Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism.
Hillary Clinton, riding a bump in the polls, kept the heat on Donald Trump during a speech in Cincinnati that marked the first time she had campaigned alongside Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the progressive wing of her party. Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism, Clinton said during thespeechon June 27, 2016. We dont take a position on whether Trump actuallyisone of the top threats facing the global economy. But we thought wed check to see whether Clinton has solid evidence that professional risk analysts have made that argument. So is Clinton right about how analysts have rated Trump? Basically, yes. When we asked the Clinton campaign what she was referring to, they pointed us to the periodic rankings of global risk published by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Economist Intelligence Unit -- an affiliate ofThe Economist, the London-based newsweekly -- is aresearch and analysisfirm that supplies clients, including businesses, with information about opportunities and risks around the world. The firmmade headlines in March 2016when it listed the possibility of a Trump presidency as one of the biggest threats to companies capacity to operate at target profitability. The rankings are based on qualitative judgments of a how powerfully an event could affect the world and how likely it is to happen, the firm says. In its March ratings, the firm rated the risks from a Trump presidency as 12 on a 25-point scale. That ranked Trump sixth among the 10-item list of biggest threats, tied with the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy. But the Trump threat level increased in theJuly 2016 rankings. A Trump presidency now ranks as the third-biggest global threat, with an increased score of 16 on the 25-point scale. In the meantime, the risk from jihadi terrorism has remained constant with a score of 12. In the July ratings, the only higher scores were 20 for China experiences a hard landing and, in a tie with Trump, a 16 for currency volatility and persistent commodity prices weakness. Specifically, the firm wrote that although we do not expect Mr. Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a sudden economic downturn. The writeup cited his hostility to free trade, his hard line on Muslims, his militaristic tendencies, his skepticism toward NATO, and his indifference to nuclear proliferation in Asia. The firm had never rated a pending candidacy to be a geopolitical risk to the United States and the world,an official told Politico. We checked with Robert Powell, the Economist Intelligence Units New York-based global risk briefing manager, to see whether he thought Clintons phrasing was accurate, and he said it was. Her quote does accurately describe our global risk scenarios, Powell told PolitiFact. Despite the high likelihood of more terrorist attacks, the impact on the global economy tends to be relatively slight -- indeed, most global stock markets rose on the day of the Brussels attacks, for instance. However, given that the U.S. economy is the biggest in the world, we believe a Trump presidency would have a major impact on the entire global economy. Clinton said risk analysts -- plural -- had determined Trump to be a threat, but we were unable to find any equivalent of the Economist Intelligence Unit report. (Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin said that analysts was intended to refer to the multiple analysts within the Economist Intelligence Unit who came up with the ratings.) But we did find another major economic report that painted a grim picture of what could happen to the economy if Trump wins. On June 17, Moodys Analytics, an economic research and data-services firm,published its projectionsof what could happen to the economy under Trump-backed policies on taxes, government spending, immigration and international trade. (We fact-checked thepolitical backgroundof one of the Moody's authors in another report.) Four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trumps economic proposals can be reached, the Moodys team wrote. One, they will result in a less global U.S. economy; two, they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; three, they will largely benefit very high-income households; and four, they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment. Our ruling Clinton said, Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism. The analysts at one firm, the Economist Intelligence Unit, have declared the possibility of Trumps election to be the third-greatest global risk in its current rankings, a risk level that has only grown since the firm began including Trump in its rankings in March. And Clinton has accurately noted that the risk factor given to a Trump presidency is higher than the rating for Islamic terrorism on the firms list. We rate the statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/99685807-e596-4fa7-ad2e-de8cc4063c57
Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. Republican Gov. Rick Perry frequently talks up the Texas economy, focusing in recent TV ads on the state's job gains since he took office almost 10 years ago. Texas added more than 850,000 new jobs, Perry says in a New Jobs spot that debuted online Oct. 13. More Texans have new jobs today than the entire population of Fort Worth. For an article published Sept. 23, we put the 850,000 number to the Truth-O-Meter, rating itTrue. On Oct. 11, Katy Bacon, spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White, wrote us an e-mail suggesting that the jobs picture might have changed since our first pass, making the claim inaccurate. We put our pencils to her point, though in this article we'll be rating whether Perry's comparison of job gains to Fort Worth's population holds water. In an Oct. 19 news release about the New Jobs ad, the Perry campaign points to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on state employment to show the change in the number of nonfarm jobs in Texas between January 2001, shortly after Perry became governor, and June 2010. During that time, the state experienced a net gain of 853,400 jobs. Of course, Texas was also growing during that time; according to projections from the Texas State Data Center, the population increased by about 4 million people between 2001 and 2010. Texas, the second-largest state, is among the 20 states that had net job gains during the 9.5-year span from January 2001 to June 2010. Texas ranked No. 1, followed by Arizona (132,700 jobs) and Utah (113,200 jobs). Yet  as White's camp nudged  June's numbers are no longer the most recent. By July 2010, Texas' net job gain had dropped to 848,000. In August, it fell even further, to 818,500, although that month's job numbers were preliminary until Friday, after Perry's ad was released. The August information makes Perry's figure off by 31,500 jobs. Bottom line? Perry's statement that Texas added more than 850,000 jobs is correct when considering a particular time period (that he doesn't mention in the ad): between January 2001 and June 2010. By August, that statement was no longer accurate, but that information wasn't final until after Perry's ad came out. Next, how do the job gains compare with the population of Cowtown, the state's fifth-largest city? For its head count, the governor's team uses a population estimate from the City of Fort Worth's website: 736,200 people as of Jan. 1, 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau's most recent estimate  for July 1, 2009  is 727,577. We asked Ed Friedman, a director at Moody's Analytics who covers the Texas economy, about the validity of Perry's comparison of statewide job gains over time with Fort Worth's population in 2010. He called the comparison a reasonable way for Perry to give you an idea of the size of the gain. Either way, the Fort Worth comparison stands up because no matter which final month is chosen, the number of Texas jobs has gone up more than the population of Fort Worth. We rate Perry's statement as True. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court "severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions," as described by Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog: described By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. [...] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual  not on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. [...] Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion. Clarence Thomas' concurrence with the majority opinion led several media outlets to rehash an assertion that, at least for a period of time in the 1980s when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Thomas's views on affirmative action programs were ambivalent  if not opportunist. This claim has been in recirculation since the Supreme Court announced that they had added cases challenging affirmative action to their docket: media outlets This claim recirculation  (@tonywolfness/Twitter) That claim appears to have first been raised following Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court  in a July 14, 1991 New York Times article titled "On Thomas's Climb, Ambivalence About Issue of Affirmative Action." That article cited a line from a January 1983 speech given by Thomas to employees of the EEOC: article In a 1983 speech to staff members at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he then headed, he said that affirmative action laws were of "paramount importance" to him. "But for them, God only knows where I would be today," he said. "These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years." Though repeated in this way by several media outlets both during Thomas' Supreme Court nomination process in the 1990s and again in 2023, this is an incorrect paraphrase of Thomas's statements. Thomas's full remarks were published as a law article in the Journal of Labor Law in April 1983. repeated published When read with the full context of this speech, it is clear that the "them" used in the phrase "but for them" referred not to affirmative action laws in particular, but to equal employment opportunity laws  as articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964  more generally. The speech, broadly, was a defense of the EEOC's work during the Reagan administration, which faced criticism over a massive reduction in discrimination claims pursued under its leadership. faced criticism Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act  a landmark bill signed during the Lyndon Johnson Administration  prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC, which first began operations in 1965, was created as part of the 1964 Act as the agency tasked with investigating and enforcing Title VII violations. Title VII in 1965 Over the years, the EEOC has expanded to investigate and enforce violations of other Federal anti-discrimination laws including those against discrimination against pregnant women, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. By the end of the Carter administration, the EEOC had expanded considerably under chairwoman Eleanor Norton's tenure, as described in a March 1981 report: report Thanks in part to Ms Norton's