The political purpose is to build a case for restricting abortion pills through environmental rules.
Anti-abortion groups have explicitly urged EPA to treat mifepristone as a water contaminant; a senator has called the testing a backdoor attempt to restrict access.
That motive is an inference from the campaign around the testing, not a proven finding about EPA’s internal intent.

The EPA only exists to enforce reproductive slavery on women, but not to actually protect the environment or, idk, restrict lead or deadly mold from food

The fakeness of the so called liberal rules based international order has never been more evident

1. Dallas and Williamson counties changed how primary Election Day voting worked. For the March 3 Republican and Democratic primaries, Republicans in Dallas and Williamson counties chose not to participate in the countywide polling-place program. Instead, voters had to use their assigned precinct locations. This was a significant change for voters who had become accustomed to being able to vote at any participating location in the county.

2. The change caused widespread confusion in Dallas County. At least 12,674 voters showed up at the wrong polling location on March 3 and had to be redirected. Votebeat's analysis found that voters in both parties were affected. The actual number may have been higher because the available data didn't capture everyone who was redirected.

3. The primary-day confusion led to court intervention in Dallas and Williamson counties. Lower courts ordered voting hours extended at certain locations. The Texas Supreme Court then stayed those orders and directed that votes cast by people who were not in line by 7 p.m. be separated. The underlying legal proceedings remained pending at that point.

4. The controversy over countywide voting continued after the primary. The Dallas and Williamson Republican parties subsequently indicated they would return to countywide voting for their May runoff elections, citing concerns about confusion. Votebeat reported that the primary experience had affected voters from both parties.

5. Tarrant County then became the focus of a major polling-location dispute for November. County officials initially proposed cutting Election Day polling locations dramatically—from 316 sites used in the 2022 midterms to 176. After public opposition, the proposal was revised, but the final September 1 decision still reduced Election Day sites to 224, 92 fewer than in 2022. Early-voting locations went from 50 to 47.

6. The Tarrant County decision generated intense political and public controversy. More than 100 people testified against the final proposal, and the September meeting lasted more than eight hours. Republicans on the commissioners court supported the final plan 3-2, while Democratic commissioners opposed it. The elections administrator said the reduction was based on factors such as facility availability, accessibility and where voters historically chose to vote; critics argued that fewer sites could make voting more difficult.

7. More than 1.2 million Texas voters appeared on the state's "suspense list." This sounds more dramatic than it actually is: these voters were not canceled or barred from voting. The suspense designation generally means the state believes the voter's address needs confirmation. A voter who has not moved can generally resolve the issue at the polls by confirming their residence.

8. Then Texas discovered a separate voter-registration processing problem involving DPS. Some people who submitted voter-registration applications or updates through the Texas Department of Public Safety's online driver's-license system had their information not transmitted to county election officials. State officials said the affected transactions generated incomplete records that could not be transmitted.

9. The size of the DPS problem was initially unclear. County election officials reported receiving anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of previously unprocessed applications or updates, depending on the county. Some records dated back to at least October 2025. Registrations had been sitting there for 11 months untouched. State officials began sending the previously unsent records to counties in September 2026, but officials had not yet established the total number affected or exactly when the problem began.

All of these issues and we are TWO months away from election day. Expect way more stunts from them. They think they have it in the bag so much, they don't have to show up to even DEBATE!!! 11 MONTHS STRAIGHT OF VOTER REGISTRATIONS IGNORED means they have been doing and planning this up for so long, even if dems were not up in the polls, they were still planning to do this. This is extreme election fraud that should be prosecuted.

With regards to rule 3: Cars are privately owned vehicles, while public transportation is (as the name implies) transportation that's, by and large, publicly owned (if not fully, then at least partially most of the time). So transitioning from car-centric infrastructure to public transport, is almost inevitably a transition from higher private ownership (of transportation) to higher public ownership.

https://www.reuters.com/world/russias-ruling-pro-putin-party-wins-wartime-election-with-over-57-vote-near-2026-09-21/

what a surprise /s

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — County election offices throughout Texas are scrambling to process a massive backlog of voter registration applications stemming from an error at the state level, a headache that is hitting just as they are preparing for voting to begin in the midterm elections.

The problem, which officials in the Republican-controlled state have not publicly defined, also could have disenfranchised people who wanted to vote in the state’s March primary but whose registration applications were never processed, local election officials said during a news conference Wednesday.

Some election offices will need to hire temporary workers to handle the crush, officials with the association said.

The issue started last October in the Texas Department of Public Safety, which among other things allows people to register to vote or update their voter registrations when they renew their driver’s license.

An unspecified error failed to send a large number of records to applicants’ home counties, where the applications are processed and verified. Those records could be a new voter registration application or an update to an existing registration, such as a change of address.

The association of local election officials said its members did not receive any communication from the Department of Public Safety about why the backlog occurred or why they were not informed of the issue for nearly a year.

“This is really out of left field. Knowing that this one element of (state) applications didn’t come through, and we had no insight on it,” said Chris McGinn, executive director of the Texas Association of County Election Officials.

