US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      America vetoes G7 proposal to combat Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers

      by

      The US has rejected a Canadian proposal to establish a task force that would tackle Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, according to reports last night.Canada, which has the current Group of Seven presidency, proposed the measure ahead of a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Quebec later this week.In negotiations to agree a joint statement on maritime issues, the US is pushing to strengthen language about China while watering down wording on Russia, the reports said.The “shadow fleet” refers to ageing oil tankers, the identities of which are hidden to help circumvent western economic sanctions imposed on Moscow since it launched its full-scale military invasion of Ukraine at the start of 2022.As well as vetoing Canada’s proposal to establish a task force to monitor sanctions breaches, the draft G7 statement seen by Bloomberg News shows the US pushed to remove the word “sanctions” as well as wording citing Russia’s “ability to maintain its war” in Ukraine by replacing it with “earn revenue”.G7 communiqués are not final until they are published through consensus. Further talks could still result in changes to the end-of-summit statement.US diplomats briefed their G7 counterparts that the move was because of Washington’s “re-evaluation of its position in multilateral organisations, rendering it unable to join any new initiatives”, according to the Bloomberg report.European countries are discussing plans that will let them carry out seizures of Moscow’s oil-exporting tankers in the Baltic Sea.The proposals include using international law to allow them to take control of vessels on environmental or piracy grounds. More

    • 175 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘She is evil’: Amy Coney Barrett under attack by right wing after USAid ruling

      by

      Amy Coney Barrett, the Donald Trump-appointed conservative supreme court justice, has been branded a “DEI judge” by furious rightwing figures, after she voted to reject Trump’s attempt to freeze nearly $2bn in foreign aid.Coney Barrett, part of the court’s rightwing majority, split with her fellow conservative justices this week. She and John Roberts, the chief justice, voted to leave in place a ruling from a US district judge that ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze the nearly $2bn in aid for foreign aid work that had already been performed, and that had been approved by Congress.The reaction from pro-Trump rightwing commentators and activists was swift.“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes. Another DEI hire. It always ends badly,” Mike Cernovich, a prominent rightwing influencer and conspiracy theorist, wrote on X, referencing diversity, equity and inclusion policies, which Republicans have demonized.Fox News host Mark Levin claimed in an online post that Barrett had “deceived people into thinking she was a reliable constitutionalist”. He added: “The power has gone to her head. It happens with frightening regularity the last half-century.”Laura Loomer, the rightwing activist who repeatedly traveled with Trump during his 2024 campaign, went even further. She posted a picture of Coney Barrett’s family, which includes two adopted Black children, and wrote: “Amy Coney Barrett was a DEI appointee.” Jack Posobiec, a popular Maga figure with more than 3m followers on X, posted that Coney Barrett was a “DEI judge”.Mike Davis, who was involved in the effort to confirm Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast to add his voice to the criticism.“She’s a rattled law professor with her head up her ass,” Davis said of Coney Barrett.He added: “As we work with the Trump 47 administration on the next supreme court list, we’re going to be looking for more bold, more fearless, less DEI, and people who are going to be more of a sure bet.”The branding of Coney Barrett as a liberal judicial figure will come as a surprise to those familiar with her work and legal history.Her appointment to the supreme court in October 2020 cemented the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, and she voted to overturn Roe v Wade, which established the right to abortion in the US, in 2022. An analysis by the Empirical Scotus website found that Barrett voted with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – the court’s two most conservative justices – more than 80% of the time in 2023.However, before the vote to reject Trump’s attempt to withhold aid, she had sided with liberal justices to deny Trump’s request to delay sentencing in his New York hush-money case, and joined a dissent against a conservative-led decision that weakened rules on the discharge of raw sewage. More

