Biden, Joseph R Jr

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Deletes His Post Asking Why No One Has Tried to Assassinate Biden or Harris

      by

      Hours after what the F.B.I. called a second attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump, Elon Musk wrote on his social media site — and then deleted — a post suggesting it was odd that nobody had tried to kill President Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris.Mr. Musk said the post on X had been intended as a joke.In response to a user who asked, “Why they want to kill Donald Trump?” Mr. Musk, who has endorsed the former president and comments frequently on the U.S. presidential campaign, wrote: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala.” His post, which was captured by X users, included a thinking-face emoji.Mr. Musk took down the post after it immediately drew outrage. X says he has more than 197 million followers on the platform, which he bought in 2022.“Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on X,” he said in a follow-up post early Monday. “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text,” he wrote in another.The Secret Service said on Sunday that it had fired on an armed man at Mr. Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Fla., while the former president was playing. A suspect was later arrested. The incident followed one in July in which Mr. Trump was shot in the ear by a would-be assassin while he was holding a rally in Pennsylvania. The shooter was killed by law enforcement officers.Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man, has established a reputation as an edgy plutocrat not bound by social conventions when it comes to expressing his opinions and broadcasting what is on his mind to his followers. His power and wealth have made him relatively impervious to criticism, and his bluntness has made him a hero to many on the right who oppose what they call political correctness.Several of his recent posts about the election have drawn criticism. Last week, he amplified the bogus right-wing claims that immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. And after the music superstar Taylor Swift said last week that she would vote for Ms. Harris, signing her endorsement “Childless Cat Lady” in a reference to comments by Mr. Trump’s running mate, Mr. Musk appeared to offer jokingly to impregnate Ms. Swift, writing: “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About Springfield, Where Thousands of Haitian Migrants Have Settled

      by

      Businesses needed workers, and Haitians, many already authorized to work, heard living costs were low. But the newcomers have strained resources, and that has fueled tension.Over the last few years, many immigrants from Haiti have settled in Springfield, Ohio, drawn by the low cost of living and plentiful jobs. But the pace and volume of Haitian newcomers have strained local resources and stirred some tensions. And now, ahead of the presidential election, the city has found itself caught up in the fiery debate over immigration.JD Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president, invoked Springfield in July to criticize the Biden administration’s border policies. That month, the city’s mayor and manager went on the cable news program “Fox & Friends” calling for assistance to handle an influx that they blamed on the federal government. Then, during the presidential debate last week, former President Donald J. Trump repeated a debunked claim about Haitians in Springfield abducting and eating household pets.Jamie McGregor, left, the chief executive of McGregor Metal, an automotive parts maker in Springfield, talks with Daniel Campere, a Haitian worker.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesWhat’s behind the rise of Haitians in Springfield?Thousands of new jobs had been created there, thanks to a successful effort by the city’s leadership and Chamber of Commerce to attract new business to Springfield, which sits between Columbus and Dayton. Once a manufacturing hub, Springfield saw its economy shrink after factories closed and jobs migrated overseas. By about 2015, its population had dwindled to under 60,000, from about 80,000 in the late 1960s and early 1970s.Companies that set up shop, however, confronted a dire labor shortage.Haitians in Florida, Haiti and South America heard from friends and family about Springfield and its need for workers. They began arriving to take jobs in warehouses, manufacturing and the service sector, and employers urged the new workers to encourage other Haitians to join them.What started as a trickle swelled to a surge after the Covid-19 pandemic, coinciding with deepening political and economic instability in Haiti after the assassination of the president in 2021.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Pennsylvania, Wary Voters Wonder if Harris Can Deliver