streamlined methods, which enabled EEOC to process 50,000 cases per year during her tenure, she views the equal-employment field as "very stable now. We have had 10 years of extraordinary and deep court cases to build the law." "Even if they disbanded EEOC tomorrow," she said, "and there is no way they could, there would still be thousands of court cases presented each year based on precedent." Norton, here, was referencing an unpublished report commissioned by the Reagan transition team that was extremely critical of the EEOC, as reported by The Washington Post in January 1981: reported A Reagan administration advisory panel has urged that equal employment opportunity law and procedures to be changed so that much more evidence would be required to find a business guilty of discrimination and no business could be forced to adopt an "affirmative action" plan against its will. The advisory unit attacked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for having created a new racism in America in which every individual is judged by race." The group was led by J.A. Parker, a black and head of the Lincoln Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with black issues. Its unpublished report was sent to the then-president-elect last month. Following Reagan's inauguration, the chairmanship of the EEOC office was vacant until early 1982, when Thomas was tapped to lead the EEOC. Democrats, at the time, were skeptical of Thomas' commitment to alleviating discrimination. These concerns were not helped by a massive decline in cases pursued under Thomas, or by the massive reduction in the EEOC budget under Reagan, as reported in a 1983 article: was tapped skeptical 1983 article In Fiscal Year 1982, there was upwards of 70 percent fewer cases filed in court than in 1981 on behalf of grieved workers. EEOC employees report that, because of a lack of staff and resources, cases often receive perfunctory investigation and in many instances, charges have been dismissed or "no caused" because they would prove too difficult or time-consuming to process. The speech in question, delivered to employees of the EEOC, was a response to these criticisms and an attempt to clarify to his staff what Thomas felt the role of the EEOC should  and should not  be. In his remarks, Thomas cited "the changing nature of discrimination," and heralded inroads his EEOC had made in fighting age and gender discrimination: speech It should not be surprising that many of our most prominent cases involve allegations of age and sex discrimination, many resulting from reductions in force and forced retirement. This does not mean that charges of race, national origin, or religious discrimination are not filed with the EEOC and that the EEOC does not bring suit in such cases. It only means that there is now a special public and judicial sensitivity to cases involving age and women. Importantly, the speech is explicitly critical of the discourse surrounding affirmative action, and the policies Thomas advocated represented, at best, a muted skepticism toward the concepts' then-present use: represented No one in his right mind seriously questions the legal and moral bankruptcy of discrimination. The same unanimity of opinion does not exist for affirmative action. Affirmative action has been and will continue to be a subject of hot debate because mere mention of the term divides interest groups into two warring camps: one hotly in favor and one hotly opposed. [...] In their haste to condemn each other, the camps lose sight of the nature and purpose of equal employment opportunity laws. [...] This divisive debate results in general confusion and misunderstanding about affirmative action which, in turn, tends to undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of the enforcement of civil rights laws. As the lead agency in the enforcement of federal equal employment opportunity laws, the EEOC cannot stand by and allow confusion about affirmative action to undermine our enforcement efforts. We must attempt to bring out and clarify the issues obscured by this debate. [...] Much of the heated debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms interchangeably. Thomas, in his speech, expressed the view that "too much posturing" had taken place over the debate about affirmative action, but he also affirmed that affirmative action programs had been "critical to minorities and women in this society." The section of the speech paraphrased to claim that Thomas was once amenable to affirmative action followed the above remarks: followed It is my view that too much posturing has taken place on issues such as affirmative action, which are critical to minorities and women in this society. The problems which we face in the area of equal employment opportunity must be solved. For the most part, they must be solved by applying legal principles of paramount importance to me. But for them, God only knows where I would be today. [...] These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. The reference to the "first 17 years" of his life is an allusion to statements Thomas made in the opening of this speech, when Thomas referenced "the fact that the Chairman of the EEOC spent 17 years of his life (one-half) under strict segregation." This connection, along with the broader context of the speech, makes it clear that "these laws" are those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. opening The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation when Thomas was a few months shy of 17. It also created the "equal employment opportunity laws" at issue under Title VII that provide the EEOC the audience of his speech  with its legal authority. At the end of his speech, during this second allusion to the end of segregation, Thomas warned against the improper use of those laws, even when used with good intention: shy of 17 I abhor any effort to twist, bend, or distort them [legal principles] for any reasons, whether such distortions are said to help or hurt minorities or women. No one should be permitted to turn these laws on their heads just because they have good intentions. