Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Be a man and vote for a woman’: Kamala Harris’s unlikely edge in America’s masculinity election

      by

      A man in a baseball cap strides through a field of corn. A woman in flannel turns and smiles, a line of trucks visible behind her. As piano music swells, an American flag ripples in a gentle breeze. This video is pure, uncut Americana. Naturally, it’s a political ad.Specifically, it’s an ad made by the Lincoln Project, a group of moderates and former Republicans united by a desire to topple Donald Trump and support Kamala Harris. And it’s making one of the most obvious appeals to men and masculinity yet in the 2024 election.As the ad nears its crescendo, the deep voice of Sam Elliott, an actor best known for playing grizzled but folksy cowboy types, demands: “What the hell are you waiting for? Because if it’s the woman thing, it’s time to get over that.” He continues: “It’s time to be a man and vote for a woman.”Masculinity and people’s views on gender roles may be more important than ever in 2024 – and not just because Harris is the first woman of color to ever secure a major-party nomination for president. The 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade thrust women’s rights to the forefront of the election. Numerous identity-based groups, including White Dudes for Harris, have gathered to drum up enthusiasm. An extreme gender gap has also yawned open among the youngest US voters: having come of age in the era of #MeToo, gen Z women are becoming the most progressive and politically active cohort ever measured – while gen Z men are increasingly apathetic to politics and drifting further to the right.Conservatives are openly using anxiety around masculinity to win this election, telling men that their problems stem from not being man enough. Josh Hawley, the influential Republican senator from Missouri, published a book called Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. The Fox News host Jesse Watters went even further.“I don’t see why any man would vote Democrat. It’s not the party of virtue, security. It’s not the party of strength,” Watters said, shortly after White Dudes for Harris held a call with more than 190,000 participants. Watters added: “I heard the scientists say the other day that when a man votes for a woman, he actually transitions into a woman.”Watters is not a serious person, but Americans’ obsession with masculinity is, to the point that it can determine the outcome even of presidential elections where two men are running. (So, most of them.) Americans revere presidents as role models, fixating on their status – real or perceived – as founding fathers, real fathers, war heroes, and masters of diplomacy and making money and cheating on their wives without getting caught (or, at least, without getting divorced). Because presidents epitomize American notions of manhood, elections reveal what kind of man, what type and degree of masculinity, is most respected and deserving of power.View image in fullscreenTrump has turned his campaign into a pitch for hyper-traditional masculinity. At this year’s Republican national convention, he walked on stage to the James Brown song It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World and was introduced by Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship who was caught slapping his wife on camera. On the campaign trail, he has hammed it up with YouTubers and podcasters who have male-centric audiences and dim views of women.With the general public and her opponent so preoccupied by masculinity, Harris is not emphasizing her pioneering nomination. Rather, in order to win a contest that no woman has ever won, she’s trying to take advantage of stereotypes about men, women and leadership – and, when they can’t work in her favor, using them to kneecap Trump instead.Masculinity, it turns out, may be the most partisan issue in US politics.A few good menWhen people conjure up the image of a “good man” or a “real man”, they tend to imagine the same qualities: someone who is dominant, successful and tough – and who is nothing like women, according to Theresa Vescio, a psychology professor who studies gender, politics and privilege at Penn State.This way of thinking is so pervasive that people gender political matters that, objectively, have no sex. National defense and the economy are seen as topics that men care about, because men are expected to prize being providers for and protectors of their families. Healthcare – including abortion rights – and education are seen as women’s issues, because women are supposed to be compassionate caregivers. (In reality, at least among gen Z, young women care about all of these issues more than young men do.) Even the political parties themselves are gendered: Republicans are associated with more masculine issues and traits, Democrats with feminine ones.These stereotypes inform American ideals of the presidency. “What we expect in a good leader is that they’re powerful, high status, top, able to lead. That overlaps substantially with stereotypes of masculinity and men,” Vescio said. “So when we think about who would be a good leader, stereotypes of men fit and complement. There’s no incongruity.”They complement one another so seamlessly, in fact, that the role of masculinity in elections was once invisible. We’re so used to seeing men run for office, and seeing “gender” only become a buzzword when a woman steps into the fray, that we often don’t even recognize that men have a gender, let alone that male candidates offer up different, competing visions of masculinity.But they do compete, even in the most animalistic ways. For example, presidential candidates are more likely to succeed when they have one key, traditionally masculine physical quality: height.The taller candidate is more likely to win more votes and be re-elected; they are also more likely to be seen by experts as being better leaders and simply “greater”. This link between height and presidential preference is so strong and so subconscious that when Richard Nixon ran against John F Kennedy in 1960, voters tended to think their chosen candidate was taller. (Kennedy was taller, and he won.) Ron DeSantis might have been laughed at for reportedly wearing ill-fitting heels when he ran for president, but he would have been right to worry.If you’re still not convinced, take the 2004 race between George W Bush and John Kerry, which hinged on the candidates’ supposed manhood to a startling degree. Bush sold himself as a down-home rancher who may have occasionally been “misunderestimated” but who you wanted to grab a beer with. Kerry, meanwhile, was a Vietnam combat veteran with a deep understanding of policy. This presented a problem for Bush: how could he be “the man’s man” when his opponent was part of the uber-masculine military?“What they did was, they went and they attacked his service record, because that was his greatest political strength,” said Jackson Katz, author of the book Man Enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity. An advocacy group, technically formed independent of Bush, dedicated itself to questioning Kerry’s record.View image in fullscreenKatz continued of Kerry: “His attitude was like: ‘This is beneath me, to respond to these attacks.’ And it backfired. Because in the masculinity narrative, if you don’t defend your honor that’s being besmirched, you’re emasculated, you’re not strong.”Kerry, of course, lost.The architect of the attack to undermine Kerry is now working on Trump’s 2024 campaign, which is attempting to run the same playbook against Tim Walz. JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, has suggested that Walz left the national guard to avoid serving in the Iraq war.In fact, Walz was in the national guard for 24 years and left to run for Congress several months before his unit was deployed to Iraq. Walz has defended his record – but Team Trump isn’t typically all that worried about the truth.Masculinity subtext comes textWhen Trump descended down a golden escalator during the 2016 primary, we entered a new, far more obvious era of presidential masculinity. During that primary, Trump loved to talk about “Little Marco” Rubio, which prompted Rubio to attack Trump for his supposedly undersized hands. There is no better proof that masculinity underscores presidential elections than two candidates subtly accusing one another of having small penises.Well, maybe there is: Trump, the man who started the dick-measuring contest, won the one for the White House, too.The more people believe that traditional notions of masculinity are good and true, the more likely they were to vote for Trump in 2016, when Trump ran against a woman, and 2020, when Trump did not, Vescio found in a 2021 study. This finding held true regardless of people’s party, gender, race or level of education. It also held true even after Vescio controlled for people’s trust, or lack thereof, in government, undermining the idea that Trump’s popularity is due to his populism rather than his masculine posturing.When it comes to cosplaying masculinity, one of Trump’s greatest assets is his disinterest in reality. In other words: he’s good at making big, bold, often untrue statements, and people like that in a man.“Trump promises, more than anybody else: ‘I’m going to do this.’ Oftentimes, in violation of what the president can actually do,” said the political scientist Dan Cassino, who studies male gender identity at Fairleigh Dickinson University. “But he says he’s going to go in and fix a problem. ‘I’m going to do this on day one. Whatever Congress says doesn’t matter.’ That sort of agentic behavior is perceived as being very, very masculine.”Republicans, especially, really like this kind of behavior in a man. This can partially be chalked up to demographics. Both men and older people, who are more likely to embrace traditional gender roles, are likelier to be Republicans. It can be explained by the nature of conservatism itself. Conservatives want to preserve tradition.View image in fullscreenThere’s also another explanation: sexism.“As researchers, we differentiate between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism is: ‘Women are terrible and it’s OK to beat your wife,’” Cassino said. “Benevolent sexism is more like: ‘Oh, women are pure and precious, we have to protect them.’ That means keeping them out of things like politics, putting up separate spheres.”Lilliana Mason, a Johns Hopkins University professor who studies partisan identity, measured people’s hostile sexism by asking whether they agreed with statements like: “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.” Republicans, she found, were on average about twice as likely as Democrats to show signs of hostile sexism.