Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris was great in the debate. Will that be enough to win? | Bernie Sanders

      by

      With the whole world watching, Kamala Harris did an extremely effective job at Tuesday night’s debate in demonstrating how absolutely unfit Donald Trump is to become president of the United States.She exposed him for what he is: a hateful and vindictive man, a pathological liar, someone who thrives on divisiveness and xenophobia, and a candidate who has absolutely no vision for the future of the country. (After nine years as a candidate and president he is now working on a “concept” as to how to address the healthcare crisis in our country. Really?)Democrats are rightly euphoric about her excellent performance. This is going to be a very close election and the vice-president had a great night.But, before we begin to make plans for her inauguration, we must confront an important reality: the vast majority of the American people already know Donald Trump very well.They have seen him as president for four years and as a candidate in three elections. They are more than aware that he lies all the time, that he supported an insurrection to overthrow American democracy, and that he has been convicted of 34 felonies.And, yet, roughly half of American voters still support him – including a strong majority of working-class voters.It is important that the vice-president continues to define and expose Trump. But it may not be enough to secure a victory. Voters are hungry for a candidate that will deliver meaningful, material change to their lives.I applaud Harris for laying out the fundamentals of her economic vision: she promised to cap the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans at $2,000, address the severe housing crisis we face by building 3m units of affordable housing, eliminate medical debt, and take on corporate price gouging that has made it impossible for working families to afford groceries and other basic necessities.These are valuable policies. I believe, however, that her chances of winning improve if she expands that agenda to include popular solutions to the most important economic and political realities facing this country.The American people want change, and that’s what she must deliver.Here are just a few ideas that are not only excellent policy, but are extremely popular among voters across the political spectrum:

      We have more income and wealth inequality in this country than ever before. Never in our history have so few owned so much. Three people own more wealth than the bottom half of American society, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck while the very rich continue to get richer, and 82% of Americans – including 73% of Republicans – want the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.

      We have a corrupt political system in which dark money Super Pacs, funded and controlled by billionaires like Elon Musk and Timothy Mellon, put billions of dollars into our elections. The total cost of the 2024 election is expected to come in at over $10bn, more than any in history. Democrats, Republicans and independents understand that we can hardly be called a vibrant democracy when a handful of the wealthiest people in this country – including Democratic billionaires – can spend hundreds of millions to elect the candidates of their choice. Seven in 10 Americans think there should be limits on election spending. We must overturn Citizens United and establish publicly funded elections.

      In the richest country on earth it’s absurd that 75% of seniors who need hearing aids don’t have them, 65% of seniors don’t have dental insurance and eyeglass frames manufactured for as little as $10 cost over $230. Some 84% of Americans – including 83% of Republicans – want to expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision. The vice-president should run on this.

      At a time when about half of American households over the age of 55 have no retirement savings and one out of five seniors is trying to live on less than $13,500 a year, we must expand social security so that everyone in this country can retire with the dignity they have earned and everyone with a disability can live with the security they need. We can do that by lifting the cap on social security taxes, so that the very wealthy pay the same tax rate as working-class families.
      The American people are united in supporting these popular ideas. They are important policies. They are winning politics. And they are particularly popular in the battleground states that Harris needs to win.In other words: campaigning on an economic agenda that speaks to the needs of working families is a winning formula for Kamala Harris and Democrats in November.By embracing bold ideas that address the day-to-day crises facing America’s working families, Harris can not only win the White House, but create a Democratic party that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans.

      Bernie Sanders is a US Senator and chairman of the health education labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont, and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Swing state voters respond to the presidential debate: ‘Trump couldn’t even look at her!’

