ReportWire

Tag: 2024 election

  • Donald Trump, Who Is Definitely Not Scared to Face Off With Kamala Harris Again, Says He Won’t Debate Her a Second Time

    Donald Trump, Who Is Definitely Not Scared to Face Off With Kamala Harris Again, Says He Won’t Debate Her a Second Time

    [ad_1]

    Two days after rambling incoherently about pets being eaten and babies being executed after they’re born, Donald Trump announced that he would not debate Kamala Harris for a second time, claiming, absurdly, that he was the victor of Tuesday night’s proceedings.

    In a post on Truth Social, the GOP nominee told his followers: “When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, ‘I WANT A REMATCH.’ Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate. She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class. Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe – It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris…. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!”

    In truth, Harris’s team called for a second debate likely because they saw how deftly she nailed the ex-president, with the VP managing to lay out her vision for the country while making the former guy look small and unhinged. While it’s not clear how much of an impact her debate performance will have on voters who haven’t already made up their minds, it’s more than clear that the majority of debate-watchers believe Harris won, and that it wasn’t even close. A CNN poll showed the VP winning the debate 63% to Trump’s 37%, while a YouGov poll put her at 54% to 31%.

    Meanwhile, a Morning Consult election poll conducted the day after the debate found the Democratic nominee leading Trump by five points, while:

    Trump, on the other hand, lost support. Ahead of the debate, 46% of respondents said they would cast their ballot for the former president if the election were held today. After Tuesday’s debate, that decreased to 45%.

    A majority of Harris’s support comes from Democrats, but she leads Trump among independent voters with 46% support to his 40%, the survey found.

    “It’s too early to say whether Harris’s debate performance is the key driver of our latest head-to-head numbers, as our short-term trends suggest she was already building momentum ahead of Tuesday’s televised matchup,” Morning Consult analysts wrote. Still, that debate performance, which was widely seen as successful, will help her sustain that momentum, they wrote.

    So yeah, there’s a reason a second Harris-Trump showdown isn’t happening (for now), but it’s probably not that the VP thinks she lost.

    Republican senator all but declares plans to try to steal the election

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • No Dogs or Cats Were Harmed In the Making of This Post-Debate Podcast

    No Dogs or Cats Were Harmed In the Making of This Post-Debate Podcast

    [ad_1]

    Leah Feiger: Right. Obviously, the one that I think at least caught our attention the most in the WIRED politics Slack room as we were watching in disbelief was the conspiracy and lie that Haitian immigrants were illegally crossing the border into the United States and camping out and stealing and eating people’s dogs, cats, and pets.

    Donald Trump [Archival audio]: They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.

    Leah Feiger: This is not happening. This is in no way happening, but this was a talking point that has been bubbling up for the last 36 hours. JD Vance has been adding fuel to the fire. He has been tweeting about it. Congress. This has been all over. Trump got into it in the debate. That was wild, you guys. That was so wild. It felt like a fever dream.

    Makena Kelly: The difference between how it played out online ahead of the debate and how it was received when Trump actually said it, was wild. Because when you look at online, when people were discussing all this conspiracy about the cats and eating them and et cetera, all that, for the most part, it was just like a joke. It seemed like it was mostly silly amongst a lot of these creators that were posting about it. Then just to see it taken so seriously and literally on the debate stage with Trump, I think was the change of perspective that made everything like, what the heck is he doing?

    Tim Marchman: Yeah, I have a conspiracy theory about this, which is that Trump was briefed to allude to it, but stay away from it. Because very early in his first statement, he mentioned Springfield, Ohio, very pointedly where the conspiracy theory says this is happening. He looked very smug and self-satisfied as he said that. My base, the people who are on truth social—

    Leah Feiger: They’ll know.

    Tim Marchman: … they know what’s going on in Springfield. But he didn’t say anything. Then he actually started talking about it after Harris had baited him by mentioning the people left his rallies early, that they were interminable and boring and repetitive. He started visibly getting pretty angry and he just blurts out, he’s talking about how horrible the economy is and how terrible post-apocalyptic America is, and he says, “In Springfield,” he can’t bring himself to say it. He says in Springfield, and then he just says, “They’re eating cats. They’re eating dogs.” It’s so lurid and ridiculous. Then the thing he does after that is, he almost meekly says, “The people on the television said their dog was taken for food.” Just the almost childlike tone of it. It was really this incredible moment. I really got the impression that he knew he wasn’t supposed to be talking about this, I guess.

    Leah Feiger: I think you’re right. To me, it didn’t actually come off as childish though. It came off as the grandparent or elderly relative that you’re like, Grandma turn off Fox News. That’s not true. That’s not correct. He felt very old in that moment. He was rambling, he was uncertain. I guess my question here though is, with all these conspiracies he brought up again, like he did in the June debate with Biden, that the Democrats support abortion after nine months, which is unequivocally not true. There were just honestly so many to even get into and list. My question is, does it matter? The internet was taking a lap, the liberal internet was thrilled. Pundits on CNN and MSNBC were like, “This was wild. Harris trounced him, et cetera, et cetera.” I don’t know. This race is not actually about who is more eloquent or who can tell the truth better or more, and that feels a little bit naive at this point. It’s actually about who can mobilize their base. The question is going to be if Trump successfully mobilized his base with his litany of conspiracies tonight. Was he convincing?

    [ad_2]

    Leah Feiger

    Source link

  • Trump Claims He “Won” the Debate Despite Rambling Incoherently About Transgender Operations, Baby Executions, and Pet-Eating

    Trump Claims He “Won” the Debate Despite Rambling Incoherently About Transgender Operations, Baby Executions, and Pet-Eating

    [ad_1]

    If you watched Tuesday night’s presidential debate, and you haven’t had your brain scrambled by the MAGA universe, you know that Kamala Harris resoundingly beat Donald Trump. She expertly nailed the ex-president for the failures of his time in office, for stripping women of reproductive rights, and for being an easily manipulated target of foreign leaders who do not have the United States’ or the world’s best interests at heart. She demonstrated what it would be like to have a compassionate, intelligent, capable leader in the White House, and she did all this while reminding people that her opponent is an out-of-touch, country-dividing narcissist who lies almost every time he speaks and whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best. The contest, to those who are of sound mind, was not even close.

    Of course, Trump himself is not of sound mind, which would explain why he apparently believes he emerged from the debate victorious. Speaking to Fox News host Sean Hannity last night, the ex-president said, in regard to a report that Harris’s team had proposed another debate: “She wants it because she lost…. If you won the debate, I sort of think, maybe I shouldn’t do it. Why should I do another debate?… When you’re a prize fighter and you lose, you immediately want a new fight; you want a rematch. The guy that won is sort of happy and thinking about it.”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Obviously, in no sane universe did Trump win. Even if he had laid out sensible policy proposals for a second term—which he absolutely did not—most people would find his completely unhinged remarks disqualifying at best, if not clear evidence that he needs to be placed under some sort of conservatorship. As a reminder, the following are just some of the verbatim things he said last night:

    “They’re eating the dogs”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    “A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”

    That claim then led to this—again, verbatim—exchange between moderator David Muir and Trump:

    Muir: I just want to clarify here—you bring up Springfield, Ohio, and ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community—

    Trump: Well, I’ve seen people on television.

    Muir: Let me just say here, this is—

    Trump: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that’s a good thing to say for a city manager.

    Muir: I’m not taking this from television. I’m taking it from the city manager.

    Trump: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.

    Muir: Again, the Springfield city manager says there’s no evidence of that.

