US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Seth Meyers: ‘Trump’s fake populism was a con and it couldn’t be any clearer’

      by

      Late-night hosts talk Joe Biden’s act of clemency and Donald Trump becoming Time’s Person of the Year.Seth MeyersSeth Meyers could only laugh on Thursday evening at the image of Trump, just named Time magazine’s Person of the Year, ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.The incoming president looked delighted – or, as the Late Night host put it, “like a Make-A-Wish kid who faked being sick until he got what he wanted”.“Before he was elected he toured the country telling grandpas in folding chairs he was just like them,” he added, “and as soon as he wins he’s on a fucking marble balcony on Wall Street rocking a bell like he just ate a 72-ounce steak in under an hour.”As for the cover, Meyers had concerns. “My only issue is this glamour shot of Trump in a pose I’ve literally never seen him take before,” he said. “I’ve only ever seen him screaming or hunched over, so apologies if I’m not buying Donnie Contemplation over here.”Moreover, “this guy has pretended for over a decade to be a populist champion of the working class and now he’s on literal Wall Street, getting pats on the back from the richest people in the country,” he said. “The only way that Trump’s hypocrisy could be any more on the nose is if he started doing campaign events with actual fat cats.”Case in point: though Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign to lower grocery prices, he told Time that “it’s hard to bring things down once they’re up … You know, it’s very hard.”“Fuck me, I can’t believe we really have to spend the next four years watching this idiot relearn how hard it is to be president,” said Meyers. “Yeah man, we know it’s hard. Everyone knows.”“Trump’s fake populism was a con and it couldn’t be any clearer,” he added. “The second that he won he started rubbing elbows with his rich Wall Street buddies and admitting that his promises were all BS.”Jimmy KimmelIn Los Angeles, Jimmy Kimmel also lamented Trump’s Time magazine cover. “Sadly there’s no one left to roll it up and spank him with it,” he quipped. “Maybe Elon will do it for him? I don’t know.”According to Time, the Person of the Year distinction is bestowed on the person, group or concept that had the biggest impact for good or for ill. “Well, that’s him all right,” said Kimmel. “It was a no-brainer in every sense of the word.”As for Trump’s appearance at the New York Stock Exchange, “he jammed his little finger on that bell like it was the Diet Coke button in the Oval Office,” Kimmel joked.Kimmel also touched on Joe Biden’s last-minute act of clemency, commuting more than 1,500 criminal sentences. “Before this, the biggest act of clemency was on election night on November 5,” said Kimmel.“Joe Biden is handing out pardons like they’re Werther’s Originals,” he added. “He has no more malarkey to give right now.”Stephen ColbertAnd on The Late Show, Stephen Colbert also noted Biden’s clemency, in which he also pardoned 39 people. “Wow, I did not know he had 39 sons,” the host joked.The mass commutation is a tradition for all outgoing presidents, but Biden committed the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. “I believe that is an empathetic and generous act of forgiveness and hope – that will be knocked out of the headlines as soon as Trump threatens to bomb Manila because he cut himself on one of their envelopes,” said Colbert. “That’s coming. You know that’s coming.”Colbert also laughed at Pornhub’s year in review, which revealed generational trends, such as the fact that 18-to-24-year-olds spend, on average, 76 fewer seconds than any other age group on videos. “I guess young folks today don’t have the attention span,” Colbert quipped. “Back in the 90s, if you wanted to see boobs on your computer, you had to listen to this,” he added before a dial-up tone.The site also provided a map highlighting the most distinct searches in each state, such as Tennessee’s “chubby milf”, Delaware’s “mature” (“I assume in honor of Joe Biden,” Colbert joked), Maryland’s “girlfriend” (“dorks!”) and Pennsylvania’s “naked women”. “That’s clearly Amish teens on rumspringa getting their first crack at a computer,” Colbert noted. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans take aim at subsidies that help tens of millions of women

