ReportWire

Tag: Republicans

  • Trump’s past GOP rivals line up behind him at convention, say he’ll make U.S. ‘safe again’

    Trump’s past GOP rivals line up behind him at convention, say he’ll make U.S. ‘safe again’

    [ad_1]

    Former President Trump’s top rivals in the Republican Party lined up behind the 2024 nominee on Tuesday, promising he would “make America safe again” from violent criminals and dangerous undocumented immigrants who they suggested are invading the nation via an “open” southern border.

    After questioning his abilities and integrity during the primaries, they gave full-throated backing to a man they once loudly reviled, saying that unifying behind their former foe was crucial for the nation’s future. Trump, who entered the convention hall to thunderous applause, looked on approvingly as his former opponents urged voters to return him to the White House.

    “For more than a year, I said a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for President Kamala Harris,” said Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. “After seeing the debate, everyone knows it’s true. If we have four more years of Biden or a single day of Harris, our country will be badly worse off. For the sake of our nation, we have to go with Donald Trump.”

    But Haley said her message was aimed at voters who may have qualms about the former president.

    Former Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks during the Republican National Convention on Tuesday.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    “We should acknowledge there are some Americans who don’t agree with Donald Trump 100% of the time. I happen to know some,” said Haley, whom Trump nicknamed “Birdbrain” during their 2024 primary contest. “My message to them is simple. You don’t have to agree with Trump 100% of the time to vote for him. Take it from me, I haven’t always agreed with President Trump, but we agree more often than we disagree.”

    Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, entered the Milwaukee arena shortly before speeches by Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whom he bested in a testy 2024 GOP primary, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, one of his opponents in the 2016 election.

    “Let’s send Joe Biden back to his basement and let’s send Donald Trump back to the White House,” said DeSantis, whom Trump nicknamed “Ron DeSanctimonious.” “Our border was safer under the Trump administration and our country was respected when Donald Trump was our commander in chief. Joe Biden has failed this nation.”

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during the Republican National Convention on Tuesday.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    Haley and DeSantis apparently learned a lesson from Cruz — aka “Lyin’ Ted” — whose failure to endorse Trump after losing to him in the 2016 GOP primary earned him boos at that year’s convention and some enmity from Trump loyalists. He has since fallen back in line with the man who suggested his father was potentially involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

    The praise of Trump was interspersed with speeches about crime and immigration, and some of the most moving and powerful moments of the night came from families of crime victims.

    On Tuesday, Cruz listed the names of Americans allegedly killed by people who are in the country illegally, including Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot in 2015 while strolling with her father on the Embarcadero in San Francisco.

    “As a result of Joe Biden’s presidency, your family is less safe. Your children are less safe. The country is less safe. But here’s the good news: We can fix it. And when Donald Trump is president, we will fix it,” Cruz said. “We know this because he’s done it before.”

    Tuesday night’s convention theme was “Make America Safe Again.”

    Speaker after speaker, from politicians to law enforcement officials to people labeled “everyday Americans,” blamed crime in the U.S. in part on an “invasion” of criminals crossing into the country from the southern border with Mexico — though studies for years have shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes here than natural-born U.S. citizens.

    Kari Lake, a prominent 2020 election denier who lost a 2022 bid to become Arizona governor and is now running for the U.S. Senate, blamed “disastrous” Democratic policies for the surge in fentanyl and other opioid deaths in the country and along the southern border — which she said Trump would end.

    Kari Lake.

    Kari Lake speaks at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday.

    (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

    Lake said President Biden and Democrats “have handed over control of my state, Arizona’s border, to the drug cartels,” and that “because of them, criminals and deadly drugs are pouring in and our children are dying.”

    Anne Fundner, a mother from California, said her 15-year-old son, Weston, died from fentanyl in 2022 — which she blamed on the “open border” policies of Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    “This was not an overdose, it was a poisoning. His whole future, everything we ever wanted for him, was ripped away in an instant — and Joe Biden does nothing,” Fundner said.

    She said Trump must be elected to help end fentanyl’s scourge on American families like hers. “This fight is not for me. My son is gone,” she said. “This fight is for your children.”

    Crime and homelessness are perennial campaign talking points among Republicans, often couched as the result of liberal policies in states such as California.

    Republicans claim the title of the “law and order” party, which has been a particularly useful point of political redirection for Trump as he has faced multiple criminal investigations and been convicted of dozens of felonies in recent years.

    Democrats dismiss the Republican criticisms as inaccurate or overblown. Cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco do struggle with crime and homelessness issues, Democrats say, but not to the extent Republicans suggest — and cities in red states struggle with similar issues.

    Democrats also blasted Republicans for platforming individuals at the RNC who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and siege on the U.S. Capitol.

    Donald Trump leaves the Republican National Convention.

    Presidential candidate Donald Trump leaves the Republican National Convention on Tuesday.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    Officer Michael Fanone, a Capitol Police officer who was injured in that attack, condemned the presence of insurrectionists at the convention.

    “What happened on January 6th almost cost me my life and brought our democracy to the brink,” Fanone said in a statement. “This is a moment to come together and oppose those who call for violence in politics, but the RNC’s decision to give a platform to the same people who rioted against our democracy on January 6th does the opposite.”

    Crime data vary across the country and within individual states.

    However, the clearest trend in crime data in recent years nationwide, experts said, is that violent crime is down. Republicans often dismiss such data by saying they are fabricated or the result of lower reporting rates.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • An Eerie Quiet Hangs Over the Republican National Convention

    An Eerie Quiet Hangs Over the Republican National Convention

    [ad_1]

    There was a palpable sense of unease in Milwaukee on Sunday, on the eve of the Republican National Convention. The event was already sure to be a chaotic chapter in our ugly national political drama. But the drama suddenly got even grimmer this week, when Donald Trump, who will eventually accept the GOP nomination here, narrowly survived an assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally the day before.

    To some extent, business has still been going on as usual: Journalists are descending on the city; party officials are convening; and supporters of the former president are giddily strutting around in MAGA swag. But the mood has unmistakably shifted: Trump supporters held a prayer vigil for him in a park near the Fiserv Center, home of the Milwaukee Bucks; and the Daily Show, which had been slated to broadcast here all week, canceled its on-the-ground programming. After all, who was in a joking mood?

    On Sunday, law enforcement officials stood around the convention’s perimeter, sweating and talking about the humidity. The event grounds were so empty you could hear the squawk of gulls over Lake Michigan. At a bar nearby, politicos gabbed over glasses of pinot noir and old-fashioneds. “Trump’s speech is going to be epic,” one predicted. “I feel like we’re living in the 1960s right now,” another said.

    “To America,” they toasted.

    Up until Saturday, questions surrounding the viability of President Joe Biden’s reelection bid—as well as Trump’s vice-presidential pick and extreme right-wing agenda for a second term—were likely to be the main topics of discussion at the RNC. However, much of this is now likely to be overshadowed by the attempt on Trump’s life. Biden condemned the shooting—which claimed the life of one at the rally and wounded two others—and offered his thoughts to Trump. “There is no place in America for this kind of violence,” the president said. “Unity is the most elusive goal of all. But nothing is as important as that right now.”

    Trump, meanwhile, flew into Milwaukee Sunday, undeterred. “I cannot allow a ‘shooter,’ or potential assassin, to force change to scheduling, or anything else,” he wrote online, as the political world turned its attention to this city of 500,000, situated in a key swing state that helped decide the election for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

    On the night before this year’s Republican convention, America remains a deeply troubled nation—culturally and politically polarized, its democracy teetering and its center struggling to hold. This week in Milwaukee is set to be sweltering; as for the country, the temperature is already at a boiling point.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Lutz

    Source link

  • Project 2025, GOP platform blast California, teeing up critiques of Biden stand-ins

    Project 2025, GOP platform blast California, teeing up critiques of Biden stand-ins

    [ad_1]

    At the start of Project 2025’s conservative playbook for a second Trump presidency, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts took aim at leaders who he said wield power to “serve themselves first and everyone else a distant second.”

    He mentioned North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un comfortably ruling over an impoverished nation, “billionaire climate activists” flying on private jets while criticizing carbon-emitting cars, and two “COVID-19 shutdown politicians” in California who were seen out and about — at a hair salon and a fancy restaurant — while calling on their constituents to stay home.

    Name-dropping U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gavin Newsom in the conservative right’s blueprint for the White House was a way for Roberts to tie them, and California, to the idea that out-of-touch coastal elites are ruining the country.

    That notion — well worn in American politics — appears throughout the Project 2025 plan, a wonky, 900-plus-page manifesto released last year by conservative thought leaders and Trump acolytes.

    The idea is also evoked more subtly in the much snappier, 16-page Republican Party platform spearheaded by Trump and adopted by party officials last week, which criticizes American politicians who “insulated themselves from criticism and the consequences of their own bad actions” while average Americans suffered.