      by

      Economic issues including soaring rents, student loan debt, supply chain issues and a stagnant minimum wage are on their minds.In a packed college gym in downtown Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on Friday evening, Vice President Kamala Harris closed out a long, successful week by elaborating on her vision for “an opportunity economy,” a centerpiece of her presidential campaign: Three million new homes. A pledge to take on “corporate price gouging.” Tax cuts for more than 100 million Americans.About a mile away, Judith Johnson was watching Ms. Harris’s rally on television in her apartment. A registered Republican, Ms. Johnson, 54, thought Ms. Harris had been “wonderful” in the debate on Tuesday; she was eager to learn more, especially about the economy.But Ms. Johnson’s vote, at least for now, remains with former President Donald J. Trump. “He’s a businessman,” she said. “And I think he sees what’s going on.”Ms. Johnson exemplifies the challenge facing Ms. Harris in Pennsylvania and in other critical battleground states. People like her say they are open to switching their vote. But they want to know: An opportunity economy — how? And for whom?Wilkes-Barre, a former industrial city, is seat of Luzerne County, which Mr. Trump has won handily, twice. While Democrats tend to do best in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh regions, they see narrowing the gap in places like Wilkes-Barre as key to winning the state. In 2020 President Biden, who was born in nearby Scranton, ate into Mr. Trump’s margin there by several points, part of a wave of support that lifted him to victory in the state.Polls suggest Ms. Harris may struggle to replicate that success. Despite her modest upbringing and her emphasis, on the campaign trail, on the needs of “middle-class, working people,” as she put it on Friday, she is still laboring to persuade many voters that she understands them, or that she can deliver on her promises.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

    • 50 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      How Democrats Treat Trumpites

      by

      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

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Starmer, Meeting Biden, Hints at Ukraine Weapons Decision Soon

      by

      As the president deliberated with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the question of whether to let Ukraine use long-range weapons in Russia was a rare point of contention between allied nations.President Biden’s deliberations with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain about whether to allow Ukraine to attack Russia with long-range Western weapons were fresh evidence that the president remains deeply fearful of setting off a dangerous, wider conflict.But the decision now facing Mr. Biden after Friday’s closed-door meeting at the White House — whether to sign off on the use of long-range missiles made by Britain and France — could be far more consequential than previous concessions by the president that delivered largely defensive weapons to Ukraine during the past two and a half years.In remarks at the start of his meeting with Mr. Starmer, the president underscored his support for helping Ukraine defend itself but did not say whether he was willing to do more to allow for long-range strikes deep into Russia.“We’re going to discuss that now,” the president told reporters.For his part, the prime minister noted that “the next few weeks and months could be crucial — very, very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.”European officials said earlier in the week that Mr. Biden appeared ready to approve the use of British and French long-range missiles, a move that Mr. Starmer and officials in France have said they want to provide a united front in the conflict with Russia. But Mr. Biden has hesitated to allow Ukraine to use arms provided by the United States in the same way over fears that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would see it as a major escalation.On Thursday, Mr. Putin responded to reports that America and its allies were considering such a move by declaring that it would “mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia,” according to a report by the Kremlin.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Debate Puts Trump’s Affinity for Putin Back in the Spotlight

      by

      The former president’s refusal to back Ukraine’s war effort showed the likely limits of U.S. support for Kyiv if he returns to the White House.Donald J. Trump’s refusal to say that he hopes Ukraine will win its war against Russia has cast a spotlight on what promises to be an abrupt U.S. policy shift toward the conflict — and Washington’s relations with Moscow — if Mr. Trump returns to the White House.Twice Mr. Trump was asked directly at the debate on Tuesday night whether he hoped for Ukraine’s victory, and both times he insisted that his main goal was for the war to end quickly. “I think it’s in the U.S.’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done, negotiate a deal, because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed,” he said.The former president went on to suggest that he would leverage his friendly relationship with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, underscoring clear signs that he intends to reverse President Biden’s confrontational relationship with Russia.Mr. Trump’s answers “should tell people all they need to know — which is that if Trump gets elected and gets involved, Ukraine’s going to be the loser and Russia’s going to be the winner,” said John R. Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. Mr. Bolton has become a vocal critic of the former president, who fired him after repeated policy disagreements.Mr. Trump offered little detail on how he would negotiate a rapid end to the Ukraine war, saying only that he would speak to both Mr. Putin and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to strike a deal even before he was inaugurated in January.That is a seemingly impossible goal. Mr. Zelensky has ruled out any settlement with Russia that does not restore his country’s original borders, while Mr. Putin seems determined to conquer even more of Ukraine than the roughly one-fifth of its territory that his army now occupies.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Citing Gaza Help, Blinken Waives Human Rights Conditions on Aid to Egypt