      by

      As they prepare to take control of the White House and Congress next month, conservatives are eyeing cutbacks to federal programs that help tens of millions of women pay for healthcare, food, housing and transportation.Slashing or overhauling social support programs, long a goal of Republican lawmakers, could be catastrophic for women experiencing poverty. Supporters contend the social safety-net programs are already grossly underfunded.“With this new administration that is coming in … I really am concerned about the lives of women. We are seeing so many policies, so many budget cuts,” said Christian Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women.Republicans say they want to keep campaign promises to cut government spending, and three major programs make easy targets: Medicaid, the joint state/federal health insurance program for people with lower incomes; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash-allowance program that replaced welfare; and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), widely known as food stamps.While conservatives frame cuts as making government more efficient and even restoring freedom, advocates for and experts on families with little or no income say reducing these programs will throw more people – especially women and children – further into poverty.“It is going to fall heavily on women,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute, a non-profit research organization.Predicting precisely what Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration will do is difficult. Congressional leaders are close-mouthed about negotiations, and the president-elect has not finished putting together his advisory team. None of the spokespeople contacted for this story returned calls or e-mails.But organizations known to advise top leaders in Congress and the previous Trump administration have laid out fairly detailed roadmaps.Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the incoming administration, denies its proposed changes will harm women, saying instead that marriage and “family values” will improve their economic situations. “Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways,” reads the section on proposed changes to TANF and Snap.Numerous other groups that have studied the problem say forcing or even encouraging marriage will not make poverty disappear. And a recent study by a team at the University of South Carolina found that when state laws make it harder for pregnant women to get divorced, they’re more likely to be killed by their partners.Trump has promised not to attack the two most expensive and popular government programs: social security and Medicare. But he and Congress are up against a deadline to extend his 2017 tax reforms, which raised the federal deficit. They’ll have to cut something, and social spending programs, especially the $805bn Medicaid program, are low-hanging fruit for conservatives.Trump repeatedly tried to slash Snap during his last tenure in office: his 2021 budget proposal would have cut the program by more than $180bn – nearly 30% – over 10 years. Conservatives in Congress have continued these efforts and, with majorities in the House and Senate, they may be able to get them through next year.The Republican Study Committee, whose members include about three-quarters of the House Republican caucus, recommends more work requirements for Snap and TANF.“SNAP and our welfare system should embrace that work conveys dignity and self-sustainment and encourage individuals to find gainful employment, not reward them for staying at home,” their plan, released in March, reads.A large body of research questions whether widening work requirements does anything other than force people off benefits without helping them find employment. “I think there is a misperception that people in need of help are not working,” said Mei Powers, chief development and communications officer at Martha’s Table, a non-profit aid organization in Washington DC. “People are a paycheck, a crisis, a broken-down car away from needing services.”Snap currently helps 41 million people buy groceries and other necessities every month. Women accounted for more than 55% of people under 65 receiving Snap benefits in 2022, according to the National Women’s Law Center, a gender justice advocacy group. About one-third of them were women of color, the NWLC said.Among other things, cutting these programs will trap women in dangerous situations, the NWLC said: “SNAP helps survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault establish basic economic security.”TANF, which provides cash assistance, overwhelmingly benefits women. In 2022, 370,000 TANF adult recipients were female and 69,000 were male, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.Perhaps Medicaid is the most tempting target for conservatives because they can use it to undermine the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The GOP has been gunning for the ACA since it was signed into law without a single Republican vote in 2010.The federal government shares the cost of Medicaid with states. The ACA aimed to make Medicaid cover more people by offering to pay for virtually all the extra costs. Many Republican-led states resisted for years, but as of November, all but 10 states had expanded coverage to an extra 21 million people, or about a quarter of all Medicaid recipients.Medicaid pays for more than 40% of births in the US, plus it covers new mothers for post-pregnancy-related issues for 60 days. It also pays for medical care for 60% of all nursing home residents, more than 70% of whom are women.According to the health research organization KFF, expanding Medicaid helped improve care for women before and during pregnancy and after they gave birth.But most Republicans in Congress have never approved of this federal spending. Proposed cuts to Medicaid funding, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars, are laid out by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative health thinktank headed by Brian Blase, a top health adviser to the first Trump administration.Experts predict states would be unable or unwilling to make up the difference. “Facing such drastic reductions in federal Medicaid funding, states will have no choice but to institute truly draconian cuts to eligibility, benefits and provider reimbursement rates,” Edwin Park, research professor at Georgetown University, wrote in an analysis.That would mean women, children, older adults and people with disabilities would lose coverage as facilities closed and providers stopped seeing patients.The effects, says the National Organization for Women, “will be widespread, devastating, and long-lasting”.This story is published in partnership with the Fuller Project, a non-profit newsroom dedicated to the coverage of women’s issues around the world. Sign up for the Fuller Project’s newsletter. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘What a circus’: eligible US voters on why they didn’t vote in the 2024 presidential election