      by

      ‘Trump lost, and it wasn’t close’[Donald] Trump lost, and it wasn’t close. [Kamala] Harris was a strong performer, but I think I’m still concerned as far as her Israel-Gaza stance. I think she punted, to be frank. That was a missed opportunity for Trump. She was able to make appeals to Americans on both sides of the political spectrum, while he chose to be the same old, same old.I thought there would be a limit to the unwavering loyalty some have for Trump. I used to think he used his base to leverage control over the rich and Republicans in power. In truth, he’s the fool of the right. Loyalty to country and loyalty to party have never been the same thing in my eyes. I don’t vote a straight ticket.I voted Democrat in 2020, and was too young to vote in 2016. If I thought the entire Democratic party was willing to harm those that didn’t vote for them in any way, I would abandon them. I trust Harris more than what I’ve seen from Trump. – Tobi, 24, public school teacher, Michigan ‘Kamala just didn’t throw knockout punches’It was like watching an exhibition boxing bout where Kamala just didn’t throw knockout punches. She drew him in time and time again, but ultimately failed to land. The setups were relatively impressive, but she failed to follow up with compelling or sufficiently detailed policies or plans. Doing so would have further demonstrated just how superior a candidate she truly is. She was on her toes, and had a once effervescent showman looking like an old, flat-footed has-been.I will vote for Kamala because you cannot vote for the opposition. That said, if I was undecided, I’d be extremely concerned that a candidate who is already in office cannot articulate plans to remedy very real socioeconomic problems that many believe she is partly responsible for creating. If they debate again and Trump could land that message for more than just his closing remarks, I think we could see some flashes of what made him compelling to undecided or protest voters. – Sam Smith, works in tech, Lake Tahoe, Nevada‘It was a good watch, which was a relief after the last debate’View image in fullscreenIt was a good watch, which was a relief after the last debate which made me want to assume the fetal position until November. I thought Harris did well to bait Trump on his non-answers and get him off message – it’s no surprise Trump was mostly bluster and not a lot of substance.I do feel like she was at least able to give some substantive answers around her plan for improving the economy, her plan for making life easier for people like me, who are about to be first-time homeowners, about to have kids, middle-class people who are working. I just wish Harris went into more specifics about her intended approach to issues like immigration and Israel-Palestine, which would have made a great contrast to Trump’s vague and angry rhetoric.I voted for [Joe] Biden in the last election, and I intend on voting for Harris this election. I’ve been pretty solid in that camp even though I’m so frustrated with a two-party system. It astonishes me that a vote for a Black and Asian woman right now represents something closer to maintaining the status quo, while a vote for an older white man is something that feels really radical and dangerous. – Paul B, 32, content strategist, Pennsylvania‘Trump was strong but evaded questions’Trump was strong but evaded questions and his answers seemed to help him win an election more than governing. Harris seemed more truthful but did not differentiate herself more from Biden’s wins or failures.She said she is not Biden or Trump but then did not clearly elucidate how she can move Gaza and Ukraine wars to closure. I am an independent and first-time voter. I liked the economy under Trump but am now leaning towards Harris.
      – HS, works in consulting, North Carolina‘Harris showed she can see what America needs at this moment in time’I thought Harris definitely won the debate. She was clear, precise and showed she was capable and willing to serve the people of the United States. My mind was made up before but Harris showed she can see what America needs at this moment in time. My favorite moment was when she told Trump that Putin would eat him for lunch. That is no lie!As a Republican, I’m truly embarrassed by Trump. He’s not what Republicans are about – I’m conservative because I believe people need to earn what they get. There are people who need help, but if you’re capable you should work. The Republican party has changed and I’m not sure I want to change with them. – Ted Kemm, retired industrial engineer, Pennsylvania‘The handshake – a much-needed effort to return to civil politics’I thought it was intense. It drew a clear contrast between the two candidates. Putting aside policy and partisanship, one candidate was focused on attacking his opponent and the other candidate was talking to the American people, making a strong effort (whether you believe her or not) that she can be a president for all Americans. I think it beautifully juxtaposed the vitriolic rhetoric of how politics has become lately (on the right) with a return to civility, compassion and unity (on the left).My favorite moment was the handshake. Ignoring the “power dynamics” part of it, I thought it was a much-needed effort to return