“The better predictor of being Republican is not gender, but sexism,” Mason said. “There are a lot of women who hold sexist attitudes and are pro-patriarchy and believe that women shouldn’t be in power.”I’ve encountered shades of this attitude: in January 2020, I met a woman in her 30s from Louisiana, at the March for Life, the largest annual anti-abortion gathering in the United States. Women, she told me at the time, should not be president, because they just can’t be leaders in the same way as men.“Women and men are completely different biologically,” she said. “And so for that reason, I believe that they should have specific jobs for who they are, biologically.”She planned to vote for Trump.Sexism is more than a collection of views about women – it’s a belief system about how men and women should interact. (And that men and women are the only two genders.) But as much as Trump may benefit from the GOP’s sexism, he doesn’t seem all that interested in gender relations. He has praised and attacked individual women, including his accuser E Jean Carroll, often over their looks, but he rarely speaks about women as a category.Instead, he has largely delegated that to JD Vance.In addition to claiming that “traditional masculine traits are now actively suppressed from childhood all the way through adulthood”, Vance has denigrated childfree women as “childless cat ladies”, agreed that the purpose of the “postmenopausal female” is to help raise grandchildren, and claimed women who prioritize careers over families are on “a path to misery”.“Vance is very much doing appeals, I think, less about masculinity, more about benevolent sexism,” Cassino said. “At its edges, it goes into what is called natalism, that the job of women is to reproduce, which is the extreme, extreme end of benevolent sexism.”This is the Vance innovation on the already masculine Trump ticket: he operationalizes Trump’s static vision of white-man hypermasculinity into a blueprint for how genders should live with one another. If Trump and Vance win, that blueprint could be turned into policy.View image in fullscreenThere are signs that Trump is coming around to Vance’s approach – at least when it comes to abortion, one of Trump’s biggest electoral weaknesses and an issue that has quite a bit to do with male-female relations.“I WILL PROTECT WOMEN AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN BEFORE,” he posted to TruthSocial over the weekend. “THEY WILL FINALLY BE HEALTHY, HOPEFUL, SAFE, AND SECURE.”The feminine catch-22When Harris walked out on stage at the Democratic convention to accept her party’s nomination for president, Kelly Dittmar was immediately struck by one thing.“She didn’t wear white,” said Dittmar, who, as the director of research at Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics, makes something of a living noting how powerful women present themselves in public.White is the color of the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; Democratic women regularly don it for the major rituals of US politics, including the convention. “Like half the crowd was wearing white,” Dittmar pointed out.But not Harris. She wore a navy suit and a matching pussy bow blouse.It was an unmistakable declaration: Harris did not want to focus on how she has made history. In the weeks since, she has stayed true to that stance. When presidential debate moderators brought up abortion and Donald Trump’s racist lies about her identity, Harris didn’t respond with anecdotes about her experience as a woman of color. Instead, she told the audience: “I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us.”If Hillary Clinton stands accused of focusing on her gender too much when she ran for president in 2016, Harris is doing everything she can to avoid falling into the same trap. But the braided nature of masculinity, leadership and politics leaves female political candidates in such a bind that even the act of raising an eyebrow becomes fraught.During the debate, Harris didn’t bother to hide her skepticism at Trump’s boasts, lies and rambling. “If she wants to win, Harris needs to train her face not to respond,” the pollster Frank Luntz posted on X at the time. “It feeds into a female stereotype and, more importantly, risks offending undecided voters.”It’s not clear what “female stereotype” Luntz – who said nothing of Trump’s tendency to smirk while Harris spoke – was referring to. (The female stereotype of having expressions?) But it is true that “as a female candidate, you have to be feminine, because otherwise you’re not a good woman”, Cassino said. “But you also have to be masculine, because in the US, we’ve decided that leaders are masculine. So you have to have masculine traits and feminine traits.”When it comes to telegraphing her masculine credentials, Harris has a built-in advantage: she spent years working in law enforcement, a field associated with toughness, victory and men. In her very first speech as the presumptive Democratic candidate, Harris recalled her time as a prosecutor and California attorney general.“In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds,” she said, using a line that has since become a part of her stump speech. “Predators who abused women. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers. Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump’s type.” Translation: she knows how to dominate the worst of the worst.“Democrats don’t need Harris to go out and shoot guns in her campaign ad or on the campaign trail,” said Nichole Bauer, a Louisiana State University professor who studies political communication. “But they do need her to display those masculine qualities that we associate with political leaders, and those are really masculine qualities that we don’t always think of as being gendered – like talking about her experience as a vice-president, an attorney general, a senator.”Last week, Harris sat down with Oprah, who had been stunned to learn, during the debate, that the vice-president owns a gun. “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said. Then she laughed. “Probably should not have said that.”That exchange encapsulated Harris’s balancing act. She’s got a gun and she’s not afraid to use it, but she’ll laugh about it. That laugh, experts said, may be one of Harris’s best assets when it comes to convincing voters that she is both competent and warm. It helps burnish her claim that she’s a “joyful warrior”, an image that “creates a distinct persona that I think bridges those gendered expectations”, Dittmar said. Joy, she continued, “alludes [to] kindness and even empathy, which is more traditionally associated with femininity and women”.There are very few true independents in the US electorate; all but 3% of self-identified independents lean Democrat or Republican. But that tiny fraction of the population can decide a close election. When judging a candidate, undecided voters tend to rely heavily on racial and gendered stereotypes, according to Bauer.“If Harris displays masculinity in a super aggressive way, similar to how Trump and Vance might do it, then she risks falling into this ‘angry Black woman’ stereotype that we’ve been socialized to think of as a negative stereotype, as something incompatible with political leadership,” Bauer said. “It’s just this really narrow set of behaviors that she has to fit into to try to show her leadership qualities.”In past elections, the men who have tried to take down Trump attempted to outman him. Rubio suggested he had a bigger you-know-what; DeSantis sold himself to voters as the grown-up version of Trump; in a 2020 debate, Joe Biden snapped: “Donald, would you just be quiet for a minute?” But running on full-tilt masculinity would never work for Harris. Not only did it not work for most of those men, but as a woman, she cannot win a masculinity-off.View image in fullscreenInstead, her supporters’ best shot at defeating Trump may be to unman him. That Lincoln Project ad, for example, framed Trump next to images of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Harris, meanwhile, is pictured giving a salute. “The images of Trump in the ad are chaotic. It’s social unrest,” pointed out Erin Cassese, a University of Delaware political science professor. The ad seems to ask: would a real man lose control like Trump did?During the debate, Harris urged viewers to go to one of Trump’s rallies. “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about ‘windmills cause cancer’,” she said. “And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”Those attacks – the kind of attacks that could once have been directed at Biden – also undermine Trump’s masculinity. Cassino summarized the message as: “He’s kind of old and confused and weird. This is not a masculine guy.”‘Toxic’ masculinityAs much as the internet may like to call traditional stereotypes of masculinity “toxic”, they are not necessarily bad. Success, hardiness, being a provider and protector – those can all be good qualities.The problem, for individuals, is that stereotypes of masculinity can be so strict and stifling that they are impossible for anybody to live up to. No one can be in power at all times. You might be the boss at the office, but when you get home, your teenage children are still likely to ignore your commands.And, for US society as a whole, clinging to a narrow notion of masculinity really can be toxic. “It allows for aggression towards groups that aren’t appropriately masculine, which would be different kinds of groups of men that we define as problems, and women,” Vescio said. “It masks racism and sexism.”Harris isn’t right or wrong to lean into some masculine stereotypes. After all, if a woman can harness them well enough to win the most masculine office in US history, then maybe such attitudes and behaviors won’t be considered “masculine” any more. Maybe they’re just ways that people, of all genders, can act. Maybe voters will start to value “feminine” traits in leaders, too.View image in fullscreen“The only way we can ever stop defining our politics in terms of men versus women is, have so many women run that is just not notable any more,” Cassino said.Sending Trump back to the White House may affirm his brand of masculinity on a national scale. The more Trump larps masculinity, the more Republicans grow to like it; the more deeply invested they become in masculinity, the more polarized the United States may become. People who support traditional masculinity also tend to show signs of sexism (benevolent and hostile), anti-Black racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.But, in Dittmar’s view, voting Harris into office may indicate that people don’t want to shove women into a separate sphere.“We’re voting on a lot of things, but among them is that version of leadership and our evaluation of these gendered versions of it,” Dittmar said. “As well as, even more broadly, our sense of the appropriate roles of women, the ways in which women should be treated by our political leaders.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably realize | John Zogby

