Biden, Joseph R Jr

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares16 Views

    Democrats Split as Senate Rejects Bills to Block Weapons Transfers to Israel

    by

    The legislation failed resoundingly but highlighted the Democratic divide over whether the United States should withhold some weapons to register its disapproval of Israel’s war tactics.The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a series of three resolutions to block weapons transfers to Israel, shutting down an effort by progressive Democrats to curtail American support for the war in Gaza.The lopsided votes were mostly symbolic given the strong support for Israel on Capitol Hill. But they highlighted deep divisions among Democrats over President Biden’s continued military support for Israel despite ample evidence that its military has committed human rights violations during its offensive against Hamas, including killing civilians and blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid.The measures were offered by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s tactics in the war. In the days since the election, he has also argued that the administration’s Israel policy, and Vice President Kamala Harris’s defense of it on the campaign trail, were partially to blame for the Democrats’ election losses.“You cannot condemn human rights around the world and then turn a blind eye to what the United States is now funding in Israel — people will laugh in your face,” Mr. Sanders said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.He argued that the United States was breaking its own laws by continuing to send Israel weapons when it was using them to target civilians. The laws say that recipients of weapons made in the United States must use them in accordance with U.S. and international law and not impede the flow of humanitarian aid into war zones.“If we do not demand that the countries we provide military assistance to obey international law, we will lose our credibility on the world stage,” Mr. Sanders said.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

    More stories

    • 113 Shares24 Views

      in Elections

      Hezbollah’s Rockets Remain a Threat Despite Israel’s Crushing Offensive

      by

      Israel’s failure to tamp down the short-range rocket threat has put pressure on its government to embrace a cease-fire.Hezbollah has suffered crushing setbacks in Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon and cross-border incursion.The Israeli operation has succeeded beyond U.S. officials’ expectations: Israel has severely diminished Hezbollah’s ability to strike deep into the country and significantly weakened its political and military leadership.But Israel has failed to eliminate the short-range rockets that the Lebanese militia fires into the northern half of the country, according to U.S. officials. As long as the rocket fire continues, Israel’s campaign is unable to fulfill one of its main goals — securing northern Israel so that tens of thousands of residents can return home there.Hezbollah began rocket strikes on northern Israel in support of its ally Hamas in Gaza after Hamas attacked Israel last October. Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah, at least in part, because of political pressure from Israelis who were evacuated.Now, Israel’s failure to tamp down the short-range rocket threat has put pressure on its government to embrace a cease-fire and at least a temporary halt to hostilities.While the Biden administration has struggled to reach a cease-fire deal between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, officials familiar with the negotiations with Hezbollah say there is a realistic chance for a deal covering Lebanon. Amos Hochstein, a White House envoy, arrived in Beirut on Tuesday to try to finalize some of the details and said this was “a moment of decision-making.”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 Shares35 Views

      in Elections

      COP29 Climate Talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, Head Into Final Stretch

      by

      Senior ministers are arriving in an effort to break a deadlock over the summit’s main goal: funding to help lower-income countries hit hard by global warming.More than halfway through the United Nations climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, negotiators from nearly 200 countries remain far apart on a number of the key issues up for debate.As nations try to agree on a plan to provide potentially trillions of dollars to developing countries suffering from the effects of climate change, divisions remain over how much money should be made available, what kind of financing efforts should count toward the overall goal and how recipient countries should gain access to the funds.Negotiations often go into overtime. But with just four days to go, many attendees fear that this could be the first summit since the Copenhagen talks in 2009 to conclude without a deal.“There is a high risk this could collapse,” said a senior negotiator for a major European country, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.Simon Stiell, the United Nations climate chief, pleaded on Monday with countries to stop fighting and to reach a deal.He warned against a dynamic “where groups of parties dig in and refuse to move on one issue, until others move elsewhere.” He added, “This is a recipe for going literally nowhere.”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 Shares28 Views

      in Elections

      What Are ATACMS, the U.S. Missiles That May Be Used Against Russia?

      by

      In a major policy shift, the Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to use the ballistic missiles within Russia.For the first time, the Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied ballistic missiles for attacks inside Russia, American officials say, marking a major policy shift.The missiles are known as the Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS (pronounced “attack ’ems”). They are likely to be initially employed against Russian and North Korean troops to support Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region of western Russia, according to American officials.Ukraine has been lobbying the United States for years to receive the authorization, which comes in the final months of the Biden administration. President-elect Donald J. Trump has said he will seek a quick end to the war in Ukraine.Here’s what you need to know about ATACMSWhat do these missiles do?Why did the U.S. wait?How will Ukraine use them?Has the U.S. used them in combat?What do these missiles do?ATACMS, made by Lockheed Martin, are short-range ballistic missiles that, depending on the model, can strike targets 190 miles away with a warhead containing about 375 pounds of explosives. Ballistic missiles fly much higher into the atmosphere than artillery rockets and many times farther, coming back to the ground at incredibly high speed because of gravity’s pull.They can be fired from the HIMARS mobile launchers that the United States has provided Ukraine, as well as from older M270 launchers sent from Britain and Germany.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 Shares33 Views