to older, civil politics where everyone can at the very least shake each other’s hands. I think the handshake we saw at the 9/11 memorial might not have happened if she had not shook his hand at the debate. It’s a powerful, unifying gesture that certainly needs to be normalized again.My one hope for this debate was that we would see how Harris handles the pressure of debating someone like Trump on a national stage. She overall showed strength and arrested my concerns. In 2016 I voted for Trump (first election), in 2020 I voted for Biden and in 2024 I will proudly vote for Harris. – Josh, 27, engineer, North Carolinaskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion‘I was impressed by how well prepared Harris was’I thought this debate highlighted the contrast between the candidates. On one side, there was a man we all know, Trump, who used the same fearmongering rhetoric and blatant lies to admonish our country for his personal game. The line about immigrants eating pets is a perfect example of how he’s willing to embrace misinformation as long as it suits him. He blamed every issue in our country on migrants.My favorite moment was when Kamala pointed out that Trump never talks about “you”, which is true. He doesn’t talk about wanting things to be better for us, and only talks about making the country great in his image. I also loved how Kamala kept looking at him directly, then at the camera when she was addressing us. Trump couldn’t even look at her! She showed us how easy it is to upset him, and how easy it would be for world leaders to manipulate him with flattery or criticism.I was leaning towards Kamala prior to the debate, as I would never vote for Trump. I was impressed by her strength and how well prepared she was. It helped me feel more confident about voting for her. My first vote went for [John] McCain. In 2016, I was denied voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary due to my libertarian voter registration, and I voted for Gary Johnson in the election. I voted for Biden in 2020, and plan to vote for Harris-Walz this year. – Amber, 35, stay-at-home mom and student, Arizona‘I did not feel Harris did well in the debate’Contrary to what I read in all the media, I did not feel Harris did that well in the debate. She kept belittling Trump, whom I don’t particularly like, but I found it ironic that she did this and made calls for all of us to find unity and move on together. I did not find her believable, except on the topic of abortion, in which I think she presented her case convincingly, and also on healthcare. She seemed extremely reactive, which is not a quality I look for in a leader.Trump, on the other hand, did not stare at her during the exchanges and just said what was on his mind. After this debate, I’m not even sure if I will vote for her. I will definitely not vote for Trump. I have voted Democratic all my life, I have also worked on the Obama campaign. I’m 67 years old and I’m thinking this might be the first time that I will not vote, and that maybe I won’t vote again. Politicians in this country have become so divisive.
      – Alexander Stafford, retired teacher, Georgia‘Trump saying he has concepts of a plan for healthcare gave me a hearty chuckle’I think it was a near best-case scenario for the Harris campaign; while I wish there were a couple of areas where she would have fleshed out her policy points, and better explained some of the areas where her position has demonstrably changed, I think a key goal was to provide pushback on the falsehoods that were expressed in the first debate as well as to remind voters of who Trump really is and the chaos of his first term.My favorite moment was when Trump was pressed for his plans to improve healthcare in the US with his response being that after eight years he has “concepts of a plan” – that gave me a hearty chuckle. I voted for Biden in 2020 and was planning on voting for whoever the Democratic candidate was, but the debate made me much more confident in casting that vote specifically for Harris. – James, 31, works in healthcare, Wisconsin‘Harris signed, sealed and delivered’View image in fullscreenIt was tough to watch in the sense that there was always this sense of: Is it going to go awry? How is she going to be able to handle that man with his anger and his insults? I was proud of how she handled it.I am certainly voting for Vice-President Harris. She was poised, intelligent and most importantly human. She wasn’t a robot. She had little stumbles or misspoke at times; however she came across as genuine, and was prepared but not in a stilted way.I hope the debate managed to persuade undecided voters. I’m giving my fellow Americans a lot of credit here, but I’m hoping that they saw that not only is he a loose, dangerous cannon that shouldn’t be president, but that it also showed that Harris has got the seriousness, the maturity, the intelligence and experience to do this.Overall he sunk his boat and she really raised hers, although she was already doing wonderfully. But I think she signed, sealed and delivered it.– Suzanne Baker, 65, retired anthropology professor, Michigan More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why is our so-called democratic society suppressing freedom of speech? | Laura Flanders

