Tag: Debate

Jasmine Crockett: ICE agents in Minneapolis are ‘turning us into Nazi Germany’

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – JUNE 13: Rep. Jasmine Crockett speaks onstage during Storytellers – Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett during the 2025 Tribeca Festival at SVA Theater on June 13, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Tribeca Festival)

Cindy Ord

Getty Images for Tribeca Festiva

Texas congresswoman Jasmine Crockett compared the actions of federal agents in Minnesota, where an agent shot dead a man Saturday, to “Nazi Germany” during a Democratic debate for the U.S. Senate.

Crockett and state Rep. James Talarico are the leading candidates in the Democratic primary, hoping to win in March and be on the ticket in November for Sen. John Cornyn’s seat.

The two Democrats took the stage in Georgetown, north of Austin, shortly after federal immigration agents in Minneapolis had shot 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive-care nurse for a VA hospital. The shooting came just weeks after Renee Good was shot and killed by an immigration officer in the same city.

The Saturday killing was recorded by bystanders from different angles, showing a group of federal officers tackle Pretti as he appeared to be using a phone to record them. Pretti was legally carrying a handgun, according to Minnesota authorities, and was shot multiple times after he was on the ground. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters that the fact that Pretti carried a weapon “looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement,” contradicting video evidence of the encounter.

At one point during Saturday’s debate, the moderators asked Crockett and Talarico about how they’d balance their feelings toward ICE while also representing Texans who support deporting undocumented immigrants.

“As it relates to the enforcement that we see right now, let me be clear: They are supposed to do immigration and customs enforcement,” Crockett said. “Not going after U.S. citizens. Not going after people that are documented. That is not what they are supposed to do, but that is what they’re doing. They are turning us into Nazi Germany by saying they’re going to go door to door.”

She continued, “They’re going after people because of their accent or the color of their skin, because this Supreme Court gave them carte blanche ability to do so. So all we want ICE to do is to do what ICE was created to do, and unfortunately, that’s not what they are doing.”

Asked the same question, Talarico said the southern border should be like a front porch.

“There should be a giant welcome mat out front and a lock on the door,” he said. “We can welcome immigrants who want to live the American dream. We can build a pathway to citizenship for those neighbors who have been here making us richer and stronger, and we can keep out people who mean to do us harm.”

Earlier in the debate, Talarico also had sharp words about ICE, when asked whether he thinks the agency should be abolished or defunded.

“ICE shot a mother in the face,” he said. “ICE kidnapped a 5-year-old boy. ICE executed a man in broad daylight on our streets just this morning. It’s time to tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that actually is going to focus on public safety.”

Pressed again on whether he’d abolish or defund ICE, Talarico responded that the country has seen a historic increase in ICE funding.

“That money has come out of our health care, so what I would say is that we should take that money back and put it in our communities where it belongs,” Talarico said.

Crockett said “we absolutely have to clean house.”

“Whatever that looks like, I am willing to do it,” she said. “Because if there are truly Proud Boys that are currently in ICE, that’s a problem.”

Both candidates said they support impeaching United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.

ICE isn’t following the law, Crockett said.

“They’re killing people in the middle of the street,” she said. “They decided to execute a mother of three in broad daylight. I don’t understand how we are sitting here and acting like this is normal.”

Eleanor Dearman

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Eleanor (Elly) Dearman is a Texas politics and government reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She’s based in Austin, covering the Legislature and its impact on North Texas. She grew up in Denton and has been a reporter for more than six years.
Support my work with a digital subscription

Eleanor Dearman

Source link

January 24, 2026
What ‘fighters’? Texas Democratic Senate rivals pull punches in debate | Opinion

State Rep. James Talarico, left, and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Democratic primary candidates for U.S. Senate, shake hands prior to a debate at the Texas AFL-CIO COPE Convention in Georgetown, Texas on Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026.

Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune via POOL

Most political campaigns are way too long, but in the case of the U.S. Senate primary between Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico, it’s good that there are a few weeks left.

That’s because Saturday’s debate didn’t offer undecided Texas Democratic voters much to go on.

Crockett, the bombastic Dallas congresswoman, and Talarico, the more-measured Austin-area state representative, largely agreed on immigration, health care, the economy, foreign policy and taking on Donald Trump. Over the course of an hour, they had no significant exchanges airing either policy or stylistic differences with each other.

Squint, though, and you could see some separation. Crockett was more blunt about Trump, pointing to the latest horrendous killing by federal agents in Minnesota and framing the current political atmosphere as a dangerous, “unprecedented time.” Talarico blasted the president, too, but he also offered a broader attack on billionaires and corporations.

Their policy prescriptions were variations on the same theme, and standard Democratic fare at that. Both would raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy but declined to say where they would draw the line on who pays more. Both supported sweeping expansion of government-funded health insurance. Both condemned Trump’s recent actions in Venezuela.

Moderators Daniel Marin of Austin’s KXAN-TV and Gromer Jeffers Jr. of The Dallas Morning News, seeming to anticipate the reluctance, opened the debate by trying to draw the two out on their stylistic differences and who could fulfill the ultimate Democratic priority: winning a statewide race in Texas for the first time in more than three decades. Crockett argued that she is a brawler who does better with constituencies Democrats need to win back, including Black men and the working class.

Talarico repeated his message that he is a progressive Christian while also insisting that he’s a fighter who has taken on education cuts and pharmaceutical companies during his three terms in Austin. “I have fought tooth and nail for our values,” he said.

What’s a Texas Democrat to do? When Crockett entered the race at the last minute in December, she seemed like a shoo-in, given her national profile for caustic combativeness toward Trump and other Republicans, especially Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. But Talarico has shown impressive fundraising strength and built a quieter national profile of his own, winning praise from figures such as podcasting king Joe Rogan.

Reliable polls are scarce, and even among the few released so far, the results swing wildly. Each candidate appeals to different constituencies in the party, and it’s hard to measure who will turn out to vote between Feb. 21, the start of early voting, and Election Day, March 3. And turnout could be higher than usual because Democrats smell vulnerability on the Republican side, especially if the GOP nominates the tarnished Ken Paxton over incumbent John Cornyn.

That deeper interest isn’t reflected just yet. Talarico and Crockett were understandably reluctant to brawl with each other in a sleepy Saturday afternoon debate when Texans are thinking more about wind chills and chili than primaries and polls.

But if the candidates are the fighters they claim to be and the prize is as attainable as they want to believe, they’d better start throwing punches soon — and not just at Trump and Paxton.

Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tell us!

We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section.

• Letters should be no more than 150 words.

• Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days.

• Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions.

You can submit a letter to the editor two ways:

• Email letters@star-telegram.com (preferred).

• Fill out this online form.

Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.

Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Ryan J. Rusak is opinion editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He grew up in Benbrook and is a TCU graduate. He spent more than 15 years as a political journalist, overseeing coverage of four presidential elections and several sessions of the Texas Legislature. He writes about Fort Worth/Tarrant County politics and government, along with Texas and national politics, education, social and cultural issues, and occasionally sports, music and pop culture. Rusak, who lives in east Fort Worth, was recently named Star Opinion Writer of the Year for 2024 by Texas Managing Editors, a news industry group.

Ryan J. Rusak

Source link

January 24, 2026
Democratic debate for Texas’ US Senate seat: How to watch in Dallas-Fort Worth

Getty Images file photos

U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett and State Rep. James Talarico will debate for the first time on Saturday afternoon, as they bid to represent Texans in the U.S. Senate.

Crockett and Talarico are the frontrunners in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat that is currently held by Sen. John Cornyn, a longtime Republican lawmaker who is in the midst of a heated primary of his own. The winner of each primary will face off in the Nov. 3 general election.

Crockett and Talarico will go head-to-head in the Jan. 24 debate in Georgetown hosted by Texas AFL-CIO, a labor federation representing union workers across the state. The debate is set for 2 p.m and aligns with a convention hosted by the group’s political arm.

The debate is set to last one hour and will be livestreamed on cw33.com and on the CW33+ app in North Texas. KXAN anchor Daniel Marin and Dallas Morning News political writer Gromer Jeffers are moderating.

Texas’ primary elections are on March 3. Early voting starts Feb. 17 and runs through Feb. 27.

Eleanor Dearman

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Eleanor (Elly) Dearman is a Texas politics and government reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She’s based in Austin, covering the Legislature and its impact on North Texas. She grew up in Denton and has been a reporter for more than six years.
Support my work with a digital subscription

Eleanor Dearman

Source link

January 22, 2026
How Jane Goodall’s Explanation for Persuading People Who Disagree With You Is Backed by Science

When legendary primatologist Jane Goodall passed away at 91 earlier this month, many memorials focused on her outsize contributions to science and conservation. They noted how her work studying chimps upended our ideas about humans’ place in the animal kingdom, and they hailed her relentless advocacy for the natural world.

Such celebrations of an extraordinary life were certainly well-earned. But as I read about Goodall’s work, it struck me she wasn’t just an incredible conservationist. She was also an incredible communicator.

People’s enthusiasm for environmentalism varies, to put it mildly. But despite her spending decades deep in the trenches of often polarizing issues, it’s hard to find many people with a harsh word for Goodall. The more I learned about her, the more it became clear why.

Psychologists have investigated in depth what it takes to engage with and actually persuade those who disagree with you. Goodall’s work is the perfect model of what they’ve discovered.

An Inc.com Featured Presentation

That makes a deeper look at her communication style worthwhile, not just for those interested in the health of planet earth, but for anyone hoping to talk constructively across difference. Which, in today’s world, is basically all of us.

Goodall meets a cranky taxi driver

In 2021, Jane Goodall gave an interview to GQ to promote a tree planting initiative she’d just launched, at 87. It’s a testament to her vigor deep into her ninth decade. (She’s been held up as a model for healthy aging as well.) It also contains a simple anecdote that captures her communication style.

“I was once in a taxi and it was very early in the morning. I was on my way to the U.S. and I was driving out to Heathrow and I thought, ‘I’ll have a nice little snooze,’” she tells GQ’s Gabriella Paiella.

Her nap, alas, was not to be. The cab driver recognized Goodall and had a bone to pick with her. “You’re all like my sister, I haven’t got time for the likes of you. You care more about animals than people,” he complained. “He went on and on,” Goodall recalled.

Most of us are not at our most patient and fair-minded during early morning trips to the airport. So Goodall could have been forgiven for being brusque. But that’s not how she responded.

“I sat and talked to him through the little window, told him stories about the chimps, told him how our programs in Africa were improving the lives of the people, helping girls to stay in school, better clinics, better education,” she says.