    Trump: We’ll find out.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Donald Trump Has Pushed the Limits of Being Too Online

    Donald Trump Has Pushed the Limits of Being Too Online

    [ad_1]

    It’s telling that Trump’s pet-eating protestations have inspired only a limp defense, outside of his running mate, JD Vance, doubling and tripling down. The ABC moderators are biased for saying it’s not true. One guy told the cops he maybe saw some Haitians holding some geese one time. OK, well.

    Trump’s internet addiction is well-documented. He majority-owns the platform Truth Social, where his account constantly posts and reposts, absorbing and amplifying memes with the ferocity of an unemployed edgelord. His online experience is a bubble within a bubble, with a language and reference points unto themselves. Trump is now fully enmeshed in the manosphere, giving audience to influencers like Logan Paul and Adin Ross, a self-perpetuating cycle of bro-dom. The ouroboros tightens to the point that baby executions become an accepted reality rather than an obvious untruth. The more fragmented the internet becomes, the more jarring mass exposure to certain corners of it can be to the uninitiated.

    At least, that’s the theory. In truth, we don’t yet know how Trump’s debate performance landed with undecided voters, or whether it will make any difference in the long run. He’s too online, sure, but maybe it’s all relative. Maybe we’re all so inundated with internet garbage that, for a majority of people, conspiracies bleed inexorably into gospel. Maybe the most alarming outcome of a major presidential candidate personifying 4chan is that it works.

    The Chatroom

    Conspiracy theories weren’t the only headlines out of last night’s debate. We also saw Taylor Swift endorse Kamala Harris shortly after the closing arguments. As you might expect, this created a frenzy online, complete with a surfeit of Brittany Mahomes memes. (I’ll spare you from the lore if you’re not already caught up.)

    Do you think Swift’s backing could have a tangible impact on the race? Are there any other celebrity or influencer endorsements that could sway the election?

    Send me an email at mail@wired.com, and let me know what you think!

    💬 Leave a comment below this article.

    WIRED Reads

    Want more? Subscribe now for unlimited access to WIRED.

    What Else We’re Reading

    🔗 An Ex-Tenet Reporter Blasted YouTube for Banning Him—But He Secretly Deleted His Own Channel: The fallout from the Tenet Media scandal—in which Russian state media allegedly financed unwitting far-right influencers—continues to spread. (The Daily Dot)

    🔗 What If Trump Wins?: Rolling Stone goes deep on the “potentially catastrophic consequences for the American experiment” that a second Trump term portends. (Rolling Stone)

    🔗 Melinda French Gates Embraces a New Era and Gets Political—Even When It’s Uncomfortable: This profile of Melinda French Gates and her company Pivotal Ventures is an illuminating look at the politics of philanthropy. (Vanity Fair)

    The Download

    Check out the podcast today! Makena Kelly and Tim Marchman, WIRED’s director of politics, security, and science, joined our host, Leah Feiger, late Tuesday night to discuss the memorable moments, the policies and, of course, all the conspiracies that came up in the debate.

    That’s it for today—thanks again for subscribing. Makena will be back next week, and you can get in touch with her via email, Instagram, X, and Signal at makenakelly.32.

    [ad_2]

    Brian Barrett

    Source link

  • Trump Fans Spread Debate Conspiracy About Microphone Earrings

    Trump Fans Spread Debate Conspiracy About Microphone Earrings

    [ad_1]

    This claim and many others were quickly fact-checked and debunked by ABC News hosts and debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, a fact that clearly further incensed Trump.

    Almost immediately after the debate finished, Trump reiterated the conspiracy about a “rigged” debate from ABC News that he has been promoting for the last week.

    “I thought that was my best Debate, EVER, especially since it was THREE ON ONE,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, where he tried to defend his claim about migrants eating pets by sharing links to unsubstantiated rumors.

    This line of attack was echoed by Trump’s biggest supporters. “Weird how the hack moderators at [ABC News] are only ‘Fact checking’ Trump and allowing Kamala to lie nonstop,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X. “The Fake News is the enemy of the people!”

    “The moderators might as well be on the DNC payroll,” Mike Lee, a Republican senator from Utah wrote on X. “This is ridiculous. This is the worst moderated debate in history.”

    “Somebody abort the moderation of this debate and then send the journos to Gitmo,” wrote Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, on X.

    Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, called the debate “a show trial where the judge, jury, and executioner is ABC News,” while Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican congresswoman from Georgia, called it “an absolute attack on Trump.”

    Despite his bravado online, Trump appeared to be concerned about the reception of the debate performance, as he went into the post-debate spin room himself. In between randomly shouting out polling numbers—”90%, 60%, 72%, 71% and 89%”—Trump once again claimed it was “my best debate ever.”

    It is an unsurprising response from a man who seems to be insulated from reality by a cadre of sycophants within the Republican Party and his campaign team, and an army of kowtowing supporters on social media platforms.

    On these platforms on Tuesday night, his supporters echoed Trump’s complaints about ABC News’ decision to fact-check him in real time and continued to attack and spread conspiracies about Harris based on her gender.

    Many of the comments used deeply misogynistic and racist language to refer to Harris, calling into question her ethnicity and boosting the conspiracy that her success was predicated on sleeping with powerful men.

    “I hope he calls her a stupid bitch to her face,” a member of a fringe pro-Trump message board wrote, while another added: “I bet she had a lot of abortions.”

    On Telegram, one member of a Proud Boys channel responded to Harris calling the group a “militia” during the debate by writing: “We are living rent free in this whores head.”

    [ad_2]

    David Gilbert

    Source link

  • The White Stripes reunite in court to sue Trump

    The White Stripes reunite in court to sue Trump

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Jack and Meg White in 2007.

    Detroit rocker Jack White is taking his battle with Donald Trump to the courtroom, making good on his pledge to pursue legal action against the Trump campaign after it used a clip of White’s hit “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post.

    White and his former White Stripes bandmate Meg White are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

    White posted a copy of the first page of the lawsuit on Instagram and wrote, “This machine sues fascists,” a nod to Woody Guthrie’s famous slogan “This machine kills fascists.”

    The Whites are seeking a jury trial in the Southern District of New York.

    They are suing Trump; the campaign organization Trump for President 2024, Inc.; and the campaign’s deputy director of communications Margo Martin for the unauthorized use of the White Stripes’ iconic song “Seven Nation Army.”

    The legal dispute arises from a video posted by Martin on social media last month, which featured Trump embarking on trips to Michigan and Wisconsin, set to the tune of “Seven Nation Army.”

    In response to the video, White took to Instagram, calling Trump a “scum” and his team “fascists.”

    At the time, White pledged to sue Trump “to add to your 5 thousand others.”

    “Oh….Don’t even think about using my music you fascists,” White wrote on Instagram. “Law suit coming from my lawyers about this.”

    White’s criticism follows a demand from the Swedish band Abba earlier this week for Trump to stop using their music, following the unauthorized use of their songs and video footage at a campaign event.

    Other prominent artists who have objected to Trump or his team using their work include Céline Dion, Beyoncé, Johnny Marr of the Smiths, the family of the late soul legend Isaac Hayes, and the estate of the late Irish pop star Sinéad O’Connor.

    White also blasted Trump over a recent controversy during his visit earlier this week to a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. According to an Army spokesperson on Thursday, an employee attempting to enforce rules against political activities on cemetery grounds was pushed aside in an altercation reportedly involving two members of Trump’s campaign staff.

