Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares98 Views

      in Elections

      Canadians and Wayne Gretzky: Anatomy of a Relationship on Thin Ice

      by

      In tense political times, can “The Great One” be both a Trump supporter and a beloved hero in Canada? Some want him to pick a side. (Preferably the one to the north.)Where have you gone, Wayne Gretzky? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.In the meantime, a statue of Gretzky would have to do. The puck would drop soon, and outside the main doors to the arena, fans of the Edmonton Oilers swirled around the life-size bronze facsimile of Wayne Gretzky, Canada’s recently tarnished bigger-than-life hero.“I’d like him to be a little more Canadian,” said Rob Munro, a 43-year-old Oilers fan in a 1980s-era Mark Messier jersey. “I’m not anti-Gretzky, by any stretch. It’s just disappointing.”Mr. Gretzky, now 64, has long been frozen as an ideal — the ideal athlete, icon and Canadian. “The Great One,” he is still called, having led the Oilers to four Stanley Cup titles in the 1980s. He has stood as a national avatar for talent and decency for decades. “A true champion and gentleman of dedication and character,” reads a plaque at his bronze skates.Now Mr. Gretzky stands, silently, as a case study for what happens when heroes disappoint — and how quickly even the strongest allegiances can shift when stirred by Trumpian politics.“You were a great Canadian, but now you are not,” said Matthew Iwanyk, chief operating officer and host of Edmonton Sports Talk. “That is the majority sentiment you will get from Edmontonians.”Wayne Gretzky led the Oilers to four Stanley Cup titles in the 1980s, establishing himself as the greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League. David E. Klutho/Sports Illustrated, via Getty ImagesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Signals It Will End Challenge to Idaho Abortion Ban

      by

      The Trump administration is poised to roll back a Biden-era legal effort to blunt the effects of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.The Justice Department plans to drop a Biden-era challenge to Idaho’s law banning abortion in nearly all circumstances, a move that could end access to most abortions for women in the state whose pregnancy poses serious health risks, according to a court filing on Tuesday.The decision represents one of the first major steps under President Trump to roll back former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s efforts to blunt the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.The Trump administration plans to “dismiss its claims in the above case, without prejudice” as early as Wednesday, a lawyer with the department’s civil division wrote in an email to lawyers for the state’s largest hospital system.The action would effectively lift a federal appellate court’s hold on parts of the near-total ban, which was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature in 2020 in anticipation of the nullification of the national right to an abortion.Excerpts from the government’s email were included in a request in Federal District Court by the Boise-based St. Luke’s Health System for a new temporary freeze to give it time to adjust to the law, which bans all abortions other than those required to prevent a woman’s death, or in certain cases of rape or incest.Hospitals in Idaho need the temporary delay “to train their staff about the change in legal obligations” and to arrange logistics “to airlift patients out of state” if they require an abortion rendered illegal in Idaho, wrote Wendy J. Olson, a lawyer for the system.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Justices can find these speeches to Congress to be a trial.

      by

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. makes a point of going to the State of the Union address. But he does not enjoy it, once calling it “a political pep rally.”He was there again on Tuesday, accompanied by Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by President Trump; Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Barack Obama; and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018.“I’m not sure why we are there,” Chief Justice Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said in 2010, adding: “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think, is very troubling.”But the chief justice has continued to attend, while other members of the court have long ago stopped going. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has said that he could not abide “the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments,” has not gone for more than a decade.Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the addresses “very political events” and “very awkward,” adding, “We have to sit there like the proverbial potted plant most of the time.”He did speak, sort of, in 2010 in response to President Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United campaign finance decision, then just a few days old. He mouthed the words “not true.” He has not been back since.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      China Signals Confidence in Economy Despite Sluggish Growth and U.S. Trade War