It didn’t seem to make much difference. “Oh, he was grumpy. Didn’t care,” she remembers.

When Goodall went to get out of the cab, the driver didn’t have the correct change for her. She told him to keep the extra cash and donate it to his sister to help with her work on behalf of animals.

“I thought, ‘Ah, well, you’ll go and drink it in the pub and tell people about this crazy woman you talked to,’” Goodall said. But instead, a little while later she got a letter from the sister thanking her for the donation and asking how Goodall had changed her brother’s mind. Since that cab ride, he’d shown a newfound enthusiasm for her cause, even volunteering to help her on a couple of occasions.

A story is worth a thousand facts

You could take this charming story as proof of Goodall’s personal charisma, and that’s partially correct. But Goodall offered the tale as an example of her approach to persuasion. How do you get people who disagree with you to see things from your perspective?

“By talking to people as individuals, by presenting facts fairly, by not blaming, by telling the sort of stories that people remember,” Goodall responds. “Just tell people stories, try and find out who they are, try and find something that links you with them.”

It’s a plainspoken answer that encapsulates a whole lot of psychological research. For instance, when confronted with opinions we view as wrong or incorrect, the first impulse of many of us is to offer corrective facts. But that doesn’t work.

As behavioral scientist Gleb Tsipursky has written, “research on a phenomenon called the backfire effect shows we tend to dig in our heels when we are presented with facts that cause us to feel bad about our identity, self-worth, worldview, or group belonging.”

Goodall doesn’t make the mistake of bombarding the hostile cabby with facts and figures. Instead, she uses stories to make her point. Neuroscience insists this is a jujitsu move for persuasion. Stories, they explain, light up our brains in ways statistics don’t. That only makes them naturally more memorable, but also more likely to elicit empathy. And that human feeling helps break down barriers and open minds to new viewpoints.

“Oxytocin is produced when we are trusted or shown a kindness, and it motivates cooperation with others,” Paul J. Zak, the founding director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University, explained on HBR. Stories “consistently cause oxytocin synthesis.”

First respect, and then persuasion

Not only did Goodall employ stories to smuggle in her message. She used another psychology-endorsed trick, too. When you want to persuade someone, she says, you should “try and find out who they are.”

This insight, too, is backed by research. Stanford researchers recently found that just asking a person you are trying to persuade, “I was interested in what you’re saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?” radically improved the other’s party’s willingness to engage and consider other viewpoints.

When we signal to others that we are genuinely open to their viewpoint and its origins, we communicate respect. And when people feel respected, they’re less defensive and more willing to change their minds. If you convince someone you won’t make them feel small for being wrong, they’re unsurprisingly more willing to consider changing their mind.

Jane Goodall’s other legacy

Which is just what Goodall patiently did with her combative cabbie. Rather than sighing, rolling her eyes, or getting on her high horse, she talked to him as an individual. She honored his humanity and he repaid her respect with respect of his own.

Jane Goodall taught the world a lot about chimpanzees. But she also taught us all valuable lessons about how to win a debate. It starts with not approaching it as a debate at all, but as an exchange between curious equals. Both Goodall’s amazing life and a whole lot of psychology suggest that makes all the difference when you hope to nudge people to think differently.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

Jessica Stillman

Source link

October 15, 2025
Three St. Paul mayoral candidates square off in debate about issues facing Minnesota’s capital city

The three leading candidates hoping to be Saint Paul’s next mayor contrasted their visions for the future of Minnesota’s capital city on Tuesday.

State Rep. Kaohly Vang Her and scientist Yan Chen are challenging incumbent Mayor Melvin Carter, who is seeking a third term after eight years marked by the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, the COVID-19 pandemic, and recently a significant cyber attack.

MPR News hosted the roughly 50 minute debate between the three contenders at its headquarters downtown, a core part of the city that has struggled to rebound and is a focus of improvement.

“In the midst of those things, I do think that we’ve made significant progress in our city,” Carter said. “And here we are today, celebrating the fact that we’ve seen double digit increases in violent crime, in every category of violent crime, and that we have over a billion dollars in economic development underway.”

Her said she believes economic development in St. Paul has stalled under Carter’s leadership and that rent control, a measure approved by voters four years ago, is in part to blame. The City Council has made changes recently to provide for exceptions for newer buildings.

“I’ve been a huge proponent of tenant protections, but rent control itself decreases our ability for businesses, for developers, to want to develop in the city of Saint Paul,” Her, who once worked in Carter’s office, said. “These are issues that we literally created policies which said that we would not make ourselves as competitive as other cities.”

The three sparred over some capital projects aimed at revitalization, like upgrades to the Grand Casino Area—formerly Xcel Energy Center—complex and the Saint Paul River Balcony proposal, a 1.5-mile promenade along the Mississippi River.

Her worried that plans for the proposal don’t account for flooding risks to that area, which mean costly repairs. She also noted other city infrastructure that needs investment and deferred maintenance in libraries and parks should be a priority.

“It is our job to ask questions. To sit here and say that we can just bring up these great ideas and not have to ask the hard questions—that’s our job to be responsible with taxpayers dollars,” she said.

Carter made the case that declining to make these sorts of investments is sticking to the status quo.

“We have to do the Wayne Gretzky-ism skate to where the puck is going. Cities that have parks, cities that have amenities, cities that have good quality infrastructure, and cities that invest to keep that infrastructure on the front end are going to be the cities that compete and succeed in the future. We ought to be there,” he said.

The high cost of living hits families across Minnesota hard and homeowners in the second largest city would be staring down a steep property tax increase between city and county proposals.

Carter said it underscores that downtown investment is crucial, noting the many properties that are exempt from taxes like universities and churches. The city’s largest property owner died last year.

“When we collect less dollars downtown, what does that do to our own residential property taxes—it pushes them up,” he said.

Chen said she would work to find efficiencies in programs in an effort to reduce the tax burden on residents. She noted that some were added or grew in the pandemic with federal aid money.

“Have we asked our departments, what was the old program doing? Are they effective? We cannot just increase our budget through the COVID time and without looking at the accountability part,” she explained.

Carter touted crime dropping under his watch as mayor, but Her and Chen said there are still issues, like drug addiction, that make people feel unsafe.

“There are many, many people in our city who do not feel safe when we think about violent crime as if that is all crime encompasses. It’s just not true,” Her said.

“If we don’t know how to learn how to rehabilitating [sic] people, we will never solve the crime issue,” Chen added.

Carter and Her said they supported the school referendum that would increase the operating levy to rake in $37 million in additional dollars for St. Paul Public Schools every year. For taxpayers with a $289,200 home, they will see a $309 annual increase in property taxes if the measure is approved, according to a city estimate.

Chen will not support the ballot measure.

“It’s very simple. Basically, we haven’t looked at our school system. Are they working the way they can deliver performance?” she said, explaining her “no” vote.

Whoever wins in ranked choice voting will only serve three years as St. Paul shifts its municipal elections to even-numbered presidential election years starting in 2028.

Caroline Cummings

Source link

October 14, 2025
Did Virginia’s gubernatorial debate change voters’ minds before Election Day? – WTOP News

Interruptions dominated the one and only Virginia gubernatorial debate between Republican Winsome Earle-Sears and Democrat Abigail Spanberger Thursday night.

Interruptions dominated the one and only Virginia gubernatorial debate between Republican Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger Thursday night.

With less than a month remaining before the general election, independent voters are gravitating toward Spanberger and her campaign, David Ramadan, a professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, told WTOP.

“She’s talking about affordability, talking about education, talking about people losing jobs,” Ramadan said. “That’s resonating with the independent voter.”

After an “exhausting” debate, Ramadan, a former Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates, said the interruptions did not give the public a chance to learn real information, possibly resulting in no changes in support for either candidate.

However, if there was a winner, Ramadan said Spanberger’s strategy of sticking to “kitchen table issues” throughout her campaign and the debate helped sway independent voters. Before the debate, a Washington Post/Schar School poll found Spanberger ahead of Earle-Sears by 12% among likely voters.

“It’s the independent voter that any candidate who wants to win needs to attract,” he said. “It’s obvious that Spanberger’s message is resonating with (the) independent voter.”

Spanberger largely avoided addressing her Republican opponent directly, opting for a more sterile and bipartisan tone.

Ramadan called the decision not to engage with Earle-Sears smart, especially when it came to the emergence of attorney general candidate Jay Jones’ 2022 text messages to a colleague about shooting former House Speaker Todd Gilbert.

“Concentrating on your own campaign versus others that you cannot control is a smart way of running a debate and running a campaign, especially when you’re only four weeks away,” Ramadan said.

Ramadan said Earle-Sears bringing up Gilbert’s text messages during the debate may sway voters on their choice for attorney general, “but it’s not going to sway voters on who are they going to vote for governor and for lieutenant governor.”

“In Virginia, even though there are two parties, and there are three people from each party running. They all run individually and independently. There’s no tickets that are in there. The voter doesn’t walk in and cast one vote for three candidates. You cast one vote per candidate,” Ramadan said.

Earle-Sears’ strategy

In her campaign ads, Earle-Sears highlighted transgender and social issues, which echo what Gov. Glenn Youngkin ran on four years ago. Ramadan said that these may not be resonating for Earle-Sears, however, “because she is anywhere between seven to 12 points behind.”

Ramadan said Earle-Sears’ debate strategy did not work.

“I guess the tactic was to try to derail Congresswoman Spanberger from sticking to her talking points that are resonating and by interrupt, interrupt. And it did not work,” Ramadan said.

While it’s a long shot for any candidate, not just Earle-Sears, to come back from being 7 to 12 points behind, Ramadan said informing the public about some of the policies Earle-Sears would be supporting could help, but he’s doubtful it’s enough to close the gap.

“(Earle-)Sears, to the best of my knowledge, does not even have any policy on her website,” Ramadan said.

Spanberger, however, has talked about Virginians being out of work due to DOGE cuts and the recent government shutdown, which Ramadan said is working for Spanberger. While Earle-Sears, Ramadan said, had “a couple of mishaps,” including when she commented, amid the height of DOGE cuts earlier this year, that job loss was a common experience.

There’s also her support of President Donald Trump’s administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which Ramadan said was not resonating in Northern Virginia.

Ramadan said to win any statewide race, candidates need a hefty margin in Northern Virginia.

“The DOGE and the federal cuts are better issues for Democrats and better issues for Spanberger than they are for Earle-Sears and Republicans,” he said.