    Roberts and other Heritage Foundation officials were not available for comment. A Heritage Foundation spokesperson said Project 2025 is a product of more than 100 conservative organizations and “does not speak for any candidate or campaign.”

    According to political experts, the conservative strategy of criticizing “woke” liberal ideas, many of which got traction in California, has become particularly useful in the current election cycle, as Trump’s base has proved especially receptive to conservative virtue signaling on issues such as abortion, climate change, guns, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights.

    That strategy will only grow, the experts said, if President Biden comes off the Democratic ticket and is replaced with a California politician such as Newsom or Vice President Kamala Harris, a former senator.

    “This is a vital angle to be hitting,” said Jon Michaels, a constitutional law professor at UCLA with a forthcoming book on right-wing authoritarianism. “California becomes a convenient foil, and the excesses of California are what Republicans can run against.”

    Issues at play

    Conservatives have long cast California — sometimes fairly, other times not — as a failing state crumbling under the weight of out-of-control regulation, crime and homelessness, and the 2024 race has intensified those lines of attack.

    “Instances of California really going in a different direction from what the Republican Party wants is all over the [Project 2025] report — everything from diversity, equity and inclusion, to connections to China, to high tech [companies] to homelessness,” said Bruce Cain, a political science professor at Stanford University. The aim is to portray a state in disorder, an “undemocratic, patronizing state controlled by the high-tech elites completely out of touch with where the rest of America is.”

    Both Project 2025 and the GOP platform envision a second Trump presidency where federal bureaucrats use the powers of the executive branch to beat back an array of California policies — including protections for undocumented immigrants, the environment, unionized workers, those seeking abortions and transgender youth.

    In its phrasing, the GOP platform is at times bombastic — just like Trump, who helped draft it — and lays out a relatively clear framework for how he intends to govern in sharp contrast to California leaders.

    “California becomes a convenient foil, and the excesses of California are what Republicans can run against.”

    — Jon Michaels, constitutional law professor at UCLA

    For example, Los Angeles and other major California cities decline to use their police forces or city personnel to enforce immigration laws. Trump’s platform promises to “cut federal funding” to such jurisdictions.

    California is in the process of reining in oil drilling in the state, with leaders raising concerns about the environmental and health impacts. The platform calls on the nation to “DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”

    California requires LGBTQ+-inclusive curricula in schools and the Democrat-controlled state Legislature just passed a law barring school officials from informing parents of kids who identify as transgender at school if the kids don’t want that information shared. The platform says Republicans support “parental rights” and will “defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children” or push “radical gender ideology.”

    The Project 2025 plan is even more ardent in its rebuke of California policies.

    Roberts, in his foreword of Project 2025, speaks much of American liberty, but defines it squarely within a Christian nationalist framework, saying the Constitution gives each American the liberty to “live as his Creator ordained” — to “do not what we want, but what we ought.”

    The plan calls on Trump, if elected, to “make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors” — a process that it says should start with deleting all references to queer identities, “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” abortion or “reproductive health” from federal legislation and rules.

    Calling California and other liberal states “sanctuaries for abortion tourism,” the plan says the Trump administration should “push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America,” work with Congress to enact antiabortion laws, and mandate state reporting of abortion data to the federal government — including patients’ state of residence and “reason” for receiving a procedure.

    Critics say such actions would empower conservative states that ban abortions to identify and punish women who go to liberal states such as California to have those procedures.

    The party platform does not call for a national abortion ban, which rankled some on the right, but does back state policies restricting it and says Republicans “proudly stand for families and Life.”

    Both plans criticize the nation’s shift to electric vehicles, and Project 2025 says the federal government should rescind a waiver allowing California to set its own clean air standards around fuel economy, which underpins the state’s goal of shifting exclusively to zero-emissions vehicles by 2035.

    The fight ahead

    Although Project 2025 is authored in large part by prominent advisors and former appointees of Trump, he has recently sought to distance himself from the plan.

    In an online post July 5, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing about it,” but also that “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” Even so, he wished those behind the plan “luck.”

    “This isn’t Alabama or Mississippi. You are taking on a very powerful state with a lot of resources — and a will to resist.”

    — Bruce Cain, political science professor at Stanford University

    Trump’s campaign referred questions about Project 2025 and the GOP platform, and their relation to California policies, to the Republican National Committee.

    Anna Kelly, a committee spokesperson, said the party platform “contains commonsense policies like cutting taxes, securing the border, ending absurd [electric vehicle] mandates, securing our elections, defending our constitutional rights, and keeping men out of women’s sports” — with the last being an apparent reference to transgender women.

    “If reporters find those principles contradictory to values pushed by California leaders,” Kelly wrote, “maybe it’s time for Democrats to evaluate how their state is run.”

    Democrats, including Biden, have repeatedly tied Trump to Project 2025, saying his claims of distance from it are absurd given how many people in his orbit are leading it. On Tuesday, Harris called out Project 2025 at a campaign event in Las Vegas, noting that it calls for the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education, cuts to Social Security and a nationwide abortion ban.

    “If implemented, this plan would be the latest attack in Donald Trump’s full-on assault on reproductive freedom,” she said.

    Experts said that if Biden is replaced by Harris or Newsom — who are considered leading candidates amid a swirl of doubt about Biden’s age and ability to defeat Trump — conservative derision about California and its liberal policies will increase, and find a receptive audience in many parts of the country.

    A Times survey earlier this year found that 50% of U.S. adults believe California is in decline, with 48% of Republicans saying it is “not really American.”

    If Trump wins, California is expected to lead the liberal resistance to Trump’s agenda, just as it did during his first term, experts said. Such efforts will be hampered by California’s budget woes and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, they said, but not undone completely.

    “California will fight back, and it has the means to fight back,” Cain said. “This isn’t Alabama or Mississippi. You are taking on a very powerful state with a lot of resources — and a will to resist.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Texas’s “Pro-Life” Abortion Law Has Literally Led to More Infant Deaths

    Texas’s “Pro-Life” Abortion Law Has Literally Led to More Infant Deaths

    [ad_1]

    Antiabortion advocates talk a big game about protecting the “sanctity of life,” but in reality do not care about life at all—not the lives of mothers, whose rights they think nothing of taking away, or the babies they force pregnant people to carry to term. The most recent example of this hypocrisy? A new study showing that infant deaths increased in Texas in the wake of its near-total ban on abortions.

    On Monday, a study published in the JAMA Pediatrics journal revealed that in 2022, the year after Texas’s Heartbeat Act went into effect, the infant mortality rate went up by nearly 13%, versus an almost 2% increase in the rest of the US. Deaths as a result of birth defects increased in the state by 22.9%—compared to a nationwide decrease of about 3%—presumably because the Texas law bans abortion after six weeks, which is well before tests are done to detect fetal abnormalities. Alison Gemmill, who led the study, told USA Today, “It just points to some of the devastating consequences of abortion bans that maybe people weren’t thinking about when they passed these laws”—a statement that is definitely giving antiabortion lawmakers way too much credit. Wendy Davis, a senior adviser for Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, pointed out that since the study only looked at 2022—and not the years that followed the overturning of Roe v. Wade, when many more states enacted abortion bans—“the situation on the ground today is [likely] even more dire.”

    What do people who call themselves “pro-life” think of all this? Not much—and definitely not that they should rethink how their policies have had terrible consequences on countless real, live people.

    In a statement, a spokesperson for Texas governor Greg Abbott said the Heartbeat Act has led to “thousands of children have been given a chance at life.” Amy O’Donnell, a spokesperson for Texas Alliance for Life, told USA Today, “We don’t apologize for the fact that we don’t support discrimination against children facing disabilities or fatal diagnoses in or out of the womb. And that’s the line that we just believe should not be crossed.” She did not comment on the fact that the Texas law inflicts unimaginable trauma on people forced to give birth to children they know won’t survive, only to watch them die.

    The Donald Trump campaign—whose candidate regularly brags about killing Roe v. Wade—does not appear to have commented on the news. As a reminder, earlier this month, Trump told a group that wants abortion “eradicated entirely” that he knows “where you’re coming from” and pledged, “I’ll be with you, side by side.”

    A window into a second Trump term

    X content

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

    Maria Bartiromo jumps on the “Biden will be on drugs for the debate” train

    X content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Group tied to Colorado election overhaul drops $1 million in last-minute primary spending – The Cannabist

    Group tied to Colorado election overhaul drops $1 million in last-minute primary spending – The Cannabist

    [ad_1]

    A group backed by a wealthy Denverite who’s trying to overhaul Colorado’s election system dropped $1 million on more than a dozen statehouse races just days before a hotly contested primary Election Day, pumping another huge sum of cash into contests already awash in outside spending and dark money.

