Elections

When my family moved back to the United States from East Africa in the mid-1980s, one might have thought it was a peak time of compassion for people suffering in faraway places. A glittering group of music superstars had recorded “We Are the World,” a smash hit charity single to raise money and awareness for the victims of a brutal famine that had gripped my mother’s home country, Ethiopia.But when I told my new grade school classmates of my origins, I was met with cruel taunts. I was awfully fat for an Ethiopian, one said with a snigger. Must be nice to be able to have access to so much food, another joked. At the time, this was puzzling and upsetting — I had moved from Kenya, not Ethiopia, to my father’s home state, Minnesota. But the facts didn’t matter. These unkind remarks did the job the bullies hoped they would: They made me feel like an alien, an unwelcome stranger.We live in even crueler times now, with humanitarian catastrophes unfolding on several continents, but the response of the wealthy world has been to demand tighter borders and higher fences. There is no blockbuster charity single raising money for starving refugees from the civil war raging in Sudan. And now, the cruel taunts come not just from schoolyard bullies and cranks on the political fringes, but from the lips of a man who stood on the presidential debate stage on Tuesday, a former president who once again has a coin-flip shot at regaining the most powerful office in the world.And so I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised by that lowest of moments at the debate, when Donald Trump repeated a vile, baseless claim that Haitian immigrants were killing and eating household pets in Springfield, Ohio. This allegation appears to stem from viral social media posts and statements at public meetings. It was picked up by some of the most rancid figures at the fringe of the MAGA-verse, then quickly hopscotched from there to a social media post by Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, and finally to the debate stage, sputtered by Trump himself.There is a temptation to treat this as yet another Trump rant, a disgusting lie about immigrants like the ones he uttered as he began his presidential bid in 2015, describing migrants crossing the border with Mexico as rapists and criminals. He’s done it time and again since. He is the master of exaggerated and fabricated claims against the boogeymen, a skill he has used for decades to polarize public opinion and raise his profile and power at the expense of others.But there is something particularly insidious about this claim, uttered at this time, from that stage. Food and pets are, to use a Freudian term, highly overdetermined symbols in our political life. They are capable of receiving and holding a multiplicity of very potent meanings, transmitting deep messages about identity and belonging.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 agreement ends a two-week dispute that had prevented many of DirecTV’s 11 million customers from watching programs like Monday Night Football.Disney and DirecTV said on Saturday that they had reached an agreement that will allow channels like ESPN and ABC to return to the satellite TV service.The deal ends a two-week blackout that prevented many of DirecTV’s 11 million customers from viewing programs like Monday Night Football and the U.S. Open tennis tournament as the two sides haggled over terms of a new distribution agreement.The pact was struck in time to avoid alienating viewers who wanted to watch college football on ESPN and the Emmys, which will air on Sunday on Disney’s ABC broadcast network.“DirecTV and Disney have a longstanding history of connecting consumers to the best entertainment,” the companies said in a joint statement. “And this agreement furthers that commitment by recognizing both the tremendous value of Disney’s content and the evolving preferences of DirecTV’s customers.”One of the big sticking points in negotiations over the last week was whether Disney — which spends lavishly on shows for the Disney+ streaming service — could continue to charge DirecTV high rates for traditional TV content. DirecTV argued that Disney was shortchanging its traditional TV customers by expecting the same fees for what is effectively less content.Under the terms of the new agreement, Disney’s streaming services, including Disney+, will be offered to DirecTV customers in select packages. That compromise has now become common in cable deals, with similar agreements reached by the cable giant Charter with Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery.The dispute between DirecTV and Disney underscored the harsh economic realities experienced by satellite TV networks, which do not have products like broadband internet that make their services harder to abandon.The deal will also allow DirecTV customers to watch the Disney Channel, Freeform, the FX networks and the National Geographic channels. Though the contract is still being finalized, service was restored on Saturday morning to DirecTV customers.DirecTV’s agreement with Disney comes amid reports that the company is working on a much larger deal that would transform the company. Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that DirecTV is negotiating a merger with Dish, another TV provider, in a deal that would create a satellite TV giant. More