      by

      The 2024 US presidential election had been widely characterized as one of the most consequential political contests in recent US history. Although turnout was high for a presidential election – almost matching the levels of 2020 – it is estimated that close to 90 million Americans, roughly 36% of the eligible voting age population, did not vote. This number is greater than the number of people who voted for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.More than a month on from polling day, eligible US voters from across the country as well as other parts of the world got in touch with the Guardian to share why they did not vote.Scores of people said they had not turned out as they felt their vote would not matter because of the electoral college system, since they lived in a safely blue or red state. This included a number of people who nonetheless had voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections.While various previous Democratic voters said they had abstained this time due to the Harris campaign’s stance on Israel or for other policy reasons, a number of people in this camp said they would have voted for the vice-president had they lived in a swing state.“I’m not in a swing state, and because of the electoral college my vote doesn’t count. I could have voted 500,000 times and it would not have changed the outcome,” said one such voter, a 60-year-old software developer with Latino heritage from Boston.Having voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, he voted in 2020 but left the presidential slot blank “as a Quixotic protest against the electoral college and my preference for Bernie Sanders”, he said.He said he felt “heartbroken” over Joe Biden and Harris’s stance on Gaza. “If I were in a swing state I would always vote for Dems, though,” he added, echoing several others.A 40-year-old carpenter from Idaho who voted in the previous two elections because he then lived in the swing state of Arizona – giving his vote to Clinton and Biden – also said he did not vote this time because he felt his vote did not matter due to the electoral college system.“I didn’t find Harris compelling, just more of the same. Politicians from both parties seem unwilling to make the kind of fundamental economic and political changes that would make a meaningful difference for all people, namely a move towards a more democratic socialist system. That being said if we didn’t have the electoral college I probably would have voted for Harris,” he said.A large number of people said they abstained because no candidate represented working- or middle-class interests and people such as themselves, including several people who voted in the previous two elections but did not vote this time.Some people from swing states said they did not vote because both parties were too similar and did not address concerns of the common voter, among them John, a 29-year-old financial professional from Pennsylvania who is a registered independent, but voted for Clinton and Biden in the previous two elections.“What is the point [of voting]?,” he asked. “Aside from a handful of weaponized issues, the parties are nearly identical. They both hate the poor and serve only their donors.”A number of former Trump and Biden voters said they had not voted in this election as they disliked both candidates, among them Jared Wagner, a 34-year-old from Indiana who works in the trucking industry and said he had voted for Trump in 2016 but had abstained in both the 2020 and 2024 election.“I refuse to put my name on either candidate when I know neither of them are truly the best we have to offer. We need a major overhaul to the two-party system,” he said.
      “As a man with young children I worry about what kind of country they will grow up in. It terrifies me; we deserve better.”John, a 58-year-old from West Virginia, said he had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but had decided that not voting this November “felt most authentic and appropriate”.“I wasn’t apathetic about this election, I followed it closely,” he said. “But most of the candidates and issues left me cold and disinterested and seemed to be simply perpetuating the existing system, especially the status quo of authority and law and order, or rampant human development on the land.“On the presidential level, I was shocked and disgusted that the Harris campaign chose to completely ignore discussing climate change. Fundamentally, this election seemed to have very little to do with my interests and concerns.”Anne, a 65-year-old retired white woman from California, was among various people who said they had voted but not for any presidential candidate.She said she had always previously voted for the Democratic candidate, but could not bring herself to do so this time.“I did vote for all other down-ballot candidates and initiatives,” she said. “I would have voted for Harris had my vote made a difference, but I could not vote for a president who will continue the complete destruction of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank.”Various people said they did not vote for a presidential candidate in the 2024 election because they had only wanted to cast a positive vote for a candidate rather than merely an opposition one, and that neither candidate had offered a compelling vision for change.Among them was a 62-year-old professional working in process planning from Texas, who said he had voted for the Republican presidential candidate at every election between 1984 and 2016.“In 2020 I voted Libertarian as a protest vote,” he said. “This year I was so turned off by Trump’s low character, economic ignorance, disregard of our national debt, hostility to Ukraine and so on that I was trying to convince myself to vote for Harris. But her economic policy was just a grab bag of voter payoffs and she doesn’t care about the debt either.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“So I did not vote for president. I voted for Senate, congressman, and many other down ballot races. I split my ticket, too. I just no longer want to vote against anyone. I want to vote FOR someone. And none of the candidates for president wanted my vote enough.”A 35-year-old Black male voter from Portland, Oregon, who works at a gas station, said he disliked Kamala Harris but now regretted not voting for her, as he had thought Trump would lose the election.“I did not vote in 2016 or 2020 either because I did not like any of the candidates in those elections either. I last voted in 2012, for Obama,” he said.“I felt both candidates fell well short of the presidential standard, and didn’t feel I could cast a vote for either,” said a 47-year-old engineering manager and registered Republican from Texas.“VP Harris failed to demonstrate she was ethically or intellectually capable of executing the office, repeatedly failing to detail out her policies and generally running her campaign like a popularity contest – ‘collect enough celebrity endorsements, by paying them, and the masses will elect you,’” he said.Trump, he felt, “cares about the US and believes his own ideas will ‘save’ the country – but he’s a terrible human being. I don’t feel he represents a majority of Americans at all, but is more a reaction to some of the issues we face as a country.”Various people who did not vote in other recent elections either said that again this time no candidate was leftwing enough, among them 37-year-old Elly, a mother of four daughters from the midwest.“Bernie Sanders was the last candidate I was excited to vote for,” she said. “This election came down to two parties who have utterly abandoned everyday people and their problems with affordability and worries about climate change, but one party, the Republicans, were savvy enough to pretend they felt the collective pain of the common folks, whilst the Democrats mostly said ‘all is well.’ I couldn’t in good conscience support either side on the national level.”Several people who usually always voted Democrat in the past said the Harris campaign had been overly focussed on progressive identity politics for them to be able to lend it their support this election, such as Simon, a father from California in his 60s who had voted for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020 in protest against Trump, but had abstained this year due to Harris’s embracing of “trans ideology”, among other reasons.“I am not a fan of the Democrats, but I would have voted to keep Trump out of office if there was an economically literate, competent, law and order candidate who was willing to challenge the excesses of ‘woke’,” he said. “The Dems are out of touch on social issues, and have tacked too far to the left to appease a minority of progressives.“I support some policies that would be considered rightwing on immigration, but also investing in social housing, so I’m looking for candidates capable of taking difficult decisions based on rational analysis.”Leigh Crawford, a 56-year-old hedge fund manager from California, who had voted for Barack Obama in 2012, for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020, said he had abstained this time as both candidates were fiscally irresponsible in his view, because he strongly disliked Trump’s anti-immigration and pro-tariffs stance, and because Harris had been “pro-censorship” and “too tolerant of antisemitism”.Several people said they did not vote this time because of a growing disillusionment with the extreme polarization in US politics, including Chris, an architect in his 40s from Tennessee who had voted twice for Obama, and once for Trump in 2016, but had abstained in 2020 and 2024 as he had lost hope in politics.“Skip the debates, what a circus,” he said. “I’m so sick of hearing about politics.“The political system in the US is broken. Things are so polarized, there is no cooperation for the good of the people. There is just so much hate, even in everyday conversation with average people.“There is just so much of this ‘if I don’t win, I’m taking the ball and going home’ mentality. It just causes nothing to get accomplished.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Why does McKinsey still get hired? | Peter O’Toole