      by

      Amid the turbulence, conflict, hyperbole, unprecedented misogyny, and downright hate that provides the backdrop for US elections this year, one thing remains in equilibrium: the 2024 presidential election. Vice President Kamala Harris may lead following a honeymoon, a great nominating convention, and a solid debate performance, but she never leads by much. Former President Donald Trump may at other times lead nationally and in a few battleground states, but by one or two percentage points, more or less.Around 5%-8% of voters remain undecided but they are probably not really focused on anything more than keeping their job, getting the kids off to school, grocery shopping, and the other demands of everyday life. And there is only a little wiggle room, with so many decided voters firm in their support for their candidate or their intense disgust for the other candidate.Here’s where we stand: Momentum appears to be with Harris, who leads in four of the last five nationwide polls (in one by as many as six points) and is tied in the other. She also leads in five of the critical seven battleground states. But her leads are under two percentage points and mainly under one percentage point. The reverse is true for Trump, who presently holds tiny leads in only two states.What makes this dynamic so intriguing is that, in this context, a shift of one or two points can change the leader, or the perception of the leader, making these minor bumps appear larger than they really are. What also makes this so fascinating is seeing some of the normal voting group alignments shifting.We pollsters began to take notice of the “gender gap” in 1988, when men supported Republican George HW Bush and women were highly in favor of Democrat Michael Dukakis. There have been such gaps in every election since, but in 2024 they are especially acute. In the latest New York Times/Siena College poll, Trump leads Harris by 17 points among men in Georgia while in the same state she is ahead among women by eight – a 25-point gap. The gender gap is 15 points in Pennsylvania and strong double digits in other states and nationwide.We are also paying close attention to the breakdown of voters by race. When Joe Biden left the race in late July, he was only about 60%-65% among Black voters. Harris is now polling at around 80% in most battleground states – including 82% percent each in all-important Pennsylvania and Georgia. In some states, however, Trump is polling close to 20% among Black voters – with his support among young Black men approaching 30% in several instances.By way of historical comparison, Black Americans normally give around 90% of their vote to Democratic presidential candidates. Barack Obama received 96% and 93% of the Black vote in his two elections, where they represented around 13% of the total vote. By way of contrast, Hillary Clinton won 87% support when Black turnout was only 11% of the total and, while she won the overall popular vote, this meager turnout hurt her in a few states. Trump picking up such a larger piece of the Black turnout could hurt the Democrats significantly.What we need to watch closely from here is gender and race. Harris will focus her attention on appealing to young women on the issue of reproductive rights, closely followed by the dangers of climate change and gun violence. These may not be the top three issues to all voters, but they are certainly critical to young women. And she needs them. Meanwhile, her running mate Tim Walz will represent the ticket to white working-class voters in the Midwest to prevent the bleeding among that group among Democrats.At the same time, look for Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, to continue to do the aggressive male thing – attacking childless women, calling their opponent a diversity hire, and the like. Trump’s latest gambit is patronizing women by telling them they do not need abortion to achieve self-actualization and empowerment, that he will protect them, that they don’t need to be worrying their pretty little heads about abortion rights.This message is not directed at women at all: it is an appeal to young men who are confused in a world where the definition of manhood is changing, who find it difficult to steer their lives when girls are doing better on test scores, attending and completing college in higher rates, and otherwise outperforming males in a world that men had once dominated. It is men who are finding it harder and harder to define their careers and future, who fear they are losing ground.So Trump and Vance will continue to promise a return to an America where, in the words of Archie Bunker, “Girls were girls and men were men”, the same world where communities were white and the US was always right.At the moment, the presidential race is in balance. The numbers are tied. The fears of another election too close to call and the turbulence beyond are very real. We are at equilibrium and very possibly at the calm before the storm.

