Lurker > Antifar

Hitman 3
Yakuza 0
Super Mario 3D World
Breath of the Wild

---

kin to all that throbs

A sub is $5, so that'd be $500. Not sure what the breakdown is of how much the streamer gets.

---

kin to all that throbs

Those talking about abolishing the police are not liberals.


---

kin to all that throbs

Asking for a friend

---

kin to all that throbs

After E3 2019

---

kin to all that throbs

greenmist01 posted...

Usually if your going to make a successful tv series, then you base it upon an idea that no one else is already doing.

Tell that to all the cop shows

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/armed-men-in-standoff-shut-i-95-in-mass-shelter-in-place-for-wakefield-reading/2421271/

Did not know there were people identifying as Moors in 2021. What a world

---

kin to all that throbs

Yeah but this one makes Sony money

---

kin to all that throbs

16-BITTER posted...

This is more literal than you might think

---

kin to all that throbs

Trill__Cosby posted...

look at early street figher, timesplitters, the mgs series, etc.

You mean when games were cheaper to make and the potential audience was smaller.

---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1411075158006284290


---

kin to all that throbs

Is this one of the cock destroyers?

---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1410963637691371522

---

kin to all that throbs

Bad take, imo. And specifically using Miami sure is a tell


---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/BostonFire/status/1410916324361056262?s=20

---

kin to all that throbs

Bad

---

kin to all that throbs

archedsoul posted...

Brooklyn here.

From where?

Rochester
Ruvan22 posted...

Are you excited?

Yeah, more or less

---

kin to all that throbs

Ruvan22 posted...

To...?

Brooklyn

---

kin to all that throbs

It's weird how different games are from movies in this regard; every script that gets picked up gets a headline; Disney's announcing their Marvel schedule 5 years in advance, and in games we might not know something even exists until 3 months before release day.

---

kin to all that throbs

Whee

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.axios.com/kamala-harris-office-dysfunction-2024-e2f9a9c0-f391-4c1d-8042-aa4f24a292e3.html
Top White House officials are mobilizing to defend Vice President Kamala Harris amid a gusher of leaks about dysfunction and infighting in her office.
Driving the news: White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain told Axios in a statement: "The President's trust and confidence in her is obvious when you see them in the Oval Office together." Biden senior adviser Cedric Richmond said in an interview late Thursday night: "Its a whisper campaign designed to sabotage her."
Details: Their responses came after Axios approached the White House with new reporting about growing tensions between West Wing officials and the Harris team, including chief of staff Tina Flournoy.

• Some White House officials have been frustrated by a series of missteps from Harris and increasingly public bickering in her orbit, which spilled out in a Politico story on Wednesday. Flournoy's old boss, former President Bill Clinton, came to her defense with a statement calling her "an extraordinary person."

Why it matters: 2024 is the elephant in the room. While Biden aides overwhelmingly believe he'll be the Democratic nominee, they also know he'd be 81 when seeking re-election.

• An operation sometimes visibly out of sync with Biden's and missteps during a recent trip to the U.S.-Mexico border, including an interview with NBC's Lester Holt have reignited questions from Harris' 2020 primary bid.
• Harris would be the presumptive nominee if Biden didn't run. Administration sources believe it would be nearly impossible to unseat the first African American woman vice president.

Yet many Democrats, including some current senior administration officials, are concerned she could not defeat whomever the Republican Party puts up even if it were Donald Trump.

• One Democratic operative tells Axios' Alayna Treene that most Democrats aren't saying, "'Oh, no, our heir apparent is fucking up, what are we gonna do? It's more that people think, 'Oh, shes fucking up, maybe she shouldn't be the heir apparent.'"
• Some Democrats close to the White House are increasingly concerned about Harriss handling of high-profile issues and political tone deafness, and question her ability to maintain the coalition that Biden rode to the White House, sources tell Axios' Hans Nichols.

What we're hearing: Relations between the West Wing and the Vice President's office are tense.

