Elections

Cuando el expresidente avala la violencia y propone usar al gobierno para atacar a sus enemigos, muchos de sus seguidores asumen que es solo una actuación.Uno de los aspectos más peculiares del atractivo político de Donald Trump es que mucha gente está feliz de votar por él porque simplemente no creen que hará muchas de las cosas que dice que hará.El expresidente ha hablado de militarizar el Departamento de Justicia y encarcelar a sus oponentes políticos. Ha dicho que purgaría al gobierno para expulsar a aquellos que no sean fieles y que tendría problemas para contratar a quien admitiera que las elecciones de 2020 no fueron robadas. Ha propuesto “un día realmente violento” en el que los agentes de la policía podrían ponerse “extraordinariamente duros” con impunidad. Ha prometido deportaciones masivas y ha predicho que sería “una historia sangrienta“. Y aunque muchos de sus partidarios se estremecen de la emoción ante semejante discurso, hay muchos otros que creen que todo forma parte de una gran actuación.Hay, por supuesto, pruebas de lo contrario. Durante el mandato de Trump, parte de su retórica autocrática se hizo realidad. Sí puso en marcha una prohibición musulmana; sí ordenó que se investigara a sus enemigos; sí fomentó una turba cuando las elecciones no se resolvieron a su favor. Pero en otros casos se vio obstaculizado, y gran parte de su parloteo de hombre fuerte se quedó en eso.Así es como algunos de sus votantes creen que podría ser otro mandato. Así es como racionalizan su retórica, concediéndole un beneficio inverso de la duda. Ellos dudan; él se beneficia.La semana pasada, en el interior de un pequeño recinto de música en el centro de Detroit, en pleno día, se podía ver este fenómeno con bastante claridad.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

James Morgan, who has been with the small New York theater company for 50 years, blamed the effects of a stroke for his behavior.The longtime leader of the York Theater Company, a small New York nonprofit known for its emphasis on musical theater, is acknowledging making “hurtful” comments about diversity that he says prompted his abrupt departure from the organization.James Morgan, who has served as producing artistic director of the York since 1979, and who has been with the company for 50 years, issued a letter on Monday saying that he had suffered a stroke in 2022, and attributed his behavior to that medical incident.“During a recent staff meeting, I responded to a colleague’s concerns about the diversity of our audiences in a way that was inappropriate and hurtful,” Morgan wrote in the letter. “The words came out — at a raised volume that has been one of the side effects of the stroke — differently than I intended them.”The York is a niche company, founded in 1969, that operates out of a church on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. During fiscal 2023, it had an annual budget of $2.2 million, according to a filing with the Internal Revenue Service; Morgan was paid a salary of $95,000.On Friday at 5 p.m., the company issued a news release saying that Morgan had “resigned from his duties, effective immediately.” Jim Kierstead, the board’s president, raised the diversity issue in his statement in the news release, saying, “We will soon be announcing plans for a future filled with diversity, talent, and musical theater in order to continue our long legacy of supporting artists of all backgrounds.”It quickly became clear that Morgan’s departure had been preceded by the resignation of Gerry McIntyre, the theater’s associate artistic director.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

Como fiscala general de California, Kamala Harris dio prioridad a la lucha contra los traficantes de drogas y personas. Es una parte de su biografía de la que no siempre ha hablado.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Cuando la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris ha prometido tomar medidas enérgicas contra la inmigración ilegal en la frontera sur del país, ha hecho hincapié en su experiencia como fiscala general de California en la persecución de grupos criminales que trafican con drogas, armas y personas entre Estados Unidos y México.“Fui la máxima responsable de la aplicación de la ley en el mayor estado del país, California, que también es un estado fronterizo”, dijo el jueves en un acto con votantes de Nevada. “Me enfrenté a organizaciones criminales transnacionales”.Los colaboradores y aliados de Harris afirman que su lucha contra la delincuencia transnacional arroja luz sobre cómo podría abordar los retos en la frontera. El tema está a la vanguardia de las preocupaciones de los votantes después de que los cruces fronterizos ilegales aumentaran durante los primeros años del presidente Biden en el cargo, y mientras el expresidente Donald Trump y sus aliados alimentan falsedades sobre bandas de inmigrantes y combinan la inmigración con la delincuencia.Ahora, su historial de persecución de la delincuencia transfronteriza está siendo examinado por demócratas y activistas de la justicia social y tergiversado por los republicanos. Y ya no está dispuesta a afirmar que apoya algunas de las tácticas que había adoptado. He aquí lo que hizo como fiscala general de California, por qué es importante y por qué podría tener implicaciones si gana en noviembre.Cambio de estrategiaHarris hizo de la lucha contra la delincuencia transnacional una prioridad en su campaña para fiscal general de California en 2010 y durante sus seis años en el cargo.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

