United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Questions Fairness of Next Week’s Debate at a Town Hall

      by

      Hours after the Trump and Harris campaigns agreed to rules for their first presidential debate, former President Donald J. Trump sought to instill doubt that the debate would be fair, downplayed his need to prepare and suggested he was more worried about the network hosting the debate than his opponent.Speaking at a Fox News town hall on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump insisted that ABC News, which will host next week’s debate in Philadelphia, was “dishonest,” even though he agreed months ago to allow the network to host a presidential debate.Pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris’s longtime friendship with a senior executive whose portfolio includes ABC News, Mr. Trump insisted without evidence that Ms. Harris was “going to get the questions in advance.” The network released agreed-upon rules that no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign.Mr. Trump’s attempts to question the integrity of the debate echoed a similar effort that preceded his consequential debate in June with President Biden that set off the president’s exit from the race. After taunting Mr. Biden into debating “anytime, anywhere, anyplace,” Mr. Trump sought to play down any potential political consequences as the debate neared by casting the network, moderators and rules as biased.“Beyond the debate rules published today, which were mutually agreed upon by two campaigns on May 15th, we have made no other agreements,” an ABC News spokeswoman said on Wednesday night. “We look forward to moderating the presidential debate next Tuesday.”Yet even as he suggested the debate next week would be biased against him, Mr. Trump also tried to present himself as unconcerned about his first head-to-head confrontation with Ms. Harris since she became the Democratic nominee. He insisted that planning would only get him so far and that he would take a similar approach to Ms. Harris that he did to Mr. Biden.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      La jueza Tanya Chutkan vuelve a encargarse del caso de Trump por las elecciones federales

      by

      Si su historial sirve de guía, Chutkan intentará que los procedimientos previos al juicio sigan su curso tras un largo paréntesis y la decisión de la Corte Suprema de conceder amplia inmunidad a los expresidentes.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]La jueza Tanya Chutkan no perdió el tiempo el mes pasado cuando le devolvieron el caso más importante de su carrera: la acusación contra el expresidente Donald Trump por interferencia electoral.Después de ver durante casi ocho meses cómo los abogados de Trump luchaban hasta llegar a la Corte Suprema con lo que terminó siendo un argumento, en gran medida exitoso, que se basaba en que tenía amplia inmunidad de procesamiento por cargos derivados de sus actos oficiales como presidente, la jueza Chutkan actuó con rapidez para que los procedimientos previos al juicio volvieran a activarse.A las 24 horas de recuperar el caso, estableció un calendario para debatir el impacto de la decisión del tribunal sobre la inmunidad en el caso. Mientras trabajaba durante un sábado de agosto, también tuvo tiempo para poner orden en su escritorio y negar dos mociones de los abogados de Trump que el proceso de apelación le había prohibido analizar durante casi un año.El jueves, la jueza Chutkan presidirá una audiencia en el Tribunal Federal de Distrito de Washington en la que es probable que explique cómo piensa abordar la tarea de determinar qué partes de la acusación contra Trump tendrán que ser anuladas en virtud de la sentencia de inmunidad y cuáles podrán sobrevivir e ir a juicio.Su decisión final no solo determinará el futuro del caso, sino que también servirá para poner a prueba el estilo sobrio que ha aplicado desde que le fue asignado el pasado mes de agosto.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Nebraska, Tim Walz’s Family Is Split Over the Election

      by

      An intriguing photo has been circulating online. It appears to be a smiling family huddled around a matriarch, all in matching T-shirts that say “Nebraska Walz’s for Trump.”The photo is attached to a post on the social media site X from Charles W. Herbster, a Nebraska cattleman, businessman and former Republican candidate for governor. “Tim Walz’s family back in Nebraska wants you to know something…” he wrote.Tim Walz’s family back in Nebraska wants you to know something…@realDonaldTrump @JDVance #SaveAmerica🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/zp08nuKAun— Charles W. Herbster (@CWHerbster) September 4, 2024

      Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, grew up in Nebraska and still has family there. The photo looks authentically Nebraskan. It turns out the family is related to Mr. Walz. But they are distant relatives. They are descendants of Francis Walz, the brother of Mr. Walz’s grandfather.Sandy Dietrich, Tim Walz’s sister, made it clear the two branches of the family were not close.“That is not us,” Ms. Dietrich, who lives in Alliance, Neb, said in an interview. “We don’t even know them. We just have never known that side” of the family.The members of Francis Walz’s family told The Associated Press in a written statement that shortly after Mr. Walz was nominated, family members had a get-together.“We had T-shirts made to show support for President Trump and JD Vance and took a group picture,” the written statement said. “That photo was shared with friends, and when we were asked for permission to post the picture, we agreed.”“The picture is real. The shirts are real,” the message continued. “The message on the shirts speaks for itself.”For her part, when asked if she was voting for her brother, Ms. Dietrich said, “I’m a Democrat, so yes, most definitely.”But even among Mr. Walz’s siblings, there’s a political rift. Mr. Walz’s other sibling, Jeff Walz, has donated to Mr. Trump and comments on Facebook indicate he will not vote for his own brother’s ticket. “I’m 100% opposed to all his ideology,” read a message from his Facebook account.When a commenter suggested he get onstage with President Trump, the response from Jeff Walz’s account read, “I’ve thought hard about doing something like that. I’m torn between that and just keeping my family out of it.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Cómo el TLCAN arruinó la política de EE. UU.

      by

      [Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]En mayo del año pasado, Marcus Carli, director de la fábrica Master Lock de Milwaukee, Wisconsin, convocó por sorpresa una reunión con la junta directiva del sindicato local 469 de United Auto Workers (UAW, por su sigla en inglés). Varios directivos del sindicato, que representa a los trabajadores de la planta, se reunieron con Carli y un ejecutivo de la empresa matriz de Master Lock en una pequeña sala de conferencias. Carli llevó a un guardia de seguridad. “Está aquí para protegerme”, les dijo Carli a los representantes sindicales. Cuando el guardia se sentó, Yolanda Nathan, la nueva presidenta del sindicato, se fijó en su pistola. “En ese momento pensé: ‘Ah, vamos a perder nuestro trabajo’”, dice. De inmediato, Carli confirmó sus peores temores. “La planta va a cerrar”, anunció. “Me dejó sin aliento”, dijo Nathan. “Nos quitó el aliento a todos”.Media hora más tarde, los trabajadores del primer turno de la planta fueron convocados a una reunión en la antigua cafetería. Una hilera de mesas separaba a los funcionarios de los trabajadores. “La planta va a cerrar”, repitió Carli. Se negó a aceptar preguntas. “Solo nos lanzaron la bomba”, dijo Jeremiah Hayes, quien trabajaba en la planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales de la empresa. Sobre todo, le molestó la barrera improvisada: “Era insultante. Nos sentíamos como animales”.Mike Bink, que empezó a trabajar en Master Lock en 1979, estaba desolado pero no sorprendido. Meses antes, un compañero cuyo trabajo consistía en fabricar placas de acero que se introducían en una máquina para fabricar un cuerpo de cerradura le dijo a Bink que ahora las placas se enviaban a la planta de Master Lock en Nogales, México. Esa fábrica se construyó en la década de 1990, no mucho después de que el presidente Bill Clinton promulgara el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte, y la empresa eliminó más de 1000 de los casi 1300 puestos sindicales de Milwaukee. “La gente salió corriendo por la puerta”, dice Bink, que entonces era presidente del Local 469. “Pensaban que la planta estaba acabada”. Bink aguantó, pero el TLCAN cambió de manera radical el equilibrio de poder entre Master Lock y sus trabajadores. “Un supervisor de la planta decía cosas como: ‘Pónganse a trabajar o la empresa cerrará todos los puestos’”, recuerda Bink. “Tras la reducción de plantilla, el sindicato perdió su influencia”.En marzo, el cierre de las instalaciones donde se fabricaron cerraduras emblemáticas durante generaciones, representó la etapa final de la larga decadencia de Milwaukee como potencia industrial, parte de un fenómeno mayor, impulsado por el TLCAN, que se ha producido en todo el país, especialmente en los estados del Cinturón del Óxido. El TLCAN eliminó los aranceles sobre el comercio entre los signatarios del tratado —Canadá, México y Estados Unidos— y permitió la libre circulación de capitales e inversiones extranjeras. Marcó el comienzo de una era de acuerdos de libre comercio que llevaron productos baratos a los consumidores y generaron una gran riqueza para los inversionistas y el sector financiero, pero también aumentó la desigualdad de ingresos, debilitó a los sindicatos y aceleró el vaciamiento de la base industrial de Estados Unidos.Mike Bink, expresidente de Local 469, que representaba a los trabajadores sindicales de Master Lock, trabajó en la planta durante 44 años. Lyndon French para The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      House Republican Subpoenas Blinken Over Afghanistan Withdrawal