      in Elections

      Biden and Xi Meet, Delivering Messages Seemingly Intended for Trump

      by

      Donald J. Trump has promised a more aggressive approach, after the Biden administration worked to avoid open conflict with Beijing.When President Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, met on Saturday in Peru, they spoke directly to each other for perhaps the last time about a fierce superpower rivalry that Mr. Biden has sought to keep from spiraling into open conflict.But both men also seemed to be addressing someone not in the room: Donald J. Trump, who has promised to take a more aggressive approach to Beijing when he becomes president again in January.Mr. Xi, in his opening remarks, offered what appeared to be a stern warning as U.S.-China relations enter a new period of uncertainty after the American election.“Make the wise choice,” he said in a conference hall at a hotel in Lima where the Chinese delegation was staying. “Keep exploring the right way for two major countries to get along well with each other.”In his own opening comments, Mr. Biden seemed to try to make the case for maintaining a relationship with Beijing, as Mr. Trump talks about imposing more punishing tariffs on China and picks hard-liners for top administration posts.“These conversations prevent miscalculations, and they ensure the competition between our two countries will not veer into conflict — be competition, not conflict,” he said.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 Shares33 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Policies Offer a Starting Point for Trump’s Border Crackdown

      by

      Mr. Trump has criticized the Biden administration for what he calls its lax handling of the border — but it has left him with tools he can use to shut down the border.President-elect Donald Trump has spent the last year railing against the Biden administration’s immigration policies, saying they left the border wide open and risked American security.But actions taken by President Biden in the past year, including a sweeping asylum ban and more streamlined deportation procedures, may make it easier for Mr. Trump to fulfill his promise to shut down the border and turn back migrants as quickly as possible.To be sure, Mr. Biden’s vision for immigration is different from Mr. Trump’s. While the White House has enacted stricter regulations at the border, it has also emphasized legal pathways to enter the country and offered temporary legal status to migrants from certain troubled countries.After promising a more humane immigration policy when he took office in 2021, Mr. Biden was confronted with a worldwide surge in migration that put pressure on the southern U.S. border. By his second year in office, annual border arrests topped 2 million.As chaotic scenes emerged of migrants crowding at the border, Republicans like Mr. Trump argued that the Democrats were unable to govern and protect American cities, and they urged a crackdown on immigration. Republican governors such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida sent thousands of migrants by bus and plane to Democratic northern cities to highlight the border crisis.President Biden visiting Brownsville, Texas, in February, where he received an operational briefing from U.S. border officials. Kenny Holston/The New York TimesWe 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

    • 175 Shares32 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Has Put an End to an Era. The Future Is Up for Grabs.

      by

      Kamala Harris lost the presidential election, but one of her campaign slogans was vindicated in defeat. “We’re not going back!” the Democratic nominee insisted on the campaign trail, and she was unintentionally correct: Donald Trump’s return to power is proof that we have lived through a real turning point in history, an irrevocable shift from one era to the next.In Trump’s first term, he did not look like a historically transformative president. His victory was narrow, he lacked real majority support, he was swiftly unpopular and stymied and harassed.Even if his 2016 upset proved that discontent with the official consensus of the Western world ran unexpectedly deep, the way he governed made it easy to regard his presidency as accidental and aberrant — a break from a “normal” world of politics that some set of authority figures could successfully reimpose.Much of the opposition to his presidency was organized around this hope, and the election of Joe Biden seemed like vindication: Here was the restoration, the return of the grown-ups, normality restored.But somewhere in this drama, probably somewhere between the first reports of a deadly flu in Wuhan, China, and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, one of history’s wheels turned irrevocably, and the normal that Trump’s opponents aspired to recover slipped definitively into the past.A restoration? No: The post-Cold War era has ended, and we’re not going back.This may sound a bit like the most alarmist interpretations of the Trump era — that we are exiting the liberal democratic age and entering an autocratic, or at least authoritarian, American future.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

    • 88 Shares59 Views

      in Elections

      The ‘Diploma Divide’ and the 2024 Election

      by

      Readers discuss a David Brooks column about how the less educated are being left behind.To the Editor:Re “Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?,” by David Brooks (column, Nov. 8):Mr. Brooks is exactly right, but he doesn’t carry his line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. Yes, Donald Trump won the election because of a strong showing by the non-college-educated population. And yes, that segment is disadvantaged in many ways.But why did that segment vote for Mr. Trump? I would suggest there is a reason that people go to college. And contrary to what many believe, it is not just to get a better job. It is to become a better and more informed citizen, and to learn to distinguish truth from falsehood. And that is not easy when confronted with constant disinformation and outright lies.Partly as a result, the non-college-educated do not see that they have been duped. They have voted for a man and a party that have consistently worked to keep them suppressed, that have been against universal health care, against efforts to control global warming, against monopolistic practices, etc., etc.Democrats should stop flagellating themselves for having done something wrong. It is not they who have betrayed the non-college-educated. As global warming, hurricanes and flooding increase; as privatized health care grows more expensive, and epidemics again kill thousands because of vaccine skeptics; as inflation shoots up from tariffs and tax reduction, the non-college-educated will suffer disproportionately.Let them look to their elected Republicans. They have broken it, and now they own it.Robert H. PalmerNew YorkTo the Editor:Trying to blame the Democrats’ loss on their supposed disrespect of voters and behaving like elites is old and tired.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

    • 75 Shares56 Views

      in Elections

      Why We Got It So Wrong

      by

      Let me ask you a few questions:If the Democrats nominated a woman to run for president, would you expect her to do better among female voters than the guy who ran in her place four years before?If the Democrats nominated a Black woman to run for president, would you expect her to do better among Black voters than the white candidate who ran in her place four years before?If the Republicans nominated a guy who ran on mass deportation and consistently said horrible things about Latino immigrants, would you expect him to do worse among Latino voters over time?If the Democrats nominated a vibrant Black woman who was the subject of a million brat memes, would you expect her to do better among young voters than the old white guy who ran before her?If you said yes to any of these questions, as I would have a month ago, you have some major rethinking to do, because all of these expectations were wrong.In 2024, Kamala Harris did worse among Black voters than Joe Biden did in 2020. She did worse among female voters. She did much worse among Latino voters. She did much worse among young voters.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