• Several administration officials used "shitshow" when describing Harris' office, and contrast her operation with disciplined, virtually leakproof Biden aides.
• Some Biden officials view the Harris operation as poorly-managed and staffed with people who don't have long-term relationships with her. They feel she's gotten bad advice from her press and communications shop and think it's telling that she's already lost two advance aides and a digital director.

Case in point: A few months ago, what should have been a no-brainer of a press request came to the vice president's office. Forbes wanted to feature Harris on the cover of its "50 Over 50" issue saluting her rise to be the "first woman, the first Black person, and the first South Asian-American to become U.S. vice president."

• After concluding that Flournoy had been sitting on the request a characterization that an aide to the V.P. flatly disputes, explaining that she was simply nailing down details before sharing it with a larger White House circle ultimately the West Wing intervened to get an answer for Forbes.
• The vice president ended up participating and getting glowing treatment. But Biden advisers couldn't understand why it had to be this hard, people familiar with the incident tell Axios.

What they're saying: Harris' senior adviser, Symone Sanders, and deputy chief of staff Michael Fuchs defended Harris and Flournoy. Harris' team notes the president has entrusted the V.P. with a portfolio that includes voting rights, migration from Central America, space, labor, broadband, small-business assistance and women in the workforce.

• "People are not fighting every day," Sanders said. "There's not consternation among aides. That is not true. ... I hear that there are critics. Those who talk often do not know and those who know usually are not the ones talking."
• Fuchs dismissed criticisms of Flournoy and Harris as "rumors" and "not true," and said they've shown integrity and leadership as the pandemic added more hurdles to an already difficult job.

Klain praised Harris and her team as "off to the fastest and strongest start of any Vice President I have seen," and said "her talents and determination have made a huge difference" already.

• "Shes delivering for the American people on immigration, small business, voting rights, and economic growth," Klain said. "The results speak for themselves: a decline of border arrivals from the Northern Triangle, improved vaccine equity, and increased economic opportunities for women."

Richmond called Harris a "staunch advocate for the Biden-Harris agenda," and said demand for her participation in events remains high.

• He said no one's brought complaints about her or her team to him. And he said it's unfair to compare any vice president's staff to a president's staff much less Biden's team, which includes some advisers who've worked for him for decades and served in three White Houses.
• "You cant hold the vice president's team to that standard," Richmond said. "But I think theyre good, I think theyre busting their tails and I think the VP is executing all her assignments and taking on her issues."
• Of the narrative against Harris, he said: "At some point it just becomes, one person says something long enough and it becomes an urban legend. It doesnt have to be credible. It doesnt have to be real. Someone says something and it can just snowball."
• "Not one named person. Thats what bothers me most. Were in a day where the stakes are high. Youd just hope if theres a legitimate criticism theyd put their name next to it."

---

kin to all that throbs

Honestly, probably upwards of a thousand hours at my old job playing my Switch or on my phone.

---

kin to all that throbs

Very "close but no potato" stuff from the arguments I've seen more and more recently that "if you don't kill them, keeping them locked in prison for decades is cruel too."

---

kin to all that throbs

sabrestorm posted...

Oil executives will have their homes underwater first when the sea level rises because karma

That seems highly unlikely

---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/jslovegrove/status/1410668863222697991


---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/CBSLA/status/1410600280056471567

---

kin to all that throbs

chrono625 posted...

seems kind of insulting to your fans who went out day 1 and gave you their money.

but a fool and their money

Would you rather they charge $80 for it?

---

kin to all that throbs

If you have the one Republican who cares about this stuff on the committee, you get to call it bipartisan. That won't have any material impact on how people receive its findings, but then nothing would.

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d5gv/ivermectin-covid-treatment-advocates-rogan-weinstein-hecker

Hmm

---

kin to all that throbs

Funkydog posted...

How isn't this an "immediately removed from office and permanently barred" offense?

Democrats can try and impeach him, but

---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/Wario64/status/1410630474167316483

---

kin to all that throbs

CableZL posted...