    “And as long as I’m here, a double fuck you DonOLD for insulting our nation’s veterans at Arlington you scum,” White wrote. “You should lose every military family’s vote immediately from that if ANYTHING makes sense anymore.”

    In November, White removed his record label, Third Man Records, from what was then called Twitter after the company’s new CEO and right-wing polemicist Elon Musk restored Trump’s account.

    “So you gave trump his twitter platform back. Absolutely disgusting, Elon,” White wrote. “That is officially an asshole move.”

    In October 2019, White performed to a crowd of more than 5,000 Bernie Sanders supporters at his alma mater, Cass Technical High School in Detroit.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • This Election Is The Closest Presidential Race In At Least 60 Years: Polls

    This Election Is The Closest Presidential Race In At Least 60 Years: Polls

    [ad_1]

    The 2024 presidential election cycle is the first time in at least 60 years that a single candidate hasn’t been ahead 5 points or more in the polls for three-plus weeks, according to an analysis by Harry Enten, host of CNN’s Margins of Error. That margin has existed in every campaign since 1964, Enten explained, except this one—including when President Joe Biden was still running.

    “The race has been consistently close in a way I’ve never seen,” Enten wrote on X. “The bottom line is this election is up for grabs with 2 months to go.”

    Several national and battleground state polls show Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump either tied or within a few percentage points of one another—the results seeming to hover squarely within margins of error.

    Pollsters in this election have had a uniquely tumultuous campaign to track. From Biden’s fraught debate performance in June to the failed assassination attempt on Trump in July, followed by Biden bowing out of the race and Harris’s energized and expedited summer campaign, it’s felt like each week has brought another unprecedented event for Americans to weigh in on.

    Plus, according to a Pew Research Center report, the mere presence of Trump on the ballot can negatively impact the reliability of polling. “Compared with other elections in the past 20 years, polls have been less accurate when Donald Trump is on the ballot,” Pew’s vice president Courtney Kennedy and senior survey advisor Scott Keeter wrote.

    This discrepancy, they found, is likely due to two things. First, pollsters often use past election turnout to predict who will vote in the upcoming race, and “research has found that Trump is popular among people who tend to sit out midterms but turn out for him in presidential election years.” Second, Kennedy and Keeter note, “Republicans in the Trump era have become a little less likely than Democrats to participate in polls.”

    In addition to documenting a historically close race, pollsters have been tracking what issues are driving voters to the ballot box this year.

    An August Economist/YouGov poll of 1,567 American adults found that “Inflation/prices” was the top issue on voters’ minds, at 24%, followed by “Jobs and the economy” at 13%, and “Immigration” at 12%.

    A set of New York Times/Siena College polls of registered voters in seven battleground states conducted from August 6 to 15 found that “For women younger than 45, abortion has overtaken the economy as the single most important issue to their vote.”

    Throughout the 2024 campaign cycle, one thing has remained notably clear: this election could be decided by just a few key battleground states.

    Democratic voters in Omaha, Nebraska, have been putting signs in their yards with a singular blue dot, a symbol of Harris’s potential stronghold in a red state. Nebraska is one of only two states that awards electoral votes by congressional district, rather than by statewide winner.

    “For all of the pathways for Harris and Trump to reach the White House,” CNN’s Jeff Zeleny writes, “the race for 270 electoral votes could come down to Nebraska’s sprawling 2nd District covering Omaha and parts of two nearby counties, which hold many similarities to suburban areas across the country.”

    On top of Omaha’s blue dot, the final tallies in seven states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada—may grant either Trump or Harris the 270 needed to win.

    In the case of an Electoral College tie, a centuries-old constitutional mechanism could end up deciding the election. If both Harris and Trump take home 269 Electoral College votes, the House would decide the election, per the 12th Amendment—that hasn’t happened since 1824.

    Should it be tossed to the House, each state delegation would be allotted one vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 House delegations; Democrats control 22, and two others are tied. Meaning, Trump could lose the popular vote—as he has the last two times he’s run for executive office—tie in the general election, and still end up in the White House.

    A close election could exacerbate already percolating right-wing theories of voter fraud—and risk a revival of Trump’s 2020 Big Lie, the unfounded claim that the election was stolen from him by Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Trump Is Obsessing Over Kamala Harris Looking Tall At The Debate

    Trump Is Obsessing Over Kamala Harris Looking Tall At The Debate

    [ad_1]






    Trump thinks that he can win the debate in the minds of voters if he looks taller than Kamala Harris.

    Trump posted on Truth Social:

    No boxes or artificial lifts will be allowed to stand on during my upcoming debate with Comrade Kamala Harris. We had this out previously with former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he was in a debate, and he was not allowed a “lift.” It would be a form of cheating, and the Democrats cheat enough. “You are who you are,” it was determined.

    The ex-president is so shallow that he really believes he can win the debate by looking taller than Kamala Harris . Everyone knows who Donald Trump is, and they are not going to change their minds and vote for him based on the fact that he will look taller at the debate.

    Freedom is at stake in this debate. Democracy is at stake, and the decision whether or not the country will move forward into the future or take a giant step back under Donald Trump.
    Instead of studying for the debate or thinking about how he could improve on his horrid performance in the debate with Joe Biden, Donald Trump is trying to smoke and mirrors scam his way through a debate with VP Harris.

    It is not going to work. Trump is trying to run the 2016 playbook in 2024, and he is not going to be able to sexism his way into the White House a second time.

    Jason Easley
    Latest posts by Jason Easley (see all)










    [ad_2]

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • It’s been more than 100 years since a Pennsylvanian was a major player in national politics

    It’s been more than 100 years since a Pennsylvanian was a major player in national politics

    [ad_1]

    “The things that truly last when men and things have passed, They are all in Pennsylvania this morning.” – Rudyard Kipling in “Philadelphia.”

    The failure of Pennsylvania’s governor, Josh Shapiro, to be chosen as Kamala Harris’s running mate reflects the low esteem that Pennsylvania’s political figures are held nationally. Since the nation’s founding, Pennsylvania, once the second largest state in the union, and Philadelphia, once the second largest city, have counted little politically.


    MOREIt’s not hype that Pennsylvania could decide the 2024 presidential election. It’s math.


    Over the years the country’s various political parties, from the Jeffersonians and Federalists to today’s two parties, made few attempts to enlist the city and state’s elites into the heart of national politics. Pennsylvania’s only President, James Buchanan, is regarded as among the nation’s greatest political failures. His inaction during the national crisis over the slavery issue is often credited with helping bring about our Civil War. Since Buchanan, no Pennsylvanian has been a serious candidate for President or Vice President of either major party. 

    The record of the state’s governors and senators is equally unimpressive as far as national prominence is concerned. This despite the fact that for most of the 20th century, Pennsylvania’s electoral vote was second only to New York’s. It was the solidest of Republican bulwarks, voting for the Grand Old Party in every Presidential election from 1900 to 1932 with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt in his Bull Moose campaign of 1912. Franklin D. Roosevelt held the state for his last three terms, but it reverted Republican in 1948 and remained so until John F. Kennedy, building upon a huge majority in Democratic-dominated Philadelphia, carried the state in 1960. In the last eight Presidential elections it only voted Republican once, narrowly for Donald Trump in 2016. 

