US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares121 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I had to get out’: the US military officers filing for conscientious objector status over Gaza

      by

      For Joy Metzler, a second lieutenant in the US air force, joining the military had felt like answering a calling. An adoptee from China who was raised in a conservative Christian family, she believed she owed a debt to the United States.But the Hamas attacks in Israel last year, and Israel’s war that followed, rocked Metzler’s convictions. Within months, she filed for conscientious objector status, one of a small number of US military personnel seeking to end their service because of their moral opposition to US support for Israel.“I didn’t know Palestine was a place before October 7,” Metzler told the Guardian.“All of a sudden it felt like a light clicking on for me.”As the war in Gaza enters a second year, some disillusioned members of the US military have turned to the Vietnam war-era conscientious objector policy to terminate their military service because of religious or moral convictions.There are few avenues to express dissent in the army. Earlier this year, Harrison Mann, an army officer assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency resigned in protest of US support for Israel. In a far more extreme gesture, 25-year-old US airman Aaron Bushnell died after setting himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington in February.The conscientious objector route is a seldom-invoked alternative that few service members are aware of – though some advocates say there has been an uptick in interest in the last year.The defense department referred questions about the number of conscientious objectors to each branch of the military. A spokesperson for the air force said that it has received 42 applications since 2021 and granted 36. Applications since 7 October “are on trend with pre-conflict averages”, the spokesperson added. (The army, navy, and Marine Corps did not respond to requests for comment.)But while the numbers remain relatively low, the war in Gaza is top of mind for those service members who have considered conscientious objector status this year, said Bill Galvin, a Vietnam-era objector and director of counseling at the Center on Conscience and War, one of a handful of groups that helps military members navigate the complex bureaucratic process.Galvin said his group helps roughly 50 to 70 applicants a year, across military branches, and that there’s been more interest than usual this year.The US has subsidized Israel’s war in Gaza to the tune of nearly $18bn over the last year, and is growing more deeply entangled as the conflict spills into the broader region. The Biden administration recently announced the deployment of 100 troops to Israel to man a missile defense system in anticipation of an escalation against Iran.“Almost everyone that I’ve talked to has at least cited what’s happening in Gaza as a factor in causing them to rethink what they’re doing,” Galvin said. “Some have actually said: ‘I know that the airplane that I’m doing maintenance on is delivering weaponry to Israel and so I feel complicit.’”Metzler said she was raised to believe that Israel is “the nation of God’s chosen people” and “terrorists were morally bankrupt people, who hate us because of who we are”.When the war in Gaza started, the images of Palestinian civilians’ suffering disturbed her, but it wasn’t until Bushnell’s self-immolation that she started reading about the history of the conflict and the role of the US government in it. “A lot of the things I had been told about the US’s role in the world were wrong”, she said.The war pushed Metzler to re-evaluate her time in the air force academy. She recalled laughing with her classmates as they watched footage of people running from a drone – she wasn’t sure in which country. She felt ashamed.“I had come out of the academy glorifying the act of warfare,” she said. “There’s a certain disregard for human life that you just have to have to be a member of the military.”Metzler learned about the conscientious objector option when she met a group of veterans at a pro-Palestine protest at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s completing a master’s in aerospatial engineering.The defense department first introduced the objector application process in 1962. Tens of thousands obtained the status over the following decade, as the Vietnam war, and a mandatory draft, sparked a mass antiwar movement. But since then, the number of applicants has fallen drastically, with many members of the military unaware that the option even exists.“It’s not common knowledge,” said Metzler. “You don’t want to advertise to the people that are working for you that there’s a legal way for you to break your contract if you start to feel weird feelings.”For the few who embark on it, the process is rigorous and lengthy – Metzler’s application filled 19 pages and she is still waiting for final word after filing it in July. Applicants must demonstrate that they are opposed to all wars and that their beliefs about military service changed after they enlisted. They have to interview with a chaplain and with a mental health professional before an investigating officer reviews their case and makes a recommendation to a committee that decides whether to grant the status. In the past, the military has approved about half the conscientious objector applications it received.Larry Hebert, another US senior airman, said the process was “excruciatingly long”.A six-year veteran, Hebert reached what he called “a moral break” as horrific images of Palestinian children resembling his own filled his TikTok.During a leave from his service in Spain in March, he traveled to Washington and staged a hunger strike in front of the White House to highlight the plight of starving children in Gaza. He later applied for conscientious objector status, but as the wait became unbearable, he filed for voluntary separation, another avenue to legally end one’s service. When that was rejected, he took off his uniform and refused to obey orders. He was disciplined and is currently waiting to be released on administrative grounds“I had to get out,” he said. “I didn’t want to be a part of any of it.”Juan Bettancourt, a US airman who also filed for conscientious objector status earlier this year, told the Guardian that many of the service members he has spoken with have fear of speaking out but are privately appalled by US support for Israel. “There’s a lot of deep-seated criticism and moral disgust at the complicity of our government in the genocide in Gaza,” he said.Because dissenting voices are so rare, the military just tries to “brush them under the rug”, Bettancourt added, noting that Bushnell’s self-immolation was portrayed by the air force exclusively as a matter of “mental health,” Bettancourt said.View image in fullscreenThe air force spokesperson wrote in a statement that the force is committed to ensuring its members “never feel compelled to resort to self-harm as a means of protest”. She added that policies like the conscientious objector process “provide a safe avenue for individuals to voice their concerns”.But service members say voicing dissent is not easy, with a number of them incorrectly believing it’s illegal for them to do so or fearing they may get into trouble for raising questions. (Metzler, Bettancourt and Hebert all stressed they are speaking for themselves, and not on behalf of the military.)To address that, a coalition of military personnel and veterans groups have launched an “appeal to redress” campaign, modeled after an earlier one during the Iraq war, as a way for service members to register their opposition with legislators to the US’s Israel policy.Metzler, Bettancourt and Hebert have also launched Servicemembers for Ceasefire, offering resources for fellow members who are opposed to the war, including an explanation of the conscientious objector process.Metzler stresses that they are not encouraging people to leave the military – they just want those with doubts to know that they have options.“I’m not saying you have to jump ship or refuse orders,” she said. “But at the very least, pick up a book, figure out what’s going on in the world, and understand the context of what you’re doing.” More