They can shove it since they voted against the bipartisan committee they asked for.

They wouldn't have accepted the findings of that one, either

---

kin to all that throbs

Say what you will about Manchin and Sinema, and I have, they voted to approve pretty much all of Biden's other nominees.

---

kin to all that throbs

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Not like Republicans would vote on a replacement. I mean the election is a couple years away, better let the people decide!

They don't have the power to stop a replacement from being approved.

---

kin to all that throbs

1. They further narrowed the Voting Rights Act

https://nbcnews.to/3xaZ3JN

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two election laws in the 2020 battleground state of Arizona that challengers said make it harder for minorities to vote.

The case was an important test for what's left of one of the nation's most important civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court scaled back in 2013. A remaining provision allows lawsuits claiming that voting changes would put minority voters at a disadvantage in electing candidates of their choice.

The vote was 6-3, with the court's three liberals dissenting.

Election law experts said the court's ruling will make it harder for minority groups to challenge voting laws.

"This significantly dilutes the Voting Rights Act," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "Minority groups will now have to meet a much higher standard beyond showing that a change presents a burden to voting. It puts a thumb on the scale for the states."

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law requires "equal openness" to the voting process. "Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation" of the law, he wrote.

Voting law changes may have a different impact on minority and nonminority groups, Alito said, "but the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote."

Writing in dissent for herself and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision undermines the Voting Rights Act, which she called "a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness and protects against its basest impulses."

Civil rights groups were hoping the Supreme Court would use the Arizona case to strengthen their ability to challenge the dozens of post-2020 voting restrictions imposed by Republican legislatures in the wake of Donald Trump's defeat.

Thursday's ruling said Arizona did not violate the Voting Rights Act when it passed a law in 2016 allowing only voters, their family members or their caregivers to collect and deliver a completed ballot. The court also upheld a longstanding state policy requiring election officials to throw out ballots accidentally cast in the wrong precincts.

2: They struck down a California law that required non-profits to disclose large donors
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-guts-a-state-law-requiring-nonprofits-to-name-their-rich-donor

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with rich donors and their desire to remain anonymous against a state law aimed at policing the finances of charities and other nonprofits.

By a 6 to 3 vote along ideological lines, the court struck down California's law requiring nonprofits to file a list of their large donors with the state. The court said that the law subjected donors to potential harassment, chilling their speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Under the California law, the tax-exempt groups were to attach to their filings with the state a copy of their IRS form reporting the names and addresses of all donors who gave more than $5,000 or 2% of the organization's total donations.

The case was brought by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, atax-exempt nonprofitfounded by Charles Koch and his brother David Koch, who died in 2019, as well as the Thomas More Law Center, another conservative group.

In his opinion for the court's conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court was applying exacting scrutiny, not strict scrutiny in analyzing the California measure.
"While exacting scrutiny does not require that disclosure regimes be the least restrictive means of achieving their ends, it does require that they be narrowly tailored to the government's asserted interest," he wrote.

Historically, it is state attorneys general who police charities, and in California, a state with 115,000 charities, that is a big job.

Jan Masaoka, the CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits, compares the California regime to the Federal Aviation Administration's system of regulation. Just as the FAA needs information from airplane manufacturers and airlines to ensure safety in air travel, California and other states need information from charities to ferret out fraud and self-dealing.
"All of us--nonprofits and donors--we want to have that confidence that the rules are being enforced, and we need the [state] attorney general to do that," Masaoka says.

"This fight is a skirmish in a larger war," observes Sean Delaney, who headed up enforcement for a similar law in New York state. Whether New York's regime or similar provisions in other states can remain in place remains an open question now that the Supreme Court has invalidated the California law.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote: "Today's analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull's-eye. Regulated entities who wish to avoid their obligations can do so by vaguely waving toward First Amendment 'privacy concerns.' ... It does not matter if not a single individual risks experiencing a single reprisal from disclosure, or if the vast majority of those affected would happily comply. That is all irrelevant to the Court's determination that California's Schedule B requirement is facially unconstitutional. Neither precedent nor common sense supports such a result."