Es difícil pensar en unas elecciones en las que tantos estados en disputa estuvieran tan igualados en las encuestas a estas alturas.Haiyun Jiang para The New York TimesLa contienda presidencial está cada vez más reñida.A tres semanas, el promedio de encuestas de The New York Times muestra que Kamala Harris y Donald Trump están esencialmente parejos en los siete principales estados disputados, con una diferencia de menos de un punto porcentual en cinco de ellos.Es difícil pensar en unas elecciones en las que tantos estados cruciales estuvieran tan igualados en las encuestas a estas alturas.Según nuestros cálculos, 2004 fue la última elección en la que las encuestas mostraban a un candidato encabezando los estados decisivos por alrededor de un punto: la ventaja de George W. Bush en estados como Ohio y Wisconsin. Pero incluso entonces tenía una ventaja perceptible, aunque estrecha, en el Colegio Electoral: John Kerry necesitaba arrasar en la mayoría de los estados reñidos para imponerse. Las encuestas no podían calificarse de empate, como las de hoy.¿Antes de 2004? Las elecciones de 2000, por supuesto, pero los sondeos no fueron tan parejos como el resultado real. Si buscamos aún más atrás, es difícil encontrar algo. Nunca ha habido unas elecciones con tantas encuestas que indiquen una contienda tan reñida.¿Está la contienda realmente estrechándose?Los promedios de las encuestas están más parejos que nunca, pero eso no significa necesariamente que haya habido un gran cambio —o incluso ningún cambio— en la contienda.Los mayores cambios en el promedio esta semana se han producido en Míchigan y Wisconsin. Y en este caso, “mayores” no significa “grandes”. Trump ganó un solo punto según nuestros promedios, el tipo de movimiento que puede parecer radical en unas elecciones tan divididas y estables, pero que no habría sido digno de mención en ciclos anteriores. También es un cambio lo suficientemente pequeño como para que una o dos encuestas de alta calidad que favorezcan a Harris la próxima semana puedan hacer que sus números vuelvan a subir rápidamente. De hecho, fueron solo una o dos encuestas de alta calidad las que hicieron bajar sus números. More

Kamala Harris’s campaign is pushing a version of the credit intended to fight child poverty, while Donald J. Trump sees the program primarily as a tax cut for people higher up the income scale.Vice President Kamala Harris has made an expanded child tax credit central to her campaign, and former President Donald J. Trump boasts, “I doubled the child tax credit.” With a quick look, voters might think the child-rearing subsidy the rare matter on which the rival candidates agree.It is anything but. The common vocabulary masks profound differences over which parents the government should help and what constitutes fairness for children in a country of great wealth and inequality.Mr. Trump sees the $110 billion program mostly as a tax cut, which as president he increased to $2,000 per child and extended to high-income families. But his policy denies the full benefit to the poorest quarter of children because their parents earn too little and owe no income tax.Ms. Harris would expand the tax cuts and add a large anti-poverty plan, sending checks to millions of parents with low pay or no jobs. That would turn a tax cut into an income guarantee, in a landmark expansion of the safety net.Supporters of the Harris plan say the payments would shrink child poverty. Critics see an expensive welfare scheme that could weaken the willingness to work.“They’re both talking about something called the ‘child tax credit,’ but they’re not at all talking about the same policy,” said Scott Winship of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.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

Tips from a “Saturday Night Live” cast member, a ballet dancer and a makeup artist.Beauty School answers common beauty questions with help from creative people who’ve become experts on the job. Sign up here to find us in your inbox once a month, and send any questions of your own to [email protected]. Find more of T’s beauty coverage here.“Blush is trending,” says the makeup artist Ernesto Casillas, referring to the product’s ongoing popularity on TikTok. “A lot of people are calling it ‘blush blindness’ when someone overapplies it.” For advice on creating a more nuanced look, we turned to three people well attuned to the product’s capabilities: the comedian, actress and “Saturday Night Live” cast member Chloe Fineman, known for her uncanny impressions; the American Ballet Theatre principal dancer James Whiteside, who returns to the stage this month for the company’s fall season; and Casillas, whose clients include the actresses Zendaya and Ayo Edebiri. Here are their tips.Clockwise from top: Charlotte Tilbury Cheek to Chic in Pillow Talk Original, $42, charlottetilbury.com; Tata Harper Cream Blush in Peachy, $45, tataharperskincare.com; Victoria Beckham Beauty Cheeky Posh in Fever, $42, victoriabeckhambeauty.com.Photo: Justin Bettman. Products courtesy of the brandsChloe Fineman, 36, comedian and actressBlush is a survival tool for me, in terms of being like, “I’m healthy! I got sleep! Right…?” I’ve tried almost every cream blush. I’m packing at least two versions in my purse right now. My tried-and-true is Tata Harper’s Peachy, which is also the name of my dog. The bronzy, peachy color makes me look not ill. And Victoria Beckham has amazing stick blushes. I follow the makeup artist Jo Baker and she used this bright orange one on [the actress] Daisy Edgar-Jones. I do have to blend it out, but I like the way it looks.I spread one or two fingers of blush on the apples of the cheeks, then continue up to my temples. If I have any left over, I put it on my eyelids. And if I want to be like all the makeup girlies, I put it on my nose. I might as well look like the sun touched me for once in my life in New York.I have the best makeup artist, Daniela Zivkovic, [for “Saturday Night Live”]. For Saturdays, we do powder blush [which can be set] because we have makeup at 8 p.m. that has to last us for the live show at 11:30. Charlotte Tilbury has a highlighter-bronzer that we use; she also makes lovely blush-highlighter palettes. I love Charlotte Tilbury. Her videos are so charming and iconic. Today a package came, and it was a wig like Charlotte’s hair that I forgot I ordered at three in the morning, being like, “Oh, I should do an impression.”Clockwise from top left: Sephora Collection PRO Blush Brush #93, $34, sephora.com; Fenty Beauty Cheeks Out Freestyle Cream Blush in Petal Poppin, $26, fentybeauty.com; Sephora Collection Colorful Blush in Over the Top, $14, sephora.com.Photo: Gregg DeGuire/Variety, via Getty Images. Products courtesy of the brandsJames Whiteside, 40, dancer and choreographerI use Sephora’s Colorful Blush for pretty much everything — for the stage, and if I want to look polished for red-carpet events. I keep repurchasing because it’s so easy and cheap. I call it Sunburn, and I put it anywhere I would get a burn: my cheeks, the bridge of my nose, my brow bone. Bella [dancer Isabella Boylston] makes fun of me because it’s such an extreme color — it’s called Over the Top — but I apply it really sparingly with an angled brush.Onstage I also use a tritone bronzer that has highlight, shadow and sort of a rouge. I apply it at the top of my forehead, under my cheekbones — all over, basically — to give myself more of a living-creature look as opposed to pale zombie, which is very easily achieved under the bright stage lights. [A good option is Guerlain’s Terracotta Light.]There’s also a Fenty Beauty cream blush that I adore. It’s a standard grannyish blush color — very natural-looking, no shimmer.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