    • 225 Shares168 Views

      in US Politics

      Some Maga men seem to think women don’t have rights – starting with their wives | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      This week, the fundamentalist Christian pastor Dale Partridge argued in a series of tweets that “in a Christian marriage, a wife should vote according to her husband’s direction”. In other words, he pits his version of the religion against the constitution, which, since the 19th amendment passed a century ago, guarantees adult citizens the right to vote regardless of sex. He argues that in marriage, the husband annexes and owns his wife’s voice and rights, so that he in effect gets two votes and she gets none. The far-right preacher is not alone in this argument that women should not have the right to participate in public life and act on their views and values.Jesse Watters, the Fox News personality, has argued that if he found out his wife “was going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair”. It violates “the sanctity of our marriage; what else is she keeping from me?” Rightwing agitator Charlie Kirk also got upset about the idea that women might vote according to their agenda and not their husband’s.These men are offering warnings about what awaits women who marry men like them. Maybe it’s worth noting here that the rightwing opposition to marriage equality as same-sex marriage is in part because they’re opposed to marriage equality within heterosexual marriage. They want marriage to be an inherently unequal relationship with a subordinate wife and an entitled husband, a cozy little authoritarian regime at home.One of the things the 2024 US presidential election is about is whether or not women should be free and equal full citizens of this republic. Right now too many women are not – women in conservative states are denied reproductive rights, meaning jurisdiction over their own bodies and in some cases survival if an abortion or pregnancy becomes a medical emergency.But there’s another way that women are not free and equal which a few videos, a lot of tweets and reportedly some Post-It notes in women’s bathrooms have addressed – when women are afraid to vote for their chosen candidate, when their husbands or boyfriends are Trump supporters and they are Harris supporters. I just wrote a Guardian piece about the fact that so many women apparently are bullied over their political beliefs, despite assurances that there are ways to vote without being tyrannized, is troubling. It suggests that there’s a whole other kind of voting suppression and coercion that deserves investigation and raises questions about voting at home.The responses cited above confirm that a lot of women have good reason to fear their partners and hide their choices (and attention to the videos may be making Maga husbands even more angry and controlling). These Maga men don’t think that wives and girlfriends should be free to vote as they choose, nor that wives and girlfriends have the right to privacy in their political choices. They, in other words, do not believe she should have a choice. Which boils down to not believing she has rights, and if they don’t believe women have rights here, they don’t believe they have them in a lot of arenas.This aligns with the Republican party’s enthusiasm for ending reproductive rights and birth control and no-fault divorce and with Vance’s suggestion that women should stay in violent marriages. Vance’s campaign has said his remarks were taken out of context. It fits in with Trump’s ominous campaign speech on Tuesday in which he declared, “I want to protect the women of our country … I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not.”Those are alarming words from an adjudicated rapist who’s facing new sexual assault charges from both former model Stacey Williams and beauty pageant contestant Beatrice Keul. Or not facing, since neither of these stories have garnered much attention, Trump’s long history of adjudicated or alleged sexual abuse apparently being acceptable, denied, or both with his supporters.This election is about a lot of things, and whether women are endowed with certain inalienable rights is one of them.

      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility

      This piece was amended on 1 November 2024 to clarify that the 19th amendment was passed 104 years ago, not 124 More

    • 225 Shares168 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris will be a president for the labor movement – and for working women | Liz Shuler

      by