      by

      The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee summoned the secretary of state for testimony just days before an expected report on the U.S. exit, in which 13 American service members were killed.The Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday issued a subpoena for Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken’s testimony, threatening to hold him in contempt if he failed to address the panel later this month about the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.In his letter subpoenaing Mr. Blinken, the chairman, Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, wrote that receiving the testimony was important for committee members as they prepared “potential legislation aimed at helping prevent the catastrophic mistakes of the withdrawal,” after the expected release of an investigative report into the subject next week.“You served as the final decision maker for the department on the withdrawal and evacuation,” Mr. McCaul wrote in the letter, demanding that Mr. Blinken appear before the panel on Sept. 19 to speak about his role, and complaining that he had missed previous deadlines to comply.In a statement, Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesman, said Mr. Blinken would not be available on that date and criticized the committee’s refusal to accept what he called “reasonable alternatives to comply with Chairman McCaul’s request for a public hearing.”“It is disappointing that instead of continuing to engage with the department in good faith, the committee instead has issued yet another unnecessary subpoena,” Mr. Miller wrote, noting that Mr. Blinken had testified before Congress 14 times, including four appearances before Mr. McCaul’s panel.The summons comes amid fresh political squabbling over the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 as the presidential race enters its final weeks. Democrats denounced former President Donald J. Trump for shooting video for his campaign last week at Arlington National Cemetery, where he appeared for a wreath-laying ceremony to honor service members killed during the evacuation. Mr. Trump has stepped up his attacks on President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, maintaining that they mismanaged the U.S. exit from Afghanistan and blaming them personally for failing to prevent the deaths of 13 Americans at Abbey Gate, outside the Kabul airport.Mr. McCaul’s report, the culmination of nearly three years of investigative work, is expected to lay similar blame at the feet of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.“It will serve as an indictment on the administration’s reckless refusal to properly prepare for the withdrawal,” Mr. McCaul said in a statement last week announcing the release of the report. “President Biden and Vice President Harris can no longer sweep their unmitigated disaster of epic proportions that they created under the rug.”In a statement last week, Representative Gregory W. Meeks of New York, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, dismissed Mr. McCaul’s threats to subpoena Mr. Blinken as “political stunts that show the Republican Party’s desperation to score headlines during an election season.”Tuesday’s subpoena is the third that Mr. McCaul has issued to Mr. Blinken in conjunction with the panel’s Afghanistan investigation. The previous two sought documents related to the inquiry. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Sheehy Was Recorded Using Racist Stereotypes About Native Americans

      by

      Tim Sheehy, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Montana, made comments perpetuating racist stereotypes about Native Americans during private fund-raisers last year, according to recordings of the events published by a local news outlet late last week and obtained by The New York Times.In one recording, Mr. Sheehy, a cattle rancher and businessman, can be heard saying that he had participated in roping and branding cattle on the Crow Reservation, in southeastern Montana, and that it was “a great way to bond with all the Indians out there, while they’re drunk at 8 a.m.” In another clip, he said that he had ridden in a Crow parade, and that “they’ll let you know whether they like you or not, there’s Coors Light cans flying by your head.”At a campaign event in Shelby, Mont.Mr. Sheehy said roping and branding on the Crow reservation was “a great way to bond with all the Indians out there, while they’re drunk at 8 a.m.”By making these remarks, Mr. Sheehy not only used stereotypes, but he also waded into the complex history of Native American tribal dynamics in Montana, where Indigenous residents make up about 6 percent of the population. The state has seven reservations and 12 tribes.Native Americans say that they have long been forgotten in political discussions and that basic needs on reservations, including water, electricity and health care, have been ignored by leaders of both major political parties.In Montana, some Native Americans said they were appalled but not surprised by Mr. Sheehy’s comments, first reported by The Char-Koosta News, which covers the Flathead Indian reservation in the northwestern part of the state.Calvin Lime, who lives on the Blackfeet reservation in northern Montana, said the remarks were a “slap in the face,” and especially unfortunate because the Crow Tribe was one of the most outspokenly pro-Trump tribes. (Mr. Sheehy received the endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump in the Republican primary.)“For them to bring him there, work with him, they’re happy, they’re promoting him, but behind closed doors they’re the drunken Indian,” Mr. Lime said. “Behind closed doors, you’re actually getting looked at as a lesser-than.”A spokeswoman for Mr. Sheehy’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Senator Jon Tester, the Democratic incumbent locked in a tight race with Mr. Sheehy, declined to comment.At a rodeo fund-raiserMr. Sheehy said people on a Crow reservation would throw beer cans at him.Native Americans in Montana have been a key voting bloc for Mr. Tester, who is in his third term, but local Native American leaders say that Democrats cannot take their votes for granted. Some suggested that Montana Republicans like Representative Ryan Zinke had made progress in improving the perception of Republicans among the state’s tribes, but Mr. Sheehy’s comments may have jeopardized that, said Alexandra Lin, a former member of the Montana Democratic Party who is Indigenous.“Representative Zinke and Senator Daines have begun to understand these really important demographic groups and have been investing in them,” Ms. Lin said, referring to Steve Daines, the state’s Republican senator, “and it’s surprising that Sheehy is not doing this.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says There Was ‘No Conflict’ at Cemetery, Despite Official Accounts