      by

      Cairo will receive its full military aid allotment of $1.3 billion after the secretary of state also said it had made progress on releasing political prisoners and protecting Americans.For the first time under the Biden administration, the United States will send Egypt its full allotment of $1.3 billion in annual military aid, waiving human rights requirements on the spending mainly in recognition of Cairo’s efforts to reach a cease-fire deal in Gaza, U.S. officials said.The decision, which the State Department notified Congress of on Wednesday, marks a striking shift for the administration. President Biden came into office promising “no blank checks” that would enable Egypt’s rights abuses, and in each of the past three years, his administration had withheld at least some of the congressionally mandated aid to Cairo, a close American ally.But the decision shows how the administration’s calculus has changed as Mr. Biden prioritizes trying to halt the violence in Gaza, one of the key goals he has set for himself in his final months in office.In response to longtime concerns about human rights abuses in Egypt, U.S. law places conditions on about a quarter of the military aid to Egypt each year. To release it, the secretary of state must certify that Cairo has complied with a range of human rights requirements.A State Department spokesman said the secretary, Antony J. Blinken, had found that Egypt had only partly met the human rights requirements but had overridden them, employing a legally permitted waiver “in the U.S. national security interest.”Mr. Blinken’s decision was based on Egypt’s monthslong role as an intermediary between Hamas and Israel as the two sides try to negotiate a cease-fire deal that would free Israeli hostages in Gaza and allow more humanitarian aid into the territory, which borders Egypt’s Sinai Desert, the spokesman 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

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Debate Trump-Harris: Análisis, verificaciones y resumen

      by

      Nuestros periodistas analizan y verifican en directo los datos del debate de Filadelfia. Esto es lo que hay que saber.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]The New York Times está retransmitiendo el debate desde ABC News. Esto es lo que está pasando:En su intervención de cierre, la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris enfatizó un mensaje positivo sobre el futuro, repitiendo su mantra de campaña: “No vamos a volver atrás”. El expresidente Donald Trump le echó en cara no haber cumplido ya las promesas de campaña que hace ahora.Trump fue presionado sobre su afirmación de que Harris recientemente “se volvió negra”. Trump dijo:“Lo que ella quiera ser me parece bien”. Harris lamentó su uso de retórica divisiva sobre la raza.Harris hizo que Trump perdiera momentáneamente los estribos, con ataques por el aborto, la inmigración y sus relaciones con dictadores. Los líderes militares, dijo Harris, piensan que Trump es “una desgracia”.Trump calificó a Harris de “débil” e insistió en que Rusia no habría invadido Ucrania bajo su mandato. Harris le dijo a Trump que el presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, “se lo comería”.Después de que Harris acusara a Trump de incitar a la turba que atacó el Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021, el expresidente desvió la discusión hacia la frontera, alegando que los demócratas querían que los inmigrantes indocumentados votaran.Harris, quien fue fiscala, recordó a los espectadores que Trump es un delincuente convicto. Él calificó los casos en su contra de “falsos” e insinuó que el atentado contra él fue resultado de la retórica de los demócratas.Harris descarriló a Trump durante una pregunta sobre inmigración al criticar sus mítines, diciendo que la gente se va antes de que terminen por “agotamiento y aburrimiento”. Trump planteó entonces una afirmación falsa sobre los inmigrantes al decir que comían perros.Harris lanzó un apasionado ataque contra Trump por el fin del derecho federal al aborto. Él dijo que hizo “un gran servicio” al nombrar a tres jueces que votaron a favor de anular Roe contra Wade.Harris lanzó un apasionado ataque contra Trump por el fin del derecho federal al aborto. Él dijo que hizo “un gran servicio” al nombrar a tres jueces que votaron a favor de anular el caso Roe contra Wade.Los candidatos intercambiaron opiniones sobre la economía, y Harris dijo que Trump “nos vendió” a China.Trump se adentró en un terreno que sus ayudantes esperaban evitar: los ataques personales. Harris se presentó con Trump en el podio cuando subió al escenario. “Kamala Harris”, dijo, ofreciéndole un apretón de manos.[Sigue el debate minuto a minuto en inglés aquí]. More