    Over the last 125 years, only one member of the Keystone State achieved national significance: Boies Penrose, a U.S. senator from 1896 to 1921. Penrose, a 300-pound mammoth of a man, had a legendary appetite. A typical breakfast would consist of a dozen eggs, a half-dozen rolls, and an inch-thick slab of ham washed down in a vat of coffee. His appetite for politics also was equally huge. He effectively ran Pennsylvania politics along with Republican party boss Matt Quay and was a major figure nationally for 30 years. He helped engineer the vice presidency for Theodore Roosevelt in 1900, mostly as a way to spite the Republican party boss, Mark Hanna, whom he personally disliked. He also was one of men responsible for Warren Harding winning the presidency in 1920. No other Pennsylvanian since could boast of similar influence.

    A case could be made that David Lawrence, a long-time Democratic major of Pittsburgh, former governor and respected voice in the Democratic party, helped Kennedy become president. But he was a minor figure compared to Penrose. Hugh Scott, a long-time Republican member of the House and the Senate, was one of the three Republican elders who told Richard Nixon he had to resign the presidency. But like Lawrence, he was a behind-the-scenes operator with no national ambitions.

    The question remains: why has Pennsylvania counted so little nationally? Some historians have argued that Pennsylvania and Philadelphia suffered from an inferiority complex once the state lost influence to New York early in the 19th Century. The nation’s banking center moved from Philadelphia to New York in the 1830s when Andrew Jackson declared war against the Bank of the United States then housed in the city. Financial dominance has remained on Wall Street ever since. The same holds true for Philadelphia’s legal position. The term “Philadelphia lawyer” was once a synonym for honesty and probity and the University of Pennsylvania was once famous for the quality of its graduates. Now Yale and Harvard have long outstripped Penn. The last graduate from Penn’s law school to serve on the Supreme Court was Owen J. Roberts. Famous for casting the vote, “the switch in time that saved nine,” that may have saved the Court from President Roosevelt’s packing plan, Roberts left the Court in 1950. Yale and Havard have dominated the Court since. 

    Pennsylvania’s major contribution to the nation’s economic development, the coal mining industry, Pittsburgh steel mills and the railroads, gave the state a powerful economic position in the nation into the 20th century, but that failed to translate to political power. The Pennsylvania Manufactures Association carefully nurtured the state economically and politically but lacked any interest in national politics. The Pennsylvania Railroad lost power and influence as the New York Central and the Erie Canal gave the Empire state access to the economically expanding Middle West and Great Lakes region.

    Some historians have argued that the state and especially Philadelphia have suffered from an inferiority complex viz a viz as New York became the economic and cultural center but also the sports capital of the nation. For 30 years, Philadelphia matched New York for dominance in the only sport that mattered to the nation, baseball. Christened “White Elephants” by New York Giants Manager John McGraw, Connie Mack’s Athletics won one fewer pennants but two more World Series titles than McGraw’s Giants. But the success of Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, and Mickey Mantle of the New York Yankees combined with the miserable performance of the two Philadelphia teams, the A’s, and Phillies, further reinforced the state and city’s sense of inferiority.

    One of the most interesting and intriguing explanations for both the state’s and its largest city’s sense of inferiority was developed by the historian, R. Digby Baltzell of the University of Pennsylvania, the man who coined the term WASP. Baltzell, an historian as well as sociologist, in a series of books and articles, especially “Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia” argued that Quaker influence with its emphasis on equality and deference was at the core of the state’s reluctance to push itself forward. He contrasted the record of statesmanship beginning with John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, down to the Kennedys compared with the quiet deference of the great Philadelphia families, the Drexels, the Ingersolls and the Biddles.

    With Shapiro’s rejection for the vice presidency nomination and relative insignificance of current Sens. Robert Casey and John Fetterman – one a quiet party regular and the other a party renegade – I doubt if the state’s political insignificance nationally will change.


    John P. Rossi is Emeritus Professor of History at La Salle University. 

    [ad_2]

    John Rossi, Special to PhillyVoice

    Source link

  • It’s not hype that Pennsylvania could decide the 2024 presidential election. It’s math.

    It’s not hype that Pennsylvania could decide the 2024 presidential election. It’s math.

    [ad_1]

    The road to the White House goes straight through Pennsylvania. While there are a handful of other battleground states that could sway the upcoming presidential election, it will be very difficult for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump to find a path to victory without winning the Keystone State — and both candidates know it. 

    Simply put: “Pennsylvania will determine this election,” as Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-2nd) said said during the Democratic National Convention.


    MORE: Federal prosecutors in Philly say Russian government is behind online plot to meddle in U.S. politics


    Pennsylvania has a long history of picking winners. The state has been won for the eventual president in 10 of the last 12 elections, and it’s one of only five states that backed Trump, a Republican, in 2016 and Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

    For this election, there are seven clear swing states according to polling, and Pennsylvania has more electoral votes (19) than any of the others — Nevada (6), Wisconsin (10), Arizona (11), Michigan (15), Georgia (16) and North Carolina (16). Assuming the other 43 states vote as expected, Trump and Harris would both sit around 220 electoral votes in the race to 270, and Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes represents about 40% of the difference. 

    And if that’s not enough to show this state’s grave importance in the upcoming election, just look at how much time and money both campaigns have spent here.

    Last month, Trump was in York County weeks after surviving an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), was speaking in Philadelphia. 

    “Pennsylvania is an incredibly important state to me and President Trump,” Vance said during his visit. “It is a state with a proud energy tradition, a proud manufacturing tradition. We’re going to be here a lot.”

    Trump in PAHarrison Jones/USA TODAY NETWORK

    Former president Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the New Holland Arena on July 31 in Harrisburg, Pa. It was Trump’s first appearance in Pennsylvania since his attempted assassination in Butler, Pa.

    Earlier in August, Harris picked Philadelphia as the place to announce her vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. 

    “We know that Pennsylvania is core to our pathway to victory as we look at getting to 270 (electoral votes) which, of course, is our North Star,” Harris’ campaign manager Chávez Rodriguez told Pennsylvania delegates last month, according to the Inquirer. “We want to reach Democrats everywhere they are throughout the state.”

    Even the first Trump-Harris debate will be in the state, with the National Constitutional Center in Philly hosting the event on Tuesday, Sept. 10.

    Harris in PAHarris in PACHRIS LACHALL/USA TODAY NETWORK ATLANTIC GROUP

    Vice President Kamala Harris stands with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, at a rally at Temple University in Philadelphia on Aug. 6.

    As far as spending, both campaigns have allocated more money on advertising in Pennsylvania than any other state, according to AdImpact data from late August.  

    And whether Pennsylvania goes red or blue in November — Harris is leading Trump by 3 percentage points, according to the latest Washington Post polling data — could ultimately come down to voting in the Philly suburbs, which proved to be a major reasons the state flipped parties from 2016 to 2020. 

    While Bucks, Delaware, Chester and Montgomery counties each backed the Democratic candidate in both elections, Biden in 2020 significantly outperformed 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in those suburbs. 

    In head-to-head totals from 2016, Clinton won 57.27% of the vote in those counties compared with Trump’s 42.73%. Four years later, Biden received 59.56% to Trump’s 40.44%.

    Eight years ago, the difference between Clinton and Trump in Pennsylvania was a narrow 44,292 votes, less than 1% of votes cast. If she had the same percentage of support among those four counties that Biden got four years later, she would have had 30,000 more votes, nearly making up the difference in the entire state. 

    Another factor will be voter turnout in these counties, which are some of the fastest-growing in the state. From July 1, 2022, to July 1, 2023, Montgomery (+3,698), Chester (+3,146), Delaware (+847) and Bucks (+427) each saw an increase in residents — a rarity in a state that had 57 of 67 counties experience population declines over that time. 