With fewer than 30 days until the general election, Spanberger needs to stay the course and keep focusing on the kitchen table issues that are winning topics for her, Ramadan said.

The size of her victory could indicate what’s to come nationwide during the midterms.

“If it’s a small margin, the case then becomes, ‘OK, that was good for Virginia, it doesn’t mean it’s going to work for the rest of the country,’” Ramadan said. “If the margin ends up a big margin, as we’re seeing in today’s polls and last week’s polls, then this is a teaching lesson in a bellwether moment for the entire country for the 2026 elections.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Jose Umana

Source link

October 11, 2025
Jack Ciattarelli says he will sue Mikie Sherrill over accusations made during final debate

NEW JERSEY (WABC) — Jack Ciattarelli, Republican nominee for New Jersey governor, announced that he plans to sue his Democrat counterpart, Mikie Sherrill, over what he calls an “inflammatory and irresponsible allegation” she made during Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate.

The development comes following a heated debate where both candidates butted heads over issues including over the federal government shutdown, Sherrill’s military records, President Donald Trump and the high cost of living in the state.

However, one of the most contentious moments came when Sherrill, a four-term congresswoman elected during Trump’s first midterm to a longtime GOP-held seat, accused Ciattarelli, running for governor for the third time, of profiting off the opioid crisis, leading to deaths.

“You’re trying to divert from the fact you killed tens of thousands of people by printing your misinformation, your propaganda,” she charged.

The candidates debate opioids, their backgrounds, and claims of legality.

Ciattarelli denied the accusation – “shame on you,” he said, accusing his opponent of lying in an act of desperation – and responded by referencing the scandal surrounding Sherrill’s military records, saying, at least “I got to walk at my college graduation.”

Now, the Republican’s campaign is hitting back with the lawsuit.

Ciattarelli strategist Chris Russell said in a statement that Sherrill’s comments were a “clearly defamatory attack that shocked the moderators, press, and public alike.”

“In a time where political violence and violent rhetoric are becoming all too prevalent, Mikie Sherrill baselessly and recklessly accusing a political opponent of mass murder in a televised debate crosses the line.”

Ciattarelli’s campaign said they expect the lawsuit to be formally filed early next week in court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

———-

* Get Eyewitness News Delivered

* More New Jersey news

* Send us a news tip

* Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

* Follow us on YouTube

Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

Copyright © 2025 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

WABC

Source link

October 9, 2025
Fact-checking New Jersey’s second gubernatorial debate

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — In a close New Jersey gubernatorial race, Democratic U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill and Republican former state legislator Jack Ciattarelli met for their second and final debate, fiercely attacking each other’s character and record.

They debated electricity costs, commuter rail service and criminal justice policies, key issues facing New Jersey voters. Some of the candidates’ attacks also turned personal.

Ciattarelli accused Sherrill of obfuscating her role in a 1992 U.S. Naval Academy cheating scandal. Sherrill blamed “tens of thousands” of opioid deaths on a medical publishing business Ciattarelli owned.

“Shame on you,” both candidates told one another during one contentious moment.

The debate’s moderators also asked Ciattarelli and Sherrill to give letter grades to two key figures — President Donald Trump and term-limited incumbent New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat — whose popularity, or lack thereof, has provided an important backdrop to the campaign.

Sign up for PolitiFact texts

Sherrill said she would give Trump an F and Murphy a B. She praised the governor but, referring to the state capital, said, “There’s ways Trenton could do a lot better.” Ciattarelli gave Trump an A and Murphy an F. “I think (Trump) is right about everything he’s doing,” Ciattarelli said.

PolitiFact and the New Jersey Globe partnered to fact-check the candidates’ claims during the New Brunswick debate, which was sponsored by WABC-TV in New York and WPVI-TV in Philadelphia.

One inaccurate statement we noted came from moderator Bill Ritter, who said at the close of the debate, “Vote on Tuesday, November the 14th.”

That’s the incorrect date: Election Day in New Jersey is Tuesday, Nov. 4. Early voting will run Oct. 25 to Nov. 2, and vote-by-mail ballots have already been sent to voters.

Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli (AP)

Personal attacks

Sherrill: “You killed tens of thousands of people by printing your misinformation, your propaganda.”

There is no evidence that Ciattarelli “killed” anyone.

During the debate, Sherrill referred to news coverage from the 2021 gubernatorial campaign. NJ Advance Media reported then that a medical publishing business Ciattarelli previously owned, Galen Publishing, produced educational materials that included articles downplaying the risk of opioid misuse among chronic pain patients. Major pharmaceutical companies gave Galen Publishing millions in grants, as is common for similar publishing firms, according to the report.

Sherrill repeated some of the story’s points, saying Ciattarelli published pro-opioid “propaganda” while tens of thousands of New Jerseyans died. After a heated back-and-forth with Ciattarelli, she broadened her attack, saying that Ciattarelli’s actions directly killed tens of thousands of New Jerseyans. (According to state statistics, 27,490 New Jerseyans died of overdoses from 2012 to 2023.)

When reporters asked Sherrill after the debate for evidence to support her claim, she again said Ciattarelli exacerbated the opioid epidemic through his company, but did not repeat her accusation that Ciattarelli personally killed New Jerseyans.

Sherrill: Ciattarelli’s “number one donor” is under investigation for driving up rental housing costs.

This needs context.

This appears to refer to the Kurtz family, owners of Kamson Corp. apartment management firm. Patriarch Richard Kurtz and other family members have collectively donated more than $750,000 to Ciattarelli and his allied groups during Ciattarelli’s 2021 and 2025 gubernatorial campaigns, Gothamist reported.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin has sued Kamson Corp., accusing the company of colluding with a software company to raise apartment rents.

Members of the Kurtz family have supported Democrats, too, according to federal campaign finance data.

Although Richard Kurtz gave $250,000 to a pro-Ciattarelli super PAC, he has also given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats over the last 30 years. His donations include $6,600 in 2024 to Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer, who lost to Sherrill in this year’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, and $8,600 to Murphy during his 2017 campaign for governor.

Ciattarelli: Sherrill has missed “90% of the votes in Washington” during her gubernatorial campaign.

This is exaggerated. Since entering the race for governor last November, Sherrill’s campaign schedule in New Jersey has kept her out of Washington for many House votes, but she hasn’t missed 90%.

The New Jersey Globe’s vote trackers — which track substantive, non-procedural House votes — found that Sherrill has missed about 55% of votes since November 18, 2024, when she announced her campaign.

Democratic candidate Mikie Sherrill (AP)

Sherrill: “Your campaign right now is under federal investigation for how you illegally got access to my (military) records”

This needs context.

Earlier this year, the National Archives and Records Administration gave a Ciattarelli ally Sherrill’s unredacted military personnel file following a public records request. After CBS News reported that sensitive information, including addresses and Social Security numbers, were visible in the publicly released file, Sherrill and other Democrats called for a federal investigation, accusing Republicans of exploiting the federal government to weaponize Sherrill’s records.

In September, Politico reported that the National Archives and Records Administration’s inspector general had initiated an internal investigation. However, Fox News Digital quoted an agency spokesperson Oct. 1 saying there is “no current indication that the release was intentional by the employee or the requestor.” A Ciattarelli spokesperson also told Fox that the investigation “has nothing to do with our campaign,” and the campaign has repeatedly said it did not commit any wrongdoing.

Electricity

Ciattarelli: “Not one” Democratic legislator has endorsed Sherrill’s plan to freeze utility rates.

This is inaccurate.

After Sherrill released her plan, Murphy threw cold water on it, telling reporters that he was “not sure how you’d actually do that.” Responding to Murphy’s comments, at least three Democratic legislators publicly criticized the governor and supported Sherrill. “We can, should, and will freeze utility rates,” Democratic Assemblywoman Andrea Katz said on social media.

Ciattarelli: New Jersey electricity rates are at an “all-time high.”

Statistics support this.

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t calculate the consumer price index for states, but it does track prices for electricity in the New York-Newark-Jersey City metropolitan area, which can be used as a proxy for costs in one of New Jersey’s most densely populated areas.

This price for electricity was higher in the second half of 2024 — the most recent period available — than at any point since 1984, when the statistic was first calculated.

Electricity prices in that metro area are up by about 37% since before the pandemic.

Economy

Ciattarelli: Sherrill is “blatantly lying” about whether Ciattarelli supports a 10% sales tax.

Sherrill has made misleading statements about Ciattarelli’s stance on sales tax, drawing primarily on statements he made at a June rally.

A rally attendee asked Ciattarelli if he would consider abolishing the state’s income tax and recouping the revenue with an increased sales tax. Ciattarelli responded by describing Tennessee’s policy, in which many areas have sales tax rates of up to 10% rather than an income tax. Ciattarelli didn’t commit to a specific course of action at the rally, but said “every option is on the table.”

In ads, Sherrill and her allies have frequently used a clip of Ciattarelli speaking the words “10% sales tax, including food and clothing” as evidence that he supports such an increase. The spliced clip showed him describing Tennessee’s policy, not his own proposal.

Ciattarelli has repeatedly said since the rally that he would not increase the sales tax. None of his policy documents mention any proposed sales tax increases.

Sherrill: Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill has “taken away health care … for millions of people.”

This needs context.

Nonpartisan projections support the idea that under the Republican law, millions of people will eventually lose health insurance coverage. These losses haven’t materialized yet, however, because it will take time for the bill’s policy changes to work their way through the health insurance system. Many changes also don’t start immediately.

The Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan number-crunching arm, estimated that 7.5 million people on Medicaid will lose their health insurance by 2034 as a result of the bill Trump signed earlier this year. CBO projects that others will lose coverage from other program changes in the bill.

Ciattarelli: In New Jersey, “We have always lagged the national average when it comes to unemployment.”

Federal data shows this is largely accurate.

New Jersey’s unemployment rate has often exceeded the national rate. This pattern has been persistent since the end of the coronavirus pandemic around 2021.

Voting records

Sherrill: “When (Ciattarelli) was last in office, he voted to defund Planned Parenthood.”

This is accurate.

When Ciattarelli was in the state Assembly, then-Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, cut state funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides women’s health services, including abortions. When Democratic legislators sought to restore the group’s funding, Ciattarelli repeatedly voted against those efforts, NJ Spotlight News reported in 2021.

Ciattarelli continues to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood, at least for abortion. He said at a GOP primary debate earlier this year that he would cut “the portion of the money that goes (to Planned Parenthood) for advocating for abortion.”

Ciattarelli: Sherrill “voted to get rid of qualified immunity.”