      by

      Claud Cockburn, my grandfather, knew when it was time to leave Berlin.A young British journalist, he’d worked as a correspondent for The [London] Times in that city in the 1920s before transferring to New York and Washington DC. Returning to Germany in July 1932, he saw “storm Troopers slashing and smashing up and down the Kurfürstendamm”, and war propaganda: “huge exhibitions of ‘the Front’, soldier figures standing in a real-life size trench playing with a dummy machine gun”, he wrote.In a letter to my grandmother, Hope Hale, a US-based journalist just then pregnant with my mother, he described how fascism on the horizon felt: “It’s hard to imagine that this is something one is really seeing.”Until it wasn’t hard. As Cockburn wrote: “Hitler. He came to power. I was high on the Nazi blacklist. I fled to Vienna.”Cockburn’s story is retold in a forthcoming book by his son, journalist Patrick Cockburn, due out this fall from Verso. It’s a timely intervention, inviting us to consider how different what Claud called the “Devil’s Decade”, is from our own.The 1930s saw the press in fascist countries co-opted or suppressed. In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels’ ministry of propaganda saw to it that only state-approved stories were told. Independent journalism was not just discouraged – it was dangerous. Writers were shot. Books were burned. To facilitate the Fuhrer’s dominance, the Third Reich subsidized the production of cheap radio receivers called Volksempfänger, which not only made money for friendly manufacturers but also channeled distraction and Nazi communication directly into people’s homes. In Italy, Mussolini’s regime did much the same, using media as a tool to consolidate power and propagate fascist ideology.Today, Elon Musk is no Joseph Goebbels. Still, as I write, the billionaire entrepreneur known for co-founding Tesla and SpaceX (his privately owned rocket-and-satellite company), and now owning X (formerly Twitter), has been accused of stoking bigotry and hate. Controlling content and its moderation (or lack of it), Musk is seeing to it that his powerful, free, social media platform pumps out pro-Maga propaganda, while joining with other tech billionaires to invest in the Trump-Vance campaign.That campaign has made calling journalists “enemies of the people” so central to its message that future generations will have to be reminded that Adolf Hitler did it first.Goebbels operated in a dictatorship where the media was entirely controlled by the state with the explicit goal of suppressing freedom of speech and promoting genocidal thinking. We operate within a supposedly democratic framework in which no minister of propaganda is forcing the newspaper of record to instruct its journalists covering Israel’s war on Gaza to restrict the use of the terms “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “refugee camps” and “Palestine”. Some newspapers, like the New York Times, do it unforced.Homogenous, even in an age of media proliferation, the most influential media spent June in lock-step, disparaging one elderly candidate’s fitness for office after a stumbling performance in a debate. This August that same media devoted precious time to carefully “fact-checking” the drivel of the other elderly candidate after an entirely unhinged press conference. The same candidate has promised to suspend the constitution and be a dictator “on day one”.One is reminded of the headline over the New York Times report on Hitler becoming Chancellor: Hitler Puts Aside Aim to be Dictator. “There is no warrant for immediate alarm,” the editors wrote on 31 January 1933. “The more violent parts of his alleged program he has himself in recent months been softening down or abandoning.”Quitting the Times to found the Week, a newsletter that became famous for its scoops and takedowns of those in power, Claud’s work was not risk-free. His opposition to fascism and the complicity of western democracies in enabling its rise made him a target for enraged rulers and rightwingers in the UK and overseas. Too impecunious to sue, the Week was often threatened and finally banned, in January 1941.We like to think our media landscape today is shaped by subtler forms of control: media monopolies, mass-market pressure, extreme commercialism and digital surveillance. And then there’s Julian Assange. Assange, through Wikileaks, published classified documents that exposed US government killings in Afghanistan and Iraq. For that, Assange wasn’t shot, but he was locked up and charged under the Espionage Act, the first person to be so charged for an act of journalism since that act’s passage in 1917.This June, after five years in London’s grim Belmarsh prison, Assange agreed to plead guilty to one Espionage Act charge of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defense documents. In exchange, Assange got his freedom, and so did that old word “treason”, dusted off for new, 21st-century use.Methods of information control evolve, but one phenomenon seems to remain: timidity. Living in Vienna, where loquacious diplomats, lawyers and refugees circulated stories and suspicions from all over Europe, Claud read the English daily papers and was struck “by the fact that what informed people were really saying – and equally importantly, the tone of voice they were saying it in – were scarcely reflected at all in the newspapers”.It is hard to imagine that one is really seeing what one is seeing until it isn’t.

      Laura Flanders is the host and executive producer of Laura Flanders & Friends, a nationally-syndicated TV and radio program. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Harris head for swing states amid fallout from presidential debate – US politics live