    • 138 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      House Republicans unveil spending bill boosting defense and trimming all else

      by

      US House Republicans unveiled a spending bill Saturday that would keep federal agencies funded through 30 September, pushing ahead with a go-it-alone strategy that seems certain to spark a major confrontation with Democrats over the contours of government spending.The 99-page bill would provide a slight boost to defense programs while trimming non-defense programs below 2024 budget year levels. That approach is likely to be a non-starter for most Democrats who have long insisted that defense and non-defense spending move in the same direction.Congress must act by midnight Friday to avoid a partial government shutdown.Speaker Mike Johnson is teeing up the bill for a vote on Tuesday despite the lack of buy-in from Democrats, essentially daring them to vote against it and risk a shutdown. He also is betting that Republicans can muscle the legislation through the House largely by themselves.Normally, when it comes to keeping the government fully open for business, Republicans have had to work with Democrats to craft a bipartisan measure that both sides can support. That’s because Republicans almost always lack the votes to pass spending bills on their own.Crucially, the strategy has the backing of Donald Trump, who has shown an ability so far in his term to hold Republicans in line.“All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday.House Republicans’ leadership staff outlined the measure Saturday, saying it would allow for about $892.5bn in defense spending and about $708bn in non-defense spending. The defense spending is slightly above the prior year’s level, but the non-defense comes in at about 8% below.The leadership aides said the deal does not include various side agreements designed to cushion non-defense programs from spending cuts. Those side agreements had been part of negotiations by Joe Biden, a Democrat, and then speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, when they were in office. The negotiations had allowed for a debt-ceiling extension in return for spending restraints. Under terms of that agreement, defense and non-defense spending had both been set to increase 1% this year.The measure will not include funding requested by individual lawmakers for thousands of community projects around the country, often referred to as earmarks.The bill does not cover the majority of government spending, including programs such as social security and Medicare. Funding for those two programs are on autopilot and not regularly reviewed by Congress.The Republican representative Ralph Norman said he had never voted for a continuing resolution – what lawmakers often call a CR – but that he is on board with Johnson’s effort. He said he has confidence in Trump and the so-called “department of government efficiency”, led by Elon Musk, to make a difference on the nation’s debt.“I don’t like CRs,” Norman said. “But what’s the alternative? Negotiate with Democrats? No.”“I freeze spending for six month to go identify more cuts? Somebody tell me how that’s not a win in Washington,” added the Republican representative Chip Roy, another lawmaker who has often frequently voted against spending bills but supports the six-month continuing resolution.Republicans are also hoping that resolving this year’s spending will allow them to devote their full attention to extending the individual tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term and raising the nation’s debt limit to avoid a catastrophic federal default.Democratic leaders are warning that the decision to move ahead without consulting them increases the prospects for a shutdown. One of their biggest concerns is the flexibility the legislation would give the Trump administration on spending.“We cannot stand by and accept a yearlong power-grab CR that would help Elon take a chainsaw to programs that families rely on and agencies that keep our communities safe,” said the Washington senator Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee.The Democratic leadership in both chambers has stressed that Republicans have the majority and are responsible for funding the government. But leaders also have been wary of saying how Democrats would vote on a continuing resolution.“We have to wait to see what their plan is,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. “We’ve always believed the only solution is a bipartisan solution, no matter what.”Trump has been meeting with House Republicans in an effort to win their votes on the legislation. Republicans have a 218-214 majority in the House, so if all lawmakers vote, they can afford only one defection if Democrats unite in opposition. The math gets even harder in the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would have to vote for the legislation to overcome a filibuster. And that’s assuming all 53 Republicans vote for it. More