The ruling sets the stage for yet another trial related to the scandal involving Silvio Berlusconi, the former prime minister of Italy who died last year.After 14 years, the 21 women accused of helping to cover up Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s evening bacchanals had hoped that their long legal saga over the so-called “Bunga Bunga” scandal might be over.But Italy’s Supreme Court overturned their acquittals, ruling on Monday that the women could be retried, according to the general prosecutor on the case — a setback for the women and an indication of how large the shadow of Mr. Berlusconi, who died last year, still looms in Italy.The court decision sets the stage for yet another trial related to a scandal that gripped Italy and set off an international tabloid frenzy in 2010, when news emerged about parties Mr. Berlusconi was hosting at his villa near Milan.In the first trial, Mr. Berlusconi was accused of paying for sex with a 17-year-old woman at one of the parties and abusing his office to cover it up. Both the woman and Mr. Berlusconi denied it. Mr. Berlusconi was initially found guilty, but was later acquitted because of a lack of evidence that he was aware at the time that the teen was underage. In the second trial, several of Mr. Berlusconi’s associates were convicted of aiding and abetting prostitution by procuring women for the bacchanals, which became known as the “Bunga Bunga parties.”The third trial involved 21 women accused of accepting hush money to lie and protect Mr. Berlusconi in the earlier court proceedings. A lower court had acquitted them on procedural grounds, but prosecutors in Milan appealed the verdict.The deputy prosecutor general at the Supreme Court, Roberto Aniello, confirmed that Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome had ruled on Monday that the 21 women could be retried. The court has not yet explained its decision; that typically follows in a statement.An appeals court in Milan is set to take up the case, though it was not immediately clear when that would take place.The New York Times reached out to several of the women, who were not immediately available for comment. Some of the 21 have, in the past, admitted to taking money or expensive gifts from Mr. Berlusconi, but said it was not intended to buy their silence. More

More from our inbox:Breast Cancer ScreeningWalz’s MisstepsMental Health Support for SchoolchildrenTo the Editor:Re “ChatGPT’s Bedside Manner Is Better Than Mine,” by Jonathan Reisman (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 9):Dr. Reisman notes that ChatGPT’s answers to patient questions have been rated as more empathetic than those written by actual doctors. This should not be a call for doctors to surrender our human role to A.I. To the contrary, we need to continue to improve our communication skills.For the past 25 years, I have been facilitating seminars in doctor-patient communication. The skills to communicate bad news listed by Dr. Reisman are exactly the techniques that we suggest to our medical students. However, doctors can avoid the temptation to surrender their “humanity to a script” as if it were “just another day at work.”Techniques are a valuable guide, but the real work consists of carefully listening to the responses and their emotional content, and crafting new words and phrases that speak to the unique patient’s confusion, fear and distress.In my experience, patients know when we are reciting a script, and when we are paying attention to their thoughts and feelings. Unlike A.I., and especially when conversations are matters of life and death, we can reach into the depths of our humanity to feel and communicate empathy and compassion toward our patients.Neil S. ProseDurham, N.C.To the Editor:Mention the words “A.I.” and “doctoring” to most physicians in the same sentence, and the immediate reaction is often skepticism or fear.As Dr. Jonathan Reisman noted in his essay, A.I. has shown a remarkable ability to mimic human empathy in encounters with patients. This is one reason many practicing physicians worry that A.I. may replace doctors eventually.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