      by

      Donald Trump’s campaign publicly claimed victory in the debate against Kamala Harris on Tuesday night, but at least some of his aides privately conceded it was unlikely that he persuaded any undecided voters to break for him, according to people familiar with the matter.“Will tonight benefit us? No, it will not,” one Trump aide said.The sentiment summed up the predicament for the Trump campaign that with 55 days until the election, Trump is still casting around for a moment that could allow his attack lines against Harris to break through and overwrite her gains in key battleground state polls.And it was an acknowledgment that despite their hopes of getting Happy Trump on stage, they got Angry Trump, who seemingly could not shake his fury at being taunted over his supporters leaving his rallies early and being repeatedly fact-checked by the moderators.Read the full story here.Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are focusing on swing states today. Harris is scheduled to hold rallies in North Carolina – in Charlotte and Greensboro, the Associated Press reported. Trump is heading west to Tucson, Arizona. Yesterday, the candidates marked the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.At a fire station in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, close to where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed, Trump posed for photos with children who wore campaign shirts. Joe Biden and Harris visited the same fire station earlier in the day.Hello and welcome back to our rolling US political coverage.An estimated 67.1 million people watched the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, a 31% increase from the June debate between Trump and President Joe Biden that eventually led to the president dropping out of the 2024 race.The debate was run by ABC News but shown on 17 different networks, the Nielsen company said. The Trump-Biden debate in June was seen by 51.3 million people.Tuesday’s count was short of the record viewership for a presidential debate, when 84 million people saw Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s first face-off in 2016. The first debate between Biden and Trump in 2020 reached 73.1 million people.There was a marked increase in younger and middle-aged viewers, with 53% more adults aged 18-49 tuning in to see Harris debate Trump than watched Biden do the same, according to Nielsen data.Read the full story here. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump a de facto Russian asset, FBI official he fired suggests

      by

      Donald Trump can be seen as a Russian asset, though not in the traditional sense of an active agent or a recruited resource, an ex-FBI deputy director who worked under the former US president said.Asked on a podcast if he thought it possible Trump was a Russian asset, Andrew McCabe, who Trump fired as FBI deputy director in 2018, said: “I do, I do.”He added: “I don’t know that I would characterize it as [an] active, recruited, knowing asset in the way that people in the intelligence community think of that term. But I do think that Donald Trump has given us many reasons to question his approach to the Russia problem in the United States, and I think his approach to interacting with Vladimir Putin, be it phone calls, face-to-face meetings, the things that he has said in public about Putin, all raise significant questions.”McCabe was speaking to the One Decision podcast, co-hosted by Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, the British intelligence service.The conversation, in which McCabe also questioned Trump’s attitude to supporting Ukraine and Nato in the face of Russian aggression, was recorded before the debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday, in which Trump made more controversial comments.Claiming Russia would not have invaded Ukraine had he been president, Trump would not say a Ukrainian victory was in US interests.“I think it’s in the US’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done,” he said. “Negotiate a deal.”Claiming to have good relationships with Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president, Trump falsely said his opponent, Kamala Harris, failed to avert war through personal talks.The vice-president countered that she had helped “preserve the ability of Zelenskiy and the Ukrainians to fight for their independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland.”In one of the most memorable lines of the night, Harris added: “And why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch.”The candidates were not asked about recent indictments in which the Department of Justice said pro-Trump influencers were paid to advance pro-Russia talking points.McCabe was part of FBI leadership, briefly as acting director, during investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and links between Trump and Moscow. Trump fired McCabe in March 2018, two days before he was due to retire. McCabe was then the subject of a criminal investigation, for allegedly lying about a media leak. The investigation was dropped in 2020. In October 2021, McCabe settled a lawsuit against the justice department. Having written The Threat, a bestselling memoir, he is now an academic and commentator.Speaking to One Decision, McCabe said: “You have to have some very serious questions about, why is it that Donald Trump … has this fawning sort of admiration for Vladimir Putin in a way that no other American president, Republican or Democrat, ever has.“It may just be from a fundamental misunderstanding of this problem set that’s always a problem. That’s always a possibility. And I guess the other end of that spectrum would be that there is some kind of relationship or a desire for a relationship of some sort, be it economic or business oriented, what have you.“I think those are possibilities. None of them have been proven. But as an intelligence officer, those are the things that you think about.”Saying he had “very serious concerns” about the prospect of a second Trump term, McCabe said he would always be concerned about Russia’s ability to interfere in US affairs.He said: “Their desire to kind of wreak havoc or mischief in our political system is something that’s been going on for years, decades and decades and decades.“Their interest in just simply sowing chaos and division and polarization. If they can do that, it’s a win. If they can actually hurt a candidate they don’t like, or help one that they do like, that’s an even bigger win.” More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris-Trump debate watched by 67m people, beating pivotal Biden showdown