    • 163 Shares36 Views

      in US Politics

      Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign

      by

      Tim Walz has said that he and Kamala Harris were too “safe” during their 2024 election campaign, with the former vice-presidential candidate claiming they should have held more in-person events around the US.“We shouldn’t have been playing this thing so safe,” Walz, the governor of Minnesota, said in an interview with Politico, as Democrats seek to learn the lessons of Donald Trump’s win in November, which has sent the party into the political wilderness.Walz, who was widely seen as one of the Democratic party’s most effective messengers against Trump and Vance in 2024, becoming best-known for his frequent description of the pair as “weird”, also said he and Harris had been hampered by the shortened length of their campaign.Harris effectively became the official Democratic party nominee on 5 August, just three months before the election, and Walz said that the abbreviated time frame limited the amount of risks the campaign was able to take.“These are things you might have been able to get your sea legs, if you will, 18 months out, where the stakes were a lot lower,” Walz said.He added: “[But] after you lose, you have to go back and assess where everything was at, and I think that is one area, that is one area we should think about.”Walz’s verdict was that he and Harris should have spent more time directly engaging with Americans, as they sprinted through their 107-day campaign.“I think we probably should have just rolled the dice and done the town halls, where [voters] may say: ‘You’re full of shit, I don’t believe in you,’” he told Politico. “I think there could have been more of that.”Walz has been returning to the national spotlight of late, conducting more TV appearances and last week headlining a fundraising event in front of 1,000 Democrats in his home state. His use of social media, and folksy appearances in TV interviews, were praised during the early party of the 2024 campaign, and Walz suggested he and Harris could have done more.He told Politico that Democrats “as a party are more cautious” in engaging with mainstream and non-traditional media. The former high school football coach added: “In football parlance, we were in a prevent defense [a strategy whereby a team focuses on a gritty defense, rather than attacking], to not lose – when we never had anything to lose, because I don’t think we were ever ahead.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHarris and Walz lost to Trump by 312 electoral college votes to 226, losing in the national vote by about 1.5%. Republicans also won both houses of Congress. Walz said he bears some of the blame for the loss, because “when you’re on the ticket and you don’t win, that’s your responsibility”.The 2028 Democratic presidential primary is expected to be extremely crowded, with Democrats boasting several high-profile governors, and Walz, who is yet to decide whether he will run for a third term as Minnesota governor, was coy about whether he would run, telling Politico he was “not saying no”.“I’m staying on the playing field to try and help because we have to win,” Walz said. “And I will always say this: I will do everything in my power [to help], and as I said, with the vice-presidency, if that was me, then I’ll do the job.” More

    • 175 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      Andrew Cuomo enters race for New York mayor as frontrunner – but trailing baggage