During the presidential debate on Tuesday, Donald Trump was pressed on the details of his plan to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “better.” The question should’ve been a softball. After all, Mr. Trump has been promising the American people a plan for nine years, so he’s had time to prepare. His answer? After ducking and weaving, he came up with: “I have concepts of a plan.” Uh, that’s not a plan.Plans translate values into action. They test the quality of the ideas and the seriousness of the people advancing them. Plans reveal for whom candidates will fight and how effective they are likely to be. And in a presidential race, if either party’s nominee is asked about his or her plans for something as fundamental as health care, voters should get a straight answer.The problem is not that Mr. Trump can’t think up a way to put his values into action. The problem is that when he and other Republican leaders produce plans with actual details, they horrify the American people.Mr. Trump’s health care values have been on full display for years. In 2017, Republicans controlled Congress, and their first major legislative undertaking was a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Every time they drafted something, independent experts would point out that their plan would toss tens of millions of people off their health insurance, jack up premium costs and slash benefits for those with ongoing health problems.After months of wrangling, Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers voted a bill through the House to repeal the A.C.A. That night, Mr. Trump hosted a party at the White House to celebrate their big step toward taking away health care from millions of people.A.C.A. repeal then moved to the Senate. Republicans had the majority, so if they all stuck with Mr. Trump, the A.C.A. would die. As senators gathered to vote, nearly all of the Democrats — including Kamala Harris, then a senator from California — remained standing, too anxious even to sit down. We murmured stories about who would be affected by this vote: the uncle who had cancer and would lose coverage, the kid diagnosed with a heart anomaly whose parents wouldn’t be able to find new insurance, the college students who would just go without coverage and hope they didn’t fall on ice or get in a car accident. We felt the weight of people’s lives on the line.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

Election wagers have long been banned in the United States. But for a brief period on Thursday, a regulated prediction market was permitted to offer them to Americans.As pundits were sharing sometimes wildly different takes on how Kamala Harris and Donald Trump performed in Tuesday’s presidential debate, traders were putting money on which candidate would win the election. Those bets also told a story about the debate: On both PredictIt and Polymarket, two so-called prediction markets, the odds were swinging toward Harris.Screenshots of the markets were seemingly everywhere — across social media, embedded in news articles, and cited by television anchors.You’ll be hearing more about them. Platforms that facilitate wagers on politics have largely operated offshore because they were prohibited in the United States. But on Thursday, a company called Kalshi was briefly allowed to take bets from Americans on November’s elections.Within hours of a U.S. District Court giving Kalshi the green light to offer election contracts — which regulators had tried to block — the company had posted what its C.E.O. called “the first trade made on regulated election markets in nearly a century.”Shortly after that, the popular trading platform Interactive Brokers announced that it planned to allow similar wagers.A federal appeals court has since temporarily blocked the bets. But the U.S. District Court decision has essentially opened the door for legal gambling on politics.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

Since the populist surge that gave us Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump, politics in the Western world has polarized into a distinctive stalemate — an inconclusive struggle between a credentialed elite that keeps failing at basic tasks of governing and a populist rebellion that’s too chaotic and paranoid to be trusted with authority instead.The 2024 campaign in its waning days is a grim illustration of this deadlock. We just watched Kamala Harris, the avatar of the liberal establishment, smoothly out-debate Trump by goading him into expressing populism at its worst — grievance-obsessed, demagogic, nakedly unfit.But her smoothness was itself an evasion of the actual record of the administration in which she serves. Harris offered herself as the turn-the-page candidate while sidestepping almost every question about what the supposed adults in the room have wrought across the last four years.A historic surge in migration that happened without any kind of legislation or debate. A historic surge in inflation that was caused by the pandemic, but almost certainly goosed by Biden administration deficits. A mismanaged withdrawal from Afghanistan. A stalemated proxy war in Eastern Europe with a looming threat of escalation. An elite lurch into woke radicalism that had real-world as well as ivory-tower consequences, in the form of bad progressive policymaking on crime and drugs and schools.All of this and more the Harris campaign hopes that voters forgive or just forget, while it claims the mantle of change and insists that “we’re not going back.”Undecided voters in a polarized America generate a lot of exasperated criticism from both sides of the partisan divide. And no doubt it will exasperate many readers when I suggest that the choices presented in this election make indecision entirely understandable.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