This is accurate, although Sherrill has backtracked on that position in the gubernatorial race.

In both 2020 and 2021, the House — then under Democratic control — passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would have eliminated qualified immunity. That generally protects police officers from liability for wrongdoing while on duty unless they violate a person’s “clearly established” constitutional right. Sherrill, along with nearly all of her Democratic colleagues, voted for the bill both times.

During the Democratic gubernatorial primary earlier this year, Sherrill said she opposes ending qualified immunity in New Jersey, Politico reported.

Sherrill: Ciattarelli “voted to give rapists parental rights” to children conceived by rape.

This is generally accurate.

On April 29, 2013, Ciattarelli voted against Bill A3537, which provided for the “termination of parental rights of certain persons convicted of sexual assault that resulted in the birth of a child.” The measure passed, 61-7, with three abstentions and nine members not voting.

In a post-debate press conference, Ciattarelli said the bill was flawed and argued judges should decide how to handle those cases. The state Senate did not pass the bill.

Blackburn reported from New Brunswick; Fox and Jacobson reported from Washington.

Source link

October 9, 2025
Opinion: The Cruz-Allred Senate Debate Laid Out the Choice

Going into Tuesday night’s debate between Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and his opponent Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, you’d be pardoned if you were anticipating a complete rout for Allred.

After all, Houston’s own Cruz, who has served as the Texas junior senator since his 2012 election, has long been acclaimed for his debating prowess. Allred wasn’t bringing such bona fides to the stage.

But Allred, the Dallas-born, former-Baylor football captain, former-NFL player and current congressman representing the 23rd District, had polls in his back pocket.

After months of being viewed – and dismissed – as a longshot candidate by both the Republicans and his own party, Allred has surged in the polls in recent weeks. The polling data now shows the two contenders in a much closer race than expected. (A University of Houston poll published Tuesday before the debate showed Cruz leading 50 percent to Allred’s 46 percent, but a week-old internal GOP super PAC poll, obtained by Politico, only has Cruz garnering 48 percent to Allred’s 47 percent of the vote. In other words, the odds still favor Cruz but his victory is far from a lock.)

Thus, both candidates entered the debate, deftly moderated by Jason Whiteley, political reporter for WFAA, and Gromer Jeffers, political reporter for the Dallas Morning News, with something to prove.

Could Allred hold his own against Cruz and show voters that his rep as a true moderate isn’t just for show?
Could Cruz — reputed to be one of the most unpopular members of Congress and described by GOP former-U.S. House Speaker John Boehner as “Lucifer in the flesh” —come across as, well, likeable?

In his opening statement, Allred, who won the coin toss and opted to go first, hit Cruz in one of the senator’s softest spots by promising right off the bat that, if elected to the U.S. Senate he’ll put Texas and Texans first. Allred pledged, in a moment that saw Cruz smiling hard, that he won’t head off to Cancun the way Cruz did in the middle of 2021’s historic winter freeze.

For his part, Cruz took a measured stance in his introduction, noting he is the son of a Cuban immigrant father, complementing Allred having been raised by a single mother, and explaining that his plan of attack was to return repeatedly to Allred’s record.

Over the course of the next hour, which galloped by as the debaters picked up speed, Cruz and Allred talked over all of the big-ticket issues, from abortion to the economy to the border, their respective approaches to the ongoing conflicts in Israel and Ukraine, the events of January 6, IVF regulations, transgender rights and affordable housing.

On abortion, the issue that stands to shape how many of our elections play out on November 5, Cruz kept calm. With his signature unflappable smoothness, Cruz repeatedly avoided laying out whether he supports exemptions for rape or incest. Instead, he contended that Allred’s abortion stance—which Allred described as “support of protections and restrictions as laid out by Roe [v. Wade]”—represented a disregard for Texas state laws.

When pressed to answer the question, Cruz again made a well-oiled swerve toward Allred, prompting a blistering response from Allred.

“It’s not pro-life to deny women care so long they can’t have children anymore. It’s not pro-life to force a victim of rape to carry their rapist’s baby. It’s not pro-life that our maternal mortality rate has skyrocketed up to 56 percent,” Allred interjected in a moderator-approved rebuttal. “To every Texas woman at home and for every Texas family watching this, understand that when Ted Cruz says he’s pro-life, he doesn’t mean yours.”

Pressed a third time to answer the question, Cruz still wasn’t having it—or answering.

Cruz attempted to hammer Allred on the economy. “When it comes to inflation, inflation is caused by the policies of Kamala Harris and Congressman Allred,” Cruz stated. “Kamala Harris and Congressman Allred came in and they went on a spending binge.” (It should be noted that the Trump administration ran up the national debt by $8.4 trillion versus the Biden administration’s $4.3 trillion.)

Allred countered that Cruz, for all of his concern for Texas senior citizens and people on a budget, actually voted against the popular measure that lowered the cost of insulin.

“He talks tough but he never shows up,” Allred interjected in a moderator-sanctioned rebuttal. “We have a phrase for this, ‘all hat and no cattle,’ and that’s what Sen. Cruz is. Six more years of this? Come on.”

On transgender rights, Allred said he wants to protect children, while Cruz insisted Allred wants “boys to play against girls.”

On the question of whether January 6 rioters should be pardoned, as former-President Donald Trump has said he intends to do, Cruz stated that he believes “all people who commit a crime should be penalized,” noting that Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg has endorsed him.

In response, Allred claimed that he was trying to block the door against rioters attempting to gain entrance to the House Floor while Cruz was “hiding in a supply closet.”

Allred sailed into Cruz on his vote opposing the bundled foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel, noting that even Sen. John Cornyn, the senior Texas senator, voted in favor of providing aid while Cruz voted against it.

“When I was elected 12 years ago, I resolved then to be the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and I’ve worked every day to do that, to stand up and fight to support Israel,” Cruz responded. He also claimed that Allred “has consistently lined up against Israel” by pointing to his support of sending U.S. aid to Gaza and the Biden administration’s 2023 sanctions waiver that allowed Iran to access $10 billion.

Now more at ease, Allred dismissed Cruz’s claims that Allred is against what Cruz described as holding Hamas responsible for using children as human shields and defended his support of sending aid to Gaza civilians. “This has to be our responsibility, this has to be Israeli responsibility,” Allred said.

The rest of the debate played out along these same lines with Cruz and Allred dissecting their respective views on a series of issues, including the border (both accused each other of being weak on border and immigration policy) and IVF (both are in favor of protecting IVF access but Allred noted how Cruz’s pro-life stance has imperiled the practice, while Cruz brought up his failed IVF protection bill).

A question on what to do about high food prices went mostly unanswered as Cruz’s response zigged into a claim that the high prices are due to an unfriendly policy toward Texas oil and gas. Cruz tried to paint Allred as against it, while Allred pointed toward his public call on the Biden administration to end its pause on permitting new liquified natural gas export projects. They debated about affordable housing policies and Cruz’s decision to vote against the $35 billion federal infrastructure bill in 2021. Allred touted his award for being one of the most bipartisan members of Congress, while Cruz referred to bipartisan bills he has cosponsored.

And then, just like that, they were out of time.

“We’re all Americans and we’re all Texans. We need a leader who will bring us together around our shared values,” Allred said. “If you don’t like how things are in Washington right now, [Cruz] is singularly responsible for it.”

“The stakes of this election are the highest of my lifetime,” Cruz said, going on to claim that if Allred is elected, he’ll vote to “allow every illegal alien in America” and “turn Texas blue in an instant … I will fight to keep Texas Texas,” Cruz concluded.

Coming away from this debate, a few things are clear. Yes, Cruz remains a remarkably skilled debater. He can talk his way around anything. But the fact of the matter is that his actions may finally be speaking as loudly as Cruz himself, because he was unable to talk his way around a number of decisions he’s made in the Senate.

He also remains unable to outtalk the fact that he went to Cancun while Texans, plus his own dog, were left in freezing conditions back in 2021.

Allred isn’t as fluid on a debate stage. He didn’t display Beto O’Rourke’s spiky charisma and was clearly nervous at the top of the hour-long debate. Over the course of the debate, he warmed up and managed to score a series of hits on his opponent, but Cruz had him on skill.

The thing is, to beat Cruz last night, Allred didn’t have to defeat him. He just had to let Cruz himself remind Texans who the senator is and offer them a reasonable choice.

And that’s exactly what Allred did.

Dianna Wray

Source link

October 16, 2024
What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

PUBLISHER’S NOTE:
Yes on Proposition 3 and Los Angeles Blade will present an urgent Town Hall on October 28 from 7:00 PM at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 7501 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90046. For more information or to RSVP, click here.

As California voters prepare for the Election Day ballot, they have a critical opportunity to address a potentially dangerous inconsistency in the state’s constitution regarding the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Think of it as a firewall against a potential 2nd Trump administration and Supreme Court effort to overturn same-sex marriage.

Proposition 3, the Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment, seeks to remove outdated language from the Prop 8 era, a ballot initiative that successfully defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Although federal court rulings have rendered this language unenforceable, it has lingered in California’s constitution since 2008.

Proposition 3 would not only eliminate this vestigial language but also establish a constitutional right to marriage regardless of gender or race.

The history of Prop 8 is a complex and contentious chapter in California’s past. Passed in the 2008 state election, Prop 8 effectively banned same-sex marriage, following a California Supreme Court ruling that had declared a previous ban (Proposition 22 from 2000) unconstitutional. Prop 8 added language to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The passage of Prop 8 shocked many who viewed California as a bastion of progressive values, highlighting a divide within the state and igniting intense debate and legal battles. Religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the now somewhat repentant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, played significant roles in supporting Prop 8, with the LDS Church notably contributing more than $20 million to the campaign and mobilizing volunteers for door-to-door canvassing.

The legal journey of Prop 8 has been long and complex. Initially upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2009, it was later challenged in federal court. In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012, albeit on narrower grounds.

The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in “Hollingsworth v. Perry” (2013). However, rather than ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, the Court decided that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked legal standing to defend the law in federal court. This effectively upheld Walker’s 2010 ruling, paving the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California.

The uncertain landscape of LGBTQ+ rights

The current Proposition 3 arises from recent concerns about the stability of LGBTQ+ rights at the federal level. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested reconsidering other precedents, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This potential threat prompted California legislators to act proactively to safeguard marriage equality at the state level.