    Let Colorado Vote Action was registered with the Colorado Secretary of State on Monday, eight days before Election Day. By Wednesday, it had doled out between $20,000 and $150,000 to support eight Democrats and five Republicans running in contested primaries. Much of the $1.08 million in total funds went to several races that have already seen significant outside spending from organizations boosting more moderate candidates.

    The group is backed by Kent Thiry, the Denver-based former CEO of the dialysis giant DaVita who’s supporting a ballot measure to overhaul the state’s election process. In a statement to The Denver Post on Saturday morning, Thiry wrote that it was “time for many of us to stand up for the majority in the middle. We are supporting responsible candidates in each party who believe in civil and bipartisan behavior, and who believe they represent all the voters in their districts.”

    Read the rest of this story on TheKnow.DenverPost.com.

    [ad_2]

    The Cannabist Network

    Source link

  • As Biden and Trump Square Off in Their First Debate, Let’s Revisit Why Trump Won the 2016 Showdowns

    As Biden and Trump Square Off in Their First Debate, Let’s Revisit Why Trump Won the 2016 Showdowns

    [ad_1]

    Don’t worry about it, Little Marco …. Low energy …. You are the single biggest liar….

    The first 2024 presidential debate is set for Thursday, and there may be wisdom in the old adage: Past is prologue. A case can certainly be made that one of the main reasons Donald Trump earned his party’s nomination in 2016—and went on to win the general election—is because of the sheer must-see spectacle of his off-the-rails debate performances. Eight years later, a sizable audience will be either tuned into the faceoff, to be hosted by CNN, or will spend time scrolling through the online highlight reel. In preparation, it is useful to consider why those bygone showdowns played to Trump’s strengths.

    It is a given, of course, that Trump went into the early debates with a substantial advantage against the large GOP field. The main reason: he was a reality TV star, extremely comfortable with the medium of television and in tune with the audiences at home and in the studio. Experience in reality TV—a genre that is untethered to the real world—allowed Trump to parse the truth and make up facts on the fly, behavior that proved especially effective when courting a public with a compromised rumor-immune system.

    Not to belabor the obvious, but Trump knew how to treat politics itself as a reality show. In the first few months of the primaries, skeptics had viewed his candidacy as little more than his way of burnishing his brand. Full stop. Yet once Trump had gotten a debate or two under his belt, he realized—as did the political and media establishments—that he had found his political métier. In short order, the cable and network news divisions began to cast him in the lead.

    Soon, they were marketing the presidential race like a prime-time series. On two dozen evenings, TV provided live coverage of the primary and caucus results. Over the course of 15 months, beginning in August of 2015, there were 31 debates, town halls, and forums. In addition, Trump’s campaign rallies and primary night speeches were sometimes broadcast or streamed live.

    Jeff Zucker, for one—then the boss at CNN—was going all-in for Trump. No wonder: he’d been the executive at NBC who’d help steer the success of Trump’s own reality show, The Apprentice. Roger Ailes, then running Fox News, also saw the candidate as his kind of marquee talent: loud, brash, unpredictable, and physically imposing, all of which translated into ratings catnip. In no time, this saturation coverage on cable and broadcast got viewers hooked on The Great Race. The debates became, in effect, an episodic TV series, in simulcast. The program merged three formats, all of which had been perfected during the 1990s: the reality show, the talk/opinion show, and the monthslong TV-news saga, from “Conflict in the Gulf” (’90–’91), to the O.J. Simpson “Trial of the Century” (’94–’95), to the March to Impeachment (’98-’99), not to mention Bush v. Gore (’00–’01).

    The debates—and the race itself—turned out to be tailor-made for a reality-TV character like Trump: the serialized nature of the contest, the faux suspense, the obsession with process. So, too, was the fixation on the week’s winners (“We are going to win big-league, believe me”) and losers (“I like people who weren’t captured”). This was a format Trump knew intimately. And he solidified his hold on voters early by appearing in a setting that suited his showman’s flashiness and his insult-comic style.

    As the Republican candidates lined up on the debate stage, Trump would typically be positioned at the center lectern. He would field more questions than his competitors. The setting had hints of Survivor and The Apprentice. At times, the moderators would focus less on the candidates’ policies than on their views about one another: “Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump ‘embodies New York values.’ Could you explain what you mean by that?” This line of questioning encouraged conflict and helped amplify Trump’s tendency to razz his rivals. Meanwhile, the postmortems by experts would reverberate for days across websites, social media, the print press, and the news and opinion programs, prolonging the agony and the exegesis.

    All along, Trump was playing by reality-TV rules. He didn’t “prepare.” He played his malaprops and bluster as authenticity. He and his surrogates “spun” his performance in pre-interviews and post-interviews. He inserted his family into the process, which helped bolster his appeal and fill out his back story. He spread hearsay (“I’m hearing…”; “Everybody is saying…”). When things weren’t going his way, he blamed his mic or his earpiece. He cast doubt on the moderators. He whined and he sulked and he scowled.

    Trump seemed to have the facility to say whatever sounded sensible or outrageous in the moment. He would build a “beautiful wall” along the Mexican border—which Mexico would pay for. He would alter his positions, debunk fellow candidates he’d previously praised, deny saying things he’d actually said. And all of it went relatively un-fact-checked by his opponents—or even the moderators. While the other presidential hopefuls on the debate stage gave responses that were based IRL, by and large, Trump played virtually. He understood that on reality programs the cleverest half-truth could mortally wound an opponent, and the craftiest player would often win—and win over his audience.

    [ad_2]

    David Friend

    Source link

  • Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    [ad_1]

    Thank you, Rep. Emily Sirota for ensuring that Colorado voters and county clerks are not overwhelmed with massive election changes that moneyed interests hope to foist on us through the ballot box this November.

    Sirota’s amendment to Senate Bill 210, an election reform bill, will ensure the rollout of ranked-choice voting, should it pass by voter initiative, will be implemented thoughtfully. The amendment, which passed unanimously, would require a dozen Colorado municipalities of varying sizes and demographics to conduct ranked-choice voting before it goes statewide.

    The phase-in will allow cities to develop best practices before all jurisdictions are required to implement a complicated and wholesale change. Just as mail-in voting was phased in over several years, the Sirota amendment will give clerks time to develop policies, purchase software, train employees, and educate their constituents.

    It also gives voters the opportunity to see how ranked choice voting works and gives them a chance to repeal it after the new car smell fades and they see how confusing and unfair it is. This election, Alaska voters are looking to repeal the ranked-choice voting system they approved just four years ago. They would have saved themselves a lot of money and frustration if the system had been implemented in a dozen jurisdictions instead of going all in from the start.

    A ranked-choice voting system for Colorado is being sought by the wealthy former CEO of DaVita, a Denver-based kidney dialysis provider, Kent Thiry. His proposal, which has been approved for signature collection,  would impose an open primary and ranked-choice general elections on the state.

    Here’s how it would work: Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could run in the primary with the top four contenders advancing to the general election. In the general, voters would be asked to rank candidates in order of preference.

    It’s a confusing system, so I’ll put names to an example. Let’s say that out of a gubernatorial primary former Sen. Cory Gardner, current Sen. Michael Bennet, former Rep. Ken Buck, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston advance to the general.

    I vote in the general for Bennet, Johnston, Buck, and Gardner in that order. If nobody gets 50% of the statewide vote, the votes are retallied. Let’s say that in the first tally, Bennet gets the least number of votes and is eliminated. Johnston, my second choice will get my vote. If Johnston is eliminated in round two, Buck will get my vote and either he or Gardner will emerge from the final round.

    In some elections, after all the tallying is done the most popular candidate (the one most voters ranked first) will go home empty-handed. In the 2010 Oakland mayoral race, the candidate who received the most votes in round one ultimately lost the election after nine rounds of vote redistribution. How fair is that to candidates or voters?

    If you’re confused, imagine how much effort, time, and money the Secretary of State and county clerks will have to expend to educate voters. It is likely the complexity will persuade some voters to chuck their ballot. Then there will be less voter participation.

    Being confusing isn’t the only problem with ranked-choice voting. Let’s say you picked only Johnston and Bennet and neither of them made it to the third round; your ballot will be considered exhausted and tossed out. Only those who voted for Buck and Gardner in whatever order, will be counted in the final tally.

    This has happened. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, the candidate who got the most votes ultimately lost to the second-place candidate. The Maine Secretary of State threw out more than 14,000 exhausted ballots from people who did not vote for the top two candidates. Sound fair?

    Proponents of ranked-choice voting think that such a system will reduce the number of extremist candidates and help voters coalesce around a mainstream candidate. This is a solution looking for a problem that isn’t a problem.

