Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abram appalled conservative Twitter users with her argument that abortion can solve inflation by removing the burden of children on household finances.

Abrams made the claim conservatives called “EVIL” and “Positively ghoulish” on Wednesday while speaking to MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle on “Morning Joe.”

Barnicle pressed Abrams on how she might alleviate voters concerns over inflation and high gas prices. Abrams’ answer suggested that keeping abortion rights safe would help solve inflation.

She told Barnicle, “But let’s be clear. Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs. For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can’t divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child.”

Mentioning her idea that economic success and abortion go hand in hand, Abrams added, “And so these are — it’s important for us to have ‘both and’ conversations. We don’t have the luxury of reducing it or separating them out.”

The candidate’s comments generated much outrage online.

Governor Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., rapid response director Christina Pushaw slammed Abrams, tweeting, “She is so bad at this.”

Virginia state delegate Nick Freitas remarked, “Under Democratic leadership, you can’t afford children, but don’t worry, they will force your neighbor to pay for your abortion!”

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk asked, “Why are Democrats like Stacey Abrams and Katie Hobbs so obsessed with full-term baby killing?”

Former Republican U.S. congressional candidate Lavern Spicer was shocked at the clip of Abrams, stating, “Stacey Abrams says killing your unborn children helps with inflation because you don’t have to worry about how much it costs to feed them. Stacey Abrams is a demon.”

Conservative radio host Dan O’Donnell couldn’t believe what Abrams was implying in the clip. He tweeted, “Stacey Abrams just said more abortions will help solve the inflation problem. You can’t make this up.”

Former congressman Vernon Jones asked, “Wait a minute, @staceyabrams believes and want you to believe having an abortion is a good way to drive down the cost of gas and food? D—!”

Attorney and podcast host Phillip Holloway claimed Abrams’ argument was not normal,” tweeting, “Wow. @staceyabrams is getting some bizarre political messaging advice. She’s conflating inflation and abortion. This is bizarre.”

Republican activist and former congressional candidate Matthew Foldi used Abrams’ word to sum up the state of Democrats’ current political fortune. He tweeted, “The Biden economy is so awful right now that @staceyabrams’ solution is for women to get abortions #gagov.”

Pro-life activist and Catholic priest Fr. Frank Pavone tweeted, “hmm, @staceyabrams thinks abortion can help with inflation. Killing living babies to help inflation is EVIL! We need to Vote Pro-life!!!”

Conservative author Marc Thiessen tweeted, “Stacey Abrams says the answer to inflation is abortion. If you kill your baby, you won’t have to feed it or drive it to school. You can’t make this stuff up.”

And Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer tweeted, “Positively ghoulish.”

Georgia’s Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams suggested Tuesday that abortion is a viable solution to dealing with the costs of inflation.

When asked by MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” contributor Mike Barnicle what solutions she would bring as Georgia’s governor to address inflation, Abrams suggested aborting children is probably the best way to go.

“Let’s be clear. Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs,” Abrams said Tuesday, not realizing people without kids also pay for gas and food.

“For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can’t divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child. And so these are — it’s important for us to have ‘both and’ conversations. We don’t have the luxury of reducing it or separating them out.”

Abrams went on to claim that abortion was an “economic issue,” claiming women who have unwanted pregnancies are much more likely to descend into poverty.

“Right now we are walking away so often from the real issues that people care about. Abortion is an economic issue. It’s been reduced to this idea of a culture war,” Abrams argued.

“But for women in Georgia, this is very much a question of whether they’re going to end up in poverty in the next five years because women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies end up within poverty — they’re four times more likely to be impoverished in five years.”

Abrams’ unhinged and delusional remarks were widely criticized on Twitter.

“I didn’t really expect Democrats to go with ‘you know, it’s cheaper to feed your family if you kill a few of them’ as a closing argument, yet here we are,” quipped National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin.

A major supermarket chain in the UK is finalising plans to stock insects on its shelves and market them as a cheap food source for people struggling to afford to feed their families amid soaring inflation and the cost of living crisis.

The Daily Mail reports that Aldi is considering stocking ‘edible’ bugs and providing recipe kits for parents to prepare worms and crickets for their hungry children.

Potential products in the range include ‘sustainable’ cricket burgers, as well as ‘nuggets’ and ‘mince’.

Yummmmmy.

Just when you thought this couldn’t get any more more dystopian, the supermarket is involved with a TV game show in which insect ‘farmers’ will pitch the bugs as the ‘next big thing’ for Aldi, according to the report.