      John Zogby is senior partner at the polling firm of John Zogby Strategies and is author of Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read the Polls and Why We Should More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Lucky Loser review – how Donald Trump squandered his wealth

      by

      Donald Trump started his career at the end of the 1970s, financed by his father Fred Trump. Over the years this transfer of wealth added up to around $500m in today’s money in gifts. My rough calculations say that, had he simply taken the money, leveraged it not imprudently, and passively invested it in Manhattan real estate – gone to parties, womanised, played golf, collected his rent cheques and reinvested them – his fortune could have amounted to more than $80bn by the time he ascended to the presidency in 2017.And yet Trump was not worth $80bn in 2017. Instead, Forbes pegged him at $2.5bn – which, given the difficulties of valuing and accounting for real estate, is really anything between $5bn (£4bn) and zero (or less). It is in this sense that Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig call Trump a “loser”. He is indeed one of the world’s biggest losers. By trying to run a business, rather than just kicking back and letting the rising tide of his chosen sector lift his wealth beyond the moon, he managed to destroy the vast majority of his potential net worth.How he did that is what Buettner and Craig chronicle in a book dense with facts and figures, but punctuated with moments of irony and dark humour – particularly when contrasting Trump’s public bravado with the often pathetic reality of his money management. The combination turns what might have been a rather boring tome, of interest only to trained financial professionals like me, into something of a page turner. Buettner and Craig paint a picture of Trump’s businesses as “mirage[s], built on inherited wealth, shady deals, and a relentless pursuit of appearances over substance”. And yet, Road Runner-like, he runs off the edge of the cliff, looks down, shrugs – and keeps going until his feet touch the ground again on the other side.Buettner and Craig delve more deeply into this story than anyone I have encountered. They have done their interview and newspaper-morgue homework, checked it against tax information and business records spanning three decades, and so gained an unprecedented look into the real workings of Trump’s financial empire. They uncover, I think as much as we can get at it, the truth behind the narrative of his wealth and its indispensable support: the myth of a genius businessman that he has spun and that, deplorably, much of the press and his supporters have bought, hook, line and sinker. Their conclusion? He was always exaggerating how rich he was, and always skating remarkably close to the edge of financial disaster.But though he squandered a great deal, it’s also true that he was extremely lucky. First, and most importantly, he was a beneficiary of the absolutely spectacular Manhattan real-estate boom. Second, he had things break his way at many crucial junctures that ought to have sunk him into total and irrevocable bankruptcy. Third, he was able to use his celebrity developer-mogul image to attract new business partners after his old ones had washed their hands of him. He was also lucky in the complacency of many of them with respect to his shenanigans: their willingness to play along and not find a judge to pull the plug.What sort of psychology produces this kind of behaviour? Buettner and Craig psychoanalyse Trump as unable to take the hit of recognising his relative incompetence. A deep need for public validation as the master of the Art of the Deal led him, over and over again, to make increasingly risky decisions. The illusion of success had to be maintained at all costs, which meant that a loss had to be followed by an even bigger bet.And so there Trump was at the start of 2017, in spite of everything, stunningly successful. Buettner and Craig call this an “illusion”. I profoundly disagree. To repeatedly save yourself from bankruptcy – to somehow manage to hand responsibility off to the people you do business with while you hotfoot it out of the picture – demonstrates considerable skill and ingenuity of some sort. Trump has exhibited great (if low) cunning and resilience when faced with what often appeared to be near-certain financial, entrepreneurial and business doom. It is, Buettner and Craig say, a combination of “bravado [and] branding” that allowed him to always “walk away with something – usually at the expense of others”.Many of us hope that Trump’s story will end with a proper comeuppance, restoring the appropriate and just moral order of the universe, in which his galaxy-scale hubris does indeed ultimately call forth a satisfying nemesis. Until then, we must regard him as a remarkable success – although few philosophers would judge Trump’s brand of success as the kind worth having.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris decries Trump’s abortion comments in first solo TV interview

      by

      Kamala Harris sat for her first solo interview as the Democratic presidential nominee on Wednesday, laying out her plan to boost the middle class and condemning her rival Donald Trump on his comments over abortion.During the interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, which was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the vice-president painted Trump as a candidate focused on the rich at the expense of the middle class, and herself as better equipped to handle the economy.“The top economists in our country have compared our plans and say mine would grow the economy, [and] his would shrink it,” she said during the interview.On his economic record, Harris said: “Donald Trump made a whole lot of promises that he did not meet.”Harris also showed disdain over Trump’s comments over abortion, expressing he needs to trust women to make their own reproductive decisions. Her comments came after Trump, at a Pennsylvania rally, called himself a “protector” of women, claiming American women will not be “thinking about abortion” if he is elected.“Donald Trump is also the person who said women should be punished for exercising a decision that they, rightly, should be able to make about their own body and future,” Harris said.On a lighter note, Harris confirmed that she worked at McDonald’s, pushing back against Trump’s allegations that she did not.“Part of the reason I even talk about having worked at McDonald’s is because there are people who work at McDonald’s who are trying to raise a family,” she said, alluding to her economic policy plan to help working-class families.“I think part of the difference between me and my opponent includes our perspective on the needs of the American people and what our responsibility, then, is to meet those needs,” Harris added.The interview comes at a time when Harris faces harsh criticism over the lack of media interviews she has done. Earlier this month, Axios reported that the Harris-Walz campaign has so far given fewer interviews than any other candidates in modern history.Trump and JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential pick, have used it as ammunition during their campaign speeches. On X, Vance responded to news of Harris’s interview by saying: “This is legitimately pathetic for a person who wants to be president. Ruhle has explicitly endorsed Harris. She won’t ask hard Qs. Kamala runs from tough questions because she can’t defend her record. If you want open borders and high groceries, vote for status quo Kamala.”In August, Harris was interviewed on CNN alongside Walz. The interview was hosted by Dana Bash and was aired as a one-hour primetime special. After the interview, Republicans criticized the joint interview with Walz for being pre-recorded and not live.Since then, Harris has given a handful of interviews, mostly with local outlets or more niche forums, including an appearance with Stephanie “Chiquibaby” Himonidis, a Spanish-language radio host and podcaster.Harris also appeared in a live-streamed “Unite For America” event with supporters hosted by Oprah Winfrey last week. More