      The 6.6 million union women in this country – nearly half of today’s labor movement – know an ally when we see one. We know we have one in Kamala Harris.As president of the AFL-CIO, representing 60 unions across the United States in every sector of the economy, I’ve crisscrossed the country seeing our union members get out the vote for Harris in this election. So many of us – whether we’re retail workers, caregivers, teachers, nurses, construction workers or in any line of work – see in Vice-President Harris’s story something that mirrors our own.When I joined my union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in Portland, Oregon, I got used to being the only woman in a room full of mostly men. We organized new members, fought against corporate greed and achieved some hard-won gains at the statehouse, which put me on the path to leadership in the labor movement and to becoming the youngest-ever member of the AFL-CIO executive council.That’s when I crossed paths with Richard Trumka, a true labor legend. In 2009, when he decided to run for president of the AFL-CIO, Rich asked me to join his ticket as secretary-treasurer. Trumka was brilliant, forward-thinking and committed to making way for a new generation of labor leaders. He commanded respect as a Pittsburgh mine worker turned president of the United Mine Workers of America, with labor deep in his bones.Then, in August 2021, I got a phone call that changed everything. Rich had suffered a heart attack on a camping trip. He passed away suddenly – and my world was shaken. At the same time as I grieved the loss of Rich, I had to unexpectedly prepare to then lead the labor movement.One of the first people to reach out was Harris. She expressed her condolences, full of the same empathy and compassion that the whole country has now seen in her campaign. We talked about our common bond as women who had come up in male-dominated fields and what it means to her to be able to fight for working women as vice-president.Three years later, when she found herself in a similar moment that required her to step up, she did so admirably. It wasn’t her plan, but it’s what her love for this country required. Duty called, and Harris answered – and when I spoke to the vice- president again that day, I told her we’d be there for her every step of the way.She will lead an administration that honors with action the countless contributions of working women, just as she has for her entire career. As attorney general in California, she protected the jobs of nurses across the state and won back millions of dollars for women and workers who had been illegally underpaid by greedy companies. As a senator, she stood with fast-food workers by walking the picket line in our fight for a $15 minimum wage, and fought to end “right to work” laws.And for the past three-plus years, the vice-president has been a critical part of this historic pro-worker administration – passing massive legislation to create millions of union jobs and protecting millions of workers’ pensions. And when we elect her as president, Harris has outlined her bold vision to finally give care economy workers the pay and protections they deserve, while also lowering prices for all working families.That’s a stark contrast to the Project 2025 agenda of Donald Trump and JD Vance. They fundamentally disrespect women and devalue what we bring to the table. The men on the Republican ticket call us “childless cat ladies” because name-calling is all they can do in response to the electoral power we wield. They have no plan to support working women and our families – their only aim is to claw back the rights we’ve earned. We know that a second Trump term will bring the destruction of unions and contracts, the end of our rights in the workplace and control over our own bodies. From rolling back women’s economic opportunity to robbing us of reproductive freedom, the Trump–Vance platform would undo a century of progress.Because so much is at stake for women and all workers, I proudly worked with the affiliated union leaders of the AFL-CIO to present a unanimous endorsement from our federation for Harris, just 24 hours after she announced her candidacy.The AFL-CIO includes 60 unions of nearly 13 million workers in every sector of the economy – which also makes us the largest working women’s organization in the country. In these past months, I’ve been traveling the country and talking with them directly. I can assure you: we are ready to meet this moment. Our polling shows union women’s support for Harris – a margin of 32 points over support for Trump – is nearly three times the support of women overall.When you smash through a glass ceiling, you’re bound to suffer some wounds. Donald Trump shows his misogyny every day, but the vice-president dismisses these attacks as what we have all come to expect from him – and her focus is locked on our future. Kamala Harris is in the business of uplifting working women. In contrast, a second Trump term would mean catastrophe for the precious liberties that our foremothers have pried from the hands of men just like him.When working people need Harris’s help, she always answers the call. And working women have her back to make sure she continues to deliver the policies and support we need to create a just and equal society for women across the country.