Even more important could be the effect on federal and state laws that require public disclosure of the names of campaign contributors. In the political context, the Supreme Court has long ruled that such disclosure is constitutional because it serves the important public interest of accountability by disclosing who has skin in the game of influencing government policy. Indeed, public disclosure is perhaps the only remaining check on political contributions, and some political contributors would like to see it eliminated, too. In fact, so too would some members of the Supreme Court's conservative wing.

At the same time, tax regulators would like to see oversight rules toughened up to prevent tax-exempt charities from being used for partisan purposes.

Thursday's decision, however, could put the kibosh on that idea. In fact, the decision is likely to make the job of any agency watchdog a lot harder.

3: Stephen Breyer did not retire
https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1410618948194902020

---

kin to all that throbs

Something to note is no Republicans will accept the findings of this committee.

---

kin to all that throbs

Quorthon109 posted...

https://perchance.org/gamingclickbaitgenerator

JAPAN LOVES OUR GOOD LORD JESUS CHRIST! HATES HILLARY CLINTON

---

kin to all that throbs

I'd be very skeptical of the idea that it's some Sony mandate from on high and not the developer responding to one of the most common criticisms of the game

---

kin to all that throbs

NoMeLx22x posted...

Yeah all of this aside (and assuming it's true) how come the prosecution didn't even bother to point this out in the trial itself?

Well, considering the prosecution was relying on the ICE agent's testimony,

---

kin to all that throbs

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nothing-is-too-vile-for-the-gop-house-caucus

Heres the Holocaust humor from a guy named Nick Fuentes, a far-right holocaust denier and white supremacist commentator who is holding a fundraiser July 1st with Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona. Classic joking, smiling denial of the death of six million Jews and being endorsed by a Republican member of Congress in good standing committee membership, campaign support, the whole deal.

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1409686555359289344

Gosar doubled down on holding the fundraiser here.

https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1409727967836610575

---

kin to all that throbs

scar the 1 posted...

Maybe play a game?

Probably

---

kin to all that throbs

I mean besides post on gamefaqs.gamespot.com

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/juror-googled-ice-officers-mysterious-uniform-patch-result-11k-contempt-2021-06-30/

The night before a federal jury in Camden, New Jersey, began deliberations in the U.S. governments case accusing Kevin Ruiz-Quezada of assaulting an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, a juror named Stephen Meile had questions.

During trial, jurors had been shown a photograph depicting a patch on an ICE officers uniform. There was a suggestion that the patch was a trade union logo. Meile, a retired pipefitter, didnt think it was.

So he looked it up on Google and told fellow jurors what he found out. (More on that later.)
And now hes facing a fine of $11,227 after being held in criminal contempt for defying court orders and causing a mistrial in Ruiz-Quezadas case.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kugler of Camden imposed the fine on Tuesday after a show-cause hearing, two weeks after the judge declared a mistrial in the Ruiz-Quezada case because of Meiles Google search. The $11,227 fine represents the cost of empaneling the jury in the mistrial.

Its one of the most extreme punishments ever meted out to a U.S. juror who breached court instructions prohibiting internet research, according to John Browning of Spencer Fane, who has written extensively about jurors, social media and the internet. Judges in the U.S., Browning said by email, have typically punished jurors with smaller fines or community service, even when their Google searches or social media posts have resulted in mistrials. (A juror in the U.K., by contrast, was sentenced in 2011 to eight months in jail for corresponding with a defendant on Facebook during jury deliberations in the defendants drug trial.)

The whopping New Jersey penalty, Browning said, represents an attempt to have the offending jurors fine for contempt at least approximate the cost to the justice system.
Meiles counsel in the contempt proceeding, Mark Catanzaro, declined comment.