      by

      As Chinese leaders meet in Beijing, they are striking a confident posture in the face of pressure and uncertainty from the United States.China’s top leaders sought to project confidence in the country’s economy on Wednesday despite sluggish growth, an escalating trade war with the United States and growing geopolitical uncertainty caused by the Trump administration.The government will aim to expand China’s economy by “around 5 percent” this year, said Premier Li Qiang, China’s highest-ranking official after Xi Jinping, at the opening of the annual session of the country’s rubber-stamp legislature.“Achieving this year’s targets will not be easy, and we must make arduous efforts to meet them,” Mr. Li said, acknowledging that the economy faced many challenges. But he struck a positive note about the country’s prospects, saying: “The underlying trend of long term economic growth has not changed and will not change. The giant ship of China’s economy will continue to cleave the waves and sail steadily toward the future.”The meeting in Beijing, called the National People’s Congress, is a tightly scripted political pageant, showcasing how Mr. Xi plans to lead China through what he has often described as “great changes unseen in a century” around the world.That vision includes lifting China’s technological prowess and self-reliance and beefing up its military capabilities so it can dominate the Asia-Pacific region. It is focused on strengthening the ruling Communist Party’s grip on power by making national security a priority for all facets of Chinese society.Security at the legislative session, which brings around 3,000 delegates to the Great Hall of the People, is also a top priority. Uniformed and plainclothes police and soldiers were posted at several checkpoints on major roads near the venue and on pedestrian bridges, while entrances at nearby subway stations were temporarily closed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares98 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Daredevil: Born Again’ Review: Can You Fight City Hall?

      by

      The sort-of-rebooted series from Marvel and Disney+ pits the blind vigilante against a chaos-inducing, revenge-minded office holder.In the new Marvel series “Daredevil: Born Again,” the gangster Wilson Fisk — a felon preoccupied with status, profit and revenge — embarks on a dark-horse, fear-mongering election campaign. It is for mayor of New York, not president of the United States, but the real-life resonance is hard to miss.And as the season, which premieres Tuesday on Disney+, proceeds through its nine episodes, the sense of familiarity only grows. The spuriously-populist Mayor Fisk rules by executive fiat, sidelines anyone who tries to rein him in and cultivates an atmosphere of violent chaos.Yes, Fisk, also known as the Kingpin, first became mayor of New York in the “Daredevil” comic books on which the series is based, and nothing in “Born Again” is at odds with his previous portrayals. But this is not a coincidence of character or timing. Long before the blind crime-fighting vigilante Daredevil intones, “This is our city, not his, and we can take it back,” it is clear that “Born Again” is summoning the specter of Donald Trump — perhaps as a statement of resistance, perhaps as a dramatic convenience, probably both.The problem is that in this case, real life has become stranger than fiction. “Born Again” is a deluxe comic-book adaptation, meticulously produced and filmed, and on that level it will delight a lot of people. But while it tries to get at something meaningful about social tumult, it does not rise above conventional comic-book ideas or emotions. It doesn’t carry the shock of the real.Within the multiverse of Marvel TV series, “Born Again” has a complicated provenance. “Daredevil” was one of the six shows made for Netflix, beginning a decade ago; it ran for three seasons and ended in 2018. After Marvel began making series for Disney+, the stars of the old show — Charlie Cox as Daredevil (real name Matt Murdock), and Vincent D’Onofrio as Fisk — popped up as supporting players in “Hawkeye” and “Echo,” biding their time.Now their new show is here, sort of a reboot and sort of a new season, with story lines that more or less track. If you haven’t checked in since the original “Daredevil” and certain things puzzle you, such as why Fisk is not in jail, then you may want to watch “Hawkeye” and “Echo.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares104 Views

      in Elections

      Dozens of Canadians Are Charged in $21 Million ‘Grandparent Scam’