Moreover, 2024 has seen a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation across the nation and in Congress. “Extremist lawmakers in Congress failed in their hateful attempts to add anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to must-pass spending bills. These measures would have restricted medically necessary health care for transgender people, allowed taxpayer-funded discrimination against married same-sex couples, and further stigmatized the LGBTQ+ community,” said a spokesperson from Equality California.

Strong bipartisan negotiations led to the removal of 51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ+ riders, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Congressional Equality Caucus and the relentless advocacy of LGBTQ+ organizations. Speaker Mike Johnson — considered the most anti-LGBTQ+ speaker in history — attempted to slow the appropriations process with these “poison pill” amendments, leading the country to the brink of a government shutdown multiple times.

Despite his failures, Johnson is attempting to claim victory by highlighting a limited provision that prohibits the flying of Pride flags on embassy buildings, which imposes no limits on other displays of the flag. “While we are disappointed in the passage of this provision, it is important to consider it in the context of the overwhelming defeat of other measures. The Speaker’s attempt to use this as a symbol of victory is as laughable as his dysfunctional term as Speaker has been,” the spokesperson added.

The fragility of rights

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent shockwaves through the legal community, particularly among LGBTQ+ advocates. The decision raised alarms about the vulnerability of other civil rights protections, including marriage equality. Legal experts are now grappling with unprecedented questions about how to secure these rights amid a shifting judicial landscape.

The fragility of unenumerated rights — those not explicitly written in the Constitution but granted through Supreme Court interpretation — has become increasingly apparent. Marriage equality, like abortion rights, falls into this category and has been upheld through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. However, Thomas’s opinion in the Dobbs case hints at a willingness to reexamine these precedents.

A significant concern for marriage equality advocates is the idea that rights relying on due process must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” Since nationwide marriage equality is only seven years old, it lacks the historical foundation that might protect it from future challenges.

The patchwork possibility

If Obergefell were overturned, the U.S. could revert to a patchwork of marriage laws reminiscent of the pre-2015 era. According to the Movement Advancement Project, as many as 32 states could potentially revert to banning same-sex marriages. This scenario would create a stark divide across the country, with some states recognizing LGBTQ+ marriages while others outlaw them.

Such a reversion would have far-reaching implications for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since Obergefell. While it’s unlikely that existing marriages would be invalidated, the legal status of these unions could become uncertain. This potential outcome underscores the urgency of enshrining marriage equality in state constitutions and laws.

The challenge of codification

While some lawmakers have expressed interest in codifying marriage equality at the federal level, legal experts are divided on whether Congress has that authority. Traditionally, marriage laws have fallen under state jurisdiction, complicating efforts to establish federal protections.

This uncertainty adds pressure to state-level efforts to protect marriage equality. In states with existing bans, securing marriage rights would require constitutional amendments or ballot measures, necessitating extensive public education campaigns and grassroots organizing.

The importance of proactive constitutional change

Despite California’s progressive reputation, the state constitution still contains language that could be used to restrict same-sex marriages if federal protections were overturned. This highlights the importance of Prop 3.

Currently, 35 states maintain constitutional or statutory bans on same-sex marriage. Although these bans are unenforceable due to the Obergefell decision, they could be reactivated if the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling. California, despite its forward-thinking values, is among these states due to the lingering effects of Prop 8.

Without the passage of Prop 3, California could face a situation where existing same-sex marriages remain valid, but new marriages could be denied. This potential legal limbo underscores the urgency of updating the state constitution to explicitly protect marriage equality.

By passing Prop 3, California would not only eliminate discriminatory language from its constitution but also create a robust state-level protection for same-sex marriages. This proactive approach would ensure that, regardless of future federal court decisions, the right to marry would remain secure for all Californians.

The path forward

The journey to this point reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2023, that figure had flipped, with 71 percent supporting marriage equality. This change crosses party lines, with a majority of Republicans now in favor. The trend is particularly strong among younger voters, indicating a generational shift toward greater acceptance and equality.

The importance of Prop 3 extends beyond its practical effects. While same-sex marriages are of course recognized in California, enshrining this right in the state constitution provides an additional layer of protection against potential future challenges. Moreover, it represents a formal acknowledgment of past mistakes and a clear statement of California’s values of equality and inclusion.

Critics of Prop 3 have raised concerns about its potential to open doors for challenges to laws against polygamy or underage marriages. However, these arguments are misleading. Constitutional rights are not absolute and can be limited by compelling state interests, as seen with other fundamental rights like freedom of speech.

This situation highlights the ongoing nature of the struggle for equal rights and the importance of vigilance in protecting hard-won freedoms. Prop 3 represents an opportunity for California to lead by example, demonstrating how states can take concrete steps to safeguard the rights of their LGBTQ+ citizens in an uncertain legal landscape.

As the November election approaches, California voters can align the state’s constitution with the prevailing values of equality and inclusivity. By voting yes on Prop 3, Californians can eliminate the last remnants of discrimination from their constitution and send a clear message that bigotry has no place in California’s fundamental laws.

In a time when LGBTQ+ rights face renewed challenges across the nation, California has the chance to reaffirm its status as a progressive leader and to correct a long-standing injustice in its constitution.

Prop 3 is not just about changing words in a document; it’s about enshrining the principle that love and commitment deserve equal recognition under the law, regardless of who you are or whom you love.

Gisselle Palomera

Source link

October 15, 2024
Five takeaways from the testy U.S. Senate debate between Schiff and Garvey

The only head-to-head debate in California’s high-stakes U.S. Senate race between Rep. Adam B. Schiff and former Dodger Steve Garvey was dominated Tuesday by contentious exchanges on a host of national political issues — from immigration to the economy, expanding conflict in the Middle East, reproductive healthcare and global warming.

The sharpest exchanges, however, related to the two candidates’ vastly different stances on former President Trump.

Schiff, a Burbank Democrat with more than 20 years of experience in the House and a commanding lead in the polls, cast Garvey as an inexperienced Trump backer who would push conservative rather than Californian values in Washington.

Californians, Schiff quipped, are “not looking for some MAGA mini-me in a baseball uniform.”

Garvey, a Palm Desert Republican with no political experience but high name recognition from his days as a Major League Baseball star, suggested Schiff was too caught up in party politics and his vendetta against Trump to focus on the issues most important to California voters.

“How can you think about one man every day and focus on that when you’ve got millions of people in California to take care of?” Garvey said. “I think it’s unconscionable.”

The debate was testy from the start. When Schiff in his first remarks accused Garvey of turning a blind eye to the worst impulses of Trump — who Schiff said wants to “be a dictator on Day One” — Garvey replied, borrowing a famous Ronald Reagan line used in a 1980 presidential debate, “There you go again.”

During a separate exchange on immigration, in which Schiff accused Garvey of supporting Trump’s plan for mass deportations, Garvey said, “One of the two of us is honest and straightforward.”

“I would agree with that,” Schiff shot back.

The debate offered a final chance for the two candidates to square off in public before voters decide between them in the November election. Californians will be asked to vote twice in the Senate race: First, to choose Schiff or Garvey to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s final term, which ends in early January, and, separately, who should serve a subsequent six-year Senate term.

Tuesday’s debate was the first since Garvey and Schiff won the two highest totals of votes in a more crowded primary field, in which Schiff bested Democratic rivals Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland. Polls show Schiff with a substantial lead over Garvey.

Trump loomed over immigration debate

Moderators of the fast-paced, hour-long debate — hosted by KABC-TV in partnership with Univision and the League of Women Voters — asked Schiff and Garvey multiple questions about immigration and border security.

Schiff said the country needs to “get control of the border” with more personnel and technology to interdict people and drugs. But it also needs a “comprehensive immigration policy” that treats people humanely and provides relief for farmworkers and undocumented people who arrived in the U.S. as children.

And he blasted Garvey for backing Trump, saying Trump’s plan is for mass deportations that will devastate the country and immigrant communities.

“You’re voting for mass deportations when you say you’re for Donald Trump,” Schiff said.

Garvey said his campaign has focused heavily on Latino communities. He also said border security needs to be greatly enhanced. He said Schiff, alongside President Biden, had created an “existential crisis” by backing an “open border.”

“What we have to do is secure the border. We have to finish off the wall. We have to reinstate ‘remain in Mexico,’” Garvey said. “We have to reinforce our border patrol. We have to get back to building facilities at the border that will detain these illegal immigrants, then a judicial system that will will try them.”

A record number of people have been stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Biden-Harris administration, and Republicans across the country — including Garvey — are pushing to make border security a campaign liability for Democrats.

“A lot of Americans are concerned about immigration,” said Mindy Romero, the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC. “The reason why Republicans are talking about it so much is because it works.”

While Garvey’s chances of winning the Senate race are low given how deeply blue California voters are overall, Romero said, he is still the highest-ranking Republican on the ballot after Trump — and what Garvey says about immigration could still matter for Republicans.

“In California, we’re not a monolith and we’re not all in sync on this issue,” Romero said. “What Garvey says and does could help motivate and mobilize Republicans.”

Garvey struggled to state a clear position on abortion

The moderators sought, without success, to bring clarity to Garvey’s position on abortion rights.

He has said that he personally opposes abortion and would not support a federal ban on abortion.

“I am a Catholic,” Garvey said Tuesday night. “I believe in life at conception. I believe that God breathes a soul into these fetuses. So I am steadfast in terms of my policies on abortion, and also pledge to support all the people of California.”

But Garvey also pledged to “support the voice of Californians.” He said he supported the amendment enshrining a right to abortion in the state Constitution that two-thirds of Golden State voters supported in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

If Garvey is “listening to the voices of Californians like he claims, he would hear their voices loud and clear,” Schiff said. “Californians want a national right to reproductive freedom and they don’t want the government in the business of making that decision for women.”

Schiff has been a longtime vocal advocate for access to abortion services, and said Tuesday that he supports establishing a national right to abortion access.

A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in early August, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, found that more than half of likely California voters surveyed — 52% — said electing someone who “would be a strong voice in defending abortion rights in the Senate” was very important to them.

Differences on government’s role on the economy

The differences in how Schiff and Garvey see the role of government was fully on display when they were pressed on how to address the rising cost of goods and housing.

“We’re much worse off than we were four years ago,” Garvey said. He said he supported more free-market policies, and knocked Schiff for what he described as “Schiff-flation.”

Housing is a local issue and more federal regulation could lead to the government being “overinvolved,” Garvey said.

Asked how he would help renters, he said he’d do so by getting the U.S. economy “roaring again.”

Schiff said he would support more direct federal spending on housing, and as well as an expansion of Section 8 vouchers, a government subsidy that enables eligible tenants to find housing with private landlords. He also proposed a “renter’s tax credit,” akin to the tax deduction that allows homeowners to write off their mortgage interest payments.