    And the growth in these counties from 2016 to 2020 translated to larger voter turnouts: While Clinton had 188,353 more votes than Trump in 2016, Biden had 293,094 more than the former president in 2020.

    But the increase in population in these Democratic-leaning Philly suburbs doesn’t necessarily equate to more votes for Harris. 

    Republicans see great potential to gain ground in Bucks County, which sided with Biden by more than 17,000 votes in 2020 when registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 10,000. In July, WHYY reported Republicans had flipped the county and held a registration advantage over Democrats by more than 200.

    All around Pennsylvania, canvassers from each party are battling to win over voters. While there are more than 160 million registered voters in the United States, it seems like the entire election could be decided by the nearly 9 million in this state.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Tomik

    Source link

  • JD Vance Says the Solution to the Childcare Crisis Is to Have Grandparents Do It for Free

    JD Vance Says the Solution to the Childcare Crisis Is to Have Grandparents Do It for Free

    [ad_1]

    Ever since JD Vance’s comment about the country being run by “childless cat ladies” was met with immense backlash, the VP hopeful and his allies have attempted to spin his complaint as being about the supposed roadblocks Democrats have put up to raising children in the US. “What he was really saying,” Vance’s wife insisted last month, “is that it can be really hard to be a parent in this country, and sometimes our policies are designed in a way that make it even harder.” Take the cost of childcare, which has exploded in recent years. Critics focus on Vance’s words, but he’s actually come up with a solution to the problem that will truly knock your socks off. In fact, you might want to brace yourself for its genius. Ready? Okay. It’s to…have family members take care of your kids for free.

    That’s right: While speaking at a conservative event on Wednesday, Vance was asked, “What can we do about lowering the cost of day care?” His verbatim answer: “Such an important question, Charlie [Kirk], and I think one of the things that we can do is make it easier for families to choose whatever model they want, right? So one of the ways that you might be able to relieve a little bit of pressure on people who are paying so much for day care is…maybe grandma and grandpa [want] to help out a little bit more, or maybe there’s an aunt or uncle that wants to help out a little bit more. If that happens, you relieve some of the pressure on all the resources that we’re spending on day care.”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Yes, Vance’s brilliant solution to skyrocketing day care costs is for working parents to enlist grandparents and aunts and uncles—who either don’t have jobs of their own or are somehow able to take time off from work—to take care of their kids for free. It’s something stressed-out parents have definitely never thought of, and for the few who actually might have this magical scenario available to them, surely they aren’t taking advantage of it already. It’s so simple that it’s hard to believe child-hating Democrats like Kamala Harris never thought of it themselves.

    But Vance, of course, isn’t so out of touch that he thinks the majority of parents have a roster of family members they can call on to take care of their children for numerous hours a week. So he’s also got another idea: “Now…let’s say you don’t have somebody who can provide that extra set of hands,” he said. “What we’ve got to do is actually empower people to get trained in the skills that they need for the 21st century. We’ve got a lot of people who love kids, who would love to take care of kids but they can’t, either because they don’t have access to the education that they need or, maybe more importantly, because the state government says you’re not allowed to take care of children unless you have some ridiculous certification that has…nothing to do with taking care of kids. So empower people to get the skills they need. Don’t force every early-childcare specialist to go and get a six-year college degree where they’ve got a whole lot of debt and Americans are much poorer because they’re paying out the wazoo for day care. Empower working families, empower people who want to do these things for a living, and that’s what we’ve got to do.”

    So, just to get it out of the way, it’s not clear what “six-year college degree” the senator is talking about that is supposedly required to work at a day care. But apparently his solution—if, again, you don’t have free childcare at your disposal—is to have the government get rid of the pesky regulations currently in place to ensure the individuals looking after your children are qualified to do so. Of course, he doesn’t actually specify what “ridiculous certification” he’d get rid of; perhaps he’s talking about CPR? He definitely could be!

    Incidentally, given these robust policy plans Vance has put forth, you might be wondering what legislation he’s backed during his time in the Senate that would help parents. And the answer is: none that can be identified by the naked eye. Despite calling for a child tax credit of $5,000 per child in an interview with CBS News, he failed to show up for a vote last month on legislation that would—wait for it—expand the child tax credit.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • DOJ: Russia Aimed Propaganda at Gamers, Minorities to Swing 2024 Election

    DOJ: Russia Aimed Propaganda at Gamers, Minorities to Swing 2024 Election

    [ad_1]

    The documents show that the orchestrators of the campaign targeted existing divisions within US society, using racist stereotypes and far-right conspiracies to target supporters of former President Donald Trump.

    ​​”They are afraid of losing the American way of life and the ‘American dream,’” Gambashidze writes in one document outlining his “guerilla media” plan. “It is these sentiments that should be exploited in the course of an information campaign in/for the United States.”

    The same document is full of racist and conspiratorial claims including that Republicans are “victims of discrimination of people of color.” It adds that white middle class people are being discriminated against with high inflation and rising prices, while “unemployed people of color end up being privileged groups of the population.”

    And the goal of the campaign, from the beginning, was crystal clear: “To secure victory for [Donald Trump],” Gambashidze wrote in the Good Old USA Project planning document.

    The ‘Good Old USA’ plan openly admits that “none of the significant American politicians can be considered pro-Russian or pro-Putin,” and so rather than focus its efforts on trying to convince people that Russia is great, the plan called for promoting the idea that the US should be focusing its resources less on Ukraine and more on domestic issues, such as rising inflation and high gas prices.

    “It makes sense for Russia to put a maximum effort to ensure that the Republican Party’s point of view (first and foremost, the opinion of Trump supporters) wins over the US public opinion,” the Good Old USA Project planning document reads. “This includes provisions on peace in Ukraine in exchange for territories, the need to focus on the problems of the US economy, returning troops home from all over the world, etc.”

    As well as getting Trump elected, the campaign’s secondary goals included increasing the percentage of Americans who believe the US is doing too much to aid Ukraine to 51 percent, and reducing the percentage of Americans who have confidence in President Joe Biden down to 29 percent.

    The plan lists a variety of audiences the campaign specifically wants to target, including residents of swing states, American Jews, “US citizens of Hispanic descent,” and the “community of American gamers, users of Reddit and image boards, such as 4chan.”

    The document describes this category of gamers and chat room users as the “backbone of the right-wing trends in the US segment of the Internet.” In recent months, the Trump campaign has embraced many of the most influential figures within these communities, including many who share deeply misogynistic rhetoric on a regular basis.

    To spread their narrative, the plan called for the creation of YouTube channels that shared pro-Trump content as well as other viral videos (“music, humor, beautiful girls etc,” according to the documents) in order to appear at the top of search results for “US elections.”

    Meanwhile, Gambashidze and his colleagues used Facebook, Twitter and Reddit to create community groups of Trump supporters, with one sample name given as “Alabama for America the Great.” The document also reveals that the Russians planned to use Reddit as a vector to disseminate their propaganda as it is a platform “free from democratic censorship.”

    [ad_2]

    David Gilbert

    Source link

  • Palestinian American activist sues Michigan Democrats over ‘voting discrepancies’ for seat on U-M Board of Regents

    Palestinian American activist sues Michigan Democrats over ‘voting discrepancies’ for seat on U-M Board of Regents

    [ad_1]

    Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian American activist, filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Democratic Party on Thursday, alleging she may have been cheated in her quest for the Democratic nomination for a seat on the University of Michigan Board of Regents.

    Arraf claims the party’s process of selecting two nominees for the board on Aug. 24 was marred by voting irregularities, discrepancies, and a lack of transparency.