      by

      In late 2005, I was in a Tokyo meeting room with some top GE executives. As the company’s corporate director of public relations at the time, I was helping sort through a corporate initiative we were planning to announce with some important Japanese customers. A few minutes later, a handful of people I’d never met came into the room. Most were not from Japan; all of them, I was told, were from McKinsey, perhaps the world’s most famous management consulting firm. Following the 15-minute meeting they had probably flown in from all over the world to attend, they left.The firm McKinsey, of course, remains, dispensing advice to thousands of companies like GE and to governments and institutions in more than 65 countries. But as the company approaches a $600m settlement with the US government over its role helping opioid makers boost sales and drag out the painkiller epidemic, you might ask: why does McKinsey still get hired?There are reasons why it shouldn’t.In 2018, McKinsey agreed to repay $74m in fees to the government of South Africa after a judicial inquiry found evidence of contract abnormalities surrounding its work. This came soon after McKinsey was forced to pay back more than $66m for its work alongside a contract-looting partner who later fled the country. And just last week it was confirmed that the firm’s South African subsidiary will pay more than $122m “to resolve an investigation by the Justice Department into a scheme” to bribe South African government officials between 2012 and 2016.Chasing a Mongolian railroads contract in 2010, McKinsey ignored a US state department corruption warning and signed an agreement with the government even as the government rainmaker who connected McKinsey to the contract signed his own contract with the same government entity. By 2015, Mongolian anti-corruption investigators were snooping and McKinsey was eventually barred from doing business there.Since 2019, the firm’s bankruptcy advisory business has paid millions in fines, or relinquished fees, for “disclosure deficiencies”.The firm can also give questionable advice.Under former McKinsey partner Jeff Skilling, Enron paid the firm $10m a year, during which the firm endorsed Enron’s suspect accounting tactics that would ultimately torpedo the business. According to a McKinsey employee quoted in Duff McDonald’s book The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and Its Secret Influence on American Business, Enron “was a great business that just got out of hand”.In April 2017, after three years studying the escalating inmate brawls and assaults by guards that endangered the viability of New York City’s Rikers Island jail complex, McKinsey sent a confidential final report to the city corrections commissioner. McKinsey had tested its new anti-violence strategy, the report said, and violence was down by more than half in the units where McKinsey had recommended new tactics.What the report didn’t say was that jail officials and McKinsey consultants had fixed the game, moving inmates they believed were less violent into the units ahead of the period of study. The reality was the opposite of McKinsey’s report: violence actually rose by nearly 50% since the firm had been working at Rikers. The city government dumped McKinsey, but not before paying it more than $27m.Then there’s the Department of Justice case, which found the firm’s invisible hand reached into virtually every opioid manufacturer and distributor. While McKinsey was advising the opioid manufacturers and distributors, the lawsuit noted, it was also advising the US Food and Drug Administration’s drug-approval department.So why does McKinsey still get hired? Because it sells what business wants.According to McDonald, in The Firm, McKinsey “certainly made the world a more efficient, rational and objective place than it might otherwise have been”. Eighty-five per cent of McKinsey’s work is repeat business, which would seem to show that the company provides useful counsel.But McKinsey also shields weak leaders from accountability. After a preventable shop floor accident or before big layoffs – known as “efficiency consulting”, McDonald notes – a McKinsey report can shield a company from an angry plaintiff or its soon-to-be former workers. Its presence offers the plausible deniability that layoffs were just a business decision, one recommended by a respected, external party. In the Rikers Island case, McKinsey’s contract let city administrators say they had tried their best, since they had only requested proposals from consultants on a pre-approved list from the previous administration.The durability of firms like McKinsey points to festering weakness in business’s upper reaches: today’s leaders either don’t have the skills to meet the accelerating world around them, can’t effect change within their own organizations, or are too afraid to make a mistake and fail.But if they succeed? Well, that’s what was supposed to happen, just as what we heard in Tokyo was preordained.I later asked a colleague from a GE business who also attended the Tokyo meeting what they had heard. Our own ideas, they replied: McKinsey had surveyed our own people and customers for ideas, then tried selling them as their own.It’s unlikely that McKinsey will change. After all, the firm’s partners ousted former CEO Kevin Sneader not for being too weak on compliance failures, but for being too tough. “Mr Sneader’s letter to employees about the [opioid] settlement was blunt in criticizing the firm’s behavior,” the Wall Street Journal noted, and “[s]ome partners felt that language was too strong.”Today’s business leaders should look within themselves and determine why they don’t trust their own people to make tough decisions. They need to find out why they are afraid to fail on their own terms. Making yourself accountable can be more painful than hiring a consultant to be accountable for you, but it’s likely to be more rewarding.Nearly 20 years after that meeting in Tokyo, I am also a consultant. And while my small firm didn’t earn the record $16bn that McKinsey did last year, we also didn’t get kicked out of Mongolia.

      Peter O’Toole is principal of Objective Lab and on the adjunct faculty at Georgetown University. He was a speechwriter in the Clinton administration and a senior executive at GE and Pfizer More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Luigi Mangione is the median American voter | Peter Rothpletz

      by

      The vast majority of the US population rarely – if ever – lapses into murderous fantasies wherein they gun down an unsuspecting father of two. One need not possess the telepathic powers of Professor Charles Xavier to consider this a fact. That said, the heterodox, ostensibly incoherent potpourri of political views expressed by the alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin, Luigi Mangione, is more representative of the average American than many elites would care to admit.Mangione’s Twitter/X account is a kaleidoscopic fever dream with no clear ideological rudder. It seems he has a genuine interest in health and wellness. “Wokeness” and masculinity are occasionally discussed; so too are climate change, psychedelics and the potential risks and rewards of artificial intelligence. Pornography, in Mangione’s mind, “should be regulated no less than alcohol, cigarettes, and travel” – and certain sex toys should be banned. He likes Joe Rogan but disdains Jordan Peterson. He also appears to be particularly fond of Pokémon, baby elephants, gorillas and Japan’s Indigenous religion, Shintoism.More interesting than Mangione’s posts themselves are the personalities he follows. They run the political gamut. The right-leaning “manosphere” is well-represented by folks such as Rogan, Patrick Bet-David and Andrew Huberman. The only member of Congress on the list is Representative Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, a democratic socialist. RFK Jr serves as a conduit for both the environmental and Maga movements. Even center-left, wonkish liberalism makes a cameo with Ezra Klein.Some have voiced befuddlement as to where the connective tissue lies between all these figures. They’re confused because they still believe the dominant divide in US politics is liberalism v conservatism. It’s not, and it hasn’t been for some time. Increasingly, even if they lack the exact language to explain it, voters do not identify foremost as Democrats or Republicans, progressives or traditionalists, or even left or right. They identify as pro-system or anti-system. As put by Jeet Heer in The Nation: “Pro-system politics is the bipartisan consensus of establishment Democrats and Republicans: It’s the politics of Nato and other military alliances, of trade agreements, and of deference to economists (as when they say that price gouging isn’t the cause of inflation).” Anti-system politics, he continues, is “a general thumbing of the nose at this consensus”.Rogan, Bet-David and Huberman’s anti-system bona fides are manifest; one can argue AOC’s are too given her status as Bernie Sanders’ heir apparent. RFK Jr is the scion of a Democratic dynasty, but his musings about vaccines, chemtrails, and tap water turning children gay are miles outside the Overton window. Yes, the New York Times’s Ezra Klein feels like a pro-system figure, but one must not forget his February audio essay calling on Joe Biden to pass the torch. Not only did his call land like a bomb, it arguably provided the initial momentum for Democrats to finally force the president out of the election following his disastrous debate performance in late June. Klein was the first man in mainstream media to observe that the emperor has no clothes. Such courage earns one anti-system credibility.Considering all this, Mangione’s digital media diet is arguably quite coherent – and in line with what most non-elites consume. As explained by Rachel Kleinfeld, average Americans are far less ideologically polarized than they think they are – and misconceptions around polarization are greatest among the most politically engaged people. Unfortunately, if you’re reading this essay, you’re likely very, very out of touch.Before November’s election, Blueprint Polling conducted a number of surveys in an effort to define the views of swing voters of swing states. They found these Americans, predictably, defy conventional political categorization. They believe immigration should be decreased, abortion should be legal, the criminal justice system is not tough enough, the government should crack down on price-gouging, and same-sex marriage is just dandy. They practice hodgepodge politics, and they aren’t bothered by what elites would call ideological inconsistency.Mangione is cast in the same mold. Insofar as Mangione can even be called an “ideologue”, he merely believed the American system was fundamentally flawed. He isn’t some pinko, dolled up in Che Guevera revolutionary regalia; nor is he an SS leather fetishist. He’s a highly educated, heterodox, politically homeless moderate – and that fact should terrify us all. Unlike the political violence of old, committed by dyed in the wool radicals, the assassination of Brian Thompson was carried out by a young man with no movement encouraging his extremism. He, on his own, came to the conclusion that the US is so broken and corrupt that murder is the only solution.