Readers discuss Nicholas Kristof’s column urging Democrats not to demean Trump supporters.To the Editor:Re “Here’s Why Democrats Shouldn’t Demean Trump Voters,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Sept. 1):I take exception to Mr. Kristof patronizing Democrats and instructing them how to address Donald Trump’s supporters. Yes, there are those supporters who have suffered addiction and hardship, but that this might logically lead them to support a criminal and potential dictator who gives no reason for a rational person to believe he would serve their interests is simply a bridge too far.Besides, many Trump supporters can’t even plead hardship as an excuse. They include the wealthy, the angry and the just plain ignorant.Robert MillsapWoodland, Calif.To the Editor:I appreciated Nicholas Kristof’s measured view in this column, though I know many people did not.It is far easier to diminish Trump supporters, to view them as morally degraded and backward, than it is to focus on the very real issues that animate them. Like those on the political left, they are troubled by the state of our country, by the widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots, and by the growing sense that most of us are getting shafted for the benefit of a few. They see the American system as wildly off course and in desperate need of fixing.These views are familiar to Democrats. Indeed, I suspect that there is quite a lot more common ground than we realize.These are not fundamentally bad people. Most are not bigots. Most are not xenophobes. So why on earth do we call them these things? All it does is ensure that they remain in the arms of a man who has already shown his greatest concern is power — and holding onto it.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

Scroll down for hints and conversation about the puzzle for Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024.Good morning, dear connectors. Welcome to today’s Connections forum, where you can give and receive puzzle — and emotional — support.Be warned: This article includes hints and comments that may contain spoilers for today’s puzzle. Solve Connections first, or scroll at your own risk.Connections is released at midnight in your time zone. In order to accommodate all time zones, there will be two Connections Companions live every day, dated based on Eastern Standard Time.If you find yourself on the wrong companion, check the number of your puzzle, and go to this page to find the corresponding companion.Post your solve grid in the comments and see how your score compares with the editor’s rating, and one another’s.Today’s difficultyThe difficulty of each puzzle is determined by averaging the ratings provided by a panel of testers who are paid to solve each puzzle in advance to help us catch bugs, inconsistencies and other issues. A higher rating means the puzzle is more difficult.Today’s difficulty is 2.9 out of 5.Need a hint?In Connections, each category has a different difficulty level. Yellow is the simplest, and purple is the most difficult. Click or tap each level to reveal one of the words in that category. 🟨 StraightforwardDWELL🟩 ⬇️DWINDLE🟦 ⬇️DWEEB🟪 TrickyDWARFFurther ReadingWant to give us feedback? Email us: [email protected] to go back to Connections?Want to learn more about how the game is made?Leave any thoughts you have in the comments! Please follow community guidelines:Be kind. Comments are moderated for civility.Having a technical issue? Use the Help button in the Settings menu of the Games app.Want to talk about Wordle or Spelling Bee? Check out Wordle Review and the Spelling Bee Forum.See our Tips and Tricks for more useful information on Connections.Join us here to solve Crosswords, The Mini, and other games by The New York Times. More

Casey Mahoney, 48, of Los Angeles, illegally paid “body brokers” to lure clients, a federal jury found.A California man who operated addiction treatment facilities in Orange County was convicted this week of paying nearly $3 million in illegal kickbacks for referrals of patients to his facilities, according to federal prosecutors.From at least October 2018 until December 2020, the man, Casey Mahoney, 48, of Los Angeles, paid about $2.87 million to “so-called ‘body brokers’” who gave thousands of dollars to patients to coax them into Healing Path Detox L.L.C. in Huntington Beach and Get Real Recovery Inc. in San Juan Capistrano, two treatment centers Mr. Mahoney operated, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said in a statement on Friday.Some of the money that the body brokers gave to patients was used by the patients to buy drugs, the department’s statement said.After a nine-day trial, a federal jury in Los Angeles found Mr. Mahoney guilty on Wednesday of one count of conspiracy related to offering illegal remunerations for patient referrals, seven counts of illegal remunerations for patient referrals and three counts of money laundering, prosecutors said. He was acquitted on one count of aiding and assisting the preparation of a false tax document.The money-laundering charges, the most serious on which Mr. Mahoney was convicted, each carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Sentencing is set for Jan. 17, 2025.Treatment facility operators may pay a group like a marketer or an advertiser to promote their services to patients. But the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 prevents the operators from paying body brokers kickbacks based on how much revenue the patients they referred brought in, as Mr. Mahoney did, according to the indictment.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