      Liz Shuler is the president of and first woman to lead the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, representing 60 national and international unions and nearly 13 million workers. Her home union is IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers More

    • 163 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      European voters – even some on far-right – want Harris victory, poll finds

      by

      Most western Europeans – and even many who vote for far-right parties – would like Kamala Harris to win the US presidential election, polling suggests, but fewer are confident that she will and most expect violence if Donald Trump is not elected.The YouGov Eurotrack survey of voters in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Denmark found that the Democratic vice-president was the preferred winner in every country , with sizeable majorities in favour of Harris in all except Italy.Denmark’s voters were the most eager to see Harris in the White House at 81%, followed by 71% in Germany, 65% in Spain, 62% in France and 61% in the UK; the 46% of Italians who shared the same view was still almost double the percentage of those who instead opted for Trump.Unsurprisingly, support for the Democratic candidate was strongest among Europe’s left-leaning and centrist voters, reaching 80% to 90% among backers of parties such as the Social Democrats and the Greens in Germany, Sumar in Spain, Emmanuel Macron in France, the Social Democrats in Sweden, and the Liberal Democrats in the UK.However, those who recently cast their votes for traditional centre-right parties also preferred Harris over Trump, by often significant margins: 89% of Venstre voters in Denmark, 78% of Christian Democrat (CDU/CSU) voters in Germany, 66% of People party voters in Spain and 58% of Conservative party voters in Britain.And even among western Europeans who recently voted for far-right, nationalist and populist parties, sizeable numbers of respondents in all seven countries said they would rather see Harris elected president than her Republican rival.Trump was the favoured candidate of far-right voters in Spain, the UK, Germany and Italy, with 54% of Vox voters (against 23% who preferred Harris), 51% (27%) of Reform UK voters, 50% (36%) of Alternative for Germany voters in Germany and 44% (32%) of Brothers of Italy voters saying they wanted the former president to secure a second term.But among far-right Sweden Democrat voters, 49% said they would prefer Harris in the White House against 31% who favoured Trump, while 46% who voted for Marine Le Pen in the second round of France’s 2022 presidential election said they would rather the US Democratic party candidate won, against 31% who preferred Trump.Western Europeans were less sure, however, that their wish would become reality. The general expectation was that Harris would emerge victorious on 5 November, but the numbers were lower, ranging from 43% in Italy, 46% in Sweden and the UK, 47% in France and 52% in Spain to 61% in Germany.Asked whether they considered the outgoing Democratic president, Joe Biden, had done a great, good, average, poor or terrible job, the most common assessment across the countries surveyed was “average”, with percentages of people sharing that view ranging from 39% in Britain to 46% in Spain and 47% in Germany.They mostly think Harris would do a better job, with the most widely-held belief in each country being that the current vice-president would make either a “great” or a “good” head of state. About 37% of Italians held that view, climbing to 45% in Spain, 57% in Germany and a high of 64% in Denmark.Expectations were markedly worse for Trump. In each country, the most common view – ranging from 48% in Italy, through 59% in France and 69% in the UK to 77% in Denmark – was that the Republican candidate would make a “poor” or “terrible” president.If Trump is defeated at the ballot box next week, western Europeans expect violence. As many as 73% in Denmark think there will “definitely” or “probably” be violence if Harris wins, with between 62% and 67% sharing the same assessment in most of the other countries surveyed.Italy was again the exception, with the poll, carried out over a period of 10 days in mid-October, suggesting only 47% thought violence was likely. But there, too, the percentage was greater than the 32% who thought violence was unlikely. More