    • 263 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mark Cuban says Harris’s economic plan is ‘better for business’; Trump to rally at site of first assassination attempt – live

      by

      Mark Cuban, who attended Harris’s speech at the Economic Club in Pittsburgh, praised the vice-president’s pitch as “better for business”.Cuban, the entrepreneur and investor who rose to prominence as owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and star of the reality TV show Shark Tank, lauded Harris for discussing AI and other emerging technologies and her plans to encourage entrepreneurs in an interview with MSNBC.“Every single person in this country has that entrepreneur in them,” he said. “And she’s going to lift them up.”Trump meanwhile, “has no interest in really finding out what it takes to be successful with any policy,” Cuban said.Cuban has been a big supporter of Harris.Harris, in turn, had largely catered this speech to business owners and centrists who may have identified with pro-business Republican candidates in the past, and may be turned off by Donald Trump’s inscrutable economic agenda.The US House passed a three-month government funding package on Wednesday, sending the bill to the Senate with just days left to avert a shutdown set to begin next Tuesday.The vote was 341 to 82, with 132 Republicans and 209 Democrats supporting the legislation. All 82 votes against the bill, which will extend government funding until 20 December, came from House Republicans.Republican House speaker Mike Johnson revealed the legislation on Sunday after his original funding proposal failed to pass last week. Johnson’s original bill combined a six-month funding measure with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) act, a controversial proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Fourteen House Republicans and all but two House Democrats voted against that bill last Wednesday, blocking its passage.Read the full story here:In Racine county, Wisconsin, the Guardian’s Callum Jones looked at Donald Trump’s promises to “rebuild the economy” and how they panned out. Less than 30 miles south of the Fiserv Forum, the Wisconsin convention center where Republicans confirmed Donald Trump as their nominee for president for the third time, lies the site of a project Trump predicted would become “the Eighth Wonder of the World”.While still in office, the then president traveled to Mount Pleasant in Racine county to break ground on a sprawling facility that the electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn had agreed to build – in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies.Flanked by local allies and executives from the company, Trump planted a golden shovel in the ground. “America is open for business more than it has ever been open for business,” he proclaimed in June 2018, as FoxConn promised to invest $10bn and hire 13,000 local workers.Highways were built and expanded. Homes were razed. The area – a former manufacturing powerhouse – was primed for revitalization in a deal that seemed to underline the executive prowess of America’s most famous businessman, an image that has helped maintain many voters’ confidence that he could steer the US economy more competently than his rival, Kamala Harris, and could win him the White House again come November.But on a recent drive around the site, fields of long grass and weeds stretched as far as the eye could see. Trees marked where houses used to stand. The Eighth Wonder was nowhere to be seen.“Everyone was very skeptical it was going to happen,” said Wendy DeBona, a local Uber and Lyft driver, 53. “And then, of course, look what happened.”Foxconn all but pulled the plug in April 2021, blaming “unanticipated market fluctuations” as it drastically cut back its plan and struck a new deal, through which it committed to spend $672m on a campus that would create about 1,400 jobs.Today, a striking glass globe stands over what the firm did, eventually, build. What work is actually taking place there is the subject of local speculation; the company did not respond to a request for comment.Trump had left office by the time Plan A fell through. “They dug a hole with those golden shovels, and then they fell into it,” Joe Biden, his successor, suggested earlier this year. “Foxconn turned out to be just that: a con.”But one section of the site is a hive of activity, with cranes, diggers, trucks, lorries and tractors visible from the road. Biden himself visited in May, as Microsoft announced it would invest $3.3bn into a new data center on part of the land abandoned by Foxconn. The project is set to create 2,300 union construction jobs, and the tech giant has also pledged to build a new academy with a local technical college, through which more than 1,000 students will be trained in five years “to work in the new data center and IT sector jobs created in the area”.So did Biden do what Trump didn’t? It depends on whom you ask. Who is better for the economy will be a crucial question in Wisconsin, a must-win swing state in the race for the White House. The state backed Barack Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. As Trump pledges to “rebuild” the US economy by cutting taxes, boosting wages and creating jobs, those attempting to persuade Racine county to reject him believe his role in the Foxconn debacle has shifted the dial.Donald Trump’s campaign has already responded to Harris’s speech, pointing back to Joe Biden’s economic record.“She’s had three and a half years to prove herself, and she has failed. Personal savings are down, credit card debt is up, small business optimism is at a record-low, and people are struggling to afford homes, groceries and gas,” said Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign national press secretary. “ONLY President Trump will Make America WEALTHY Again” (emphasis hers).Although small business optimism remains low, it is not at a record low.As Marketplace explains:
      National Federation of Independent Business’ newest small-business optimism index is out. The good news? The index rose more than two points in July, and small businesses feel the most optimistic they have since February 2022. The less good news? Optimism is still below the survey’s 50-year average.
      The challenge for Trump’s campaign will be holding Harris accountable for the economy under Biden. Polls are increasingly finding that voters are willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt – and hear her out.Mark Cuban, who attended Harris’s speech at the Economic Club in Pittsburgh, praised the vice-president’s pitch as “better for business”.Cuban, the entrepreneur and investor who rose to prominence as owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and star of the reality TV show Shark Tank, lauded Harris for discussing AI and other emerging technologies and her plans to encourage entrepreneurs in an interview with MSNBC.“Every single person in this country has that entrepreneur in them,” he said. “And she’s going to lift them up.”Trump meanwhile, “has no interest in really finding out what it takes to be successful with any policy,” Cuban said.Cuban has been a big supporter of Harris.Harris, in turn, had largely catered this speech to business owners and centrists who may have identified with pro-business Republican candidates in the past, and may be turned off by Donald Trump’s inscrutable economic agenda.Although voters overall still seem to favor Donald Trump over Kamala Harris on economic issues, the former president’s edge has been blunted.Recent polls have showed that voters have more faith in Harris than they did in Joe Biden to steer the economy. A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday, for example, found that 52% of voters favored Trump vs 45% for Harris on the economy . An AP poll, meanwhile, found that voters were split – 43% favored Trump on the economy v 415 for Harris.Here’s some analysis from the AP:
      The finding is a warning sign for Trump, who has tried to link Harris to President Joe Biden’s economic track record. The new poll suggests that Harris may be escaping some of the president’s baggage on the issue, undercutting what was previously one of Trump’s major advantages.
      It may help Harris that the economy is also looking up for many voters. Interest rates are coming down, prices are stabilizing.Her speech today didn’t include much that was new – but Harris did detail several specific policies, including reiterating pledges she has previously made to help families with childcare costs, cut taxes for the middle class and encourage affordable housing construction. She also proposed policies to encourage entreprenuership.Harris wrapped up her speech by making a lengthy attack on the economic policies Donald Trump announced yesterday, saying many of them were rehashes of policies he proposed in 2016, but did not execute during his time as president.“On Trump’s watch, offshoring went up and manufacturing jobs went down across our country and across our economy. All told, almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost during his presidency, starting before the pandemic hit, making Trump one of the biggest losers ever on manufacturing,” Harris said.The vice-president also accused her opponent of talking tough on China, while doing little to stand up to its government:
      Donald Trump also talked a big game on our trade deficit with China, but it is far lower under our watch than any year of his administration.