      by

      An estimated 67.1 million people watched the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, a 31% increase from the June debate between Trump and President Joe Biden that eventually led to the president dropping out of the 2024 race.The debate was run by ABC News but shown on 17 different networks, the Nielsen company said. The Trump-Biden debate in June was seen by 51.3 million people.Tuesday’s count was short of the record viewership for a presidential debate, when 84 million people saw Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s first face-off in 2016. The first debate between Biden and Trump in 2020 reached 73.1 million people.There was a marked increase in younger and middle-aged viewers, with 53% more adults aged 18-49 tuning in to see Harris debate Trump than watched Biden do the same, according to Nielsen data.Of the viewers who watched on cable networks, the highest number of viewers were on Fox News, with 9.1 million people tuning in on the channel known for its positive coverage of Trump.Harris was widely seen to have won the debate. A CNN flash poll of debate watchers showed 63% to 37% that Harris had performed better. Prior to the debate, those voters were split 50-50 on who would win. Of the Harris-supporting viewers polled by CNN, 96% said she had done a better job, while 69% of Trump supporting viewers said so.Trump’s campaign publicly claimed victory, but some of his aides privately conceded it was unlikely that he persuaded any undecided voters to break for him, people familiar with the matter told the Guardian.The viewership puts the debate roughly between the Seinfeld (76.3 million) and Friends (52.5 million) series finales.Minutes after it ended, Taylor swift endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket to her 283 million Instagram followers in a post that included a link to the government voter registration website Vote.gov. The site saw almost 338,000 new visitors in the hours that followed, a General Services Administration spokesperson told MSNBC.Swift’s endorsement is likely to be most influential among Americans under 35, since about 30% of that group say they are more likely to vote for someone Swift supports, according to polling conducted for Newsweek. The polling found that 18% of voters say they are “more likely” or “significantly more likely” to vote for a Swift-backed candidate, while 17% say they are less likely.No other debates are currently scheduled between the two presidential candidates, although the Harris campaign have asked for one, and the Fox News Channel has publicly offered alternatives. CBS will host a vice-presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance on 1 October.Tuesday’s debate stakes were high to begin with, not only because of the impending election itself but because the last presidential debate set off a series of events that resulted in Biden’s withdrawal from the race.While CNN chose not to correct any misstatements by the candidates during Trump’s debate with Biden in June, ABC instead challenged statements that Trump made about abortion, immigration, the 2020 election and violent crime. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris and Donald Trump attend New York 9/11 commemoration