In the underlying criminal case Meile was empaneled to decide, the New Jersey U.S. Attorneys office alleged that Ruiz-Quezada resisted arrest when ICE officers came to his home in December 2017 to execute an administrative arrest warrant and initiate immigration proceedings. Ruiz-Quezada, a lawful permanent resident, contended that he was not resisting arrest but merely reaching for a coat because it was early in the morning and he was dressed in pajamas. One ICE officer experienced a hand injury in the scuffle inside Ruiz-Quezadas house. He was indicted for assaulting a federal officer.

The criminal trial before Kugler was originally scheduled for July 2020 but was delayed because of COVID. Jury selection finally took place on June 10. Prosecutors and defense counsel from Loughry & Lindsay presented two days of testimony and delivered closing statements on the morning of June 15.

The jurys deliberations came to an abrupt end that afternoon, when Juror 7 informed a court official that another juror had disobeyed the judges instructions and conducted online research. The first juror didnt know Meiles name. But in sworn testimony, according to a transcript of the late-afternoon hearing, Juror 7 told Kugler that Meile had looked up the logo on the ICE officers uniform the night before deliberations began.

When the jury took the case, Juror 7 said, Meile asserted that his research showed the ICE officer's patch was a white supremacist logo.

He said that to the whole jury? Kugler asked. What was the reaction of the other jurors?
Juror 7 said jurors weren't influenced by Meile's white supremacist assertion because no one knew if it was true. But they were all distressed about Meiles violation of court orders, the juror told Kugler.

Everybody was very upset that he just didn't listen and did the research," Juror 7 said. (I asked the New Jersey U.S. Attorneys office and defense counsel Justin Loughry for additional information about the ICE officers patch and its role at the trial. A spokesperson for prosecutors declined to comment and Loughry didnt respond.)

After Juror 7s testimony, prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed that Kugler should declare a mistrial because Meile's disclosure of his search results had tainted the jury.

The judge asked whether he should also take action against the juror. Prosecutors said yes: We would ask that you bring him in, put him under oath and question him. He's clearly in contempt.

The judge asked only a few questions of Meile that afternoon, confirming that the juror understood his admonition not to conduct research, nevertheless Googled the logo and then told other jurors about his findings. Kugler told Meile he would have to come back to court for a hearing on his actions. You may have committed a serious offense against the court, the judge said, warning Meile that he could face serious ramifications for defying court orders.

This is awful, Kugler told the lawyers in the case, according to the transcript. It's an awful situation.

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-rumsfeld-killer-of-400000-people-dies-peacefully

---

kin to all that throbs

The floodgates are already open
https://twitter.com/fos/status/1410456887930363906?s=21
https://twitter.com/fos/status/1410565267265048577?s=21
https://twitter.com/edsbs/status/1410557842994630659/photo/1
https://twitter.com/AndrewBrandt/status/1410581423354957825

---

kin to all that throbs

If we're in nursing homes, it's already too late for them to do much about it.

---

kin to all that throbs

how

---

kin to all that throbs

He's not good at it, though

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation

A senior ExxonMobil lobbyist has been captured on camera revealing how the oil giant is using its power and influence to water down US climate legislation.

The explosive footage was obtained by Unearthed, Greenpeace UKs investigative platform, who posed as head-hunters to obtain the information from one of ExxonMobils most senior Washington lobbyists.

The recordings appear to reveal the secretive behind-the-scenes activities of a lobbyist for a company that claims in public to support action on climate change, while fighting against legislative attempts to tackle it.

ExxonMobil say they have supported climate science for decades and accuse Greenpeace of waging a multi-decade campaign against their company and industry.
They insist their lobbying fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis.

Keith McCoy is a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist on Capitol Hill and has represented the company in its liaison with the US Congress for the last eight years.

Greenpeace UKs Unearthed platform posed as head-hunters looking to hire a Washington D.C. lobbyist for a major client. They approached Mr McCoy, who agreed to speak over Zoom.