      While he constantly got played by China, I will never hesitate to take swift and strong measures when China undermines the rules of the road at the expense of our workers, our communities and our companies, whether it’s flooding the market with steel inferior or at all, unfairly subsidizing shipbuilding or hurting our small businesses with counterfeits.
      “Understand the impact of these so-called policies that really are not about a plan for strengthening our prosperity or our security,” Harris said. She then repeated a promise she made, to applause, when accepting the nomination at last month’s Democratic national convention:
      I will never sell out America to our competitors or adversaries, never, never. And I will always make sure we have the strongest economy and the most lethal fighting force anywhere in the world.
      Warning that the US’s rivals, particularly China, are catching up to it, Kamala Harris said that the “third pillar” of her economic plan would be focused on ensuring the country is the leader in technological innovation, and on cutting red tape that slows down the completion of projects.“The third pillar of our opportunity economy is leading the world in the industries of the future and making sure America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century,” Harris said.She then elaborated on the types of technologies her administration would prioritize:
      I will recommit the nation to global leadership in the sectors that will define the next century. We will invest in biomanufacturing and aerospace, remain dominant in AI and quantum computing, blockchain and other emerging technologies, expand our lead in clean energy innovation and manufacturing, so the next generation of breakthroughs from advanced batteries to geothermal to advanced nuclear are not just invented, but built here in America by American workers.
      Turning to unions, she promised to “double the number of registered apprenticeships by the end of my first term”. Harris also proposed eliminating “degree requirements while increasing skills development”, something she said she would do for federal workers.She then turned to the pace of construction in the United States, which she argued was too slow:
      But the simple truth is, in America, it takes too long and it costs too much to build. Whether it’s a new housing development, a new factory or a new bridge, projects take too long to go from concept to reality. It happens in blue states, it happens in red states, and it’s a national problem. And I will tell you this, China is not moving slowly. They’re not and we can’t afford to either.
      Lowering costs was “the first pillar” of her economic policy, and now Kamala Harris is getting into her “second pillar”, which she said was “investing in American innovation and entrepreneurship”.“There has been no incubator for unleashing human potential like America, and we need to guard that spirit,” the vice-president said.Her plan to do that involves making it easier for entrepreneurs to get loans:
      We can make it easier for our small businesses to access capital. On average, it costs about $40,000 to start a new business, but currently, the tax deduction for startups is only $5,000.
      So, currently, for startup costs, the tax deduction is $5,000. Well, in 2024 it is almost impossible to start a business on $5,000 which is why as president, I will make the start-up deduction 10 times richer, and we will raise it from $5,000 to $50,000 tax deduction and provide low- and no-interest loans to small businesses that want to expand.
      She also set the goal of generating 25m new applications for small businesses by the end of her first term, which would be in January 2029.Kamala Harris is now talking about the sorts of policies she would pursue as president, reiterating pledges she has previously made to assist families with childcare costs, cut taxes for the middle class and spur the construction of affordable housing:
      Under my plan, more than 100 million Americans will get a middle-class tax break that includes $6,000 for new parents during the first year of their child’s life to help families cover everything from car seats to cribs. We’ll also cut the cost of childcare and elder care, and finally, give all working people access to paid leave, which will help everyone caring for children, caring for aging parents and that sandwich generation, which is caring for both.
      She then went into her plan to lower housing costs, a major concern for both her and Donald Trump:
      We will also go after the biggest drivers of cost for the middle class and work to bring them down. And one of those, some would argue, one of the biggest is the cost of housing. So here’s what we will do. We will cut the red tape that stops homes from being built and take on, in addition, corporate landlords who are hiking rental prices and, yes, and we will work with builders and developers to construct 3 million new homes and rentals for the middle class, because increasing the housing supply will help drive down the cost of housing.
      Then we will also help first time homebuyers just get their foot in the door with the $25,000 down payment assistance.
      Trump’s policy on housing has centered on mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, who he argues have increased demand for housing and, therefore, costs. Here’s more about that:Harris has thus far talked less about policy than about her ideology when it comes to handling economic challenges.Harris has invoked Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt as inspiring her economic approach, saying:
      I will engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation, because I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology, and instead, should seek practical solutions to problems, realistic assessments of what is working and what is not, applying metrics to our analysis, applying facts to our analysis, and stay focused … Not only on the crises at hand, but on our big goals, on what’s best for America over the long term.
      The vice-president then got more direct about what she supported:
      I’ve always been, and will always be, a strong supporter of workers and unions, and I also believe we need to engage those who create most of the jobs in America.
      Look, I am a capitalist. I believe in free and fair markets. I believe in consistent and transparent rules of the road to create a stable business environment, and I know the power of American innovation. I’ve been working with entrepreneurs and business owners my whole career, and I believe companies need to play by the rules, respect the rights of workers and unions and abide by fair competition, and if they don’t, I will hold them accountable.
      Harris has not actually gotten into specifics yet, but continues to elaborate on her promise to lower costs for Americans.“I want Americans and families to be able to not just get by, but be able to get ahead, to thrive, be able to thrive,” the vice-president said.She went on:
      I don’t want you to have to worry about making your monthly rent if your car breaks down. I want you to be able to save up for your child’s education, to take a nice vacation from time to time. I want you to be able to buy Christmas presents for your loved ones without feeling anxious when you’re looking at your bank statement. I want you to be able to build some wealth, not just for yourself, but also for your children and your grandchildren, intergenerational wealth.
      Harris, speaking a little more slowly and deliberately than she usually does, then went on to attack Donald Trump’s economic policies:
      The American people face a choice between two fundamentally very different paths for our economy. I intend to chart a new way forward and grow America’s middle class. Donald Trump intends to take America backward to the failed policies of the past.
      He has no intention to grow our middle class. He’s only interested in making life better for himself and people like himself, the wealthiest of Americans, you can see it spelled out in his economic agenda, an agenda that gives trillions of dollars in tax cuts to billionaires and the biggest corporations, while raising taxes on the middle class by almost $4,000 a year, slashing overtime pay, throwing tens of millions of Americans off of health care and cutting Social Security and Medicare. In sum, his agenda would weaken the economy and hurt working people and the middle class.
      In a speech in Georgia yesterday, Trump announced plans to slash taxes for corporations who make their products in the United States, and put steep tariffs on imports from countries where US firms move jobs:Kamala Harris began by recounting how the economy grew and unemployment stayed low under Joe Biden’s presidency, then pivoted to acknowledging the toll inflation has taken on Americans.“Over the past three and a half years, we have taken major steps forward to recover from the public health and economic crisis we inherited. Inflation has dropped faster here than the rest of the developed world. Unemployment is near record low levels,” she said.“But let’s be clear, for all these positive steps, the cost of living in America is still just too high. You know it, and I know it, and that was true long before the pandemic hit.”Kamala Harris is coming onstage now in Pittsburgh, where she’s set to elaborate on her proposals for the economy.We’ll let you know what she has to say. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump-Zelenskyy feud escalates as Republicans demand envoy’s removal