Garvey said he would support tariffs on imported goods shipped by “a company that threatens the success of an American company.” But, he said, he would prefer to see lower domestic taxes to foster more small businesses and reduce the need to import foreign goods.

Schiff said he doesn’t support Trump’s “across-the-board tariffs,” which he said would lead to higher prices for consumers. He said he would support “targeted tariffs” when China dumps cheap goods into the country “to try to drive American businesses out of business.”

Feinstein’s legacy stirs debate

Throughout the debate, the political specter of the woman whose seat Schiff and Garvey are vying for loomed large.

Right out of the gate, KABC anchor and moderator Marc Brown brought up Feinstein having authored an assault weapons ban in 1994, and asked Garvey whether he would take any action on guns were he elected.

“I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe it will never be overturned, nor should we attempt to overturn that,” Garvey said. “I do have sympathy for all of those who may have been victims of shootings, but I think that the most important thing is a stringent background check that goes much deeper than it is today, in order to to preserve the integrity of the Second Amendment and to be able to provide for people to defend themselves.”

Schiff said Californians need leaders like Feinstein who are willing to “stand up to” the National Rifle Assn.

“I would support an assault weapons ban. I would support extended and universal background checks. I would support a ban on extended ammunition clips and my own bill, which would strip away the NRA’s immunity from liability,” Schiff said. “Mr. Garvey was asked just a couple weeks ago if he would support any gun control measure, and his answer was unequivocal, no, that is not what Californians are looking for. Californians want a leader like Dianne Feinstein, who will stand up to the NRA.”

Later in the debate, Feinstein came up again, on the issue of environmental regulations — and whether Schiff would ease water restrictions on farmers.

Schiff said he would not “support eviscerating” regulations, but would do what Sen. Feinstein did, which is “look for those opportunities where we can have a win, both for our farms, our cities and our environment.”

Garvey said environmentalists in the state need to work with farmers, and that he is a “consensus builder” who can help make that happen. He called water the “platinum issue in California,” and one Schiff doesn’t know how to fix.

Schiff would later evoke Feinstein’s name on the economy, saying he realizes many in California are struggling financially and that he will work with “community leaders and stakeholders in every part of this Golden State” in “Feinstein’s model.”

“Mr. Schiff, you’re no Dianne Feinstein,” Garvey said. “I remember when this state was the heartbeat of America, and now it’s just a murmur.”

Schiff, in response, said Feinstein was a friend of his, and would never “pretend to be the equal” of hers, because she was a “giant.” But he suggested he is far more similar to Feinstein than Garvey.

“While Mr. Garvey was signing baseballs for the last 37 years, I was seeing presidents of both parties and governors of both parties sign my bills into law,” Schiff said.

Back to Trump

After the debate, in small gaggles with reporters, both Schiff and Garvey came back to another politician not in the room: Trump.

Schiff said it was clear from the debate that Garvey is “for Trump” and his agenda.

“He’s for states being able to ban abortion. He’s against any form of gun safety legislation. He’s for opening up the oil spigots. These are views right out of Project 2025 and Trump, but they are not in sync in California,” Schiff said.

Garvey said he felt he had been unfairly tied to Trump.

“People know that we’re two entirely different people,” he said.

He said Schiff’s attempt to “paint me far-right” wouldn’t stand up, because “people know I’m conservatively moderate.”

Garvey declined to say whether he would vote for Trump in November, but confirmed that he voted for Trump for a third time in this year’s primary.

Kevin Rector, Laura J. Nelson

Source link

October 8, 2024
Instant Reactions to the Tim Walz–JD Vance Debate With Semafor’s Benjy Sarlin. Plus: Gabriel Sherman on Writing ‘The Apprentice.’
Hello, media consumers! In a special bonus edition of The Press Box, Bryan has two guests. First, he speaks with Semafor’s Benjy Sarlin for instant reactions to the Tim Walz–JD Vance vice presidential debate. They discuss the following:
- The biggest surprise of the debate (1:22)
- Who looked more confident, Tim Walz or JD Vance (9:35)
- The January 6 exchange (16:40)
- Whether or not this will be the last debate (26:04)
Then he speaks with screenwriter Gabriel Sherman about writing The Apprentice, a story about Donald Trump (30:44). He discusses the following about the film:
- How he went about writing the story (31:10)
- Trump’s relationship with Roy Cohn (32:36)
- How Cohn’s rules of winning influenced Trump (37:04)
- Deciding on Sebastian Stan to play Trump (47:02)
Hosts: Bryan Curtis
Guests: Benjy Sarlin and Gabriel Sherman
Producer: Brian H. Waters

Subscribe: Spotify / Apple Podcasts
Bryan Curtis

Source link
October 2, 2024
Walz And Vance Keep It Civil In A Policy-Heavy Debate – KXL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice presidential nominees JD Vance and Tim Walz have used their time on the debate stage to focus the bulk of their attacks not on one another, but on those at the top of their rival tickets.

Republican Vance and Democrat Walz both sought to project themselves as genial opponents as they lobbed criticism at Harris and Trump, respectively.

With the Mideast in turmoil, the two vice presidential candidates offered different approaches toward foreign policy: Walz promised “steady leadership” under Harris while Vance pledged a return to “peace through strength” if Trump is returned to the White House.

The two running mates agreed that the number of migrants in the U.S. illegally is a problem.

But each laid the blame on the opposing presidential nominee.

More about:

Grant McHill

Source link

October 2, 2024
2024 VP debate: Fact-checking JD Vance and Tim Walz

Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz met in an Oct. 1 vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News that was cordial and heavy on policy discussion — a striking change from the Sept. 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump that often devolved into personal attacks.

Vance and Walz acknowledged occasional agreement with each other on policy points and respectfully addressed one another throughout the debate. But they also blamed each other’s running mates for problems facing the U.S., including immigration and inflation.

The moderators, “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell and “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan, had said they planned to encourage candidates to fact-check each other, but sometimes clarified after candidates’ answers.

They also pinned down the candidates when they evaded answers, with Brennan pressing Walz to say he misspoke in the past about being in China’s Tiananmen Square during the deadly 1989 protests. Brennan also pushed Vance for specifics on Trump’s mass deportation plan and whether he would separate parents from children, but didn’t get a specific answer.

During the debate, Walz misspoke during a discussion about school shootings. He described changing his position on an assault weapons ban after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 26 people, including 20 children.

“I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents. I’ve become friends with school shooters,” Walz mistakenly said. The gaffe prompted derision on social media, including from Trump, who mocked Walz on Truth Social.

The candidates sparred on numerous topics, including immigration, school shootings, reproductive rights and the economy. We fact-checked several of their statements.

PolitiFact fact-checks statements of people in power, regardless of political party. We’ve rated claims with a variety of Truth-O-Meter ratings from the Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, and the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. This is how we choose claims to check.

Immigration

Vance: “We have 320,000 children that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively lost. Some of them have been sex trafficked.”

Mostly False.

This is not what a federal oversight report said. The claim refers to a federal oversight report about unaccompanied minors — children who came to the U.S. without a parent or legal guardian. The report covered fiscal years 2019 through 2023, which includes part of Trump’s presidency.

The report mentioned 32,000 children who failed to appear for their immigration court hearings and 291,000 children whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not served a “Notice to Appear.”

A Notice to Appear is a charging document authorities issue and file in immigration court to start removal proceedings. The report said that by not issuing these notices to the children, Immigration and Customs Enforcement limits its chances of verifying their safety after the federal government releases them.

The report led Republican lawmakers and conservative news outlets to say that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “lost” the children or that they are “missing.” But the report did not make that claim.

The report said the children are at risk of trafficking, but it didn’t present a number.

Vance: “So there’s an application called the CBP One app, where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status.”

Mostly False.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched the CBP One phone app in 2020, when Trump was president. Biden expanded its use. As of January 2023, people can use the app while in Mexico to make appointments with immigration officials for processing at official ports of entry.

The app is a scheduling tool, not an application for asylum or parole; a lengthy process follows. Vance is wrong to characterize the people making the appointments as “illegal” migrants, because the people using the app haven’t crossed into the U.S. illegally.

At ports of entry, immigration officials can give people humanitarian parole, for up to two years, allowing them to live and work in the U.S. as they apply for asylum. Under U.S. immigration law, people can apply for asylum, but they must be physically in the country. From January 2023 to August 2024, 813,000 people have scheduled appointments on the app, the Department of Homeland Security said.

Humanitarian parole is an official permission to temporarily live in the U.S., but it is not a lawful status. To stay in the U.S. after protections expire, or eventually gain citizenship, people must secure legal status through other avenues, such as asylum, marriage or employment.

Abortion

Walz: “Their Project 2025 is gonna have a registry of pregnancies.”

False.

Project 2025 recommends that states submit more detailed abortion reporting to the federal government. It calls for more information about how and when abortions took place, as well as other statistics for miscarriages and stillbirths.

The manual does not mention, nor call for, a new federal agency tasked with registering pregnant women.

Vance: “As I read the Minnesota law that (Walz) signed into law … it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”

False.

Experts said cases in which a baby is born following an attempted abortion are rare. Less than 1% of abortions nationwide occur in the third trimester. And infanticide, the crime of killing a child within a year of its birth, is illegal in all U.S. states.

In May 2023, Walz, as Minnesota governor, signed legislation updating a state law for “infants who are born alive.” It said babies are “fully recognized” as human people and therefore, protected under state law. The change did not alter regulations that already require doctors to provide patients with appropriate care.

Previously, state law said, “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” The law was updated to instead say medical personnel must “care for the infant who is born alive.”

When there are fetal anomalies that make it likely the fetus will die before or soon after birth, some parents decide to terminate the pregnancy by inducing childbirth so that they can hold their dying baby, Democratic Minnesota state Sen. Erin Maye Quade told PolitiFact in September.

This update to the law means infants who are “born alive” receive appropriate medical care dependent on the pregnancy’s circumstances, Maye Quade said.

Iran

Vance: “Iran, which launched this attack (on Israel), has received over $100 billion and unfrozen assets, thanks to the Kamala Harris administration.”

False.

Under President Barack Obama, Iran did take possession of $100 billion in unfrozen assets after the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump later overturned. But Harris was not involved in the Obama administration.

Something that occurred on Biden and Harris’ watch was a hostage-release agreement with Iran that was supposed to free $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets. There is no evidence that any of the $6 billion reached Iran.