      by

      Abraham Rios, a 76-year-old army veteran and retiree, regularly meets friends at a coffee shop around the corner from his home in Brooklyn, and that is about all he does, he says.The Puerto Rico native who served in the Vietnam war is satisfied with the money he gets from social security and enjoys life, but he would like to see more police in his Clinton Hill neighborhood, where he has lived since 1964.Rios thinks Andrew Cuomo, who on 1 March entered the New York City mayoral race in an attempt to resurrect a seemingly dead political career, can make that happen.“He is a very good leader,” Rios said of Cuomo, who resigned as New York governor in 2021 after facing sexual harassment allegations, which he denied. “He made his mistakes, like all of us have,” but “the governor built bridges. He helped the poor. He helped everybody.”Cuomo’s long history in New York politics and name recognition has helped him storm to a lead in a candidate field featuring an incumbent – Eric Adams – whom many see as corrupt, and a large number of lesser-known candidates who are struggling to get much traction.The scandal that brought Cuomo down and his controversial handling of the Covid-19 pandemic probably won’t have a significant impact on his chances of winning, New York political analysts say, but some voters don’t like what they viewed as his heavy-handed approach as governor and don’t think he is progressive enough.“The judging of the mayor is going to be determined not on incidents in their past but who we feel has got the best chance of leading the city when things that are not predictable happen,” like the pandemic and the September 11 terrorist attacks, said Mitchell Moss, New York University professor of urban policy and planning. “He is the only candidate” with experience “at the federal level, the state level and who understands how to make the tough decisions”.The Democratic mayoral primary, which will probably determine who wins the general election in the blue city, is scheduled for 24 June. The city will again use a ranked-choice system in which voters pick their preferred candidates from one to five, though they do not need to select more than one. If someone captures more than half the votes, they win; if not, the candidate with the fewest first-round votes is eliminated, and their supporters’ votes go to their second choice. That process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes.Cuomo, who for months was rumored to be considering running, had a wide lead in February polls, with about a third of voters in two surveys saying he was their favorite candidate among nine Democrats, while the runner-up in each only received 10%.Other candidates include Adams, who faced a federal indictment until the US justice department dropped the charges against him, it appears, in exchange for his help implementing Donald Trump’s immigration policy; the current and former city comptrollers, Brad Lander and Scott Stringer; the New York state assembly member Zohran Mamdani; and the state senator Jessica Ramos, among others.In announcing his candidacy, Cuomo said the city was in crisis.“You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person or when the anxiety rises up in your chest as you’re walking down into the subway,” Cuomo said in a video. “These conditions exist not as an act of God, but rather as an act of our political leaders, or, more precisely, the lack of intelligent action by many of our political leaders.”View image in fullscreenAs governor, Cuomo allegedly bullied those who disagreed with him. While that made it hard for him to find allies when he faced calls to resign, it also contributed to the perception that he is a strong leader, said Doug Muzzio, a retired political science professor who worked at Baruch College.Meanwhile, “the incumbent is seen to be a weak person who is in the pocket of a president who the voters despise”, Muzzio said.Cuomo can also point to his infrastructure accomplishments, Moss said, which include rebuilding a bridge that connects Brooklyn and Queens, an overhaul of La Guardia airport and construction of the Moynihan Train Hall.Kim Grover, a graphic designer who lives in the East Village, said she was concerned about the allegations that Cuomo sexually harassed 11 women and that his administration underreported how many people died in nursing homes during the pandemic.Still, Grover thinks Cuomo stood up to Trump during the pandemic – and in doing so, to many, became a hero. She now worries about maintaining New Yorkers’ civil rights and sanctuary city policy, which keeps local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officers, something Trump and Republicans have attacked.“In terms of his excellent delivery and communication skills, my first thought would be that [Cuomo] would be a good person to stand his ground against President Trump,” said Grover, 67, who has not decided whom she will support.Gabe Russell, a petitioner for a Democrat in the comptroller race – whom he declined to name – did not like Cuomo even before the Covid and sexual harassment scandals, and Cuomo is not on his list of five candidates. His top two choices are Mamdani and Lander.Cuomo “was very cozy with the real estate lobby … and that is always a bad sign”, said Russell, 33, who wants the government to use mathematics to prevent gerrymandering. “New York is one of the bluest states. We should have been doing far more lefty stuff than we ever do.”Russell also thinks Cuomo could lose support, citing the 2021 mayoral election, when Andrew Yang was the frontrunner and then fell to fourth place.Elena Siyanko, a longtime leader of arts organizations who moved to New York in 1996, said the city was once a “generative place in terms of culture, where artists could afford to live” but had become a place “for hi-tech and financial services”.An East Village resident, Siyanko blames Cuomo for the safety issues he now decries because of how he cut funding for social services. For example, to address a budget shortfall, he discontinued $65m in annual payments for a rental assistance program, while also refusing to raise taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents.“He is in this neoliberal camp of removing any safety net and economic support from public life,” said Siyanko, 53, who immigrated from Kyiv, Ukraine, and is undecided in the mayoral race. “We just need to try to get to a corruption-free candidate in this chapter of our life in New York City.” More

