the company or earn some form of royalties if this concept takes off?
While I see your point, it’s also important to point out that a lot of technological advancement in human history has been spearheaded (ha) by military advancements, which eventually get developed at a far more reasonable cost for civilian use.
So the takeaway here: yeah, they’re throwing a few hundred million at this, but in terms of developing a brand-new, clean-sheet transport airframe in a style that’s never been done before - and which, if successful, will potentially lead to a diametric shift in civil aerospace design - it’s really not that expensive, and there is real potential benefit here.
Same with medical research. You could argue that the the public having access to an otherwise unattainable medicine is the benefit even though we are charged out the nose for it, but I feel like medical company profits beg to differ.
While it’s true that often military developments eventually make their way to civilian applications, imagine that money was spent directly on development of in this instance a new type of civilian aircraft.
The military could still adapt the frame to their needs, and it would most likely result in a cheaper and more useful vehicle outside of helping to kill people on another continent. This would also mean much earlier and more widespread adoption than yet another patented concept locked away because the military wants to keep it for themselves for a few decades (until it’s obsolete).
And even if that development somehow ended up being less optimized than one the military would make, it would most likely still be leaps and bounds better than the eventual commercial derivatives again sold by private entities, optimized for profit.
Hate the Catholic Church (I do) or religion as a whole (I also do), but per the article:
St. Theresa School argued Crisitello’s pregnancy violated the terms of her employment agreement, which required “employees to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church and refrain from premarital sex,” court documents say.
Agree or disagree, that all fine, but the exact reason for termination is verbatim in her contract which she signed well ahead of being fired. Is it prudish, archaic, and nonsensical? Yes. But did she sign a contract saying she wouldn’t do that and then get fired for doing that thing? Also yes.
I agree and I’m not saying it makes sense to rationale people but objectively in this case, the optics hold water. This is a fundamentalist Catholic school with nuns. The teacher was unmarried and was also pregnant. The optics of an unwed pregnant teacher, teaching kids whose parents put them in a Fundy school where pre-marital sex is an explicit no-no does put the staff in a very awkward position.
And while I agree with the idea that churches shouldn’t run schools, they do and have done for a long time, and as long as people keep sending their kids there, they will continue.
As I said, I agree completely. But the teacher was hired into that environment and knowingly signed a puritanesque ethics clause and broke it. That’s why the case was upheld ultimately.
Sometimes, the contents of contracts are illegal even when they are signed. It’s apparently not the case here according to the Court, but the question can be worth to ask.
You can’t sign away actual rights, but you can agree to pretty much anything else. It’s been well established that companies can fire you for any off-duty behavior they deem inappropriate, as long as the reason doesn’t conflict with a protected class. This is the same mechanism that allows people to be fired for being a Nazi or participating in the Jan 6th insurrection, even before being charged with a crime.
While there can probably fire her for having premarital sex, they legally can’t fire her for being pregnant. If she became pregnant through IVF, for example, then there was no sex involved.
You see, one of these things is a personal choice between two consenting adults and the other is promoting criminal hate, violence, and sedition which negatively affects large groups of people.
Very well. I will now be requiring all my women employees to not get above the age of 30 and all my minority employees to always look white.
Oh wait, I can’t do that? Is it because we have non-discrimination laws?
A school does not have religious freedom, a person does. A school doesn’t pray, a school doesn’t worry about angry skydaddy, a school doesn’t think it has a soul. A school is a collective of individuals. Those individuals have religious freedoms, not the collective that they built. If we don’t allow corporations to get around these types of laws we should not be allowing schools to.
Why are you defending the fake rights of a school and supporting their bigotry?
I read the article and summarized it. You should try it, you’d sound like less of an asshole. You disagree, that’s wonderful. Nobody is interested in your rant about it.
Because you sound like an idiot that didn’t read the article and is knee jerk reacting and going on a soap box rant. You disagreeing with the outcome of something is not the same as it being illegal. Also fuck yourself, I’m an atheist. Learn to differentiate fact and opinion jackass.
This is not a legal passage. It is violating your autonomie and is highly discriminating. Why do i have to explain that in 2023…?
You can sign a contract with problematic passages. Your signing doesn’t make illigal stuff legal. And you don’t agree with illigal stuff just by signing. It is the same with rental agreements or other contracs.
The lore protects people from abuse of power and arbitrariness.
I’m considering not paying as long as they’re doing the “ease you back into it” stuff like not reporting to credit agencies or garnishing wages. Seems essentially like a forbearance without the interest freeze. It really just depends on what my new payments end up being. But until that dog gets its teeth back, Nelnet can have what’s left after I pay my actual bills and buy my weed.
Collections can't garnish without your permission. Only the government can force garnishments.
Granted, the lender could sue you for the debt and garnishment could be part of the ruling. But you'll probably know if you've gotten to that point.
For what it's worth, I never paid off my private loans, and they went to collections, but never garnished me. My federal loans did auto-garnish, though.
With the labor shortage right now it would be expensive for loan collectors to hire enough workers to track down and force payments if people stop paying on a large scale.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.