    Colorado does not have a problem with extreme candidates or officeholders. I did not vote for either of the state’s U.S. senators, my congressman, my representatives in the Colorado General Assembly, the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state or the treasurer. While they are wrong on most issues, not one of them is extreme. Not one. Fanatics do come along but the current system is self-correcting.

    Extreme Democrats like Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernández face formidable primary opponents this year and extreme Republicans like Ron Hanks and Dave Williams are unlikely to win in their primaries. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert had to flee her home district because voters yearned for normalcy and were poised to turn her out in the primary or general.

    While we’re popping illusion balloons, the Sirota Amendment was not some sneaky last-minute ploy. County clerks and the Colorado Clerks Association approached Sirota with the concerns they have about implementing the Thiry proposal if it passed and she listened. Matt Crane, executive director clerks association, told me that organization “strongly support[s] the amendment and appreciate[s] Rep. Sirota’s willingness to include it in the bill.”

    [ad_2]

    Krista Kafer

    Source link

  • GOP votes down bill codifying right to contraception

    GOP votes down bill codifying right to contraception

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Senate Republicans voted against a federal law that would enshrine access to birth control. While the Right to Contraception Act failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to advance debate, Democrats were on the offensive after the bill died.

    “Today Senate Republicans blocked the Right to Contraception Act and refused to defend access to birth control for Georgia women,” Senator Jon Ossoff said in a statement. “I will continue to fight back against any effort by extremists to ban birth control for Georgia women.”

    The bill was largely a test vote to see if the Senate could put forth a bipartisan bill before the election. Democrats worry reproductive rights might hang in the balance in November. Moreover, if Donald Trump wins November’s presidential election, Republicans could forbid the sale of birth control.


    Itoro Umontuen currently serves as Managing Editor of The Atlanta Voice. Upon his arrival to the historic publication, he served as their Director of Photography. As a mixed-media journalist, Umontuen…
    More by Itoro N. Umontuen

    [ad_2]

    Itoro N. Umontuen

    Source link

  • Republicans Proudly Declare They’re Against Making Contraception a Federal Right

    Republicans Proudly Declare They’re Against Making Contraception a Federal Right

    [ad_1]

    Republicans get very huffy when people accuse them of hating women and wanting to control pregnant people’s bodies—yet instead of proving that neither of those things are true, they do stuff like:

    Most recently not helping their cause? Refusing to make contraception a federal right, which they insist is totally unnecessary despite all of the above. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans rejected the Right to Contraception Act, a Democratic bill that would stop the federal government and states from passing laws limiting access to birth control. Speaking to The Washington Post, Senator Joni Ernst called the bill “fear-mongering,” and introduced one that does not protect access to the morning-after pill. Senator John Cornyn claimed Democrats are holding a “phony vote because contraception to my knowledge is not illegal. It’s not unavailable. To suggest that it’s somehow in jeopardy should be embarrassing, but it’s hard to embarrass some people around here.”

    Of course, what people like Cornyn don’t note is that that’s the exact argument Republicans used to make about abortion, before the federal right to the medical procedure was summarily scrapped. Referring to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s 2022 declaration that the court “should reconsider” some of its past decisions, including the one protecting access to contraception, Senator Mazie Hirono told ABC News: “Whenever a Supreme Court justice, especially in the MAGA far right, says he wants to revisit a case, you can bet that he’s looking to overturn.” In a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned: “A few years ago it was Roe. A few years from now it could be something else. We are kidding ourselves if we think the hard right is done with their attacks on reproductive rights.”

    Last month, Donald Trump was asked in an interview, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?” And rather than saying a simple “no,” he responded: “We’re looking at that, and I’m gonna have a policy on that very shortly, and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting. And it’s another issue that’s very interesting, but you will find it, I think, very smart; I think it’s a smart decision. But we’ll be releasing it very soon.”

    X content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Congestion pricing in New York City indefinitely postponed, official says

    Congestion pricing in New York City indefinitely postponed, official says

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK CITY (WABC) — An official tells Eyewitness News the implementation of congestion pricing in New York City has been indefinitely postponed. It will not start on June 30 as originally planned.

    There are two reasons, one economic and one political.

    According to the official, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is convinced the timing is not right because Manhattan businesses have not fully recovered from the pandemic.

    It is also apparently because Democrats are facing difficult House races in the New York City suburbs. Republicans have planned to use congestion pricing as a political wedge.

    Congressman Mike Lawler, a Republican representing part of the Hudson Valley, wasted no time in weighing in on the governor’s decision.

    The Mornings @ 10 team talks congestion pricing delays with U.S. Representative Mike Lawler.

    The governor’s office declined to comment.

    “I think it’s a great step in the right direction,” said Mayor Mark Sokolich, (D) Fort Lee. “We’re not in Fort Lee trying to get the MTA to not operate properly we’re just trying to make sure there’s fairness in the process.”

    Sokolich said Fort Lee would have had to cope with a 25% traffic increase throughout their area which would have negatively impacted the air quality.

    The Mornings @ 10 team talks with Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich on congestion pricing being postponed.

    ALSO READ: NJ reaction to postponement of congestion pricing

    On the flip side, Sam Schwartz, a transportation expert called the decision by the governor, disappointing.

    “I’m very disappointed, I thought the governor had a lot of courage to proceed even though it was another governor that recommended it. I’m disappointed by her saying the timing isn’t now, the timing is now,” he said. “The reality is that the transit system will suffer.”

    The MTA, which would potentially face a $1 billion budget deficit without implementation, declined to comment.

    Lindsay Tuchman has the latest on Mayor Adams’ response to congestion pricing delays.

    “I communicated with the governor for the last few days and I consider the governor a partner and I’m really pleased that the two of us have been able to align on so many issues,” New York City Mayor Eric Adams said. “I’ve said this over and over again, you guys and ladies have asked me over and over again about congestion pricing and I say that we have to get it right. We have to make sure that it’s not a due burden on everyday New Yorkers. We have to make sure that it’s not going to impact our recovery. We got to the point of more jobs in this city than in the history of the city because of the support in the recovery effort. And I think if she’s looking at analyzing the recovery effort and looking at what other ways that we can do it, and do it correctly, I’m all for it. This is a major shift for our city and it has to be done correctly.”

    There were several lawsuits against congestion pricing, and one official on Staten Island said they are waiting for a final decision by the state before deciding what to do with their lawsuit.

    “It’s a little premature to make that decision because we don’t know what’s going to come out of the state, once the state makes its official position, then we’ll decide what to do with the litigation,” said Vito Fossella, Staten Island Borough President.

    The Mornings @ 10 team congestion pricing delays with Staten Island borough president Vito Fossella.

    On Long Island, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said that the governor couldn’t deny that the plan was a bad idea for the whole metropolitan area coming out of the pandemic.

    “I’m very grateful that the sole vote against this on the MTA was our representative,” Blakeman said. “I just hope that the governor isn’t contemplating a commuter tax on the suburbs.”

    The Mornings @ 10 team talk with Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman on congestion pricing.

    There remains a belief that congestion pricing is inevitable. The plan would charge a $15 toll for passenger cars driving south of 60th Street from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays. There are certain exceptions. Several lawsuits are challenging the plan.

    ———-

    More Congestion Pricing Coverage

    Do you have questions or story ideas about congestion pricing? Tell us how congestion pricing could impact your commute. Eyewitness News would love to hear from you.

    Please use the submission form below:

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • In N.J.’s 3rd District, Herb Conaway wins Democratic primary; Rajesh Mohan gets GOP nod

    In N.J.’s 3rd District, Herb Conaway wins Democratic primary; Rajesh Mohan gets GOP nod

    [ad_1]

    In Tuesday’s primary election for New Jersey’s 3rd District of the U.S., five Democrats and four Republicans ran in their parties’ respective contests. Herb Conaway, a longtime Assemblyman and physician from Bordentown, was declared the winner of the Democratic race. Rajesh Mohan, a cardiologist from Holmdel, won the Republican primary. 

    The race for New Jersey’s 3rd District is wide open with incumbent Democrat Andy Kim running for U.S. Senate.

    Polls closed at 8 p.m. and results in both races will be updated below as they become available. All results are unofficial until they have been confirmed by election officials.


    RELATED: Coverage of the Democratic and Republican primaries for U.S. Senate in New Jersey | Republican primary results for N.J.’s 1st District U.S. House seat | Democratic primary results for N.J.’s 2nd District U.S. House seat


    The 3rd District covers nearly all of Burlington County and parts of Mercer and Monmouth counties. Kim is currently in his third term since he was elected in 2018. He was preceded by two-term Republican Congressman Tom MacArthur.