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. In sum, Thomas did not present anything more than a muted acknowledgement of the EEOC's role in some forms of affirmative action, and the laws or principles he was referring to in remarks that have since gone viral did not concern affirmative action specifically, but the principles contained within the 1964 Civil Rights Act more broadly. 1964 Civil Rights Act That Thomas, who recently ruled against the use of racial quotas in college admissions, would have described affirmative action as "critical to minorities and women in this society" has been painted as an example of Thomas' hypocrisy on affirmative action. The portion of the speech often cited to make this point is mischaracterized, even if that point has validity. Specifically, the 1991 reporting in The New York Times reported, as its primary scoop, that Yale Law School had a 10 percent minority goal the year in which Thomas applied to and was accepted into the program: 1991 reporting Judge Clarence Thomas, who came to prominence as a fierce black critic of racial preference programs, was admitted to Yale Law School under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class, university officials said. Under the program, which was adopted in 1971, the year Judge Thomas applied, blacks and some Hispanic applicants were evaluated differently from whites, the officials said. Nonetheless, they were not admitted unless they met standards devised to predict they could succeed at the highly competitive school. [...] "We did adopt an affirmative action program and it was pretty clearly stated," said Prof. Abraham S. Goldstein, who was dean of the Law School from 1970 to 1975. Thomas has also acknowledged this part of his history, as reported in 1980 by The Washington Post. "The worst experience of his life," he reportedly explained at the time, "was attending college and law school with whites who believed he was there only because of racial quotas for the admission of blacks." as reported Frank Washington, a Yale friend interviewed by Newsweek in 1991, said that Thomas had, in private, "recognized that affirmative action helped to get him into law school, but on the basis of economic deprivation rather than race." interviewed While there are separate arguments to be made of the notion that Thomas' views on affirmative action are hypocritical due to his personal benefit from such programs, removing context from a speech to make it sound like that alleged hypocrisy was more overtly stated is misleading. Because the laws and principles Thomas was referring to were those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not any specific affirmative action legislation, the claim is False. Bella, Timothy. "The Time Clarence Thomas Said Affirmative Action Was 'Critical' for Society." Washington Post, 1 July 2023. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/06/30/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action/. "Black Conservatives, Center Stage." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/12/16/black-conservatives-center-stage/c5b44552-ad84-4a40-9b3c-3e88fdfa3589/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Clarence Thomas in 1983: "God Only Knows Where" I Would Be If Not for Affirmative Action - Alternet.Org. https://www.alternet.org/clarence-thomas-1983-affirmative-action/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Current Litigation Trends and Goals at the EEOC - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1a991116c071ffe6a6547f7505c13f63/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816463. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Eagleton Backs EEOC Nominee With Reluctance." Newspapers.Com, 1 Apr. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-eagleton-backs-e/127670235/. "Federal Agency Reformer Leaves with No Misgivings." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 1981, https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-federal-agency-reformer/127564899/. "New EEOC Nomination." Newspapers.Com, 1 Mar. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/athol-daily-news-new-eeoc-nomination/127670013/. "Regan Undermines EEOC Enforcement." Newspapers.Com, 5 Feb. 1983, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-voice-regan-undermines-eeoc/127667015/. Rich, Spencer. "Reagan Panel, Citing 'New Racism,' Urges Easing of EEOC Rules." Washington Post, 30 Jan. 1981. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/01/30/reagan-panel-citing-new-racism-urges-easing-of-eeoc-rules/dfd79721-7bbc-4ef0-91a3-ee5425904abe/. "Supreme Court Strikes down Affirmative Action Programs in College Admissions." SCOTUSblog, 29 June 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/. "Timeline of Important EEOC Events." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/timeline-important-eeoc-events. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964. Accessed 5 July 2023. On April 1, 2021, a rumor circulated online that billionaire rapper Kanye West bought Spotify, a popular music streaming platform with 155 million subscribers globally. The claim appeared to have originated with an article published by Thissongissick (TSIS), an online blog dedicated to music news. Thissongissick Its official: As of today, the fashion and music mogul has just acquired the ever-popular audio streaming platform, Spotify, wrote the website. Something big like this isnt unpredictable for West, but people are curious about his intentions for buying out Spotify.  Screengrab/Thissongissick  Thissongissick The article also claimed that the billionaire rapper was going to delete all songs but his own  a claim that sparked concern among some of the platforms 345 million active monthly users. Snopes contacted TSIS and Spotify for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication. Even so, we should note that the article was published on April Fools' Day, and news of the buyout did not appear in any other reputable news publications. And a look through the Spotify news releases through April 2 did not reveal an announcement that marked the alleged buyout. April Fools' Day news releases As such, we rate this claim False. According to a statement released by Spotify on March 18, founder Daniel Ek was still the platforms CEO and had been overseeing the audio-streaming subscription service since it was launched in 2006. Spotify is headquartered and legally domiciled in Sweden, and because it is a foreign company, it is not required to disclose the same information as U.S. firms concerning share ownership, reported the financial website Investopedia on Jan. 7. The site noted that the top institutional shareholders of Spotify include Ek, as well as Sven Hans Martin Lorentzon, Baillie Gifford & Co., Morgan Stanley, Tencent Holdings Ltd., and T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. Still, no sign of West. Investopedia And though the Grammy-award-winning musician is indeed a billionaire (though not the richest Black man in American history), his personal fortune caps in around $1.8 billion. As of April 1, Spotify had a market cap valuation of over $52 billion, reported the investment company YCharts. richest Black man in American history YCharts Snopes staff also checked their own Spotify accounts, and found that the usual subscriptions, followers, and playlists were exactly as they should be. A Once in a Lifetime Photo of a forest fire in Bitterroot Forest/Montana This awsome picture was taken in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana on August 6, 2000 by a fire behavior analyst from Fairbanks, Alaska by the name of John McColgan with a Digital camera. Since he was working while he took the picture, he cannot sell or profit from it so he should at least be recognized as the photographer of this once in a lifetime shot.  The year 2000 brought one of the worst fire seasons in half a century to the United States. By the month of August, more than 4 million acres (an area greater in size than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined) had been burned by wildfires, and dozens of blazes raged out of control in eleven western states, with nearly half of the conflagrations occurring in Idaho and Montana. On 6 August 2000, as several fires converged in the Bitterroot National Forest near the town of Sula in western Montana, John McColgan, a fire behavior analyst in the employ of the USDA Forest Service, snapped the spectacular photograph shown above with a digital camera and described the experience to a writer for the western Montana newspaper The Missoulian: Bitterroot Forest Service "That's a once-in-a-lifetime look there. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I've been doing this for 20 years and it ranks in the top three days of fire behavior I've seen." The day was Aug. 6, the Sunday when several forest fires converged near Sula into a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. Nevertheless, McColgan said, the wildlife appeared to be taking the crisis in stride, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River where it crosses under U.S. Highway 93. "They know where to go, where their safe zones are," McColgan said. "A lot of wildlife did get driven down there to the river. There were some bighorn sheep there. A small deer was standing right underneath me, under the bridge." McColgan snapped the photo with a Kodak DC280 digital camera. Since he was working as a Forest Service firefighter, the shot is public property and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes. After McColgan downloaded his amazing image to an office computer, a friend found it, e-mailed a copy to another friend, and by mid-September 2000 the picture was blazing its way across the Internet. Because many forwarded copies of the image lacked any attribution or explanation, e-mail recipients began to circulate rumors about its origins and authenticity  some claimed that the photo was snapped by a tourist, that it was taken during the extensive Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988, or that it was yet another digital fake. fire As John McColgan said afterwards, "I couldn't have profited from [the photograph], so I guess I'm glad so many people are enjoying it." We're happy to help him at least receive proper credit for his work. This picture has also been circulated with text identifying it as a photograph of August 2003 forest fires in British Columbia, of October 2007 California wildfires, of the June 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the November 2016 forest fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Chaney, Rob.  "Mystery Solved: Forest Service Firefighter Captured Tragedy with Digital Camera."