      by

      Bereaved families, local and national dignitaries and first responders gathered in New York City on Wednesday to mark the 23rd anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.Kamala Harris and Donald Trump attended the annual commemoration, just hours after their fiery presidential debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday evening.Joe Biden, the US president, accompanied Harris, his vice-president and now the Democratic nominee since Biden ended his re-election campaign in July after his own disastrous debate against Trump.Biden and Harris observed the anniversary of the al-Qaida attacks on the US with visits to each of the three sites where hijacked planes crashed in 2001: the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington and a field in southern Pennsylvania.Trump attended the event in New York with his Republican running mate, JD Vance. Trump and Harris shook hands, with tight smiles, before lining up solemnly for the ceremony.On Tuesday night, Harris had consciously crossed the stage before the debate began and thrust her hand towards Trump, introducing herself. They had never met in person before, obliging Trump to shake hands.After the subsequent handshake at the memorial and a brief exchange between the two presidential candidates, Harris positioned herself to Biden’s right, with the former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg between Biden and Trump, and Vance to Trump’s left.Missing from that central group was the sitting New York mayor, Eric Adams, whose administration is caught up in a series of federal investigations.Harris traveled to New York just a few hours after most polling declared her the winner of the debate against the Republican nominee for president in Philadelphia, with just eight weeks left before the 5 November presidential election.No remarks from the politicians were scheduled at the site of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, still sometimes popularly known as Ground Zero, where relatives read the names of those who died.Biden and Harris then went to Shanksville, where passengers on United Flight 93 overcame the hijackers and the plane crashed in a field, preventing another target from being hit.Later they headed back to Washington DC and laid a wreath at the Pentagon memorial.Almost 3,000 people were killed in the attack, with more than 2,750 killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon and 40 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania; that figure excludes the 13 hijackers, who also died.“We can only imagine the heartbreak and the pain that the 9/11 families and survivors have felt every day for the past 23 years and we will always remember and honor those who were stolen from us way too soon,” the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, told reporters onboard Air Force One on Tuesday evening.Biden issued a proclamation honoring those who died as a result of the attacks, as well as the hundreds of thousands of Americans who volunteered for military service afterwards.“We owe these patriots of the 9/11 generation a debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay,” Biden said, citing deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq and other war zones, as well as the capture and killing of the September 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUS congressional leaders on Tuesday posthumously awarded the congressional gold medal to 13 of those service members who were killed in the 26 August 2021 suicide bombing at Kabul’s airport during the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.In New York, political tensions were high even though the event is always officially a non-partisan commemoration.“You’re around the people that are feeling the grief, feeling proud or sad – what it’s all about that day, and what these loved ones meant to you. It’s not political,” said Melissa Tarasiewicz, who lost her father, a New York City firefighter, Allan Tarasiewicz.Increasingly, tributes delivered in New York and the name-reading of those who died come from children and young adults who were born after the attacks killed a parent, grandparent, aunt or uncle.“Even though I never got to meet you, I feel like I’ve known you forever,” Annabella Sanchez said last year of her grandfather, Edward Joseph Papa. “We will always remember and honor you, every day. “We love you, Grandpa Eddie.”A poignant phrase echoes more and more from those who lost relatives: “I never got to meet you.”It is the sound of generational change. Some names are read out by children or young adults who were born after the strikes. Last year’s observance featured 28 such young people among more than 140 readers. Young people were expected again at this year’s ceremony on Wednesday.Some are the children of victims whose partners were pregnant. More of the young readers are victims’ nieces, nephews or grandchildren. They have inherited stories, photos and a sense of solemn responsibility.Being a “9/11 family” reverberates through generations, and commemorating and understanding the September 11 attacks one day will be up to a world with no first-hand memory of them.“It’s like you’re passing the torch on,” says Allan Aldycki, 13. He read the names of his grandfather, Allan Tarasiewicz, and several other people.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Father of Ohio boy, 11, tells Trump and Vance to stop using son’s death for ‘political gain’

      by

      The father of an 11-year-old boy who was killed last year when a minivan driven by an immigrant from Haiti collided with his school bus has asked Donald Trump and JD Vance to stop using his son’s name for “political gain”.During a city commission meeting on Tuesday in Springfield, Ohio, Nathan Clark, the father of Aiden Clark, addressed the forum alongside his wife, Danielle. Speaking at the meeting, Clark said: “I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. I bet you never thought anyone would say something so blunt, but if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone,” the Springfield News-Sun reports.Clark went on to list politicians including Trump and Vance, who he said have been using his son’s name for “political gain”.“Bernie Moreno [the Ohio Republican senate candidate], Chip Roy [the Texas Republican representative], JD Vance and Donald Trump … have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain. This needs to stop now. They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members. However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio,” said Clark.“I will listen to them one more time to hear their apologies. To clear the air, my son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy has been all over this community, the state and even the nation. But don’t spin this towards hate,” he continued.Clark went on to say: “Did you know that one of the worst feelings in the world is to not be able to protect your child? Even worse, we can’t protect his memory when he’s gone. Please stop the hate.”Clark’s comments come after the Trump campaign and Vance mentioned Aiden Clark’s death earlier this week amid hateful and baseless rumors surrounding the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield.In a post on X on Tuesday, Vance alluded to Clark’s death by saying a “child was murdered by a Haitian migrant” on X. In the same post, Vance also repeated the falsehoods surrounding Haitian immigrants eating local pets – a rumor brought up again by Trump during Tuesday’s debate with Kamala Harris.Meanwhile, the Trump War Room, an X account used by the Trump campaign, also mentioned Aiden Clark, accusing Harris of refusing to say his name.Aiden Clark died last August when the school bus he was riding in collided with a minivan driven by 36-year old Hermanio Joseph, a Haitian father of four children. More than 20 other students were injured in the collision and Joseph was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide. In May, Joseph was sentenced to nine to 13.5 years in prison.In a statement to NBC on Clark’s remarks, a spokesperson for Vance said that people should hold Harris “and her open border policies accountable for the deaths of their children”, adding: “The Clark family is in senator Vance’s prayers.”The Guardian’s Julius Constantine Motal contributed reporting More