In August 2023, the U.S. announced an agreement with Iran to secure freedom for five U.S. citizens who’d been detained in the country in exchange for allowing Iran to access $6 billion of its own funds that had been frozen in South Korean banks.

The money consisted of Iranian oil revenue frozen since 2019, when Trump banned Iranian oil exports and sanctioned its banking sector. It was not U.S. taxpayer money. In April 2024, Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said that those funds had been frozen after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and had not reached Iran.

Walz: “When Iranian missiles did fall near U.S. troops and they received traumatic brain injuries, Donald Trump wrote it off as ‘headaches.’”

True.

Walz was referring to a Jan. 8, 2020, Iran attack on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. More than 100 soldiers were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries, according to the Pentagon.

Trump has repeatedly called the injuries “headaches.”

In 2020, Trump said he had “heard that they had headaches” and added it “is not very serious.” Trump repeated this claim in an Oct. 1 press conference in Wisconsin.

After Iran attacked Israel Oct. 1, Trump responded to a question about whether he should have been stronger on Iran after the 2020 attack that injured U.S. troops. He said: “What does injured mean? You mean because they had a headache because the bombs never hit the fort?”

Walz in China

Walz said he ‘misspoke’ about being in Hong Kong during 1989 Tiananmen Square protests

Walz once described being in Hong Kong during the May 1989 pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square that turned deadly that June. But contemporaneous news reports contradict that timeline. The CBS News debate moderators asked Walz to explain this discrepancy, and Walz said he “misspoke.”

In the next sentence, he said: “So, I will just, that’s what I’ve said. So, I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protests, went in.”

Minnesota Public Radio News and APM Reports found a 1989 Nebraska newspaper report that said Walz planned to leave for China in August of that year, months after the Tiananmen Square protests.

Walz’s first trip to China in 1989 was to teach English and U.S. history for a year at a high school. He and his wife, Gwen, both high school teachers, led school trips to China in the 1990s and early 2000s. Walz said in 2016 that he had visited China about 30 times, but a Harris-Walz campaign spokesperson clarified in September that Walz has been to the country “closer to 15 times,” according to Minnesota Public Radio News and APM Reports.

Economy

Vance: “What (Harris has) actually done instead is drive the cost of food higher by 25%, drive the cost of housing higher by about 60%.”

Half True.

Grocery prices have risen by 22% since Biden and Harris took office. Housing prices, according to the Case-Shiller home price index, have risen 38%.

Economists have told PolitiFact that the main factors driving the peak inflation in 2022 were postpandemic supply chain backups and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden’s pandemic relief bill, the American Rescue Plan Act, exacerbated this inflation, economists say, but it did not cause it.

This also leaves out the simultaneous increase in wages, which have outpaced prices since the start of the pandemic. Wages have also outpaced prices for the past one-year and two-year periods.

Fentanyl and opioids

Vance: “Kamala Harris let in fentanyl into our communities at record levels.”

Mostly False.

Illicit fentanyl seizures have been rising for years and reached record highs under Biden’s administration. In fiscal year 2015, for example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 70 pounds of fentanyl. As of August 2024, agents have seized more than 19,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2024, which ended in September.

But these are fentanyl seizures — not the amount of the narcotic being “let” into the United States.

Vance made this claim while criticizing Harris’ immigration policies. But fentanyl enters the U.S. through the southern border mainly at official ports of entry, and it’s mostly smuggled in by U.S. citizens, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most illicit fentanyl in the U.S. comes from Mexico made with chemicals from Chinese labs.

Drug policy experts have said that the illicit fentanyl crisis began years before Biden’s administration and that Biden’s border policies are not to blame for overdose deaths.

Experts have also said Congress plays a role in reducing illicit fentanyl. Congressional funding for more vehicle scanners would help law enforcement seize more of the fentanyl that comes into the U.S. Harris has called for increased enforcement against illicit fentanyl use.

Walz: “And the good news on this is, is the last 12 months saw the largest decrease in opioid deaths in our nation’s history.”

Mostly True.

Overdose deaths involving opioids decreased from an estimated 84,181 in 2022 to 81,083 in 2023, based on the most recent provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This decrease, which took place in the second half of 2023, followed a 67% increase in opioid-related deaths between 2017 and 2023.

The U.S. had an estimated 107,543 drug overdose deaths in 2023 — a 3% decrease from the 111,029 deaths estimated in 2022. This is the first annual decrease in overall drug overdose deaths since 2018. Nevertheless, the opioid death toll remains much higher than just a few years ago, according to KFF. It’s too soon to predict whether the downward trend will continue.

Walz’s son as shooting witness

Walz: “Look, I got a, I got a 17-year-old and he witnessed a shooting at a community center playing volleyball.”

The Walz campaign told PolitiFact that Walz’s son, Gus Walz, witnessed a January 2023 shooting outside St. Paul’s Oxford Community Center, which houses the Jimmy Lee Recreation Center. The campaign spokesperson said Gus Walz witnessed the shooting but wasn’t involved in the altercation that preceded it.

Exavir Dwayne Binford Jr., a 26-year-old recreation center employee, got into an argument with a 16-year-old boy that “mushroomed into a fight outside the center that ended with the worker shooting the boy in the head and fleeing,” Minnesota’s public radio station MPR News reported.

In February, Binford was sentenced to 10 years and five months in prison, MPR News reported.

MPR News reported that children were present during the shooting, and details reported from the criminal complaint support that was the case.

During a Sept. 12 campaign stop in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Walz mentioned this shooting: “My own son was in a location where someone was shot in the head,” he said. “Too many of us have this.”

Health care

Vance: “Donald Trump could have destroyed the (Affordable Care Act). Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.”

False.

As president, Trump worked to undermine and repeal the Affordable Care Act. He cut millions of dollars in federal funding for ACA outreach and navigators who help people sign up for health coverage. He enabled the sale of short-term health plans that don’t comply with the ACA consumer protections and allowed them to be sold for longer durations, which siphoned people away from the health law’s marketplaces.

Trump’s administration also backed state Medicaid waivers that imposed first-ever work requirements, reducing enrollment. He also ended insurance company subsidies that helped offset costs for low-income enrollees, he backed an unsuccessful repeal of the landmark 2010 health law and he backed the demise of a penalty imposed for failing to purchase health insurance.

Affordable Care Act enrollment declined by more than 2 million people during Trump’s presidency, and the number of uninsured Americans rose by 2.3 million, including 726,000 children, from 2016 to 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau reported; that includes three years of Trump’s presidency.

Climate

Walz: “Sen. Vance has said that there’s a climate problem in the past. Donald Trump called it (climate change) a hoax and then joked that these things would make more beachfront property to be able to invest in.”

True.

In a 2020 speech at Ohio State University, Vance said, “We have a climate problem in our society.” But Vance has grown more dubious of climate change in recent years. In 2022, he told the American Leadership Forum, “I’m skeptical of the idea that climate change is caused purely by man. … (The climate has) been changing, as others pointed out, it’s been changing for millennia.”

Also that year, Vance said he had “become persuaded that climate change is certainly happening,” but that “some of the alarmism is a little overstated.”

Trump tweeted that climate change is a “hoax” in 2012, though he made efforts in 2016 to describe that remark as a “joke.” But in 2014 and 2015 Trump repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” in speeches, tweets and media appearances. He also made similar “hoax” comments in 2022.

In an August 2024 interview with X owner Elon Musk, Trump said, “The biggest threat is not global warming, where the ocean is going to rise one-eighth of an inch over the next 400 years … and you’ll have more oceanfront property.” (The claim about sea level rise is vastly understated and Pants on Fire!)

Energy

Walz: “We are producing more natural gas and more oil at any time than we ever have.”

True.

U.S. natural gas production has reached new highs during Joe Biden’s presidency, as has U.S. crude oil production, U.S. Energy Information Administration data shows.

Taxes

Walz: “Donald Trump hasn’t paid any federal tax in the last 15 years. The last year as president.”

Mostly False.

Trump paid no federal income tax some years, including his last year as president, but not every year in the last 15 years — and we don’t know what he’s paid since 2020 because his tax returns have not been made public.

In September 2020, The New York Times reported that it obtained copies of Trump’s tax returns. They showed that Trump paid $641,000 in 2015, $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017, and, as of that 2020 report, “no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.”

In 2022, the House Ways and Means Committee released Trump’s tax returns from 2015 to 2020. According to those returns, Trump reported paying $999,456 in taxes in 2018, $133,445 in taxes in 2019 and $0 in taxes in 2020, ABC News reported.

Walz: Trump “gave the tax cuts that predominantly went to the top class. What happened there was an $8 trillion increase in the national debt, the largest ever.”

Mostly True.

Saying which income class earned a greater share of the tax cuts varies depending on the year studied.

A 2017 analysis of the Republican tax law by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center said that by 2027, the tax bill would deliver 82.8% of its benefits to the top 1% of income earners.

The distribution of the benefits before 2027 also skewed toward wealthier Americans, but by a lower percentage. For instance, in 2018, the bill was projected to deliver 20.5% of the benefits to the top 1%, the center’s analysis showed. And as late as 2025, 25.3% of the benefits would flow to the top 1%.

Looking at the increase in federal debt on a president’s watch, Trump currently ranks first for debt accumulated in a single term, at $7.8 trillion. However, Biden is projected to pass Trump’s total by the time he leaves office in January 2025.

Using a different method — counting how much future debt a president’s actions created — Trump’s policies are projected to accumulate roughly double the amount of future debt as Biden’s.

January 6, 2021

Vance: Donald Trump “peacefully gave over power on January the 20th as we have done for 250 years in this country.”

Mostly False.

Trump left the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, and another president was sworn in that day. But Vance’s statement ignores Trump’s words and actions that led up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In December 2020, Trump repeatedly encouraged his supporters to fight the election results and gather at the Capitol. On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump used his “Save America” rally to repeat inaccurate claims that he won the election. He continually urged the crowd to “fight” before inviting them to march to the Capitol.

“Our country has had enough,” Trump said. “We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”

The crowd later chanted: “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!”

At the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, supporters mobbed the building and assaulted law enforcement officers. The riot injured about 150 federal and local police officers and caused more than $1 million in damages to the Capitol. More than 1,500 defendants have been charged.

PolitiFact Executive Director Aaron Sharockman, Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson, Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman, Staff Writers Grace Abels, Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu, Maria Briceño, Jeff Cercone, Madison Czopek, Marta Campabadal Graus, Samantha Putterman, Sara Swann, Loreben Tuquero, Maria Ramirez Uribe, Researcher Caryn Baird, KFF Health News Senior Editor Stephanie Stapleton and KFF Health News Senior Correspondent Stephanie Armour contributed to this story.