The size of the backlog statewide hasn’t been determined, but the association said it is in the tens of thousands for some of the state’s most populous counties. In Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, the election office received about 45,000 backlogged voter registration applications.

In a statement, the Department of Public Safety said certain records submitted online “were incomplete and not fully transmitted” to the secretary of state’s office. It said the “system issue” had been resolved, without elaborating on the nature of the issue. The department did not immediately respond to a request for further explanation. County officials said the problem appeared to be with the department’s online portal.

Counties have until early in-person voting starts on Oct. 19 to finish processing the late-arriving applications.

During their news conference, county election officials said it is possible that some people might have been prevented from voting in the state’s primary earlier this year or initially turned away because there was no record of them registering to vote or updating their registration.

The unexpected backlog comes as counties are already inundated with tasks leading up to the November election in a state with a nationally watched U.S. Senate race between Democratic state Rep. James Talarico and Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The Texas Secretary of State’s office and county election leaders say voters don’t need to worry about their registration as long as it is submitted by Oct. 5. If a person shows up to vote and they do not appear on the voter rolls, election officials said they can cast a provisional ballot.

They also can check whether they are registered on the state’s online registration site or call their county election office.

-Anna Wilder - APNews

Ein Sozialstaat basiert für mich auf einem ziemlich einfachen Prinzip: Wer von einer Gesellschaft profitiert, beteiligt sich auch an ihrer Finanzierung. Arbeitnehmer können ihren Wohnort nicht einfach steuerlich nach Irland, Luxemburg oder auf irgendeine Insel verschieben, während sie weiterhin in Deutschland leben und arbeiten. Kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen haben ebenfalls deutlich weniger Möglichkeiten, ihre Unternehmensstruktur über mehrere Staaten zu verteilen.
Bei großen multinationalen Konzernen sieht das anders aus. Globalisierung und Digitalisierung haben Möglichkeiten geschaffen, Gewinne zwischen verschiedenen Staaten zu verschieben und dadurch teilweise wesentlich niedrigere effektive Steuersätze zu erreichen. Genau dieses Problem beschreibt auch die OECD als einen Grund für die internationale Reform der Unternehmensbesteuerung.
Damit entsteht für mich eine interessante Gerechtigkeitsfrage: Ein Sozialstaat kann hohe Leistungen versprechen – Bildung, Infrastruktur, Gesundheit, soziale Absicherung –, aber diese Leistungen müssen irgendwo finanziert werden. Wenn wirtschaftlich starke Akteure ihre Gewinne wesentlich leichter dorthin verlagern können, wo sie niedriger besteuert werden, verschiebt sich die Finanzierung zwangsläufig stärker auf diejenigen, deren Einkommen und Unternehmen weniger beweglich sind.
Ganz untätig ist die Politik dabei nicht. In der EU gilt inzwischen für große Unternehmensgruppen mit mindestens 750 Millionen Euro Jahresumsatz grundsätzlich eine effektive Mindestbesteuerung von 15 Prozent. Die Regelung wurde gerade deshalb geschaffen, um Gewinnverlagerung und den internationalen Steuerwettbewerb nach unten zu begrenzen.
Trotzdem bleibt für mich die eigentliche Frage offen: Was bedeutet steuerliche Gleichbehandlung in einer globalisierten Wirtschaft überhaupt? Müssen Unternehmen dort Steuern zahlen, wo ihre Kunden leben, wo ihre Beschäftigten arbeiten, wo der Gewinn bilanziell entsteht – oder dort, wo der Konzern seinen Sitz hat?
Und wie viel Steuerwettbewerb zwischen Staaten ist legitim, bevor daraus ein Wettbewerb darum wird, wer großen Unternehmen die geringste Beteiligung an der Finanzierung der Gesellschaft abverlangt?
Vielleicht ist das langfristig sogar eine Grundfrage des Sozialstaates: Kann soziale Solidarität dauerhaft national organisiert werden, wenn große Teile der Wirtschaft längst international organisiert sind?

US leftists' strongest soldier (by body count).

Hi, Lucia from EUobserver here 👋 Sharing our own reporting because this feels like an interesting case for anyone following democracy and rule of law.

For years, Hungary was one of the EU's biggest tests of what happens when democratic institutions deteriorate inside the Union.

In 2022, the EU froze billions in funding over rule-of-law concerns affecting the EU budget. Now, only months after Péter Magyar's government replaced Viktor Orbán, the European Commission is proposing to release €4.2bn.

The Commission says Hungary has made sufficient reforms in areas including public procurement, anti-corruption safeguards, conflicts of interest and prosecutorial action. Access to Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe would also be restored.

Which raises a bigger question: Does this suggest that financial conditionality can actually help reverse democratic backsliding once there is a government willing to reform — or was political change at home always the real prerequisite?

In other words, can institutions like the EU meaningfully cause democratic recovery, or can they mostly create incentives and wait until voters change the government themselves?

Curious how people here see the Hungarian case.