#republican presidential debate 2023 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ausetkmt · 11 months

Text

Newsweek: Ron DeSantis Accused of Being 'Pro-Slavery' Due to New Florida Curriculum

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is facing new criticism over his state's new curriculum for African-American history in which some say is "pro-slavery."

DeSantis, a Republican who is running for president in 2024, has made his embrace of right-wing social causes a cornerstone of his style of politics. He has decried "woke" education, signing into law requirements about how race can be taught in Florida schools as educators across the United States grapple with conservative efforts to limit discussions of diversity, including African American history, in public schools.

Advocates for more restrictive lessons on race have argued all sides of a political or historical debate should be presented in schools. Critics, however, are accusing DeSantis and other Republicans of attempting to erase the history of slavery, and that students should learn about this topic in its entirety.

This standard has sparked criticism from educational and civil rights leaders, who have accused Florida Republicans of seeking to whitewash the history of slavery.

Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, accused DeSantis of being "pro-slavery" over the educational policy.

"Please keep this simple: If you require schools to teach the 'personal benefits' of slavery you are pro-slavery. Ron DeSantis is pro-slavery," the Democratic lawmaker tweeted on Saturday.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) July 22, 2023

DeSantis defended the standards when pressed by a reporter, saying that he "wasn't involved" in writing these standards, which were "not done politically."

"I think what they're doing, is I think that they're probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a black smith, into doing things later in life," the Florida governor said. "But the reality is all of that is rooted in whatever is factual."

Newsweek reached out to DeSantis' office for comment via email.

Still, many others also condemned the new standards.

Will Hurd, a former congressman from Texas who is also running in the GOP 2024 presidential primary, tweeted on Friday, "Unfortunately, it has to be said – slavery wasn't a jobs program that taught beneficial skills. It was literally dehumanizing and subjugated people as property because they lacked any rights or freedoms."

Unfortunately, it has to be said – slavery wasn't a jobs program that taught beneficial skills. It was literally dehumanizing and subjugated people as property because they lacked any rights or freedoms.https://t.co/4JjIgeDhKX — Will Hurd (@WillHurd) July 21, 2023

Jaime Harrison, the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), slammed the policy as "disgusting."

"The much anticipated DeSantis reset: Teaching our kids that slavery had its benefits," he tweeted on Friday. "Disgusting."

Vice President Kamala Harris, during a speech at Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc.'s 56th national convention in Indianapolis on Thursday, described the standards as an attempt to "gaslight us."

"Just yesterday, in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefitted from slavery," she said. "They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us and we will not stand for it. We who share a collective experience in knowing we must honor history in our duty in the context of legacy. There is so much at stake in this moment."

#Ron DeSantis Accused of Being 'Pro-Slavery' Due to New Florida Curriculum #florida #desantis lies #gop #white supremacy #systemic racism #revisionist history of america #all lies #american history #Black Lives Matter #Black History Matters

114 notes · View notes

naturalrights-retard · 4 months

Text

Read this to your Democrat friends and family before you vote for Biden in 2024

By Bernadette Abbott

The economy in the U.S. right now is dominated by three main things: slow growth, high inflation, and low unemployment—an unusual mix that confuses a lot of economists. (Typically, a period of slow growth comes with high unemployment.) Because of this, the best ways to tackle the economic problems are hotly debated.

The Biden administration has responded to this crisis with an approach they call “Bidenomics.” In June 2023, the White house released a memo where they’d tried to explain why it “works.” Let’s summarize their approach.

Briefly speaking, Biden’s administration is promoting typical heavy tax and spending policies with a twist—it looks like “tax, spend, and borrow.” They raise people’s taxes, spend large amounts of government money, and borrow large amounts of money to pay for everything; this approach is to blame for a number of the economic problems with which we’re dealing.

Some people suggest the financial pain lingers because of the pandemic. But this is not true—Biden has been president for almost three years. The vast majority of us feel the negative impact of Bidenomics, with its key tenets listed below:

High Gas Prices

No, this is not the fault of the pandemic. In 2020, during the presidential debate, Biden stated his intentions to “transition away from the oil industry.” Promises made, promises kept, and now we are paying enormous amounts of money for gas. Supply and demand seems simple enough—limit a crucial product and the price goes up—but apparently it was too much for this woman to grasp, who blamed costs on the “religious right” Republicans:

Can’t fix stupid

21 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months

Text

A Trump-appointed prosecutor dropped an unfalsifiable partisan bomb on President Joe Biden Thursday, playing into a years-long right-wing media campaign — and U.S. political journalists decided to treat it as a valid and impartial charge.

Biden, who has a 40-year record of public service in the U.S. Senate, as vice president, and in the Oval Office, is a self-described “gaffe machine” with a well-documented stutter. He is also, at 81, the oldest president in U.S. history.

The right has dedicated substantial time and resources since Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign to attributing his verbal miscues to his age. Republican political operatives surface out-of-context snippets of Biden’s misstatements and try to blow them up into national stories, and it is rarely-disputed canon in the right-wing media that the president is a mentally failing dementia patient.

This argument blew up in their faces when Biden performed so well in a debate against then-President Donald Trump that the GOP resorted to accusing him of taking performance-enhancing drugs, and again in 2023, when his canny dealings with then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy led McCarthy to describe him as “very smart” and Republicans to question how they’d been outmaneuvered by someone purportedly in mental decline. But undeterred by reality, the right has maintained the drumbeat over Biden’s mental status, driving up public concern over the president’s age.