      by

      The US House speaker, Mike Johnson, has demanded that Ukraine fire its ambassador to Washington as the feud between Donald Trump and Volodymr Zelenskyy escalated and Republicans accused the Ukrainian leader of election interference.In a public letter, Johnson demanded that Zelenskyy fire the Ukrainian ambassador, Oksana Markarova, over a visit to a munitions factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania, last week where the Ukrainian president thanked workers for providing desperately needed shells to his outgunned forces.Johnson complained that Markarova had organised the visit to the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant as a “partisan campaign event designed to help Democrats”. The event was attended by the Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who has campaigned in support of Kamala Harris.“The facility was in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because – on purpose – no Republicans were invited,” Johnson wrote in a letter on congressional letterhead addressed to the Ukrainian embassy.“The tour was clearly a partisan campaign event designed to help Democrats and is clearly election interference,” the letter continued. “This shortsighted and intentionally political move has caused Republicans to lose trust in Ambassador Markarova’s ability to fairly and effectively serve as a diplomat in this country. She should be removed from her post immediately.”On the same day, Trump in a campaign event in North Carolina attacked Zelenskyy directly and accused him of “refusing” to negotiate a peace deal with Vladimir Putin.“The president of Ukraine is in our country. He is making little nasty aspersions toward your favourite president, me,” Trump said. “We continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refuses to make a deal: Zelenskyy.”The accusations against Zelenskyy came after a controversial interview with the New Yorker in which he questioned Trump’s plan to end Ukraine’s war with Russia and sharply criticized Republicans’ vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, as “too radical”.Vance had earlier said a peace in Ukraine could entail Russia retaining the Ukrainian land it had occupied and the establishment a demilitarised zone with a heavily fortified frontline to prevent another Russian invasion.“His message seems to be that Ukraine must make a sacrifice,” Zelenskyy said in the interview with the New Yorker. “This brings us back to the question of the cost and who shoulders it. The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine’s expense is unacceptable. But I do not consider this concept of his a plan, in any formal sense.”After addressing the United Nations general assembly on Wednesday, Zelenskyy is expected to travel to Washington to present his “victory plan” to Joe Biden at the White House.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn his letter, Johnson also referred to Ukrainian officials criticizing Trump and Vance in remarks to the media.“Additionally, as I have clearly stated in the past, all foreign nations should avoid opining on or interfering in American domestic politics,” he said. “Support for ending Russia’s war against Ukraine continues to be bipartisan, but our relationship is unnecessarily tested and needlessly tarnished when the candidates at the top of the Republican presidential ticket are targeted in the media by officials in your government.”Other top Republicans had criticized Zelenskyy this week after his remarks about Trump and Vance were published.“I don’t mind him going to a munitions plant thanking people for helping Ukraine. But I think his comments about JD Vance and President Trump were out of bounds,” said the Republican senator Lindsey Graham, according to US-based Punchbowl News.“With conservatives, it’s going to hurt Ukraine,” Graham said. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes government funding package to avert shutdown