    Democrats

    Herb Conaway has served New Jersey’s 7th legislative district in Burlington Count for 26 years. His legislative efforts at the state level include helping developing the state’s health insurance marketplace, revamping the state’s school funding formula and improving nutritional standards in public schools. Conaway has said the biggest issue in the election is protecting democracy against authoritarianism. He plans to push for codifying abortion rights federally and take action on climate change by incentivizing the development of infrastructure for more planet-friendly technologies.

    Joe Cohn is a civil rights attorney from Lumberton who has worked on behalf of people with HIV/AIDs, seniors and people experiencing workplace discrimination. In his campaign for Congress, Cohn said too many of the nation’s problems are caused by political polarization. He stressed the importance of uniting around bipartisan collaboration. Cohn’s platform called for eliminating age restrictions for Medicare and making health care more affordable, in part by expanding price negotiation for prescription medications. He supports abortion rights and advocates for addressing climate change by prioritizing energy efficiency.

    Carol Murphy is an Assemblywoman in New Jersey’s 7th legislative district, where she was elected in 2017. She said she chose to run for Congress to uplift middle class families by dealing with issues such as rising health care costs, high property taxes, political extremism and women’s reproductive rights. In her campaign, Murphy said the most important goal should be using federal resources to make New Jersey a more affordable place to live.

    Sarah Schoengood is a small business owner from Manalapan who co-owns a company that supplies crabmeat and other seafood from the Mediterranean Sea. Schoengood said she was running for Congress to break the mold of career politicians in Washington, D.C. who aren’t in touch with the needs of regular people. She said the most important issue in this year’s election is protecting women’s reproductive rights. She also supports developing infrastructure for green energy initiatives and providing the industry with a mix of incentives and research dollars.

    Brian Schkeeper is a public school teacher and union member who launched his campaign to fight for more affordable health care and education. He said his priority would be to ensure that Social Security can remain a viable retirement plan and that women’s reproductive rights are protected.



    Republicans

    Rajesh Mohan decided to run for Congress to apply his clinical approach in medicine to improving government. Mohan’s campaign calls for stronger border protection, ensuring the longevity of Medicare and Social Security, and investing in domestic manufacturing and small business growth. He also seeks to increase investments in mental health care and reduce out-of-pocket costs for medical care by reforming the Affordable Care Act.

    Gregory Sobicinski is a business consultant from Southampton who decided to run for Congress to combat rising inflation, underperforming schools and crime in New Jersey communities. He said the biggest problem facing the country is out-of-control government at all levels creating too much interference in personal decision-making. He is an advocate for expanding nuclear energy to create a cleaner economy instead of wind and solar power. In foreign policy, Sobicinski called for the U.S. to intervene only where strategic interests are at stake.

    Shirley Maia-Cusick is the CEO of a legal services firm and views herself as an independent conservative. As an immigrant from Brazil, Maia-Cusick said she’s ran for Congress to restore the country she discovered when she moved to the United States 30 years ago. She opposes abortion and wants the U.S. to scale back its involvement in foreign conflicts to reduce the national debt.

    Michael Francis Faccone is a Jersey City native who said he hoped to serve in Congress to simplify the way legislation gets crafted. He views collaboration across party lines as an essential part of the democratic process and considers transparency and accountability the most important principles for public service. Faccone said he would advocate for policies to reduce crime and taxes, lower economic inequality and seek to improve racial inequality in criminal justice, education and business.



    [ad_2]

    Michael Tanenbaum

    Source link

  • Elon Musk, America’s richest immigrant, is angry about immigration. Can he influence the election?

    Elon Musk, America’s richest immigrant, is angry about immigration. Can he influence the election?

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk and his brother Kimbal were speaking to a crowd of business leaders in 2013 about creating their first company when the conversation seemed to go off script. Originally from South Africa, Kimbal said the brothers lacked lawful immigration status when they began the business in the U.S.

    “In fact, when they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants,” Kimbal said, according to a recording of the interview from the Milken Institute Global Conference.

    “I’d say it was a gray area,” Elon replied with a laugh.

    Eleven years later, Elon was back at the Milken Institute last month in Beverly Hills, talking once again about immigration. This time, he described the southern border as a scene out of the zombie apocalypse and said the legal immigration process is long and “Kafkaesque.”

    “I’m a big believer in immigration, but to have unvetted immigration at large scale is a recipe for disaster,” Musk said at the conference. “So I’m in favor of greatly expediting legal immigration but having a secure southern border.”

    Musk, the most financially successful immigrant in the U.S. and the third-richest person in the world, has frequently repeated his view that it is difficult to immigrate to the U.S. legally but “trivial and fast” to enter illegally. What he leaves out: Seeking asylum is a legal right under national and international law, regardless of how a person arrives on U.S. soil.

    But as the election year ramps up and Republicans make border security a major theme of their campaigns, Musk’s comments about immigration have grown increasingly extreme. The chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, who purchased the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has sometimes used his giant microphone to elevate racist conspiracies and spread misinformation about immigration law.

    Musk’s business manager did not respond to a request for comment, nor did representatives for SpaceX and Tesla. X does not have a department that responds to news media inquiries.

    While Musk’s views are clear, what’s murkier is his influence. Some see him as an influential opinion maker with the power to shape policy and sway voters, while others dismiss him as a social media bomb thrower mainly heard within a conservative echo chamber.

    “If you haven’t heard it already, I’m sure you’re going to see members of Congress citing Elon Musk and pointing to his tweets, and that’s a scary concept,” said Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-San Pedro), who leads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

    She says she believes Musk is influential with her Republican colleagues who are “always looking for new anti-immigrant talking points.”

    Polling shows immigration is a top issue for voters. For the third month in a row, it was named by respondents to an open-ended April Gallup poll as the most important problem facing the U.S.

    The November election that’s shaping up as a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump will be the first presidential contest since Musk bought X — a site Trump had been banned from for inciting violence before Musk reinstated his account last year.

    Musk used the platform to come to Trump’s defense last week after the former president was criminally convicted for falsifying records in a hush money scheme. “Great damage was done today to the public’s faith in the American legal system,” Musk wrote on X, calling Trump’s crime a “trivial matter.”

    After meeting with Trump in March, Musk told former CNN anchor Don Lemon that he’s “leaning away” from Biden, but doesn’t plan to endorse Trump yet. He also said he won’t donate to any presidential campaign.

    Campaign contribution records show Musk regularly donated to both Republicans and Democrats through 2020. That includes a handful of donations to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said his relationship with Musk dates back to his time as San Francisco mayor but that they’ve never discussed immigration.

    “I think people have formed very strong opinions on this topic,” Newsom said. “I don’t know that he’s influencing that debate in a disproportionate way. Not one human being has ever said, ‘Hey, did you see Elon’s thing about immigration?’”

    How Musk talks about immigration on X

    Last year Musk visited the Eagle Pass, Texas, border, meeting with local politicians and law enforcement to get what he called an “unfiltered” view of the situation.

    He also helped spread viral reports falsely claiming the Biden administration had “secretly” flown hundreds of thousands of migrants into the U.S. to reduce border arrivals.

    “This administration is both importing voters and creating a national security threat from unvetted illegal immigrants,” Musk wrote March 5 on X. “It is highly probable that the groundwork is being laid for something far worse than 9/11.”

    But the migrants in question fly commercial under a program created by the Biden administration, exercising the president’s authority to temporarily admit people for humanitarian reasons. The program allows up to 30,000 vetted people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela lawfully relocate to the U.S. each month and obtain work permits if they have a financial sponsor.

    Contrary to Musk’s claim that the administration is looking for Democratic voters, those arriving under the program have no pathway to citizenship. The claim gives fuel to extremist ideologies such as great replacement theory, the racist conspiracy that there’s a plot to reduce the population of white people.

    Elon Musk, wearing a black Stetson hat, livestreams while visiting the southern border in September in Eagle Pass, Texas. Musk toured the border along the bank of the Rio Grande with Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas).

    (John Moore / Getty Images)

    Earlier this year, Musk targeted a controversial bill in the California Legislature that would help immigrants with serious or violent felony convictions fight deportation using state funds. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) pulled the bill after Republicans slammed it on social media, garnering the attention of Musk, who wrote about it on X: “When is enough enough?”

    In February, shortly after a bipartisan group of senators released details of a border security bill that had gone through lengthy negotiations, Musk again echoed great replacement theory, writing on X: “The long-term goal of the so-called ‘Border Security’ bill is enabling illegals to vote! It will do the total opposite of securing the border.”

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) shot back.

    “No, it’s not focused on trying to be able to get more illegals to vote,” Lankford said on CNN. “That’s absurd.”

    Musk’s immigration journey

    There’s a particular irony in Musk attacking the program that allows limited arrivals for humanitarian reasons while simultaneously saying he favors legal immigration, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer, professor and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA. The program offers would-be migrants a lawful pathway to reach the U.S. and reduced arrivals at the border from the beneficiary countries.