      by

      The conspirators called older adults and posed as their grandchildren in need of bail money after a fake arrest, federal prosecutors said.They sat in call centers in Montreal and targeted older Americans, claiming to be grandchildren in need of bail money after an arrest. In all, federal prosecutors said, more than two dozen Canadians defrauded hundreds of vulnerable Americans out of $21 million over three years in what the authorities called a “Grandparent Scam.”On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Vermont announced that 25 Canadian nationals had been charged with conspiring to defraud Americans in 45 states. All of those accused are from Ontario or Quebec, and 23 had been arrested in Canada as of Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors said.According to prosecutors, the conspirators placed phone calls from centers in and near Montreal between the summer of 2021 and June 4, 2024, as part of the scheme.“Today’s arrests are the result of domestic collaboration as well as our critical international partnerships with our colleagues in Canada, Sûreté du Québec and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,” Michael J. Krol, a special agent for Homeland Security Investigations in New England, said in a statement on Tuesday. “Tackling transnational crime is one of our greatest priorities and we’re working hand-in-hand with our neighbors to dismantle organized criminal groups that threaten our safety and security.”The call centers were managed by five Canadians who were charged with money laundering in addition to the conspiracy charge that all of those charged face, according to court records.“These individuals are accused of an elaborate scheme using fear to extort millions of dollars from victims who believed they were helping loved ones in trouble,” Mr. Krol said in the statement.The conspirators also told the older adults that there was a “gag order” that prevented them from discussing their relative’s predicament with other family members, the U.S. attorney’s office said.The callers used a variety of tactics to obtain money from the older Americans, according to court records. The most common tactic was to pose as a young relative who had just been arrested after a car accident.After the victims turned over the money, it was eventually transmitted to Canada, the authorities said, noting that some of the transactions involved cryptocurrency.The 25 Canadians whose indictments were unsealed on Tuesday joined nine Americans who had previously been charged in the “Grandparent Scam,” the authorities said.Contacts for those charged or their lawyers were not immediately available.If convicted, the five managers would face a maximum of 40 years in prison, while the other alleged conspirators would face a maximum of 20 years in prison.The F.B.I. warned that grandparent schemes targeting older adults are common. One such scheme figured in the plot of the 2024 movie “Thelma,” starring June Squibb, which followed a 93-year-old woman on a journey to reclaim the money that had been stolen from her. More

    • 125 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Nicole Shanahan Puts Money Into Effort to Recall Karen Bass

      by

      Nicole Shanahan, who pumped millions into Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign last year and joined him on the ticket, is now backing an effort to remove Mayor Bass of Los Angeles.The first serious effort to recall Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles after the city’s devastating fires is taking shape, with financial backing from Nicole Shanahan, who was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate in last year’s presidential election.Ms. Shanahan’s involvement in the push to remove the mayor was disclosed on the bottom of a website for the Recall Karen Bass Committee, which listed her as the sole donor providing “major funding.” Ms. Shanahan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Ms. Shanahan, a onetime Silicon Valley lawyer, could bring financial firepower to the effort: She has a fortune in the realm of $1 billion that stems largely from her divorce settlement with Sergey Brin, the Google co-founder. She has also demonstrated a willingness to pour her wealth into politics, spending more than $15 million to support Mr. Kennedy’s campaign.Ms. Bass has come under pressure for her handling of the enormous wildfires that struck Southern California in January, destroying thousands of homes as fire hydrants ran out of water. She has also faced criticism for being out of the country when the fires hit.Those hoping to recall Ms. Bass must first clear several hurdles, however. Once their campaign is approved, they must gather 330,282 valid signatures of Los Angeles voters to qualify the question for the ballot. Ms. Shanahan said last month that she believed it would cost $4 million to collect 400,000 signatures.And in recent years, several attempts to remove officials in Los Angeles have failed to gather enough signatures to make the ballot. In 2022, a high-profile effort to recall George Gascón, the district attorney at the time, did not collect enough valid signatures. Attempts to recall Los Angeles City Council members have also failed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares93 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump’s Speech to Congress Tonight Isn’t a State of the Union Address

      by

      President Trump’s address later on Tuesday to a joint session of Congress may look like a State of the Union speech and sound like a State of the Union speech, but it will not be one — at least not technically.Under the Constitution, the president is mandated “from time to time” to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union.” None other than George Washington delivered the first such speech in 1790.Since then, however, the injunction has been interpreted in various ways. Some presidents, especially in the 19th century, delivered written addresses to Congress. Others did not deliver an annual address, while some also chose to speak at the end of their terms.But starting with former President Ronald Reagan in 1981, all presidents have delivered high-profile speeches to Congress shortly after their inauguration, and then again each year.Those speeches early in the term are not considered State of the Union addresses, and the American Presidency Project at U.C. Santa Barbara flags them with an asterisk in its roundup of presidential speeches to Congress.The organization argues that the distinction makes little difference.“The impact of such a speech on public, media and congressional perceptions of presidential leadership and power should be the same as if the address was an official State of the Union,” it said. More