    “We cannot be confident in the results that have been announced,” Arraf said at a news conference Thursday. “It’s an affront to the electoral integrity, which we should take seriously.”

    According to the official results, Arraf was defeated by incumbent Democrat Denise Ilitch and former regent Dr. Shauna Ryder Diggs, who left the board in 2020. Diggs garnered more than 2,800 votes, while Ilitch received over 2,400 votes, according to the official tally. Arraf, founder of the International Solidarity Movement and an international civil rights lawyer who represented students in civil rights cases demanding the university’s divestment from Israel, received more than 2,300 votes.

    At the convention, there were 1,248 voters present, Arraf said, but more than 1,420 voters were identified in the final tally. She also believes Democrats were allowed to vote after the 4:39 p.m. deadline to cast a ballot.

    According to the party’s rules, the votes were proportionally weighted by county using a formula based on Democratic turnout in the most recent even-year election. This weighting system is intended to ensure that the final results accurately reflect the preferences of Democratic voters across the state’s counties. The system leads to drastic differences in the value of each person’s votes.

    In the popular vote, before the ballots were weighted, Arraf said she defeated Diggs by about 120 votes and Illitch by about 210 votes.

    Arraf said her problem isn’t with the weighted system, but with how the votes were counted.

    According to her account, Arraf said there was missing data, and to address the issue, the party counted raw data in a tabulation area, where she and her staff were forbidden to enter. Meanwhile, other candidates, their families, and current regents were allowed in the tabulation area.

    When the votes were announced, Arraf had lost. She said she repeatedly asked party leaders for the raw data, but they declined to turn it over.

    The data she did receive showed discrepancies, she said.

    “That is greatly distburning because you have a situation where the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party was put on notice that there were problems with the validity of the data they have given us, not even the raw data, and they should want to clarify this so we can be confident of the results, and I received no response to that,” Arraf said.

    Arraf’s lawsuit was filed in the Ingham County Circuit Court.

    Arraf said the process was demoralizing and comes at a time when Michigan Democrats should be inclusive and welcoming. She noted that she was accompanied by hundreds of new participants who supported her.

    “If you don’t feel like your voice and participation will count, then there is no incentive to get involved,” Arraf said. “And that is not what we want, especially in the time that we are now, leading up to the November election, knowing how much of a threat a potential [Donald] Trump presidency can be, and that is why we are further dismayed at how the Michigan Democratic Party has seemingly not cared about the fact that they have disenfranchised and disillusioned the hundreds of new members that came to participate in the convention,” Arraf said.

    The Michigan Democratic Party did not respond to requests for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Harris accepts rules for Sept. 10 debate with Trump on ABC, including microphone muting

    Harris accepts rules for Sept. 10 debate with Trump on ABC, including microphone muting

    [ad_1]

    By MEG KINNARD and MICHELLE L. PRICE Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris has accepted the rules set forth for next week’s debate with former President Donald Trump, although the Democratic nominee says the decision not to keep both candidates’ microphones live throughout the matchup will be to her disadvantage.

    The development, which came Wednesday by way of a letter from Harris’ campaign to host network ABC News, seemed to mark a conclusion to the debate over microphone muting, which had for a time threatened to derail the Sept. 10 presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

    Harris’ acceptance of the debate rules came as Trump — using a night he had proposed as a debate with Harris on Fox News Channel — instead participated in a solo town hall with host Sean Hannity in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a version of debate preparation with a longtime ally who queried him about his plans to take on the Democratic nominee.

    President Joe Biden’s campaign had made the muting of microphones, except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak, a condition of his decision to accept any debates this year. Some aides have said they now regret that decision, saying voters were shielded from hearing Trump’s outbursts during the June debate. A disastrous performance for the incumbent Democrat fueled his exit from the campaign.

    Once Harris rose in Biden’s stead and became their party’s pick for president, her campaign had advocated for live microphones for the whole debate, saying previously that the practice would “fully allow for substantive exchanges between the candidates.”

    But on Wednesday, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Harris’ advisers wrote that the former prosecutor will be “fundamentally disadvantaged by this format, which will serve to shield Donald Trump from direct exchanges with the Vice President.”

    “We suspect this is the primary reason for his campaign’s insistence on muted microphones,” her campaign added.

    Despite those concerns, Harris’ campaign wrote, “we understand that Donald Trump is a risk to skip the debate altogether, as he has threatened to do previously, if we do not accede to his preferred format.” So as not to “jeopardize the debate,” Harris’ campaign wrote, “we accepted the full set of rules proposed by ABC, including muted microphones.”

    According to an official with Harris’ campaign, a pool of journalists will be on hand to hear what the muted candidate may be trying to say when his or her microphone is turned off. That detail was not in the full debate rules, also released Wednesday by ABC, which are essentially the same as they were for the June debate between Trump and Biden.

    The network laid out parameters from the basic format — 90 minutes, with two commercial breaks — to specifications that moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis “will be the only people asking questions,” perhaps hoping to avert a free-for-all between the candidates.

    “Moderators will seek to enforce timing agreements and ensure a civilized discussion,” the network noted.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Don’t Fall for Trump’s 2024 Pivot

    Don’t Fall for Trump’s 2024 Pivot

    [ad_1]

    The day after Labor Day traditionally marks the beginning of the general election season. Republicans have spent nearly a decade going full One America News—ceding party control to wingnuts like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Anna Paulina Luna; jettisoning anyone who doesn’t toe the Trumpy line, like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Jeff Flake; and electing as House Speaker “MAGA” Mike Johnson, whose main qualification for the job was spearheading a legal brief that sought to overturn the 2020 election. Now, the GOP is doing a last-minute pivot, trying to appeal to voters who don’t have a “MAGA123” license plate.

    Case in point: Last week, Donald Trump, who has openly bragged about gutting reproductive rights, laid out plans to defend IVF if elected. Keep in mind that Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have codified the right to access IVF when Democrat Tammy Duckworth brought it to the floor in June. Those Republicans include the very normal, not-at-all-weird JD Vance, along with every other member of his party, except the two (relatively) sane ones: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. State-level Republicans have also followed suit; for example, Alabama’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos were actually children (yes, eight-celled children), forcing IVF clinics to halt their services. While this stance might sound crazy, it is completely in line with that of the Heritage Foundation, the think tank that published Project 2025, which has long subscribed to the concept of “fetal personhood” and has argued that IVF should be regulated.

    All in all, the GOP has brought nothing but danger to IVF. And yet Trump is attempting to triangulate on the issue, saying in an interview with NBC News last week that his administration would be “paying for that treatment. We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.” It’s no surprise he’d say this, considering IVF is massively popular: Roughly 42% of Americans have used fertility treatments or know someone who has, as the Pew Research Center reported in September 2023, while a CBS News–YouGov poll released earlier this year found that 86% of Americans think IVF should be legal. That’s a lot of voters. But here’s the thing: In the first Trump administration, the former president tried to repeal Obamacare, the federally funded health care program that was saved by Republican senator John McCain in 2017 when he broke rank with his party. So is this to say that Trump is now in support of some form of public health care?

    Trump is not the only one attempting a less radical rebrand. Consider JD Vance’s stance on the federal child tax credit, which temporarily increased to $3,600 under Joe Biden’s 2021 pandemic-era rescue plan. “I’d love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child,” Vance told Face the Nation in August. The child poverty rate reached a historic low the year the higher tax credit was in effect, so bravo to Vance for supporting it now! But the inconvenient truth is that, just days before appearing on Face the Nation, Vance skipped a vote on a bill that would have again expanded the child tax credit; it failed in the Senate 48-44. So, when Vance says he’d “love” to see a bigger child tax credit, he has a lot of explaining to do.