    “That shows a very deep confusion about a fairly basic point about immigration law and the way the policy works,” Arulanantham said. Musk’s lack of criticism of a similar program for Ukrainians illustrates the undercurrent of racism accompanying attacks on the program for Latin American migrants, he added.

    Musk amplifying false claims is counterproductive to rational immigration policy, Arulanantham said.

    “Every voice adds to the pile, and the louder the voice, the marginally greater the addition to the pile,” Arulanantham said. “He is a very loud voice.”

    David Kaye, a UC Irvine law professor who studies platform moderation, said Musk’s promotion of misleading or false statements, including those about immigrants, is concerning because he can influence conversations on X in a way no one else can.

    “There’s already a pretty robust kind of alarmist approach to immigration, so Musk might only add a little bit of fuel to a pretty big fire,” Kaye said. “But the fact is he’s got a ton of followers. To the extent he promotes disinformation, I think that’s a cause for concern for the United States having fair and fact-driven debates over immigration.”

    Musk’s own immigration story is described in the biography “Elon Musk” by Walter Isaacson. Musk left South Africa in 1989 for Canada, where his mother had relatives, Isaacson wrote. While in college he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania and, after graduating, enrolled at Stanford but immediately requested a deferral.

    He and his brother Kimbal had invented an interactive network directory service, like a precursor to Google Maps.

    Just before pitching the idea to a venture company, Kimbal was stopped by U.S. border officials at the airport on his way back from a trip to Toronto “who looked in his luggage and saw the pitch deck, business cards and other documents for the company. Because he did not have a U.S. work visa, they wouldn’t let him board the plane,” Isaacson writes in the book. So a friend picked him up and drove him into the U.S. after telling another border agent that they were seeing the David Letterman show.

    After finalizing the investment, the firm found immigration lawyers to help the Musk brothers get work visas, according to Isaacson.

    Once Musk married his first wife, he became eligible for U.S. citizenship, and took the oath in 2002 at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds.

    Musk’s recent commentary on immigration and other political issues appears to be a reversal from his views a decade ago, said Nu Wexler, who has worked in policy communications at tech companies and for congressional Democrats.

    Wexler recalled when Musk left Fwd.us, the political action organization spearheaded by Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2013 to advocate for immigration reform. Musk left because Fwd.us backed conservative lawmakers who wanted immigration reform but supported oil drilling and other policies that went against Musk’s environmental priorities.

    “I agreed to support Fwd.us because there is a genuine need to reform immigration. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important causes,” Musk told the news site AllThingsD at the time.

    When Zuckerberg created Fwd.us, it made smart business sense for tech executives to make the business case for immigration reform, Wexler said. Now, immigration is a more divisive issue and executives on the left are less willing to dive into politics.

    “At some point he decided that being the main character was helpful personal branding,” Wexler said of Musk. “I don’t know if he’s going to change minds on immigration, although he might be able to fire up the base.”

    Alex Conant, a GOP consultant and partner at the public affairs firm Firehouse Strategies, said Musk’s influence could grow if Trump wins the election. If an immigration bill were to take shape at that point, Musk’s endorsement or rejection could shape the debate, he said.

    “That’s the sort of scenario where all the sudden he might have some power,” he said.

    There appears to be growing evidence for that possibility. Trump and Musk have discussed a possible advisory role for the billionaire, the Wall Street Journal reported last week. If Trump reclaims the White House, Musk could provide formal input on border security policies.

    Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Louisiana Republicans Want to Make It Harder to Obtain a Medication That Stops Postpartum Hemorrhages

    Louisiana Republicans Want to Make It Harder to Obtain a Medication That Stops Postpartum Hemorrhages

    [ad_1]

    Antiabortion Republicans talk a big game about caring about the sanctity of life, but as they’ve made abundantly clear, the only thing they care about is controlling women’s bodies—and in fact, could not give less of a f–k about pregnant people or the babies they want to force people to have. We know this because of:

    Oh, and now we also know it because lawmakers in Louisiana—home of one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country*—are so zealous about eradicating abortion that they’re proposing legislation that would categorize mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances on par with opioids and other highly addictive prescription drugs.

    Per The Washington Post:

    The amendment would list mifepristone and misoprostol under the state’s Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act…It elicited a strong reaction from more than 240 Louisiana doctors, who called it “not scientifically based.”

    The pending language appears to open yet another front in the country’s bitter battle over if and how women can obtain an abortion. Attempts to curtail medication abortions—which now constitute more than half of all abortions in the United States—are part of legislative agendas not just in deep-red Louisiana but in many Republican-controlled statehouses. And in March, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought against the Food and Drug Administration by a group of antiabortion doctors seeking to limit access to mifepristone.

    The legislation was sponsored by Republican state senator Thomas Pressly, whose sister testified that her then husband spiked her drink with an abortion drug, which caused her to have “intense cramping.” (Doctors were able to save the pregnancy and Pressly’s former brother-in-law was sentenced to 180 days in jail; the bill would carry a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $75,000 fine.)

    Obviously, no one disagrees with the fact that what happened to Pressly’s sister was horrific. But medical professionals do not think it should lead to laws that will curtail the ability of people who want to have abortions being able to do so, or classify a medication as a controlled substance that does much more than induce abortions. “Adding a safe, medically indicated drug for miscarriage management … creates the false perception that these are dangerous drugs that require additional regulation,” a group of Louisiana doctors wrote to Pressly. Crucially, the doctors noted that misoprostol is also used to prevent gastrointestinal ulcers and to safely help induce labor in people who are ready to give birth. As the Post notes, misoprostol is also used after someone has a miscarriage (when they body does not pass the tissue on its own) and “to help stop postpartum hemorrhage, one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in the state.”

    “Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women,” the doctors wrote to Pressly. As Neelima Sukhavasi, an OB/GYN in Baton Rouge and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, told the Post: “To OB/GYNs, this is very worrisome. There’s no one that would endorse what happened to [Pressly’s] sister. But this is a safe medication that has many important lifesaving uses. It’s not addictive.” Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, put it more bluntly, saying the legislation if passed “turns back the clock on modern medicine.” As in the kind that stops postpartum women from bleeding to death.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colorado legislature: Same-sex marriage amendment to go to voters; Senate passes oil and gas measures

    Colorado legislature: Same-sex marriage amendment to go to voters; Senate passes oil and gas measures

    [ad_1]

    The Colorado legislature convened Saturday for a final weekend of work in its 2024 session, which is set to end Wednesday. Major pieces of legislation are still pending, with lawmakers expected to debate gun regulations, housing, land-use policy, transportation, property tax reform and other priorities in the final days.

    This story will be updated throughout the day.

    Updated at 1:30 p.m.: A proposed Constitutional amendment to remove defunct language banning same-sex marriage will go to voters this November after a referred measure passed the Colorado House on Saturday.

    The proposed amendment would remove a ban approved by voters in 2006. It has been unenforceable since 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. A majority of voters will need to approve the proposal this November for it to take effect.

    Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 needed at least two-thirds support in each chamber to pass. It passed with bipartisan support in the Senate but near party lines in the House, where Democrats hold a supermajority.

    The Senate formally passed Saturday a bill to limit minimum parking requirements near transit areas. House Bill 1304 was substantially amended from its more expansive introduced version to overcome filibuster threats from Democrats and Republicans. The House and Senate will need to agree on changes before it goes to the governor’s desk. It is one of the suite of bills aimed at increasing density and public transit working its way through the legislature. Advocates argue this bill will remove costly parking spots and increase affordable housing construction.

    The Senate also formally passed a pair of bills to reduce emissions from oil and gas production and levy a per-barrel fee to pay for transit and wildlife habitat. The bills were introduced this week, with the aim of easing simmering tensions between environmental groups, legislators and the industry and dueling legislation and ballot initiatives affecting the industry. They will now go to the House for consideration. The proposals will need to pass by Wednesday, when the legislature will adjourn.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Coltrain

    Source link

  • Michigan AG targets Google and X with search warrants in investigation of fake electors scheme

    Michigan AG targets Google and X with search warrants in investigation of fake electors scheme

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Steve Neavling

    Donald Trump supporters rallied in Detroit in November 2020, falsely claiming widespread election fraud.

    Michigan prosecutors executed a search warrant to obtain hundreds of files from Google and X (formerly Twitter) as part of an ongoing investigation into the fake electors plot in the state.

    The news, first broken by CNN, was confirmed to Metro Times and provides prosecutors with fresh information for their investigation.

    The warrants targeted the Google and X accounts of pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who played a major role in the scheme nationwide.

    The warrant sought Chesebro’s emails and direct private messages after he denied having an X account in an interview with Michigan prosecutors last year.