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump insisted in a radio interview on Tuesday that “there was no conflict” between members of his campaign team and an official at Arlington National Cemetery, contradicting his campaign’s previous statements about the episode last week and Army officials’ account.“If you look at just the records, there was no conflict, there was no fight, there was no anything,” Mr. Trump said on Sean Hannity’s radio show. Hours earlier, Mr. Trump on his social media site claimed “there was no conflict or ‘fighting’” at the cemetery, calling the story, without evidence, “made up” by the White House.It was the latest effort by the Trump campaign to defend itself after a physical altercation between a Trump aide and a cemetery official that was set off by the campaign’s defying of a ban on political campaigning at the cemetery in Virginia during Mr. Trump’s visit last week.Army officials said the cemetery employee had been “abruptly pushed aside” by a Trump campaign aide. The Trump campaign has said there was “no physical altercation” but did not deny there was a dispute. Campaign officials also previously attacked and insulted the cemetery official and said they were prepared to release footage of the episode, though the campaign has not yet done so after repeated requests.A woman who works at the cemetery filed an incident report with the military authorities over the altercation. But the woman, who has not been identified but was described as a seasoned official at the cemetery, later declined to press charges. Military officials said she feared retaliation from Trump supporters if her identity became known as part of any formal investigation.Still, Mr. Trump pointed to her lack of a public statement as evidence that the conflict never took place. “Notice that the person representing now doesn’t want to talk,” he said, and added, referring incorrectly to the cemetery official’s gender, “He doesn’t want to speak or talk.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Assessing JD Vance’s Appeals to the Middle Class on the Campaign Trail

      by

      The Republican vice-presidential nominee has assailed Vice President Kamala Harris’s policies and positions with inaccurate claims.JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who rose to fame detailing his Appalachian roots in a best-selling memoir, has made appeals to working-class and middle-class voters a core tenet of his campaign messaging.In rallies and interviews, Mr. Vance has sought to portray the Republican ticket as a champion of everyday people, first-time home buyers and autoworkers by misleadingly describing Vice President Kamala Harris’s policies and positions on housing, trade and manufacturing.Here’s a fact check of some of his claims.What Was Said“Kamala Harris let in 20 million illegal aliens to compete with Americans for scarce homes.”— in a local news interview in AugustThis is exaggerated. Economists and real estate experts say that while migration, including illegal immigration, has contributed to population growth and thus demand for housing, it is not a main driver of the country’s housing affordability crisis. A lack of supply is the primary culprit, they said.Daryl Fairweather, the chief economist at the online real estate brokerage Redfin, said Mr. Vance’s claim “ignores the root causes of the housing shortage, which is that we just stopped building homes, especially in places where people want to live the most, and don’t really need to talk about immigration to talk about that problem.”After the Great Recession, the number of new homes built annually plummeted and never really recovered in the two decades that followed. As a result, researchers and real estate firms now estimate a nationwide shortage of 1.5 million to seven million housing units.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More