      Peter Rothpletz is a freelance writer More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Six Republicans in Nevada again charged for 2020 fake elector scheme

      by

      Six Republicans in Nevada have again been charged with submitting a bogus certificate to Congress that falsely declared Donald Trump the winner of the presidential battleground’s 2020 election.Aaron Ford, the state’s attorney general, announced on Thursday that the fake electors case had been revived in Carson City, the capital, where he filed a new complaint this week charging the defendants with “uttering a forged instrument”, a felony.A Nevada judge dismissed the original indictment earlier this year, ruling that Clark county, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case.Ford, a Democrat, said the new case was filed as a precaution to avoid the statute of limitations expiring while the Nevada supreme court weighs his appeal of the judge’s ruling.“While we disagree with the finding of improper venue and will continue to seek to overturn it, we are preserving our legal rights in order to ensure that these fake electors do not escape justice,” Ford said.“The actions the fake electors undertook in 2020 violated Nevada criminal law and were direct attempts to both sow doubt in our democracy and undermine the results of a free and fair election. Justice requires that these actions not go unpunished.”Officials have said it was part of a larger scheme across seven battleground states to keep the former president in the White House after losing to Joe Biden. Criminal cases have also been brought in Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.Trump lost in 2020 to the president by more than 30,000 votes in Nevada. An investigation by then Nevada secretary of state Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, found no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state.The defendants are state the Republican party chair Michael McDonald; the Clark county Republican party chair Jesse Law; the national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; the national and Douglas county committee member Shawn Meehan; the Storey county clerk Jim Hindle; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area.In an emailed statement to the Associated Press, McDonald’s attorney, Richard Wright, called the new complaint a political move by a Democratic state attorney general who also announced on Thursday that he plans to run for governor in 2026.“We will withhold further comment and address the issues in court,” said Wright, who has spoken often in court on behalf of all six defendants.Attorneys for the others did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.Their lawyers previously argued that Ford improperly brought the case before a grand jury in Democratic-leaning Las Vegas instead of in a northern Nevada city, where the alleged crimes occurred. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Questions dog Trump pick for Middle East adviser with inconsistent résumé

      by

      President-elect Donald Trump’s appointee to advise him on Middle East affairs, Massad Boulos, is reported to have significant discrepancies between his public profile and documented business background, casting doubt on the thoroughness of the former president’s vetting process.Corporate records reviewed by the New York Times reveal that Boulos, father-in-law to Tiffany Trump, is frequently described as a billionaire mogul, but actually manages a truck dealership in Nigeria that generated less than $66,000 in profit last year. The company, SCOA Nigeria PLC, is valued at approximately $865,000, with Boulos’s personal stake worth just $1.53, according to the securities filings in the Times report.The advisory position, which does not require Senate confirmation, follows Boulos’s prominent role in Trump’s 2024 campaign outreach to Arab American voters, particularly in key swing states like Michigan. Boulos positioned himself as a critical intermediary, helping Trump navigate complex political sentiments within Arab American communities – and doing Arab-language interviews with media in the region.While Boulos has been active in Arab American political circles, his murky business background and lack of diplomatic and policy expertise raises questions about the depth of the vetting process conducted by Trump’s team – who were also said to be caught-off guard by accusations against Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth.During the campaign, Boulos pounded the pavement in Michigan to tout Trump’s foreign policy record, claiming he was “the only president in modern US history who did not start any wars”, despite Trump resupplying Saudi Arabia with an arms package, including precision bombs and munitions, for its brutal war in Yemen.Boulos’s political connections are multifaceted. He’s reported to maintain relationships with various Lebanese political figures, including Christian politician Sleiman Frangieh, an ally of Hezbollah whom the militant group endorsed for president.Boulos’s own background includes a failed parliamentary run in Lebanon in 2009. It was his son Michael’s marriage to Tiffany in Mar-a-Lago in 2022 that significantly elevated the family’s political profile.A May meeting with dozens of Arab American leaders in Michigan highlighted the challenges of Boulos’s political positioning. The gathering, which included Trump adviser Richard Grenell, reportedly became tense when Grenell repeated controversial comments about removing Palestinians from Gaza’s “waterfront property”, causing frustration among attendees.Trump announced the appointment on Truth Social in early December, describing Boulos as “a skilled negotiator and a steadfast advocate for PEACE in the Middle East”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIf appointed, Boulos would inherit a Middle East in profound crisis, with Israel’s destructive and more than year-long war in Gaza leading to at least 45,000 dead Palestinians and international arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, former defense minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader Mohammed Deif. The portfolio also includes a new era for Syria as rebels toppled longtime autocrat Bashar al-Assad and war-torn Lebanon with ongoing strikes between Hezbollah and Israel.The appointment also follows a pattern of Trump selecting family-connected individuals for key positions, with Boulos joining Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who was named as the potential US ambassador to France. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Inspector general finds no FBI agents were involved in January 6 attack – US politics live