    It’s impossible to pin down the exact reason why people like Trump and Vance are pivoting to more centrist policies, but if I had to hazard a wild guess, it’s the same reason Trump disavowed Project 2025: The GOP’s actual policies are deeply unpopular. No one wants tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, exonerations of Trump and the January 6 rioters, or what many economists predict would be highly inflationary tariffs. Now the former president is suddenly trying to neutralize his terrible platform with gauzy centrist policies. But make no mistake: If he gets in office, Trump will almost surely abandon his bid for moderation and make his dystopian vision a reality, from erecting mass deportation camps for migrants to installing a federal bureaucracy full of loyalists.

    Popular will and the GOP have about as much chemistry as Trump and his teleprompter, largely because the former president’s stunts touch every part of the GOP. In the House, which Republicans are desperately trying to hold onto, you have so-called centrist congressmen like Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro, Anthony D’Esposito, and Brandon Williams—all of whom backed Mike Johnson as Speaker, and voted to impeach both Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas. How can these congressmen advertise themselves as “sensible” moderates when they vote with Marjorie Taylor Green, jacketless Jim Jordan, and the rest of the QAnon crazies practically 99% of the time? Hard to say. But one thing’s for sure: By embracing the craziest element of their base, they are ultimately going to have to answer for it—if journalists bother asking.

    [ad_2]

    Molly Jong-Fast

    Source link

  • John McCain’s Son Says He’s Voting for Harris After Trump’s Arlington National Cemetery Incident

    John McCain’s Son Says He’s Voting for Harris After Trump’s Arlington National Cemetery Incident

    [ad_1]

    In the wake of an incident at Arlington National Cemetery last week, wherein members of Donald Trump’s campaign allegedly got into a physical and verbal altercation with a cemetery official*, First Lieutenant Jimmy McCain, son of the late senator John McCain, has announced he is voting for Kamala Harris this November and will “get involved in any way” he can to help her chances.

    Speaking to CNN, McCain said he viewed the cemetery incident—which reportedly had to do with the Trump campaign trying to film and photograph in a restricted area—as a “violation.” McCain, who has served in the military for 17 years, told the outlet: “It just blows me away. These men and women that are laying in the ground there have no choice” of whether to be part of a political campaign. “I just think that for anyone who’s done a lot of time in their uniform, they just understand that inherently—that it’s not about you there. It’s about these people who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their country.”

    McCain has been moving away from the Republican Party for some time now, having been registered as an independent and, as of several weeks ago, a Democrat. But it appears that it was the Arlington National Cemetery incident that pushed him to decide to actually vote for Harris. Noting that the episode, and the Trump campaign’s response**, represent a new low when it comes to Trump’s lack of respect for fallen soldiers, McCain opined that the ex-president’s attitude comes from insecurities about not having served himself. (Trump famously got out of going to Vietnam due to bone spurs.) “Many of these men and women, who served their country, chose to do something greater than themselves,” McCain said. “They woke up one morning, they signed on the dotted line, they put their right hand up, and they chose to serve their country. And that’s an experience that Donald Trump has not had. And I think that might be something that he thinks about a lot.”

    Trump spent many years publicly attacking John McCain—both before and after the GOP senator and 2008 presidential hopeful died. In 2015, while discussing McCain, Trump declared: “I like people who weren’t captured.” (McCain spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison.) The former president also:

    The attacks on McCain are, of course, part of a broader pattern of denigrating soldiers in general. According to reporting by The Atlantic, which was later confirmed by Trump’s former White House chief of staff John Kelly, the ex-president called Marines who died at Belleau Wood during World War I “suckers” and dubbed soldiers buried at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery “losers.” Though Trump has denied the aforementioned remarks, in 2016 he publicly went after a Gold Star family, and in 2020 he suggested a group of Gold Star families might have infected him with COVID-19—despite the fact that he’d reportedly already tested positive for the virus before meeting with them. Most recently, he declared the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an award given to civilians for exceptional contributions, to be “much better” than the Congressional Medal of Honor, an award reserved for military members, because the latter recipients are wounded or dead. So you can kind of see why the younger McCain wouldn’t want to put him back in the White House.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Controversy over Trump event leads to Livingston County’s sheriff resignation from nonprofit board

    Controversy over Trump event leads to Livingston County’s sheriff resignation from nonprofit board

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump spoke about crime and safety during a campaign event at the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office on Aug. 20 in Howell. Standing behind him is Livingston County Sheriff Michael Murphy.

    Livingston County Sheriff Michael Murphy has stepped down from his position on a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for victims of sexual and domestic abuse in the wake of his controversial decision to host former President Donald Trump at the sheriff’s office last month.

    The Michigan Bureau of Elections is investigating Murphy after Metro Times reported that he may have violated state law by using taxpayer resources to support a political candidate.

    Murphy voluntarily resigned from the Board of Directors for the LOCASA Center, which provides services for victims of child abuse, domestic violence and sexual violence.

    Sources who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal said many board members were furious and called on Murphy’s resignation.

    It was also a strange choice for Murphy, ostensibly an advocate for sexual abuse victims, to show support for Trump, who has admitted to groping women and was found liable last year for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.

    In his resignation notice, Murphy expressed that his decision was made to avoid overshadowing the important work of LACASA. He emphasized his long-standing commitment to the organization.

    “As a board member for close to 25 years, I have always been an advocate for LACASA, using my time, talents, and money to help where I could,” Murphy said in a statement after a Metro Times inquiry. “I have never intentionally or unintentionally done anything to hurt the organization, and it’s unfortunate some can’t see that.”

    LACASA Board Chair Patricia Claffey reassured that the organization’s vital work continues without interruption, highlighting LACASA’s four-decade commitment to providing a safe space for victims and survivors.

    “For more than 40 years, LACASA has provided a safe and supportive environment for victims and survivors of child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual violence, and a place where they are believed, trusted, and empowered,” Claffey said. “We thank Sheriff Murphy for his service to our organization, and will continue to work closely with him and his staff as our law enforcement partners.”

    LACASA President & CEO Bobette Schrandt echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the organization’s strong relationship with local law enforcement, which she said will remain unchanged. Schrandt also underscored LACASA’s unwavering focus on the needs of victims and survivors.

    “We are proud of our unwavering commitment to advocate for survivors,” Schrandt stated. “We thank Sheriff Murphy for the years he spent on our board, and for recognizing that there is no room for distraction from our critical mission.”

    The Michigan Campaign Finance Act makes it a crime punishable by up to 93 days in jail to use public resources to support a political candidate.

    A day before Trump’s arrival, Murphy claimed in a video that the former president’s appearance was not a political event.

    “Let me make a couple of things clear: One, this is not a political event. This is a press conference,” Murphy said.

    The event forced the closure of multiple courts, as well as the offices of the prosecutor, magistrate, parole officers, and the probation department.

    A campaign event by Trump’s running mate JD Vance at the Shelby Township PoliceDepartment is also being investigated.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Talks Ethics, Presidential Immunity in First Broadcast Interview Since Confirmation

    Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Talks Ethics, Presidential Immunity in First Broadcast Interview Since Confirmation

    [ad_1]

    In her first broadcast interview since joining the nation’s highest court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson talks Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case, an enforceable code of ethics for her and her colleagues, and how the last two years on the bench have gone as the first ever Black woman to serve as a United States Supreme Court justice.