    • 150 Shares178 Views

      in US Politics

      US election answers the question: how do you spend a billion dollars?

      by

      It was one of the most striking images of the final full week of the presidential election campaign: a giant projection of Kamala Harris’s face on the 516ft-wide, 366ft-tall Las Vegas Sphere.At a reported $450,000 per day for what is believed to be the first political ad to appear on the futuristic new attraction, it was also one of the most expensive. But even at those rates, it barely made a dent in the staggering election war chest of almost $1bn that Harris has built since replacing Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket this summer.What the Vegas investment did answer, in part at least, was the question of how a campaign spends a billion dollars – an amount larger than the gross domestic product of at least 14 countries, according to the World Bank – in a single election season.Cash-hungry stunts such as this one in battleground Nevada are often targeted at undecided voters in specific swing states and regions; and Republicans and Democrats alike have shown a penchant for splashing out on costly endeavors to try to reach those who are still persuadable, and therefore the most high-value. Bang for the buck, in other words.As another example, the campaigns of Harris and Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, booked pricey prime-time spots during games involving Pennsylvania’s two professional NFL teams – the Philadelphia Eagles and Pittsburgh Steelers – on Sunday and Monday nights.Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral college votes could tip the election one way or the other, and with polling showing the state on a knife edge, Democrats in particular have made younger, male voters – a demographic they see as politically less engaged – a priority. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported, the Democratic National Committee paid “a six-figure sum” to fly pro-Harris banners over four NFL games involving teams from six of the seven key swing states, Pennsylvania among them.“It is an extraordinary amount of money that the candidates are raising, and there’s no shortage of places to spend it,” said Steve Caplan, a professor who teaches a course on political advertising at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.“Back in the stone age before the explosion of digital media, there were four TV networks in the US, and even after cable there was only so much what we would call inventory, or space, to get your message out.“Now, because of an explosion of channels and media outlets, there’s countless ways to spend that money, to slice and dice it by audience and by demographic, whether it’s on digital advertising, YouTube, Facebook and other social media. Interestingly, Snapchat has become a really big channel for Kamala Harris. It’s very cost-efficient and can reach younger voters.”Caplan said campaigns had invested in honing their digital content creation, from videos to podcasts, into a powerful and effective messaging tool.“There’s an entire infrastructure of producers, writers, editors and ad makers who just crank these things out for every conceivable audience, almost 24 hours a day for weeks and weeks,” he said.“We’ve also seen massive changes in the last few years where more consumers are cutting the cord: you get a smart TV and can stream through your provider. Those sort of platforms were really in their early stages just four years ago, and now they’ve become massive and very important. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars are now being spent on these platforms in swing states. It was virtually zero in 2020.”Other expenses that campaigns must cover include staff costs, printed materials and advertising, staging rallies and transportation. But broadcast advertising, especially television, remains king.Analytics company AdImpact says Democrats have spent $1.1bn on aired ads and future reservations alone since Harris became the candidate in July, $400m more than Republicans. Jointly, the two presidential campaigns have spent an eye-watering $2.1bn since March.For the entire election cycle, including Senate, House and partisan down-ballot races, plus ballot