  The Missoulian.  15 September 2000. CNN.com.  "Montana Homes Threatened by Wildfires."
  7 August 2000. If anyone has ever agreed with something you said on the internet (a phenomenon that is rare, but it does happen), there's a good chance someone posted a gif in response to your comment showing a bearded man nodding his head in approval:   Many internet users assumed that the nodding guy pictured in this meme was actor Zach Galifianakis. This is assumption is likely based on two factors. First of all, the bearded Galifianakis does bear a resemblance to the person pictured in the meme:   Second, the people who share gifs and memes on the internet tend to be predominantly on the younger side and are generally more familiar with Galifianakis than they are with, let's say, someone who starred in a movie that came out in the 1970s. This gif, which has been making its way around the internet since at least 2012, actually shows actor Robert Redford in a scene from the 1972 film "Jeremiah Johnson," in which Redford portrayed a Mexican War veteran who takes up the life of a mountain man.The "nod of approval" meme can be glimpsed in a trailer for the movie (minus the actual nod part) at the 1:44 mark below: 2012  Here's a more complete look at the nodding scene from "Jeremiah Johnson":  Know Your Meme.  "Jeremiah Johnson Nod of Approval."
  28 September 2018. In March 2017, an image parodying the many heartstring-tugging items that are circulated on Facebook  along with exhortations to viewers to "like," "share," or add an "amen" to them  itself gained wide currency via social media. The image featured a photograph of a man who was purportedly mugged while delivering comic books to his sick daughter: Of course, the pictured man's wounds did not stem from a mugging, and the pictured girl is neither sick nor the man's daughter.  This photograph shows actors Hugh Jackman and Dafne Keen, on the set of the 2017 film Logan. The image was originally posted by Jackman to his Twitter page on 10 March 2017: Twitter Guess who won this battle. Introducing the awesomely talented @DafneKeen @WolverineMovie @20thcenturyfox pic.twitter.com/c0SFq1bel6 @DafneKeen @WolverineMovie @20thcenturyfox pic.twitter.com/c0SFq1bel6  Hugh Jackman (@RealHughJackman) March 10, 2017 March 10, 2017  This viral meme most likely originated as a joke on the Facebook group "Comic Book Collecting," but the image managed to fool some social media users who were unfamiliar with the X-Men/Wolverine film franchise. Facebook Similar japes have circulated on the internet in the past, such as a photograph from the movie Tropic Thunder that was shared as an image of Vietnam veterans, a clip from the movie Grown Ups 2 that was shared with the claim it depicted a dangerous accident in a toy store, and a clip from the movie The Shallows shared as if it depicted a genuine shark attack. Tropic Thunder Grown Ups 2 The Shallows Gov. Tony Evers proposed that Wisconsin keep up with three of its neighbors and legalize marijuana, but the plan has already gone up in smoke. The GOP-controlled Legislatures budget-writing committee on May 6, 2021 removed legalizing marijuana -- and hundreds of other provisions -- from the governors proposed 2021-23 spending plan. In making the changes, and starting fresh, the panel created agap of about $3.4 billion. With that gap, and polls showing general public support for legalized marijuana, it brought to mind a claim from Evers that we had set aside: Regulating and taxing marijuana  much like we do alcohol  would generate more than $165M in revenue starting in 2022, Evers tweetedApril 14, 2021. In all, 36 states have medical marijuana programs (including Iowa), while14 states-- including neighboring Illinois and Michigan -- have legalized marijuana for recreational use: But what about the money? Is Evers correct that his plan would add $165 million to the states coffers in the upcoming budget? When asked for backup to the claim, Britt Cudaback, Evers communications director, pointed us to the states Budget in Brief document, released in February 2021, which includes more detail on how his plan would work. Under the plan, the state Department of Revenue would issue permits to those wishing to sell recreational marijuana. The Governors proposal imposes a 15 percent excise tax on the sales price of each wholesale sale by a permit-holding producer to a permit-holding