      by

      The justice department inspector general found no evidence that employees of the FBI were involved in the January 6 attack, but did fault the bureau for not better communicating with its offices nationwide ahead of the joint session of Congress that descended into mayhem four years ago when Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol.In a report released today, the inspector general said: “The FBI effectively carried out its tactical support function on January 6.” However, it faulted the federal law enforcement agency for not checking in with its field offices, which could have corroborated reports that extremist groups were planning to travel to Washington DC.“The FBI did not canvass its field offices in advance of January 6, 2021, to identify any intelligence, including CHS reporting, about potential threats to the January 6 Electoral Certification,” the inspector general wrote.“FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate, who was Associate Deputy Director at the time, described the lack of a canvass prior to January 6 as a ‘basic step that was missed,’ and told the OIG that he would have expected a formal canvassing of sources to have occurred, through the issuance of an intelligence collection product, because it would have been the most thorough approach to understanding the threat picture prior to January 6.”Rightwing activists have alleged that FBI agents were involved in, or even instigated, the insurrection at the Capitol that took place after Trump addressed a crowd of his supporters on the White House ellipse.The inspector general found “no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6”.However a total of 26 FBI informants – known as confidential human sources (CHS) – were in the crowd, some of whom entered the Capitol or other restricted areas, the report says:
      We determined that of the 26 CHSs who were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events of January 6, 4 entered the Capitol during the riot; an additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol, which was a security perimeter established in preparation for the January 6 Electoral Certification; and 9 neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity. None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date.
      Joe Biden issued a sweeping batch of sentence commutations that affected nearly 1,500 people, as well as 39 pardons. The acts of clemency came after the president drew criticism for pardoning his son Hunter Biden, who was about to be sentenced on tax evasion and gun charges. A recently released public opinion poll found most Americans don’t approve of Biden’s decision to pardon his son, but they also are not on board with Donald Trump’s plan to pardon defendants facing charges or convicted over the January 6 attack. Nonetheless, the president-elect told Time magazine in an interview conducted as he was named its “person of the year” that issuing those pardons would be among the first things he will do once he takes office. Trump also promised to make good on campaign promises to expand oil and gas production and carry out mass deportations, while declining to rule out a return of the family separation policy from his first term that was widely condemned as cruel.Here’s what else happened today:

      Trump campaigned on lowering grocery prices, but no longer sounds so sure that he can pull it off.

      An inspector general report found that no FBI agents took part in the January 6 insurrection, though about two dozen informants were at the Capitol or in the crowd. It also said the bureau should have communicated more with its Washington DC field offices about threats to the joint session of Congress held that day.

      Kari Lake, a failed Republican candidate for governor and senator in Arizona and multi-time election denier, has been named by Trump to lead Voice of America.

      The president-elect stopped by the New York Stock Exchange to ring the opening bell this morning and celebrate being named Time magazine’s “person of the year”.