initiatives in many states, political advertising is expected to reach a record $10.7bn, a 19% increase from 2020, AdImpact says.Democrats have significantly out-raised and outspent Republicans in this cycle, disclosures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show, in both campaign funding and money raised by and for political action committees (Pac), which are allied with the presidential candidates but, by law, are set up and run independently of them.Up to 16 October, the most recent date for which returns were available, Democrats hauled in $1.05bn and spent $883m, leaving almost $120m in hand. Republicans, by contrast, raised $565m and spent all but $52.6m of it.When Pac money is included, however, the figures swell exponentially. While individual contributors are limited to $3,300 donations directly to the presidential candidates, there are no such limits for Pacs, which raised $13.5bn between January 2023 and the end of last month, according to the FEC.The rules, framed by the 2010 Citizens United v FEC supreme court ruling, allow corporations, special interest groups and wealthy individuals – such as the billionaire Elon Musk through his controversial Trump-aligned America Pac – to make eye-popping and almost unrestricted contributions, and to buy oversized influence in elections and their aftermath.“Citizens United, and subsequent other cases, opened the door for corporate contributions to related entities to campaigns, and allowed for what are commonly referred to as dark-money groups to spend money on politics without disclosing who that money came from,” said attorney Noah Bookbinder, president and chief executive of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew).“Wealthy people have always been a political force, but a small group of billionaires have become just a huge part of the machine, fueling political campaigns now, both in terms of giving to dark-money organizations and giving to Super Pacs. In the case of Elon Musk, his Super Pac is essentially operating as an unchecked piece of the Trump campaign apparatus.“It’s troubling because we don’t want this country to slide into being the kind of oligarchy you see in a place like Russia where a small number of very wealthy individuals have outsize influence over the people in charge.”Musk’s self-funded Pac reported $130m in receipts, the latest FEC disclosure showed. Democratic-aligned Pacs ActBlue, the Harris Victory Fund and the DNC, filled three of the top four places with receipts of more than $5bn. The leading Republican Pac, WinRed, reported $1.4bn.A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), meanwhile, shows Musk in third place among individual donors, behind banking and oil magnate Tim Mellon ($172m) and the Las Vegas-based Adelson family of hoteliers ($137m). All three donated to Republicans.In all, the ATF said, 150 billionaire families have so far contributed $1.9bn among them to Pacs supporting presidential and congressional candidates in the 2024 cycle, a 60% rise from the 2020 total given by more than 600 individual billionaires.“Billionaire campaign spending on this scale drowns out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans,” said David Kass, ATF’s executive director.Bradley Smith, professor at Capital University law school and FEC chair during the administration of George W Bush, said it was wrong to blame Citizens United for the cash swishing around in Harris’s, or Trump’s, coffers.“The vast majority of the money is coming from individuals subject to campaign finance limits. All the money Kamala Harris has raised directly in her campaign comes from individuals in amounts of $3,300 or less,” he said.“The law has played a part but more than that, it’s maybe a little bit of a cultural zeitgeist. People seem to really feel there’s a lot at stake in this election and one of the few ways people can participate in a campaign beyond voting is by giving money.“Most people don’t have time to go knock on doors, and a lot of it has been supercharged by the internet, which makes it really easy and low-cost to get small donors to contribute: ‘Click on this button, send us $20.’ Some of these people do that 30, 40, 50 times, and all of a sudden you’re talking real money.” More