processor, according to the budget document. In addition, the proposal imposes a 10 percent excise tax on the sales price of each retail sale. Retail sales, except for medical use, would be subject to the sales tax. So, how did the governor arrive at that $165 million figure? According to Cudaback, the budget office looked at data from other states, including Colorado, which was the first state to legalize marijuana, and made adjustments for population and reported marijuana usage. She noted that other states have relied on Colorados data in developing their own budgets, and noted that the estimates were on the conservative side, meaning they could be closer to the low end of potential tax revenue. According to the Evers figures, if sales were to begin Jan. 1, 2022 -- roughly six months after expected passage of the budget -- $165.8 million would be reached if tax collections were $19 per-capita. That is, if -- on average -- every person in the state bought enough marijuna to generate $19 in annual tax revenue. Here is the math: $19 per capita per year x 5.8 million population x 1.5 years = $165.8 million. That includes a projected $65 million from taxes on sales at the wholesale level, $67.1 million from retail taxes and $33.6 million from the sales tax. Its difficult to compare states because of their varying size and different taxing structures around marijuana sales. For instance, Illinois has a lower excise tax, but far higher sales taxes on recreational marijuana, and more than double Wisconsins population. According to the Public Policy Forum, a non-partisan think tank that has analyzed the Wisconsin budget, Illinois likely collectedaround $175 millionin revenue in its first year of recreational implementation. Thats not much more -- despite twice the population size -- than what Evers is anticipating. The administration's estimate appears to imply a pretty rapid implementation, the Policy Forum said. Nevada, meanwhile, has a 15% tax on wholesale sales and a 10% tax on retail sales, so its framework is generally similar. Infiscal year 2020, with just over half of Wisconsins population, Nevada collected $105.2 million. That said, the Policy Forum notes Nevadas unique tourism industry -- i.e., legalized gambling -- may make it a poor basis for comparison. Andrew Reschovsky, University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Applied Economics pointed out that forecasting revenue from a new tax is always difficult. He said the State Budget Office has taken the sensible approach and based its estimates on the experience of other states that have already legalized marijuana sales. But that doesnt mean its sure to come true. The Administrations forecast, like all revenue forecasts, is based on a set of assumptions, he wrote. While some of the Administrations assumptions may result in an under-estimate of tax revenues, I do worry that the state may be overly optimistic about the time needed to implement the issuing of both medical and recreational marijuana retail sales licenses and the time needed to open retail outlets throughout the state. In other words, the state may not be able to get a system up and running in time to meet the Jan. 1, 2022 date the budget projections are based upon. Based on the experiences in Massachusetts and California, this may be an overly optimistic estimate of the time it takes to license and open retail sales outlets, Reschovsky wrote. If the rollout process is in fact slower than anticipated, revenue during the next biennium may be lower than the Administrations forecast. Evers tweeted Regulating and taxing marijuana  much like we do alcohol  would generate more than $165M in revenue starting in 2022. Experts consulted by PolitiFact Wisconsin, generally speaking, had no quarrel with the states math, but questioned the implementation schedule baked into the estimates. In other words, if legalized marijuana were to go forward, it may not generate the revenue Evers claimed because it may take too long to get a licensing system in place, and to license and open retail outlets. In a nutshell, the Evers projections are plausible, but may be overly optimistic. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, our rating is Mostly True. In the closing days of the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media users recirculated a photograph playing on campaign-long claims by President Donald Trump and his supporters that Democratic nominee Joe Biden used his political influence while vice president to benefit Burisma, one of Ukraines largest natural gas companies, because Biden's son Hunter was a non-executive director on that company's board. recirculated non-executive director The much-shared photograph purportedly showed Joe and Hunter Biden golfing with the "Ukraine oil exec paying Hunter $50 K a month," thereby supposedly contradicting Joe Biden's claims that he had never spoken to his son about the latter's "overseas business dealings": spoken   Which "Ukraine oil exec" is allegedly pictured isn't specified in the above meme, but neither of the men posing with the Bidens is Burisma CEO Taras Burdeinyi, or former Ukraine Ecology Minister and Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky. Taras Burdeinyi Mykola Zlochevsky In fact, the photograph seen above, taken in the Hamptons in 2014 while Joe Biden was still the U.S. vice president, does not depict the Bidens with any Ukrainian oil executives. It captures the Bidens with Devon Archer, who was a partner with Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz in the investment management firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, and Ralph Pascucci, a New York investment banker. taken Ralph Pascucci Although Archer was, like Hunter Biden, a member of the board of Burisma Holdings, neither Archer nor Pascucci is Ukrainian, and neither of those men is  or was  an "oil exec paying Hunter $50K a month," so this photograph is correctly classified as "Miscaptioned." On 8 March 2018 President Donald Trump repeated an often-derided claim regarding the U.S. trade deficit during a press conference in the White House. The president said that the country currently has a global trade deficit of $800 billion  a statement he has reportedly made more than 50 times since 2015. The remark at the press confrence came one day after he repeated the claim on his Twitter account. However, as news outlets have pointed out, that figure leaves out the fact that the U.S. has a trade surplus. As a report released by the Commerce Department shows, the actual deficit is $566 billion: reportedly repeated outlets released   The report said: The 2017 increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $57.5 billion or 7.6 percent to $810.0 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of $3.7 billion or 1.5 percent to $244.0 billion. A report published by the White House in February 2018 stated that the U.S. economy has become more dependent on trade involving "private service-producing industries" such as engineering, travel, and finance among others: published Travel (including that for educational purposes) has constituted the largest share of U.S. services exports. Services trade between countries has continued to grow  given declining travel costs, improvements in telecommunications, and growth in online services that allow, for example, computer coding to take place in remote locations. This allows the United States to export high-skilled services to other countries that do not share ourexpertise and training advantages. Focusing on trade of tangible goods alone, the report added, ignored the country's "comparative advantage" in service-related trade. Trump reiterated his misleading claim on the same day he officially imposed tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent on steel and aluminum, respectively. Mexico and Canada  the country's partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement  are exempted from those tariffs, and other countries will be allowed to petition for separate exemptions. The president's plan to impose the tariffs led to the resignation of White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn on 6 March 2018. imposed resignation The Trump administration said that the tariffs will take effect on 23 March 2018. said Qiu, Linda. "President Trumps Exaggerated and Misleading Claims on Trade."
  New York Times. 6 March 2018. Associated Press. Fact Check: Is Trump Right About the Size of Trade Deficit?"
  Accessed via CBS News. 8 March 2018. Liptak, Kevin and Diamond, Jeremy. "US Allies are Upset. The Top Economist Quit. Trump Doesn't Care."
  CNN. 8 March 2018. Alemany, Jacqueline. "Trump Tariffs Exempt Canada and Mexico."
  CBS News. 8 March 2018. Horsely, Scott. "White House Economic Adviser Gary Cohn Quits."
  NPR. 6 March 2018.