    The records contradict his claims. State prosecutors obtained more than 160 sent messages and more than 25 received messages from X between 2014 and 2021, with most of them coming after the 2020 election.

    In July 2023, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office charged the 16 fake electors for falsely claiming Donald Trump won Michigan in the 2020 election. The Trump allies met in the basement of the Michigan Republican Party’s Lansing headquarters in December 2020 after Biden won in the state in an attempt to overturn the election, Nessel’s office alleges. The fake electors signed a series of certificates that falsely claimed Trump won in Michigan, and those fraudulent documents were sent to the U.S. Sente and National Archives, according to prosecutors.

    Michigan is one of seven states where the Trump campaign launched the fake elector scheme.

    Prosecutors in each state are examining how much Trump’s national campaign was involved. Since Chesebro was central to the plot on a national level, the new documents could provide prosecutors with critical new information.

    In connection to the scheme in Georgia, Chesebro pleaded guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment in October and agreed to help Georgia prosecutors.

    Chesebro, who has not been charged in Michigan, was accused of helping create slates of fake electors in states won by Biden.

    The new documents obtained by Michigan prosecutors show that Chesebro tried in vain to lure several notorious, controversial Trump allies to Washington, D.C. to witness the fake elector scheme unfold on Jan. 6, 2021, the day that rioters burst into the U.S. Capitol.

    The records also show that Chesebro encouraged conservative pundits and right-wing figures to promote his strategies for subverting the Electoral College process.

    “It would help to publicize that if (then-Vice President Mike) Pence claims the power to resolve disputes about the electoral votes on Jan. 6, he’d simply be doing what (Thomas) Jefferson did,” Chesebro told Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft in a message on December 27, 2020.

    Metro Times could not immediately reach Chesebro for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Kristi Noem Doubles Down on Decision to Kill Family Dog, Adds That She Killed 3 Horses “a Few Weeks Ago”

    Kristi Noem Doubles Down on Decision to Kill Family Dog, Adds That She Killed 3 Horses “a Few Weeks Ago”

    [ad_1]

    Days after it was revealed that her new book includes a graphic account of her killing a pet dog (and goat), South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has doubled down on having committed pooch-icide, claiming the story is evidence that she’s an “authentic” leader.

    Taking to X following deafening backlash—she was dubbed “evil,” “trash,” and “Jeffrey Dahmer with veneers,” among other things—Noem wrote Sunday that she “can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch.” She included the bizarre anecdote, though, because she believes “people are looking for leaders who are authentic, willing to learn from the past, and don’t shy away from tough challenges,” i.e., shooting their own dog. She added, for those wondering if criminal charges might be possible, that “South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down.”

    X content

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

    Noem’s weekend comments followed earlier remarks addressing the dog-killing story. On Friday, she said on social media: “We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm. Sadly, we just had to put down 3 horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years.” That’s right, she added to her publicly known body count!

    As we wrote last week, “while the tales of dog- and goat-killing probably won’t play well with many Americans, as most famously love dogs and regard them as family members, they might actually win her points with the ex-president, who famously hates man’s best friend.” On Monday, Semafor reported that “the median reaction when…checked around Trumpworld was ‘WTF,’ although some noted her chances [of becoming Trump’s running mate] were considered slim already—her take on abortion is to his right, and she filmed an odd infomercial for a Texas dental clinic last month, among other issues.”

    On Monday, former White House comms director Kate Bedingfield told CNN: “If you are on day four of explaining your literal puppy murder, you are not winning.”

    X content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Kristi Noem’s New Book Includes a Bizarrely Detailed Account of Killing Her Pet Dog

    Kristi Noem’s New Book Includes a Bizarrely Detailed Account of Killing Her Pet Dog

    [ad_1]

    From an infomercial extolling the work of a Texas dentistry practice to an anti-drug ad campaign called Meth. We’re on It, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has made a number of head-scratching choices during her time in public office. Probably the most head-scratching to date? The decision to vividly detail killing her pet dog, as well as a goat, in a new book out next month.

    Yes, The Guardian reports that in No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward, Noem graphically recounts executing her family’s dog, Cricket, who—it may not surprise you to hear—she says she “hated.” Cricket, Noem writes, was a 14-month-old wirehair pointer who needed to be trained to hunt pheasants. So one day, she took her on a hunt with older dogs in the hope that they would help the young pup learn the ropes. But Cricket did not learn—and for that she had to die.

    Here’s the insanely explicit account, per The Guardian:

    Noem describes calling Cricket, then using an electronic collar to attempt to bring her under control. Nothing worked. Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another.” Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin.”

    Just a quick note: It’s an interesting choice on Noem’s part to describe Cricket as an “assassin” in a section about how—spoiler alert—she shot her own dog at close range. But we digress.

    When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me.” Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologized, wrote the shocked family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime.” Through it all, Noem says, Cricket was “the picture of pure joy.”

    “I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless…as a hunting dog.”

    “At that moment,” Noem says, “I realized I had to put her down.”

    Does Noem end the story there and leave the rest to people’s imaginations? No, no she does not.

    Noem, who also represented her state in Congress for eight years, got her gun, then led Cricket to a gravel pit. “It was not a pleasant job,” she writes, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

    That’s right: Noem had another animal to kill.

    Her family, she writes, also owned a male goat that was “nasty and mean,” because it had not been castrated. Furthermore, the goat smelled “disgusting, musky, rancid” and “loved to chase” Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes. Noem decided to kill the unnamed goat the same way she had just killed Cricket the dog. But though she “dragged him to a gravel pit,” the goat jumped as she shot and therefore survived the wound. Noem says she went back to her truck, retrieved another shell, then “hurried back to the gravel pit and put him down.”

    If that wasn’t nightmare-inducing enough, Noem adds that after she was done with her grisly killings, she realized a construction crew had witnessed the whole thing. Then, we shit you not, she writes that a school bus pulled up and dropped her kids off, apparently just narrowly missing her American Psycho: Four-Legged Friends Edition moment. “Kennedy looked around confused,” she writes of her daughter, who then asked: “Hey, where’s Cricket?”

    As a reminder, Noem is currently on a short list of candidates under consideration by Donald Trump to be his VP. And while her tales of dog- and goat-killing probably won‘t play well with many Americans, as most famously love dogs and regard them as family members, it might actually win her points with the ex-president, who famously hates man’s best friend.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Jack Smith’s One Job Is to Take Donald Trump to Trial Before the Election. (The Supreme Court May Not Let Him.)

    Jack Smith’s One Job Is to Take Donald Trump to Trial Before the Election. (The Supreme Court May Not Let Him.)

    [ad_1]

    When the Supreme Court of the United States ruled for the independent counsel investigating Richard Nixon’s role in the Watergate break-in, the justices took 16 days to reach a decision from the moment they heard the case. A quarter century later, when the outcome of the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore came before it, the court resolved it in one day. In the current cycle, faced with the question of whether Donald Trump should be disqualified from the ballot on account of his actions and inactions on January 6, 2021, the justices likewise recognized that time was of the essence, issuing their ruling in his favor in 25 days, right in time for Super Tuesday.

    The throughline in these landmark cases is that the presidency and the rules that bind it require prompt resolution from the courts, lest voters’ faith in US democracy, their trust in American institutions, and their own democratic choices be irredeemably undermined. Yet the Supreme Court that Trump helped assemble isn’t displaying the same urgency in assessing whether a former president can be criminally indicted and tried over his role in disrupting the peaceful transfer of power to his rightful successor, Joe Biden. Jack Smith, the special counsel accusing the former president of subverting the will of the electorate as the ringleader of the civilian attack on the Capitol, has faced setback after setback in moving the case to trial—not attributable to any foot-dragging on his part, but the justices’ own.

    On Thursday, when the Supreme Court finally considers whether a “former President lacks absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for conduct involving his official acts,” as Smith framed the issue in his legal filing submitted ahead of the hearing, it will have been a long 147 days since that question has been lingering in the air, unresolved. It is also the last argument session for the current term, which concludes at the end of June. The clock began to run on December 1, 2023, when Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge overseeing Smith’s charges in Washington, ruled that Trump isn’t absolutely immune from prosecution. Recognizing the exigency of the legal issue, which the law calls a question of “first impression,” Smith raced to the Supreme Court in December to settle it. But the court turned him away and delayed. And then delayed. And then delayed some more. By its own insouciance, like it or not, a majority of the court has already ruled against Smith, chipping away at the likelihood of a swift trial—and the public’s interest in the case being resolved before undecided voters cast their ballots.