One of the contestants, Aaron Thomas, commented, “We’re on a mission to change perceptions of insects as food; they’re one of the most sustainable protein sources in the world.”

Thomas further claims that crickets contain more protein than beef adding “We want to take bug consumption mainstream. If we’re able to get in front of Aldi’s audience, that would be an amazing opportunity.”

The move is the latest in a growing trend of pushing bug eating on the masses as a way of ‘saving the planet’.

How about a weed side salad? And why not wash down your worm food with a tall refreshing glass of sewage?

in 2020, the World Economic Forum published two articles on its website which explored how people could be conditioned to get used to the idea of eating weeds, bugs and drinking sewage water in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

A separate article published on the WEF website outlined how people can be conditioned to enjoy consuming ‘food’ which on the surface sounds disgusting.

PARIS, Oct 16 (Reuters) – Thousands of people took to the streets of Paris on Sunday to protest against soaring prices as weeks of strikes for higher wages at oil refineries spurred demands for a general strike.

The leader of hard-left party La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), Jean-Luc Melenchon, marched alongside this year’s Nobel Prize winner for Literature, Annie Ernaux. He called a general strike for Tuesday.

“You’re going to live a week like no other, we are the ones who started it with this march,” he told the crowd.

Melenchon followed the footsteps of four unions – but not France’s biggest, the moderate CFDT – which have called for strikes and protests on Tuesday for wage increases.

The four unions also called the protests to help protect the right to strike, after the government ordered the requisitioning of some oil refinery workers, a move seen by unions as a violation of their constitutional rights.

The march followed a call by the NUPES parliamentary coalition, which hopes to turn the page on domestic violence accusations that have recently dogged senior members.

Budget Minister Gabriel Attal said the left-wing coalition was attempting to exploit the current situation, marked by ongoing strikes at French utility EDF‘s nuclear plants and at French oil refineries.

“Today’s march is a march of supporters who want to block the country,” he said on French radio station Europe 1.

Western speculation believes that the event could signify a triumph for Xi as he will most likely remain at the helm of the party for a third term. Should that happen, it would go against the tradition which has formed in Chinese politics over the last 30 years. Up to now, the reins of power in the country were handed over to a new generation of leaders at the end of the second term.

Thus, such a move would herald a new era in the history of modern China.

However, according to Aleksandr Lomanov, the Deputy Director for Scientific Work at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS), the extension of Xi’s rule for another term is not indicative of the general direction of Chinese politics in the next five year.

“For the world at large, the important thing is not whether Xi Jinping is going to stay for another term. Most of the world’s countries don’t really care who is in charge in China. What is important is the kind of policies China is going to pursue in the future, and how stable the country is going to be,” Lomanov explained.

Also, the congress is expected to review the party’s work and achievements over the last five years as well as to announce the new composition of its ‘board of directors’ – the Political Bureau (Politburo) Standing Committee of the CPC Central Committee, composed of the party’s top officials who make all the important decisions in the country. Today, it’s made up of seven members (historically, this number has ranged from five to nine).

It is believed that at least three of the party members currently serving on the Standing Committee will resign for various reasons, including China’s second most important man – Premier of the State Council Li Keqiang. He is required by law to step down as premier in 2023, since the term limit was only removed for the president.

2,300 CPC delegated are expected to take part in the upcoming congress, with the total number of party members exceeding 90 million people.

Jones is being ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because some other people—who were not acting under any orders from Jones—allegedly committed some crimes on their own. It’s difficult to see, then, how Jones actually inflicted any actual damages on his supposed “victims” in this case. If people have harassed the parents, of course, that’s a crime for which the actual harassers are responsible. The real guilty parties here are the people who have committed acts of harassment. But it appears that Jones has been convicted here of simply saying things that the jury and the plaintiffs found objectionable.

In a free society, a private citizen saying things that other people are free to ignore is not punishable by law. In a society which does not respect free speech, however, merely saying words is apparently grounds of levying fines of hundreds of millions of dollars. (Actual threats of violence directed at specific persons are dangerous, but are not what we are talking about here, and that’s not what Jones has been accused of.)

The idea that Jones is somehow guilty for the acts of third parties he doesn’t even know follows from the basic twisted logic of defamation laws. The idea of defamation as a punishable legal matter is based on the notion that people do not have free will and are not responsible for their own actions.