    • 150 Shares36 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump policies could fuel illicit drug trade despite vow to curb fentanyl

      by

      Donald Trump’s policies could leave the US more vulnerable to dangerous synthetic drug trafficking from abroad, even as the administration has vowed to stop fentanyl from entering the country, former government officials say.This week, Trump imposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, ostensibly as a tactic to stem the flow of illicit drugs into the US.Jim Crotty, the former Drug Enforcement Administration deputy chief of staff, called the approach “coercive” and said it has the potential to backfire. Federal funding cuts could also leave US borders more insecure, according to Enrique Roig, a former Department of State official who oversaw Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) portfolios and who has also worked with USAid.US overdose deaths began to decrease significantly for the first time in 2023, after rising for decades. But Crotty notes this progress is fragile.“We’re seeing this decrease in overdose deaths and everyone’s still trying to suss out exactly why. I don’t think now is the time that we want to stop any of those existing efforts because we know that at least some, or a combination of them, have been working,” Crotty said.Roig agreed: “All this has to be working together in concert.”Federal funding cuts could put the US behind when it comes to drug detection technology. The global drug supply has increasingly shifted towards highly potent synthetic substances such as fentanyl and newly emerging nitazenes. Often, these drugs arrive in the US in the form of powders or precursor chemicals that take up minimal space, and are difficult to detect by odor.Roig says advanced drug detection technology is therefore vital, but Trump’s federal funding and staff cuts mean less money for the latest technology and equipment, and fewer people to install it.Ram Ben Tzion, the CEO of Publican, which provides drug detection technology to government agencies outside the US, says cutting-edge methods detect suspicious shipments even before they get to the border. Publican uses large language models to flag shipments that “don’t make sense” and are likely to contain illicit substances. For example, his company once found fentanyl precursors in a shipment to a residential address in California. The shipment claimed to contain fashion items, but came from a Chinese construction company.Similarly, the UN Container Control Programme, which has historically received state department funding, helps authorities flag suspicious shipments before they reach their destination. This program has helped authorities around the world seize hundreds of tonnes of illicit drugs each year. Roig says federal funding cuts have stalled CCP’s implementation in Mexico, even though it’s a primary security target for Trump.Some of Trump’s measures are more showy than they are constructive, Crotty and Roig said. The designation of certain cartels as terrorist organizations “doesn’t do much of anything”.It’s symbolic, says Crotty, given that they were already designated transnational criminal organizations. Other measures are a harmful waste of money, according to Roig. Just this week, for instance, the administration suspended the use of military planes to deport immigrants, including those accused of drug related crimes, due to the extravagant cost.Roig says this measure was completely unnecessary, as “Ice already has its own fleet of airplanes” that are much cheaper.Crotty is concerned the aggression could backfire.“The Mexican people are protective of their culture and their sovereignty. If you push them too hard, could it do more harm than good?” he said.Mexico sent 10,000 troops to its US border to cooperate with Trump’s demands, but Crotty says “while in a vacuum that sounds like a whole lot”, Mexico’s border is vast, and drugs are often transported in “minute quantities”. So, the US needs Mexico’s cooperation when it comes to intelligence – otherwise “you’re not going to find the proverbial needle in the haystack”, Crotty said.Roig said that “it’s important that we do this in cooperation with Mexico and not alienate them,” adding that Trump’s aggressive stance toward China could harm the Biden administration’s progress negotiating with the Chinese government to cooperate on counternarcotics initiatives.Massive USAid cuts also threaten programs intended to curb the “root causes” of the drug trade, says Roig. Some USAid-funded programs simultaneously tackled drug smuggling and another one of Trump’s key issues, migration – as cartels that traffic drugs also traffic people.When Roig worked with USAid, he says he spent a lot of time on “community violence prevention efforts”, including programs to keep young people from joining international crime organizations and cartels. (Notably, the Trump administration has purged many websites describing USAid programs.)If the drug supply does increase, it could mean US overdoses begin to rise again as well. But Crotty is worried we won’t even know if that happens. Layoffs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could leave fewer people to track overdose deaths, and Trump’s attack on government data sharing could keep everyone in the dark.“​​ CDC maintains the overdose death dashboard. A lot of that stuff is data driven. Are they still going to have access to the data?” he said.The Guardian contacted INL and UNODC for comment. More