    • 163 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      US presidential election updates: false videos of voter fraud spread as election approaches

      by

      The Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, has said a video that claimed to show a Haitian immigrant who voted multiple times is “false”, “targeted disinformation” and likely the work of a Russian troll farm.“As Americans we can’t let our enemies use lies to divide us,” said Raffensperger, who also asked that “Elon Musk and the leadership of other social media platforms … take this down.”Meanwhile, Musk has deputised his followers on X to spot and report any “potential instances of voter fraud and irregularities”. The election integrity community he spawned is rife with unfounded claims passed off as evidence of voter fraud.As Americans race towards the presidential election, claims of voter fraud – as well as real example of political violence – are growing, with burning vote boxes, attempts to steal ballots and online hoaxes all reported this week.Here is what else happened on Thursday:Kamala Harris election news and updates

      Kamala Harris said on Thursday that Donald Trump’s comment that he would protect women “whether the women like it or not” showed that the Republican presidential nominee does not understand women’s “agency, their authority, their right and their ability to make decisions about their own lives, including their own bodies”.

      Harris, who has been receiving a slew of celebrity endorsements, got an A-list boost from pop star and movie actor Jennifer Lopez in Las Vegas, after basketball great LeBron James endorsed her earlier in the day. “I like Hollywood endings. I like when the good guy, or in this case the good girl wins,” said Lopez.

      The cast of Marvel’s Avengers movies also came out in support of Harris. In a video posted first on Vanity Fair, actors Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Don Cheadle, Chris Evans, Danai Gurira and Paul Bettany playfully riffed on their respective characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe while encouraging viewers to vote for Harris.
      Donald Trump election news and updates

      Trump acknowledged that Elon Musk and Robert F Kennedy Jr could be “influential figures” in a potential second administration as he sat for a lengthy interview with conservative broadcaster Tucker Carlson in battleground state Arizona. Trump also called Liz Cheney a “war hawk” who should be placed in the line of fire to “see how she feels about it”. The former congresswoman has become one of his most prominent Republican critics.

      Trump made stops in New Mexico, a traditionally Democratic state, and the swing state of Nevada. Trump predicted he would defy experts who said campaigning in New Mexico was futile. “They all said ‘Don’t come. You can’t win New Mexico.’ I said, ‘Look, your votes are rigged. We can win New Mexico,’” Trump said.

      Trump’s refusal to publicly acknowledge his defeat in 2020 and suggestion that if he loses this year, he will once again claim fraud, have changed the lives of many formerly low-key election offices and secretaries of state nationwide, who now regularly face threats and harassment, Chris Stein reported from Arizona.

      Elon Musk failed to show up to a required hearing in a Philadelphia case challenging his $1m-a-day sweepstakes. His absence would have risked contempt of court had the case continued in Pennsylvania court, but it was moved to federal court in response to a motion filed by Musk’s attorneys, who did attend the hearing. No hearings were immediately scheduled in the federal case.

      Musk’s get-out-the-vote effort for Donald Trump has come under renewed scrutiny after paid canvassers reported not knowing beforehand that they were being hired to support the former president. Workers recruited by Musk’s America Pac to canvass in the battleground state of Michigan only discovered they were working for the Space X and Tesla entrepreneur to drum up voter turnout for Trump after signing non-disclosure agreements, Wired reported.
      Elsewhere on the campaign trail

      Practising witches from around the world gathered in Salem by the hundreds on Thursday night to honour Stormy Daniels at their annual “magic circle” ceremony recognising loved ones who have died. Daniels – the adult film actor who allegedly had an affair with Trump and was at the centre of his May criminal trial that led to the former president’s conviction on 34 felonies – was chosen to be honoured in the Halloween ceremony as the organisers believe that she has been the victim of a modern-day witch-hunt.