      Jeff Bezos, the billionaire Amazon and Washington Post honcho, plans to meet with Trump next week, while Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta donated $1m to the president-elect’s inauguration fund.
      Monmouth University pollsters also asked Americans if they thought Donald Trump would unite the country during his presidency, or divide it further.Forty-four per cent of respondents said it would wind up more divided, while 34% said it would become more united.Trump won last month’s election decisively, besting Democratic vice-president Kamala Harris in all seven swing states and the popular vote – the first time a Republican has done so since 2004. Since then, he has not made baseless allegations of fraud, as he did following his election loss in 2020, and the Monmouth poll shows Americans mostly believe the vote was fair.Eighty-three per cent of respondents described the election as “fair and square”, and 12% said he won due to voter fraud.Americans are divided on whether to take Donald Trump seriously on his threats to suspend some laws and parts of the constitution and go after his political enemies, a Monmouth University poll released today found.Among 1,006 adults surveyed in recent days, 48% believe he will make good on the threat, while 47% think it is “more of an exaggeration”.Were he to follow through, 52% said it would bother them “a lot”, 22% “a little” and 22% “not at all”.Here’s more on what Trump has said he would like to do to his enemies:Joe Biden today announced 39 pardons, and nearly 1,500 grants of clemency – two distinct types of relief from criminal convictions that a president is empowered to grant. Here’s more on what the actions mean, from the Guardian’s Sam Levine:Joe Biden pardoned 39 Americans convicted of non-violent crimes on Thursday, also announcing that he had commuted the sentences of almost 1,500 people who have already been released from prison.The White House said on Thursday the commutations all relate to people who were released from prisons and placed in home confinement during the Covid pandemic who will now have their sentences reduced. The 39 people being pardoned will have their guilty verdicts wiped entirely.The announcement, what the White House is calling the single largest act of presidential clemency on a single day in modern US history, comes after Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter earlier this month for any federal crimes “he committed or may have committed” between 1 January 2014 and 1 December 2024 has brought renewed focus on the expansive power the US constitution gives the president to grant official clemency.It’s a power that presidents have deployed since George Washington, who pardoned those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, to Donald Trump, who pardoned his political allies.For years after January 6, rightwing conspiracy theorists claimed that Arizona man Ray Epps was in fact a government agent who tricked Trump supporters into attacking the Capitol. No proof of that ever emerged, and earlier this year, Epps was sentenced to probation for his actions during the riot. Here’s more on that, from the Associated Press:A man targeted by rightwing conspiracy theories about the US Capitol riot was sentenced on Tuesday to a year of probation for joining the January 6 attack by a mob of fellow Donald Trump supporters.Ray Epps, a former Arizona resident who was driven into hiding by death threats, pleaded guilty in September to a misdemeanor charge. He received no jail time, and there were no restrictions placed on his travel during his probation, but he will have to serve 100 hours of community service.He appeared remotely by video conference and was not in the Washington courtroom when chief judge James Boasberg sentenced him. Prosecutors had recommended a six-month term of imprisonment for Epps.Epps’s sentencing took place in the same building where Trump was attending an appeals court hearing as the Republican former president’s lawyers argued he is immune from prosecution on charges he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost.The Fox News Channel and other rightwing media outlets amplified conspiracy theories that Epps, 62, was an undercover government agent who helped incite the Capitol attack to entrap Trump supporters.A major part of Donald Trump’s campaign was lowering prices that had risen at historic rates during Joe Biden’s presidency.But, unlike with gravity, what goes up in economics does not necessarily come down. Year-on-year consumer price inflation has declined from its peak of more than 9% in mid-2022 to under 3%, but economists say that does not necessarily mean every price increase will reverse.Asked about his plan to lower grocery prices in his Time magazine interview, Trump sounded less sure than he did on the campaign trail. “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” Time asked. Trump replied:
      I don’t think so. Look, they got them up. I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down.
      In his interview with Time Magazine, Donald Trump suggested that he would pardon many people who faces charges or was convicted for their involvement in the January 6 attack.“I’m going to do case-by-case, and if they were non-violent, I think they’ve been greatly punished. And the answer is I will be doing that, yeah, I’m going to look if there’s some that really were out of control,” Trump said.Asked what he would do about those convicted of committing “violent acts”, Trump replied:
      Well, we’re going to look at each individual case, and we’re going to do it very quickly, and it’s going to start in the first hour that I get into office. And a vast majority of them should not be in jail.
      Despite the FBI’s Washington field office (WFO) and domestic terrorism operations section, both of which were involved in preparations for January 6, not canvassing their field offices ahead of the joint session of Congress, the inspector general finds they did not miss any specific threats.Instead, they missed information that would have corroborated reports they were already aware of. From the report:
      Although the WFO and Domestic Terrorism Operations Section at FBI Headquarters did not direct field offices to canvass their CHSs in advance of January 6, our review of documented CHS reporting in FBI field offices as of January 6 did not identify any potentially critical intelligence related to a possible attack on the Capitol on January 6 that had not been provided to law enforcement stakeholders prior to January 6.
      Additionally, our review of information in the FBI’s possession as of January 6, in addition to the then-documented CHS reporting, did not identify any potentially critical intelligence that had not been provided to, or was not otherwise known to, law enforcement stakeholders prior to January 6. Nonetheless, as numerous FBI officials told us, CHS information can be used to corroborate other sources of reporting to help the FBI develop as complete an understanding as possible of the threat picture in advance of an event like the January 6 Electoral Certification, and the FBI therefore should have canvassed its field offices for any relevant CHS information in advance of January 6.
      The justice department inspector general found no evidence that employees of the FBI were involved in the January 6 attack, but did fault the bureau for not better communicating with its offices nationwide ahead of the joint session of Congress that descended into mayhem four years ago when Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol.In a report released today, the inspector general said: “The FBI effectively carried out its tactical support function on January 6.” However, it faulted the federal law enforcement agency for not checking in with its field offices, which could have corroborated reports that extremist groups were planning to travel to Washington DC.“The FBI did not canvass its field offices in advance of January 6, 2021, to identify any intelligence, including CHS reporting, about potential threats to the January 6 Electoral Certification,” the inspector general wrote.“FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate, who was Associate Deputy Director at the time, described the lack of a canvass prior to January 6 as a ‘basic step that was missed,’ and told the OIG that he would have expected a formal canvassing of sources to have occurred, through the issuance of an intelligence collection product, because it would have been the most thorough approach to understanding the threat picture prior to January 6.”Rightwing activists have alleged that FBI agents were involved in, or even instigated, the insurrection at the Capitol that took place after Trump addressed a crowd of his supporters on the White House ellipse.The inspector general found “no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6”.However a total of 26 FBI informants – known as confidential human sources (CHS) – were in the crowd, some of whom entered the Capitol or other restricted areas, the report says:
      We determined that of the 26 CHSs who were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events of January 6, 4 entered the Capitol during the riot; an additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol, which was a security perimeter established in preparation for the January 6 Electoral Certification; and 9 neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity. None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date.
      Joe Biden issued a sweeping batch of sentence commutations that affected nearly 1,500 people, as well as 39 pardons. The acts of clemency came after the president drew criticism for pardoning his son Hunter Biden who was about to be sentenced on tax evasion and gun charges. A recently released public opinion poll found most Americans don’t approve of Biden’s decision to pardon his son, but they also are not on board with Donald Trump’s plan to pardon defendants facing charges or convicted over the January 6 attack. Nonetheless, the president-elect told Time magazine in an interview conducted as he was named its “person of the year” that those pardons would be among the first things he will do once he takes office. Trump also promised to make good on campaign promises to expand oil and gas production and carry out mass deportations, while declining to rule out a return of the family separation policy from his first term that was widely condemned as cruel.Here’s what else has happened today so far:

      Kari Lake, a failed Republican candidate for governor and senator in Arizona and multi-time election denier, has been named by Trump to lead Voice of America.

      Trump stopped by the New York Stock Exchange to ring the opening bell this morning and celebrate being named Time magazine’s “person of the year”.