    • 125 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Alarm as Republican judge who lost election pushes voter-fraud claim

      by

      Four months after the 2024 election, and after recounts affirmed his loss, a North Carolina judge running for a seat on the state’s high court has yet to concede. Instead, Jefferson Griffin is still trying to remove more than 65,000 voters’ ballots from the count, contending they were not lawfully able to vote.Griffin’s case, closely watched by both political parties for its ability to set a precedent in a swing state, is now before the state’s court of appeals, on which he sits. Griffin, a Republican, lost to Democratic supreme court justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes, affirmed by two recounts. The parties filed briefs in early March, and the Republican-leaning court of appeals is expected to schedule arguments soon.Griffin wants to discard these votes because he alleges their registration information was incomplete, among other arguments, but voting rights advocates say the effort will disenfranchise eligible voters, including new voters and those who have been voting successfully for many years.“We view this case as a harbinger for what could come in other states, if this is viewed as an example to draw upon in future elections, and we also view it as an example of what at least some members of the Republican party are willing to do in order to win at the cost of our democratic system,” said Ann Webb, policy director with Common Cause North Carolina.In January, the North Carolina supreme court prevented the state board of elections from certifying the vote while the court cases play out. Three justices agreed in a concurring opinion defending Griffin’s challenges that election protests were an important legal right and that Griffin was not seeking to disenfranchise voters. Instead, the case was about “preserving the public’s trust and confidence in our elections through the rule of law”, a Republican justice wrote. Riggs has recused herself from the case.There are multiple lawsuits alleging the state board of elections should not have allowed wide swaths of voters to be eligible, attempting to negate their ballots. The Republican National Committee filed a similar suit, in which the Democratic National Committee has intervened.North Carolina citizens, including candidates, can file protests to ballots, and these challenges are not uncommon in the state. Griffin first filed the challenges to the Democratic-majority state board of elections, which denied them, leading him to sue. A federal court said state courts should first decide the state law issues in the case, then federal courts could review federal laws at play. A Wake County Superior Court judge ruled against Griffin, and Griffin appealed.Griffin’s challenge stands out because of its breadth and how it attacks rules in place before the election. He isn’t alleging fraud or that voters erred, but that he didn’t agree with the rules in place at the time of the election, Webb said.“This case that Jefferson Griffin is pursuing is essentially the mass election protest that we expected to see from Trump if he had a narrow loss, and it is clearly being driven by an extremist agenda likely from outside North Carolina to experiment with pushing the limits of election law and making it more possible to challenge elections in this kind of unprecedented way,” said Webb, whose group has opposed Griffin’s challenges and planned rallies around the state.Griffin challenged more than 65,000 voters: about 60,000 of them, he alleges, had incomplete vote registrations, for issues like a missing driver’s license number or social security digits, even if they registered more than a decade ago; more than 5,500 absentee ballots from overseas military members and their families, saying they didn’t provide photo ID, which is not required by law for this group of voters; and a couple hundred ballots of overseas voters who have not resided in the US but have ties to North Carolina.The challenges had a disproportionate impact on young voters – about one-fourth of those in the incomplete registration group are aged 18 to 25, WUNC reported. About one-fourth of the students who voted at Duke University were challenged, as were about 400 ballots at North Carolina Central University, a historically Black college.But voters of all backgrounds and political parties were part of the challenge. A Republican city councilman who was challenged told the New York Times that Griffin was being a “sore loser”.In a brief before the appellate court, Griffin’s lawyers claim the state elections board had “broken the law for decades, while refusing to correct its errors”.“This case presents a fundamental question: who decides our election laws? Is it the people and their elected representatives, or the unelected bureaucrats sitting on the state board of elections?”Lawyers for the state elections board said Griffin “seeks to retroactively change longstanding election rules by bringing novel legal claims”. The board also claims Griffin did not provide adequate notice to voters who were challenged – a postcard with a QR code mass-mailed to challenged voters did not meet legal requirements for notice.Riggs, who currently sits on the Republican-dominated supreme court, made similar arguments. “Judge Griffin’s protests were properly rejected because they pose a risk to the stability and integrity of our elections. His effort to change the rules after an election is unprecedented,” lawyers for Riggs wrote in an appellate brief.Spring Dawson-McClure still doesn’t know if her vote will ultimately count, despite it being counted at least twice so far, because Republicans claim her voter registration wasn’t complete.She received a postcard from the North Carolina Republican Party in November, after she voted, that said her vote “may be affected by one or more protests filed in relation to the 2024 general election”. It directed her to scan a QR code to view the protest filings. She initially thought, given the sparse information, that it was a general notice sent to voters to “stir up the idea that there had been voter fraud”.But she found her name listed on a websiteand reached out to her county and the state board of elections to see what happened. She went to the county elections office in person, where they pulled up a copy of her voter registration application.She credited the “audacity to hyphenate my name when I got married” for her inclusion on the list – her current name did not match up with a social security database, though her maiden name did. Contrary to the characterization that more than 60,000 voters didn’t provide necessary information to register, Dawson-McClure’s application was complete.She has voted in 19 elections since 2012, previously without issue. She joined a rally in her town, attended by hundreds of people, to protest against Griffin’s election challenge.“Truthfully, I’m shocked that this is happening,” she said. “I also actually feel quite scared. I feel scared for the future, that my children will live in this state, in this country, and that if our voting rights are not honored in this case, that we will never have free and fair elections in North Carolina again.” More