Our debate fact-checks rely on both new and previously reported work. We link to past work whenever possible. In some cases, a fact-check rating may be different tonight than in past versions. In those cases, either details of what the candidate said, or how the candidate said it, differed enough that we evaluated it anew.

Source link

October 1, 2024
Germany responds to Donald Trump’s debate comments

Germany is denying an assertion made by former President Donald Trump during the presidential debate Tuesday about the country’s renewable energy industry.

“You believe in things like we’re not going to frack, we’re not going to take fossil fuel, we’re not going to do things that are going to be strong, whether you like it or not,” Trump said in his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris. “Germany tried that, and within one year, they were back to building normal energy plants.”

But on Wednesday, Germany’s Federal Foreign Office decided to issue a rebuttal, echoing the former president’s language.

“Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables,” the Federal Foreign Office shared on X. “And we are shutting down – not building – coal & nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.”

The German Foreign Office also poked at Trump for another comment he made during the debate.

“PS: We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” it concluded, referring to Trump’s debunked claim that Haitian migrants had eaten pets in Springfield, Ohio. The town’s authorities have said that there have not been credible reports about migrants targeting pets.

“Contradiction with facts and humor — that is the right answer to disinformation,” German State Minister Anna Lührmann added on Thursday about her government’s response. “As democrats, we can no longer allow ourselves to leave false statements uncommented.”

Climate change and energy policies are raised frequently during both candidates’ election campaigns. Trump also claimed that if Harris wins the election, fracking in Pennsylvania “will end on day one.”

“Fossil fuel will be dead,” Trump said. “We’ll go back to windmills, and we’ll go back to solar.”

Before she became vice president, Harris, who was a senator representing California, pushed for climate-friendly policies. “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” Harris said in 2019. But as vice president, she has changed course.

“I have not banned fracking as vice president,” Harris told Trump. “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy costs in Germany have spiked as Berlin seeks alternatives to Russian energy. The United States exported over 200 million cubic feet of liquid natural gas to Germany last year. Russian natural gas volumes in the German energy market saw a 30% decline in 2022.

“Yes, Germany is serious about the energy transition,” the German embassy in Washington said in a post on X. “Our energy system is fully operational, with > 50% renewables. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest – while we’re investing billions to create new opportunities in former coal regions.”

Germany shut down its last three nuclear power plants last year, as it plans to transition the majority of its energy consumption to renewable energy by 2050. But the country still needs “additional measures” to reach its climate targets, according to the German Environment Agency.

As president, Trump criticized Berlin’s energy policy for relying heavily on Russia. In 2019, he signed the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act into law, which would sanction vessels participating in the construction of the Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline built by Russia’s state-run energy giant Gazprom.

In May 2021, the State Department waived previously imposed sanctions, but the waiver was terminated a day before Russia invaded Ukraine. In September 2022, a series of explosions, first detected by Scandinavian authorities off the Danish island of Bornholm, ruptured the pipeline. Last month, German prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national, whom they said had resided in Poland, but he had left the country.

The U.S. denied any involvement in the attack and condemned the sabotage against the pipeline.

During the debate, Trump still attacked the Biden administration over the pipeline. “Why does Biden go in and kill the Keystone pipeline and approve the single biggest deal that Russia has ever made, Nord Stream 2? Because they’re weak, and they’re ineffective,” Trump said, asking Harris about her administration’s foreign policy.

More from CBS News

Source link

September 12, 2024
Trump says there won’t be a third presidential debate

Trump says there won’t be a third presidential debate

Updated: 1:51 PM PDT Sep 12, 2024

Former President Donald Trump announced Thursday that there would not be a third presidential debate.“KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” Trump posted on Truth Social.Trump debated President Joe Biden in June and Vice President Kamala Harris earlier this week.Harris’ campaign had called for another debate after the vice president and Trump faced off at ABC’s presidential debate on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON —

Former President Donald Trump announced Thursday that there would not be a third presidential debate.

“KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Trump debated President Joe Biden in June and Vice President Kamala Harris earlier this week.

Harris’ campaign had called for another debate after the vice president and Trump faced off at ABC’s presidential debate on Tuesday.

Source link

September 12, 2024
Trump Calls for Punishment of ABC News Over Debate Moderation
Former President Donald Trump criticized ABC News for what he described as hostile moderation during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting that the network should face consequences. “They ought to take away their license,” Trump said on “Fox and Friends,” despite the fact that the FCC does not license major networks like ABC, but rather local stations.

Trump has frequently attacked ABC and other mainstream media, labeling them “fake news” and the “enemy of the people.” His comments came after a debate that many analysts said did not go well for Trump, who claimed it was “three on one.”

This follows Trump’s ongoing threats against media companies, including a previous warning to Comcast Universal of potential investigations into NBC and MSNBC if he is re-elected. Media watchdogs have raised concerns that such rhetoric could incite violence against journalists.

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free

or

MBFC Donation

or

Crypto Donation

Follow Media Bias Fact Check:

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

The Latest Factual News
Poles Express Concerns Over Trump’s Stance on Ukraine During U.S. Presidential Debate

by newsfactsnetwork on September 11, 2024 at 9:20 am

Trump embraces conspiracy theories: ‘In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs’

by newsfactsnetwork on September 11, 2024 at 8:20 am

Trump refuses to say he would veto a national abortion ban

by newsfactsnetwork on September 11, 2024 at 7:20 am

FactChecking the Harris-Trump Debate

by Media Bias Fact Check on September 11, 2024 at 7:17 am

MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 09/11/2024

by Media Bias Fact Check on September 11, 2024 at 6:00 am

Trump on ObamaCare repeal: ‘I have concepts of a plan’

by newsfactsnetwork on September 11, 2024 at 5:20 am

Republicans Criticize Media Bias After Debate

by newsfactsnetwork on September 11, 2024 at 3:21 am

Trump noncommittal on second debate with Harris

by newsfactsnetwork on September 11, 2024 at 12:20 am
Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:
[ad_2] Media Bias Fact Check
Source link
September 12, 2024
Trump Claims He “Won” the Debate Despite Rambling Incoherently About Transgender Operations, Baby Executions, and Pet-Eating

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.

Bess Levin

Source link

September 11, 2024
Debate-Night Coaching: 10 Pointers for Kamala Harris

9. It’s okay to show some vulnerability. I think this is the hardest thing for you. But most voters would be entirely sympathetic if, for example, you said, regarding an issue like fracking: “You know what? We know a lot more about fracking today than when I initially opposed it. We know that we can extract gas safely. That it’s cleaner than oil. That it provides needed energy and gives the United States a strong export and a competitive global advantage. I don’t change my mind for political convenience, but because I’m open to new information and growth. Hel-lo!”

10. At one point, accuse Trump of trying to blow up the debate itself. Already, the guy’s been bashing ABC, the network that will broadcast the debate, and impugning the reputations of Disney Entertainment co-chair Dana Walden, who oversees properties including ABC, and her husband, producer Matt Walden (both of whom are friends with Harris and her entertainment-lawyer husband, Doug Emhoff), claiming in his latest Trump-as-martyr conspiracy theory that the couple, whom he did not identify by name, would give the Harris team the questions in advance. This is a ruse from Trump’s (and his late attorney-mentor Roy Cohn’s) tired playbook that he has shamelessly used in the courtroom and in his objections to the outcome of the last election: sow a sense of doubt about both the eventual results and the very nature of the proceedings. The implication? That the debate will somehow be “rigged” to his disadvantage.

Criticizing the network and an executive who oversees it is demeaning; it’s intended to demean—and it has the scent of flop sweat, of a candidate and a campaign fearing their own shadows and deliberately attempting to set low expectations for the audience. You should call him out on it. You might even want to quote the Army lawyer who, in the divisive 1950s Red Scare hearings, turned the tables on Senator Joseph McCarthy when he rebuked the lawmaker in front of a national audience, asking: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” That one phrase, in effect, helped trigger the senator’s swift public demise.

In sum: There are three moments in a presidential campaign that allow you to predictably affect your public perception in the eyes of undecided voters—your announcement, your convention speech, and the debates. You’ve done brilliantly with the first two, but the third may be the most important, which is why I think it’s really smart that you’re locked down right now in debate prep. My old colleague Matthew Dowd, a very intelligent political strategist, theorizes that one debate equals roughly 20 days on the campaign trail. That’s huge when game day is only two months out.

This debate is as important for your fortunes as the last one was for Biden’s. You’re on the big stage with the hot lights against the most ornery, whiny, double-talking, and, frankly, malevolent American presidential candidate in recent memory. We know him. We know what he’s going to do. People are tuning in for you. We want to see how you hold up. We want to see what you’ve got. For many people who’ll be going to the ballot box, impressions of you are still soft, not yet cemented. And the Trump campaign has only one strategy left: disqualify you before you can effectively set your own narrative.

Forty-four years ago a candidate who wasn’t taken seriously and wasn’t well-defined took advantage of a debate against an incumbent president who was very well-defined and not very well-liked. And that’s the moment Ronald Reagan turned the corner and crushed Jimmy Carter. It’s obviously a very different time, but there are some parallels. Voters don’t really know you yet. But they could come Tuesday.

This is your chance. You’re carrying an enormous burden of hope for those who want real change, for those who went to the mat for Hillary Clinton, for those who see you and Walz as fresh alternatives, for those who’ve been in the trenches fighting Trump since he first came down that escalator.

You’ve got this. You’re ready. It’s your time.

Mark McKinnon

Source link

September 5, 2024
(Media News) Trump and Harris Confirm Debate on ABC for September 10

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both agreed to a presidential debate on September 10, hosted by ABC. This announcement comes after Trump proposed three debates, challenging Harris during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump expressed uncertainty about Harris’s participation, stating, “The other side has to agree to the terms… I don’t know if they’re going to agree.”

Initially, a debate was set between President Biden and Trump, but Biden’s departure from the race and Harris’s rise as the Democratic candidate led to uncertainties about Trump’s commitment. However, Trump has now confirmed his participation.

Harris responded to the news, stating, “I hear that Donald Trump has finally committed to debating me on September 10. I look forward to it.”

The debate calendar remains uncertain due to the absence of the nonpartisan Presidential Debate Commission this year.

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free

or

MBFC Donation

Follow Media Bias Fact Check:

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:

Media Bias Fact Check

Source link

August 9, 2024