During the covert recordings, which have been passed to Channel 4 News, Mr McCoy claims:
- the company secretly fought against legislative action on climate change using third-party organisations
- he lobbied key senators to remove and/or diminish climate change measures from President Bidens US $2 trillion infrastructure and jobs bill as it proceeds through the legislative process
- he regards trade bodies like the American Petroleum Institute as whipping boys in order to avoid public scrutiny on Capitol Hill
- During the virtual meeting held on 7 May, the investigators asked Mr McCoy questions about ExxonMobils current and historical lobbying on environmental issues.

In the excerpts from the footage to be broadcast on Channel 4 News tonight, Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil has aggressively fought science to deny climate change in order to maximise profit and shareholder return. He alleges that ExxonMobil joined shadow groups to pursue climate change denial.

Mr McCoy said: Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not. Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, thats true. But theres nothing, theres nothing illegal about that.

We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.
ExxonMobil told Channel 4 News that they have supported climate science for decades.

Mr McCoy likens the approach to lobbying congressmen to the way fishermen target fish, claiming that ExxonMobil puts out bait and then reels in congressmen on issues like carbon tax, electric vehicles, chemicals, taxation and infrastructure.

Mr McCoy said: When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah.

And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programmes, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, its all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in.

He added: I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. Theyre a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them.

He says lobbyists aim to have a direct relationship with a member of congress, adding: You want to be able to go to the chief and say we need congressman so and so to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter. You name it, weve asked for everything.

Mr McCoy names 11 senators who he says are crucial to ExxonMobil: Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio.

We gave all these senators a chance to respond. All the senators declined to comment. There is no suggestion of illegality.

Channel 4 News has established, through Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, that all except two of these senators (Senators Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly) have received financial contributions from ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil insists our lobbying efforts fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis.

Mr McCoy described Senator Joe Manchin as the Kingmaker in the Senate and he says he spoke to his office on a weekly basis.

The FEC data shows Senator Manchin has received at least $12,500 from the ExxonMobil Political Action Committee in declared disbursements since the beginning of the 2011-12 election cycle.

Mr McCoy described how a big piece of [his] job is education and advocacy and says that in his work on behalf of ExxonMobil he argues that US government programmes to roll out electric vehicles are unrealistic.

Mr McCoy described a lobbying strategy in which he claims ExxonMobil uses third parties to mask its interests from public view and accountability.

He said: We dont want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. Its getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress.

He added: There was something we were working on earlier this week where we, where our CEO was invited to a hearing from a member of congress who we know is just going to rip him to shreds when he goes there. So, we look at it and we say: well, why us?

Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil lobbied Congress to dilute the climate provisions of President Bidens Infrastructure Bill.

He said: Thats a completely different conversation when you start to stick to roads and bridges. And instead of a $2 trillion bill, its an $800 billion dollar bill. If you lower that threshold, you stick to highways and bridges then a lot of the negative stuff starts to come out.

Why would you put in something on emissions reductions on climate change to oil refineries in a highway bill? So, people say yeah that doesnt make any sense, so then you get to the germane of saying that shouldnt be in this bill.

ExxonMobil said: Our discussion on the bill are not accurately portrayed. Our lobbying efforts are related to a tax burden that could disadvantage US businesses.

Mr McCoy appears to suggest that ExxonMobils public support for a carbon tax is underpinned by the conviction it will never happen, allowing the company to support it in order to appear green.

He said: I will tell you there is not an appetite for a carbon tax. It is a non-starter. Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans. And the cynical side of me says yeah we kind of know that. But it gives us a talking point. We can say well what is ExxonMobil for? Well were for a carbon tax.

Carbon tax is not gonna happen. I have always said, and Ive worked on climate change issues for twenty years. Theres a lot of talk around it and the bottom line is its going to take political courage, political will in order to get something done. And that just doesnt exist in politics. It just doesnt.

---

kin to all that throbs

Some of their workers died.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/jobs-where-workers-have-the-highest-risk-of-dying-from-covid-study.html

---

kin to all that throbs