    Since joining the court, CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell pointed out, Jackson has been a keen questioner.

    “You immediately became the most prolific questioner among the justices,” O’Donnell said. “No one else is even close to you.” Jackson smiled. “Why do you laugh?” the anchor asked.

    “Because, I was the most prolific questioner as a district court judge as well,” Jackson said. “Because I have a lot of questions,” she continued, her tone turning serious. “We have a very complicated legal system, and these issues are hard.”

    CBS’s sit-down with Justice Jackson comes as President Joe Biden is, in part, using his remaining time in office to push for Supreme Court reform amid historically high levels of American distrust in the institution. As of a couple months ago, fewer than half of Americans have a favorable opinion of the court, according to a Pew Research Center survey. For Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, that number drops to 24 percent. Black respondents, along with women, were more likely to feel disdain for the court.

    In late July, Biden released a three-part plan of reforms.

    First, pass a “No One Is Above the Law Amendment,” establishing that “the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President”—a direct response to the court’s recent immunity ruling where they sided with Trump. Second, term limits for justices set to 18 years. Last, “Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves” from cases where conflicts of interest could arise for themselves or their spouses.

    Justice Jackson wrote a scathing dissent in the immunity case, which ruled that former presidents have “absolute” protection from criminal prosecution for “official” actions done while in office.

    “The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm,” she wrote. “I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right.”

    When O’Donnell asked Jackson about this case, the justice responded, “I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances. When we have a criminal justice system that had, ordinarily, treated everyone the same.”

    “Are you prepared that this election could end up before the Supreme Court?” O’Donnell followed up.

    “As prepared as anyone can be,” Jackson said. “I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process, and so the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary.”

    Some of Jackson’s coworkers on the bench have been in hot water recently.

    In April of 2023, a ProPublica investigation found that, for over two decades, Justice Clarence Thomas was being treated to luxury vacations from billionaire and political donor Harlan Crow. It was the first drop in what has become a stream of reporting about potential ethics violations from Thomas and other justices. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, has also been in the news for flying two flags synonymous with the “Stop the Steal” movement—the unfounded right-wing theory that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump by Biden—outside of the couple’s homes in Virginia and New Jersey.

    “I’m not going to comment on other justice’s interpretation of the rules or what they’re doing,” Jackson said during the CBS interview.

    In November, all nine justices signed onto the court’s first formal code of conduct governing the ethical behavior of its members, but that agreement doesn’t appear to have a clear enforcement mechanism. When asked about her personal code, Jackson responded, “I follow the rules, whatever they are with respect to ethical obligations, and it’s important, in my view, to do so. It really boils down to impartiality—that’s what the rules are about. People are entitled to know if you’re accepting gifts as a judge, so that they can evaluate whether or not your opinions are impartial.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • JD Vance Might Lose Michigan For Trump

    JD Vance Might Lose Michigan For Trump

    [ad_1]

    JD Vance was put on Trump’s ticket to help in the blue wall states, but a new Michigan poll shows that Vance is much less popular than Tim Walz and could cost Trump the state.

    The Detroit Free Press reported on their poll:

    Overall, 28% said Harris’ selection of Walz made them more likely to vote for her, compared with 15% who said it made them less likely to do so and 55% who said it had no influence. Asked whether Trump’s selection of Vance made them more likely to back Trump , 14% said it did so, with 19% saying it made their backing of him less likely and 65% saying it had no bearing on their decision.

    Just 28% of Trump’s voters said the selection of Vance, a Marine veteran, lawyer and author of a memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” made them more likely to vote for the former president. Three percent said it made them less likely to vote for Trump. Sixty-seven percent said it had no influence at all.

    Undecided voters appeared to like Walz more as well: While 8% said Trump’s selection of Vance made them more likely to vote for him, 27% said Harris’ selection of Walz made them more likely to pick her.

    To join the conversation and tell us what you think of this story, join us on Reddit.

    Those are big spreads for the impact of the VP nominee in what should be a close election result in Michigan. Vance is clearly not helping Trump, and he might be doing harm to the ticket with undecided voters.

    It is clear that Harris made a better pick with Walz than Trump did with Vance. 

    JD Vance was picked to help Trump run up the score with Republican voters. When the election changed after Kamala Harris entered the race, Trump was stuck with a running mate that seemed to have negative appeal and repel swing voters. 

    Michigan is a close state, and a point or two in the electorate’s feelings can decide the outcome.

    JD Vance isn’t helping Trump and may cost Republicans the state of Michigan.

    Jason Easley
    Latest posts by Jason Easley (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • Trump Says His Abortion Strategy Is “States’ Rights”—But Even He Doesn’t Follow It

    Trump Says His Abortion Strategy Is “States’ Rights”—But Even He Doesn’t Follow It

    [ad_1]

    This week, one Floridian—Republican presidential nominee Donald Trumpweighed in on how he might vote on the state’s abortion access ballot initiative come November.

    Florida’s near-total abortion ban went into effect at the beginning of May. The state, helmed by Governor Ron DeSantis, had replaced the 15-week ban with a six-week one, eliminating access before many people even know they’re pregnant.

    Now, a 2024 ballot measure is hoping to safeguard abortion access until about 24 weeks, or later if a medical professional deems the procedure necessary to save a patient’s life.

    The current ban, Trump said in an interview with NBC News on Thursday, is “too short.” When pressed on how he plans to vote on the ballot initiative, he responded, “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.” “It has to be more time,” he said.

    The conservative backlash was swift.

    “If Donald Trump loses, today is the day he lost,” conservative commentator Erick Erickson posted to X, formerly Twitter. “The committed pro-life community could turn a blind eye, in part, to national abortion issues. But for Trump to weigh in on Florida as he did will be a bridge too far for too many.”

    “Trump had better count the cost of abandoning pro-life voters—quickly. That cost is going to be very high,” Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on social media. “Pro-life Christian voters are going to have to think clearly, honestly, and soberly about our challenge in this election—starting at the top of the ticket.”

    Lila Rose, who heads the prominent anti-abortion group Live Action, shared that she would “love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion,” in a Politico piece published Thursday. “But unfortunately, that’s not the case.” “Perhaps,” she said, “he personally lacks principle on this issue.”

    Just one day after the first interview with NBC, Trump said he actually wouldn’t be voting for the Florida measure.

    “So I think six weeks, you need more time than six weeks. I’ve disagreed with that right from the early primaries when I heard about it, I disagreed with it,” Trump told Fox News. “At the same time, the Democrats are radical, because the nine months is just a ridiculous situation where you can do an abortion in the ninth month. … So I’ll be voting no for that reason,” he continued, echoing a common abortion myth.

    In 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of abortions occurred during the first trimester. Only about 1 percent were performed at 21 weeks—about five months—or more of gestation. These terminations often occur due to lack of health insurance or health complications for the pregnant person or the fetus.

    This day-to-day messaging on how states ought to handle who gets to have an abortion and when is just the latest strategy in Trump’s retelling of how he, and his administration, have decimated access to reproductive healthcare across the country. For three presidential campaigns, Trump has morphed his rhetoric around abortion to best serve his needs. During this latest run for office, Trump has been doubling down on how his stance has always been anchored in states’ rights.

    “People forget, fighting Roe v. Wade was, right from the beginning, all about bringing the Issue back to the States,” Trump posted to Truth Social in April. “It wasn’t about anything else,” he continued, “We had a Great Victory, it’s back in the States where it belongs, and where everyone wanted it. The States will be making the decision.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link