      White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two US government officials and an internal email obtained on Thursday by the Associated Press.
      Read more about the 2024 US election:

      Presidential poll tracker

      Harris and Trump policies

      What to know about early voting More

    • 163 Shares131 Views

      in US Politics

      White House press officials altered transcript of Joe Biden ‘garbage remark’ call: report

      by

      White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two US government officials and an internal email obtained on Thursday by the Associated Press.Biden created an uproar earlier this week with his remarks to Latino activists responding to racist comments at a Trump rally made by the comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who referred to the US island territory of Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.”Biden, according to a transcript prepared by the official White House stenographers, told the Latino group on a Tuesday evening video call, “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters – his – his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”The transcript released by the White House press office, however, rendered the quote with an apostrophe, reading “supporter’s” rather than “supporters,” which aides said pointed to Biden criticizing Hinchcliffe, not the millions of Americans who are supporting Trump for president.The change was made after the press office “conferred with the president,” according to an internal email from the head of the stenographers’ office that was obtained by the AP. The authenticity of the email was confirmed by two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.The supervisor, in the email, called the press office’s handling of the matter “a breach of protocol and spoliation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices.”“If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently,” the supervisor wrote, adding, “Our Stenography Office transcript – released to our distro, which includes the National Archives – is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff.”The edit of the transcript came as the White House scrambled to respond to a wave of queries from reporters about Biden’s comments. The president’s remarks clashed with vice-president Kamala Harris’ near-simultaneous speech outside the White House in which she called for treating Americans of differing ideologies with respect.The Trump campaign quickly moved to fundraise off the quote, and the next day, Trump himself held a photo op inside a garbage truck to try to capitalize on Biden’s criticism.Harris on Wednesday distanced herself from Biden’s comments – making the clearest break from the president since she took over for him at the top of the Democratic ticket just over three months ago. “Let me be clear,” she told reporters, “I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for.”According to the email, the press office had asked the stenographers to quickly produce a transcript of the call amid the firestorm. Biden himself took to social media to say that he was not calling all Trump supporters garbage and that he was referring specifically to the “hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump’s supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally.”The stenographers office is charged with preparing accurate transcripts of public and private remarks of the president for preservation by the National Archives and distribution to the public.The two-person stenography team on duty that evening – a “typer” and “proofer” – said any edit to the transcript would have to be approved by their supervisor, the head of stenographers’ office.The supervisor was not immediately available to review the audio, but the press office went ahead and published the altered transcript on the White House website and distributed it to press and on social media in an effort to tamp down the story.White House senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates that evening also posted on X the edited version of the quote and wrote that Biden was referring ”to the hateful rhetoric at the Madison Square Garden rally as ‘garbage.’”The supervisor, a career employee of the White House, raised the concerns about the press office action – but did not weigh in on the accuracy of the edit – in an email to White House communications director Ben LaBolt, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and other press and communications officials.“Regardless of urgency, it is essential to our transcripts’ authenticity and legitimacy that we adhere to consistent protocol for requesting edits, approval, and release,” the supervisor wrote.The supervisor declined to comment to the AP and referred questions about the matter to the White House press office.Asked to comment, Bates did not address the alteration of the transcript and said: “The President confirmed in his tweet on Tuesday evening that he was addressing the hateful rhetoric from the comedian at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally. That was reflected in the transcript.”House Republicans, meanwhile, were debating launching an investigation into the matter. House Republican Conference chairwoman Elise Stefanik, a Republican of New York, and House Oversight and Accountability chairman James Comer, a Republican of Kentucky, on Wednesday accused White House staff of “releasing a false transcript” of Biden’s remarks.In a letter to White House counsel Ed Siskel on Wednesday, they called on the administration to retain documents and internal communications related to Biden’s remarks and the release of the transcript.“White House staff cannot rewrite the words of the President of the United States to be more politically on message,” the lawmakers wrote to Siskel.Stefanik and Comer said the action could be in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978. More