    • 175 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      The pink protest at Trump’s speech shows the Democrats aren’t coming to save us

      by

      Pretty (pathetic) in pinkHappy International Women’s Day (IWD), everyone! I’ve got some good news and some bad news to mark the occasion.The bad news is that a legally defined sexual predator is leading the most powerful country on earth and we’re seeing a global backlash against women’s rights. “[I]nstead of mainstreaming equal rights, we are seeing the mainstreaming of misogyny,” the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, said in his IWD message.The good news, for those of us in the US at least, is that the Democrats have a plan to deal with all this. Or rather, they have wardrobe concepts of a plan. On Tuesday night, Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol. Some members from the Democratic Women’s Caucus (DWC), including Nancy Pelosi, decided to protest by … wait for it … wearing pink.“Pink is a color of power and protest,” the New Mexico representative Teresa Leger Fernández, chair of the DWC, told Time. “It’s time to rev up the opposition and come at Trump loud and clear.”The pink outfits may have been loud but the message the Democrats were sending was far from clear. They couldn’t even coordinate their colour-coordinating protest: some lawmakers turned up wearing pink while others wore blue and yellow to support Ukraine and others wore black because it was a somber occasion.Still, I’ll give the DWC their due: their embarrassing stunt seems to have garnered at least one – possibly two – fans. One MSNBC columnist, for example, wrote that the “embrace of such a traditionally feminine color [pink] by women with considerable political power makes a stunning example of subversive dressing”.For the most part, however, the general reaction appears to have been that this was yet another stunning example of how spineless and performative the Democrats are. Forget bringing a knife to a gunfight – these people are bringing pink blazers to a fight for democracy. To be fair, there were a few other attempts at protest beyond a pink palette: the Texas representative Al Green heckled the president (and was later censured by some of his colleagues for doing so) and a few Democrats left the room during Trump’s speech. Still, if this is the “opposition”, then we are all doomed.Not to mention: even the pink blazers seemed a little too extreme for certain factions of the Democratic party. House Democratic leadership reportedly urged members not to mount protests and to show restraint during Trump’s address. They also chose the Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin to give the Democratic response to Trump’s speech. While Slotkin tends to be described as a sensible centrist voice by a lot of the media, she’s very Trump-adjacent. Slotkin is one of the Democratic senators who has voted with Trump the most often and, last June, was one of the 42 Democrats to vote with the GOP to sanction the international criminal court (ICC) over its seeking of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders for destroying Gaza. Human rights advocacy groups have warned that attacking the ICC like this undermines international law and the ability to prosecute or prevent human rights violations across the world. It speaks volumes about the US media and political class that a senator standing against international law can be called a centrist.This whole episode also speaks volumes about the Democrats’ plan for the future: it’s growing increasingly clear that, instead of actually growing a spine and fighting to improve people’s lives, the Democratic party seems to think the smartest thing to do is quietly move to the right and do nothing while the Trump administration implodes. I won’t caution against this strategy myself. Instead, I’ll let Harry Truman do it. Back in 1952, Truman said: “The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time.”Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that the Democrats are not coming to save us. We must save ourselves. That means organizing within our local communities and learning lessons from activists outside our communities. It means being careful not to normalize creeping authoritarianism and it means recognizing the urgency of the moment. The warning signs are flashing red: we need to respond with a hell of a lot more than a pink wardrobe.Make atomic bombings straight again!DEI Derangement Syndrome has reached such a fever-pitch in the US that a picture of the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan has been flagged for deletion at the Pentagon. Apparently, it only got the job because it was Gay.Can a clitoris be trained to read braille?The Vagina Museum addressed this very important question on Bluesky.One in eight women killed by men in the UK are over 70A landmark report by the Femicide Census looks at the deaths of 2,000 women killed by men in the UK over the last 15 years and found that the abuse of older women hasn’t had as much attention as it should. “We have to ask why we see the use of sexual and sustained violence against elderly women who are unknown to the much younger men who kill them,” the co-founder of the Femicide Census told the Guardian. “The misogynistic intent in these killings is clear.”Bacterial vaginosis (BV) may be sexually transmitted, research findsWhile this new study is small, its findings are a big deal because BV is super common – affecting up to a third of reproductive-aged women – and has long been considered as a “woman’s issue”. Treating a male partner for it, however, may reduce its recurrence.How astronaut Amanda Nguyen survived rape to fight for other victimsAfter being assaulted at age 22, Nguyen got a hospital bill for $4,863.79 for her rape kit and all the tests and medication that went along with it. She was also informed that it was standard practice for her rape kit to be destroyed after six months. “The statute of limitations is 15 years because it recognises that trauma takes time to process,” Nguyen told the Guardian in an interview. “It allows a victim to revisit that justice. But destroying the rape kit after six months prevents a survivor from being able to access vital evidence.” After her traumatic experience, Nguyen successfully fought for the right not to have your rape kit destroyed until the statute of limitations has expired, and the right not to have to pay for it to be carried out.Female doctors outnumber male peers in UK for first timeIt’s a significant milestone in what has traditionally been a male-dominated profession.There’s an Israeli TikTok trend mocking the suffering of Palestinian childrenThis is one of those things that would be front page of the New York Times if it were directed at Israelis but is getting relatively little attention because of how normalized the dehumanization of Palestinians is. It’s also just the latest in a series of social media trends mocking Palestinian suffering.Florida opens criminal investigation into Tate brothers“These guys have themselves publicly admitted to participating in what very much appears to be soliciting, trafficking, preying upon women around the world,” the state attorney general said.The week in pawtriarchyJane Fonda, a committed activist, has always fought the good fight. But she’s also apparently fought wildlife. The actor’s son recently told a Netflix podcast that Fonda once “pushed a bear out of her bedroom”. While that phrase may mean different things to different people, in this instance it was quite literal. Fonda apparently scared off a bear who had entered her grandson’s room and was sniffing the crib. Too bad nobody was there to snap a photo of the escapade – it would have been a real Kodiak moment. More