      Jeff Bezos, the billionaire Amazon and Washington Post honcho, plans to meet with Trump next week, while Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta donated $1m to the president-elect’s inauguration fund.
      Democrats may have lost the presidency in the November election, but they made inroads at the state level, including in North Carolina. Regarded as one of the most closely divided in the country, the GOP lost its supermajority in the state legislature last month, and so has moved to strip powers from the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general, the Guardian’s Sam Levine reports:On the brink of losing their supermajority in the state legislature, North Carolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto on Wednesday to enact a new law that gives them control over elections in the state and strips the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general of some of their powers.Currently, North Carolina’s governor appoints the five members of the state board of elections, allowing him to select a three-person majority from his party. The new law transfers that appointment power to the state auditor. A Republican won control of the state auditor race this fall for the first time in more than a decade.The bill also changes how local election boards in each of North Carolina’s 100 counties would be appointed. Currently the state board appoints members and the governor appoints the chair. Under the new law, the auditor-appointed state board would still pick the local boards, but the auditor would pick the chair. Taken together, the new law would give Republicans control over both the state and local boards of elections.Lawsuits are expected challenging the changes, which were tucked into a bill that allocates more than $200m in relief money for Hurricane Helene. The money will not be immediately availableand the funds cannot be spent until the legislature acts again, according to the Associated Press.The outgoing governor, Roy Cooper, and the incoming governor, Josh Stein, both Democrats, have criticized the measure as a power grab. Republicans are poised to lose their supermajority in the state legislature next year.Americans don’t know much about Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the defense department, nor Tulsi Gabbard, who the president-elect has nominated as director of national intelligence.But those who do have opinions of them generally do not see them positively, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found.Both Hegseth and Gabbard have attracted controversy, albeit for different reasons. The defense secretary nominee has been accused of sexual assault, and stories have circulated of him mistreating women and cheating on his wives, mismanaging finances at charities he was involved in, and drinking excessively.Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who recently left the party, is under fire for statements supportive of resigned Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Russian president Vladimir Putin – both US adversaries.Here’s what the AP/NORC poll discovered about them. Regarding Hegseth:
      Hegseth is still an unknown quantity for many Americans. About 4 in 10 don’t know enough about him to give an opinion, according to the poll. But his selection is viewed more negatively than positively among Americans who do know who he is. About 2 in 10 U.S. adults approve of Hegseth being picked for Trump’s Cabinet, while 36% disapprove and about 1 in 10 don’t know enough to have an opinion.
      He has higher support among Republicans, but it’s not overwhelming. Many Republicans do not have an opinion of Hegseth: About 4 in 10 say they don’t know enough about him. About one-third of Republicans approve of him as a pick, and 16% disapprove. Another 1 in 10 Republicans, roughly, are neutral and say they neither approve nor disapprove.
      Those approval numbers among Republicans are at least slightly lower for Hegseth than any of the other names included in the poll.
      And Gabbard:
      Gabbard is as unknown as Hegseth is, but Americans are a little less likely to disapprove of her nomination. About 2 in 10 Americans approve of Trump’s pick of Gabbard, while about 3 in 10 disapprove. The rest either do not know enough to say – about 4 in 10 said this – or have a neutral view.
      Approval is slightly higher among Republicans than Hegseth’s, though. About 4 in 10 Republicans approve of the choice, while very few disapprove and 16% have a neutral view. Similar to Americans overall, about 4 in 10 Republicans don’t know enough to say.
      Democratic representative Bennie Thompson, the former chair of the House committee invesigating the January 6 attack, says that he would accept a preemptive pardon if one were issued by Joe Biden.“It’s his prerogative. If he offers it to me or other members of the committee … I would accept it, but it’s his choice,” Thompson said on CNN this morning.The comments came after president-elect Donald Trump told NBC in an interview that members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol should go to jail.“Everybody on that committee … for what they did, yeah, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump said.The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chief, Michael Whitaker, will resign on inauguration day and will not continue as the head of the agency in a second Trump administration, according to reports.Politico reported the news this morning, citing two officials with direct knowledge of Whitaker’s plans. Whitaker reportedly informed his staff of his departure plans during a meeting on Thursday morning.Whitaker was confirmed as the FAA administrator by the Senate on 24 October 2023. FAA administrators generally serve for five years.Meta has donated $1m to Donald Trump’s inaugural fund, the company confirmed on Thursday.The donation appears to be the latest effort by the social media company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to improve relations with the incoming president, and comes just weeks after Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.Meta confirmed its donation to the Guardian on Thursday but did not provide details regarding the reason for the contribution.Read more about it here:Donald Trump says he plans to meet with Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos next week.In brief remarks before the president-elect rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange this morning, he spoke with CNBC and said:
      Mark Zuckerberg’s been over to see me, and I can tell you, Elon [Musk] is another, and Jeff Bezos is coming up next week. I want to get ideas from them. Look, we want them to do well. We want everybody [to do well], and we want great jobs, fantastic salaries.
      More reactions to the decision by Joe Biden to commute the sentences of almost 1,500 people and pardon 39 Americans convicted of non-violent crimes, are coming in.Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who is the chair of the Senate judiciary committee, said in a statement:
      The President took an important step by commuting the sentences of these men and women. In far too many cases in our justice system, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime” Durbin added. “I have long advocated for criminal justice reform to address these inequities and commend President Biden for this act of mercy and for his leadership.
      These individuals have successfully returned to their communities and reunited with their families. I urge the President to continue using his pardon power during his remaining time in office to address miscarriages of justice, just as the founders of this democracy intended.
      Lauren-Brooke Eisen, the senior director of the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, said that the decision was a “vital recognition of the excessively punitive nature of our criminal justice system”.In a statement Eisen added:
      There are thousands more who deserve the same, and we hope to see additional clemencies granted before the end of his term,” Eisen added.
      In addition to the group of people included in today’s announcement, the Brennan Center and a coalition of allies have been calling on the president to commute the sentences of the more than 40 people on federal death row to life without parole, and to thousands of people who are serving unfairly long, racially disparate drug sentences.” More