    As polling has shown, voters want a public trial before the November election. (By comparison, the ruling that resulted in Nixon’s downfall took all of 66 days to decide from the moment a lower court judge sided against him.) Smith and his secret weapon, Supreme Court advocate par excellence Michael Dreeben, are too polite and proper to accuse the justices of gumming up the works. And they care too much about appearing out of line to even suggest that the real reason for their urgency is the upcoming election. Instead, they walk a delicate line of focusing on the 2020 election and its aftermath, noting that Trump’s actions thenstrike at the heart of our democracy.” Without saying it outright, Smith suggests Trump should be tried now—giving voters all the information they need to make an informed choice—or else there’s no telling what he’ll do the next time key battleground states haven’t called their races on Election Day.

    Prosecutors and courts won’t save what remains of our democratic system, and people would be wise to not look to them to solve its deeper structural issues. But there’s value in naming and shaming ostensibly neutral political actors—as if judges were ever such a thing—because jurists across the spectrum care about the appearance that justices are fair and impartial and not in the tank for anyone. To this end, legal experts and advocates are already sounding the alarm about the Supreme Court’s scheduling delays—and its rush to judgment in some presidential cases but not others. One voting rights group, Common Cause, had the wherewithal to spell out, in no uncertain terms, that the justices are already tipping the scales in favor of Trump and that the public would be well within its right to view the justices as partisan hacks if they drag things out any further. “If this Court’s delay in disposing of this appeal has the result of preventing the case from going to trial prior to the election—or going to trial at all—it would give many Americans the sense that the Court, through its arbitrary and unexplained management of its own docket, has played partisan favorites in the midst of a heated presidential election,” the group wrote in a public filing.

    Notice that, up to this point, I have barely touched on Smith’s legal argument against immunity for Trump. It’s almost beside the point: As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the context of a different legal controversy a few weeks ago, “Procedure can be just as consequential as substance.” That is, Smith’s desire for a trial will rise or fall depending on how fast the Supreme Court decides he can proceed. Whether a majority of the justices want to be seen as enablers in denying voters the benefit of learning what a jury of DC residents experienced in their backyard on January 6 is entirely up to them.

    That’s not to say that substance doesn’t matter. In fact, from retired military officials to founding-era experts to constitutional scholars to former government officials, there is broad agreement that a president is not insulated from the reach of the criminal law for acts he took while in office—let alone for ordering the military to execute a political rival, as US circuit judge Florence Pan pointedly raised as a hypothetical question earlier this year. These and other friend-of-the-court briefs offer the justices an abundance of arguments, based on text, history, and tradition, for why presidents aren’t monarchs. Pan and her colleagues, like Chutkan before them, ruling unanimously, gave the justices plenty of material to work with.

    But this is not the time for an intellectual feast, to borrow a term from a Watergate-era player that conservatives revere. If the Supreme Court needs an elegant way to resolve this case—without getting into counterfactuals about whether a prosecutor with an axe to grind might vindictively criminalize future presidents once they’re not in power—it would be wise to follow the advice of many former Republican officeholders: treat the unlawful disruption of the peaceful transfer of power as a category of constitutional wrongdoing all its own, separate from other lawbreaking. Under this framework, the Supreme Court’s work is cut out for it. As these former officials put it, “A President does not have immunity to engage in federal statutory crimes to subvert presidential election results and prevent the vesting of executive power in the newly-elected President.”

    That once-in-a-lifetime standard, like this once-in-a-lifetime dispute arising from a once-in-a-lifetime day of infamy, should be an attractive solution for a Supreme Court that tends to make things worse when making history.

    [ad_2]

    Cristian Farias

    Source link

  • Anti-Trump campaign targets Michigan with voices of disaffected Republicans

    Anti-Trump campaign targets Michigan with voices of disaffected Republicans

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Shutterstock

    The Republican Voters Against Trump campaign is dedicated to opposing the former president.

    Tom Moore is a self-described “Reagan Republican” who loves his country but is worried about the future of democracy.

    After voting for Donald Trump in 2016, the soft-spoken probate court clerk from a small town near Grand Rapids no longer supports the former Republican president.

    Now he’s speaking out in hopes of convincing other conservatives to abandon Trump.

    Moore, 53, added his voice to Republican Voters Against Trump, a coalition dedicated to opposing Trump. The group is in the midst of a $50 million ad campaign featuring homemade testimonial videos of disaffected Trump voters.

    Moore says Trump acts more like an aspiring dictator than a public servant.

    “When he talks about retribution and going after his enemies, he’s coming across as a mafia boss,” Moore tells Metro Times. “This is the United States of America. I really love my country. I can’t have somebody using the power of the government to go after their enemies. That’s what Vladimir Putin does.”

    Many political analysts believe Michigan is one of a handful of states that will determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. That’s why Republican Voters Against Trump is making Michigan “a top priority.”

    “Michigan is a huge state for us — 100%,” Gunner Ramer, political director for the group, tells Metro Times.

    Ramer estimates that 15% of Republicans “are up for grabs” and can still be persuaded to abandon Trump. Many of them have college degrees, earn higher incomes, and live in the suburbs.

    While most Democratic groups focus on promoting President Joe Biden’s record in office, Republican Voters Against Trump criticizes the former president through the voices of his previous supporters. The group has collected more than 200 video testimonials and is urging others to add their voices.

    “The message is important, but the messenger is even more important,” Ramer says. “That’s why we have the testimonials. These are people who used to be Republicans, and they say, ‘I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The party left me.’ They don’t recognize the party of today. They are the difference makers.”

    In Moore’s nearly two-minute video, he talks about the importance of democracy and respecting the U.S. Constitution. He also points to Trump’s pro-Russia rhetoric and his failure to support Ukraine, a position that Moore believes will empower former Cold War foes.

    “What he did was repugnant, it was disgusting, and I want a president who’s going to ensure that freedom thrives throughout the world,” Moore says in his homemade video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Kd9MUZ5EU

    Republican Voters Against Trump is funded by the Republican Accountability PAC. Some of its main contributors are billionaires such as Reid Hoffman, Seth Klarman, and John Pritzker.

    “Our campaign is about maintaining and expanding on the anti-Trump campaign that propelled Biden to victory in 2020,” Ramer says. “There is a crucial segment that needs to be reminded why they and other like-minded people have rejected Trump in the past. This is the heart of the persuasive universe.”

    Other conservatives who want to add their voices to the testimonials can do so at rvat.org/add-your-voice.

    In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 0.3%, or fewer than 11,000 votes. In 2020, Biden beat Trump by 154,00 votes.

    This year, Biden is at risk of losing supporters over his handling of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. In Michigan’s Democratic primary election in February, a campaign to voice disapproval with Biden by voting “uncommitted” earned some 100,000 votes.

    Recent polls show Trump has a narrow lead over Biden in Michigan.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Banned From Setting Foot in 7,578.9 Square Miles of South Dakota

    South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Banned From Setting Foot in 7,578.9 Square Miles of South Dakota

    [ad_1]

    Fresh off a teeth-based scandal in which she appeared to do an infomercial for an out-of-state dentist office, Kristi Noem has been banned from setting foot in approximately 10% of the state she oversees as governor of South Dakota. And not in, like, a casual “please stay away, lady” sense but in a “could be thrown out for trespassing” manner.

    The Daily Beast reports that Noem, who is on a short list of possible Donald Trump running mates, has been officially legally barred from visiting three separate reservations that comprise roughly 10% of South Dakota’s 75,789.6 square miles of land area. On Tuesday, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council voted to bar her from its reservation, following Noem’s claims that Mexican drug cartels “have been successful in recruiting tribal members to join their criminal activity” and that “some tribal leaders…are personally benefiting from the cartels being here.” (She has also suggested that Native Americans don’t care about their children being successful.) The move by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe follows similar ones from the Oglala Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux.

    In a statement, Lakota People’s Law Project director Chase Iron Eyes said, “It’s not acceptable for Kristi Noem to lie repeatedly, stoke further division, and endanger the people of the sovereign nations which pre-exist the United States and South Dakota, which have illegally annexed and occupied sovereign territory of the Oceti Sakowin. Noem is now prohibited from entering sovereign territory of Sioux bands and is subject to detention and/or removal if she violates banishment orders, meaning the state’s governor is barred from entering more than 10 percent of all land her state claims is within its ‘borders.’” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairwoman Janet Alkire called Noem’s remarks “wild and irresponsible,” adding: “Rather than make uninformed and unsubstantiated claims, Noem should work with tribal leaders to increase funding and resources for tribal law enforcement and education.”

    A spokesman for the governor told The Daily Beast: “Banishing Governor Noem does nothing to solve the problem. She calls on all our tribal leaders to banish the cartels from tribal lands.”

    In February, Trump confirmed that Noem was on a short list of candidates he is considering adding to his 2024 ticket.

    Yes, you definitely hear a lot of Democrats insisting Donald Trump won the 2020 election

    X content

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

    GOP senator Tommy Tuberville now straight up calling for trans people to be imprisoned for using locker rooms

    X content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link