      by

      The US House passed a three-month government funding package on Wednesday, sending the bill to the Senate with just days left to avert a shutdown set to begin next Tuesday.The vote was 341 to 82, with 132 Republicans and 209 Democrats supporting the legislation. All 82 votes against the bill, which will extend government funding until 20 December, came from House Republicans.The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, unveiled the legislation on Sunday after his original funding proposal failed to pass last week. Johnson’s original bill combined a six-month funding measure with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) act, a controversial proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Fourteen House Republicans and all but two House Democrats voted against that bill last Wednesday, blocking its passage.Days later, Johnson announced that the House would move forward with a “very narrow, bare-bones CR” that will extend government funding for three months, conceding to Democrats’ weeks-long demands.“Since we fell a bit short of the goal line, an alternative plan is now required,” Johnson said in a “Dear Colleague” letter sent on Sunday. “While this is not the solution any of us prefer, it is the most prudent path forward under the present circumstances. As history has taught and current polling affirms, shutting the government down less than 40 days from a fateful election would be an act of political malpractice.”The newly approved bill also includes an additional $231m for the Secret Service “for operations necessary to carry out protective operations including the 2024 Presidential Campaign and National Special Security Events”, following the two recent assassination attempts against Donald Trump.During the floor debate over the bill on Wednesday, Tom Cole, the Republican chair of the appropriations committee, urged his colleagues to support the legislation and avert a shutdown that he described as pointless.“It’s Congress’s responsibility to ensure that the government remains open and serving the American people,” Cole said. “We are here to avert harmful disruptions to our national security and vital programs our constituents rely on.”The bill was considered under suspension of the rules, meaning Johnson needed the support of two-thirds of the chamber to pass the bill. House Democratic leaders had indicated most of their caucus would support the funding package now that it was devoid of rightwing “poison pills”, and all present Democrats voted in favor of its passage on Wednesday.“We have an obligation in this chamber: to rule, to govern, to say to the American people: ‘We’re here on your behalf,’” Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said during the debate. “The legislative process is not one where one gets everything that they want. It is about compromise. It is about coming together to recognize that we do have this obligation and this responsibility.”The bill attracted significant opposition from hard-right Republicans, who have voiced staunch criticism of short-term continuing resolutions in the past.“We irresponsibly continue to spend money that we do not have, that we have not collected, and we continue to retreat to the corners of our safe political spaces and hide behind them in order to try to sell something to the American people,” Chip Roy, a hard-right Republican of Texas, said during the debate. “The American people look at us, and they go: ‘What on earth is wrong in Washington?’”Roy predicted that the passage of the continuing resolution would lead to the House approving a much broader full-year funding bill, known as an omnibus, before their December recess. Johnson has firmly denied that accusation, telling reporters at a press conference on Tuesday: “We have broken the Christmas [omnibus], and I have no intention of going back to that terrible tradition … We’ll deal with that in the lame duck.”During the floor debate, Cole suggested that the results of the November elections would provide Congress with clearer guidance on how to proceed on a full-year funding package.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We’re either going to shut the government down, without achieving anything by shutting it down, or we’re going to keep it open and keep working on our problems and, frankly, give the American people an opportunity in the election – through their votes and their voice – to decide who’s coming back here,” Cole said. “And I suspect that will clarify a lot of decisions in front of us.”The bill now advances to the Senate, which will have less than a week to pass the legislation to prevent a shutdown. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, voiced confidence that the chamber would move swiftly to pass the bill and send it to Joe Biden’s desk before next Tuesday.“Both sides will have to act celeritously and with continued bipartisan good faith to meet the funding deadline,” Schumer said in a floor speech on Monday. “Any delay or last minute-poison pill can still push us into a shutdown. I hope – and I trust – that this will not happen.”Schumer reiterated his frustration over the last-minute nature of the funding deal despite widespread expectations that negotiations would ultimately end with a three-month continuing resolution. Schumer blamed the delay on Trump, who had urged Republican lawmakers to reject any funding bill that did not include “election security” provisions.“This agreement could have very easily been reached weeks ago, but Speaker Johnson and House Republicans chose to listen to Donald Trump’s partisan demands instead of working with us from the start to reach a bicameral, bipartisan agreement,” Schumer said. “That is outlandishly cynical: Donald Trump knows perfectly well that a shutdown would mean chaos, pain, needless heartache for the American people. But as usual, he just doesn’t seem to care.”It remains unclear how or when Trump might retaliate against Johnson for failing to pass a funding bill linked to “election security” measures. Johnson has downplayed any suggestion of a potential rift between him and Trump, insisting there is “no daylight” between their positions.“President Trump understands the current dilemma and the situation that we’re in,” Johnson told reporters earlier on Tuesday. “So we’ll continue working closely together. I’m not defying President Trump. We’re getting our job done, and I think he understands that.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Secret Service made numerous errors before first near-assassination of Trump, Senate report says

      by

      The breadth of known Secret Service errors that led up to Donald Trump’s first near-assassination in July widened on Wednesday with the release of a report by the US Senate that found there was no one clearly in charge of decision-making for security at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, that day – causing “foreseeable, preventable” failings before the former president was shot.The catalogue of security errors that allowed a would-be assassin to fire seven rounds at Trump at the election rally include failing to set up sight-line barriers around the outdoor rally area, the absence of a plan to secure the building the shooter took aim from and general communication chaos.A bullet clipped the former president’s ear, while one rally-goer was killed and two others were badly wounded.An agent with only informal training with drone equipment called a toll-free tech support hotline for help, delaying security operations involving surveillance drone equipment, according to a preliminary summary of findings made public on Wednesday.A request ahead of time for additional unmanned security assets was denied, the report said. Thomas Crooks, 20, fired at Trump before being killed by government snipers.“Multiple foreseeable and preventable planning and operational failures by [the Secret Service] contributed to Crooks’ ability to carry out the assassination attempt of former president Trump on July 13,” the preliminary report said.“These included unclear roles and responsibilities, insufficient coordination with state and local law enforcement, the lack of effective communications, and inoperable C-UAS systems, among many others,” it continued, referring to equipment such as drones, or counter-unmanned aircraft systems.The Secret Service chief of communications, Anthony Guglielmi, said: “The weight of our mission is not lost on us and in this hyper-dynamic threat environment, the US Secret Service cannot fail.“Many of the insights gained from the Senate report align with the findings from our mission assurance review and are essential to ensuring that what happened on July 13 never happens again,” Guglielmi added.The Secret Service has already openly admitted failures, both to the US Congress and in press conferences, and the head of the service at the time quit after the Butler shooting.The bipartisan Senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee found that key resource requests were also denied, and some were not even made. Secret Service advance agents did not request a surveillance team for the rally’s 15,000 attendees.About 155 law enforcement officers were at the Butler rally on 13 July, compared with 410 security personnel dispatched to guard the first lady, Jill Biden, who was in the state about an hour away.The report found that many of the problems identified by the committee “remain unaddressed” by the Secret Service.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Overall, the lack of an effective chain of command, which came across clearly when we conducted interviews,” said the Connecticut Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal on Tuesday. “It was almost like an Abbott and Costello farce, with ‘who’s on first?’ finger-pointing by all of the different actors.”But the central failure to secure a roof of a nearby factory within shooting distance of the rally stage, from where the shots were fired, remains unanswered. The first reported sighting of would-be assassin Crooks was at 4.26pm, more than 90 minutes before Trump would begin speaking.At 5.38pm, a Beaver county sniper, stationed inside the building from which Crooks would later shoot atop its roof, sent photos of Crooks to the local team’s group chat, but Secret Service counter-snipers on a roof close to where Trump was due to speak were not notified.“What I saw made me ashamed,” said the acting Secret Service director, Ronald Rowe Jr. “I cannot defend why that roof was not better secured.”The report was released as investigators investigate a second domestic assassination attempt on the former president, as well as an apparent Iranian plot to kill him.In the second domestic attempt, Ryan Routh, 58, was arrested on 15 September, suspected of pointing a rifle through the fence at Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where the former president was playing.On Tuesday, federal prosecutors filed a charge of attempted assassination against Routh, on top of previous charges. More