Enter Robert Hur. Attorney General Merrick Garland presumably selected him as a special counsel to investigate Biden’s possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records because he thought he could quell potential complaints of political bias by putting in charge a former clerk to right-wing judges whom Trump appointed as a U.S. attorney with every incentive to do maximum political damage to the Democratic president. This is a regular pattern — Republican and Democratic administrations each appoint Republicans to investigate both Republicans and Democrats, though that never seems to halt the complaints from the right about the handling of those cases.

On Thursday, after a year-long investigation, Hur issued a 345-page report in which he concluded that “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter” and that “the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” But rather than stop there, he also levied an incendiary and gratuitous attack on Biden’s mental status, claiming that, “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur cited specific mental lapses he’d observed during their five hours of interviews — conducted at a time when Biden was responding to the international crisis caused by the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel — including that his “memory appeared hazy” when discussing the intricacies of 15-year-old White House policy debates.

Hur’s argument that lawyers for the sitting president of the United States would argue in court that he shouldn’t be convicted of a crime because he is a senile old man is facially absurd. Indeed, Biden forcefully pushed back on the critique during a White House appearance Thursday night.

The special counsel’s actions drew sharp criticism from the legal community. Biden’s lawyers blasted claims about Biden’s memory in a draft report, saying, “We do not believe that the report's treatment of President Biden's memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events.” On MSNBC, former FBI counsel Andrew Weissmann called the claims “wholly inappropriate,” “gratuitous,” and “exactly what you’re not supposed to do, which is putting your thumb on the scale that could have political repercussions.” Neal Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general, likewise said that based on his tours in the Justice Department, Hur’s statements were “totally gratuitous” and a “too-clever-move-by-half by the special counsel to try and take some swipes at a sitting president.” And Ty Cobb, a former Trump lawyer, said on CNN that he had served on an independent counsel probe that declined to prosecute someone due to “health issues, but we didn’t tell the world that,” suggesting that such statements by Hur were inappropriate.

But by including those inappropriate and gratuitous statements, Hur put an official seal on a partisan attack.

The right jumped on Hur’s claims, with Republican politicians and right-wing commentators falsely claiming that the special counsel had found that Biden “is not competent to stand trial” and “has dementia.” Some called for the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and remove him from office.

The mainstream political press, meanwhile, turned Hur’s insinuations about Biden’s mental health — and not his declination to prosecute — into the report’s big takeaway. Here’s a sampling of top headlines from major newspapers, political tipsheets, and digital outlets on Thursday and Friday.

New York Times: “Eight Words and a Verbal Slip Put Biden’s Age Back at the Center of 2024” Axios: “1 big thing: Report questions Biden’s memory” Semafor Flagship: “DoJ report questions Biden’s memory” Washington Post: “Special counsel report paints scathing picture of Biden’s memory” Wall Street Journal: “Biden’s Age Back in Spotlight After Special Counsel Report, Verbal Flubs” CNN: “Biden tries to lay to rest age concerns, but may have exacerbated them” ABC News: “Special counsel blows open debate over Biden age and memory” CBS News: “Biden disputes special counsel findings, insists his memory is fine” Politico: “Age isn’t just a number. It’s a profound and growing problem for Biden.

Stories about Biden’s mental state are clearly catnip for political journalists. They can demonstrate how “fair” they are by providing negative coverage of Biden to balance their treatment of his likely opponent Donald Trump, who is an unhinged authoritarian facing scores of federal and state criminal charges, including for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election. And they don’t need to bone up on policy nuances separating the candidates — “is the president addled” is an easy venue for hot takes.

The storyline is particularly toxic because no matter how many times it is repudiated by Biden’s public actions or the statements of people who have spoken to him privately, it cannot be falsified. The White House physician can release health summaries calling him “fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.” Democrats who have recently spoken to the president, like Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), and reporters who have recently interviewed him, like John Harwood, can attest to his mental acuity at the time of his special counsel interview. But Biden is still Biden, so he’s going to keep making gaffes, as he did Thursday night when he referred to Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as “the president of Mexico,” leading journalists to downplay his newsmaking statements about the Israel-Hamas war and fixate instead on what the statement says about his mental health.

The choice for reporters is how they respond to such misstatements. On NPR, Mara Liasson said that the White House is pushing back by pointing out that Biden’s foes, like Fox’s Sean Hannity and Trump, have had similar mix-ups.

“But the difference is that one of these missteps, one of these guys who forgets things, Biden, has become a viral meme, and it's become a big problem for him,” she said. “Trump's misstatements, for some reason, have not risen to that level.”

It’s true that Trump’s own verbal missteps have not coalesced into an overarching narrative about his mental fitness for office. But the reason why is obvious: Political journalists decided to treat Biden’s missteps as a big problem, and Trump’s as a small one. They’re setting the agenda, following the lead of the Republican Party, the right-wing media, and now, Hur.

16 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 9 months

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 29, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

“What a day we are having…. As a former director of emergency management, I know a disaster when I see one,” Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) said yesterday in the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, overseen by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee chaired by James Comer (R-KY).

Moskowitz wasn’t wrong. After a hearing that lasted more than six hours, highlights of which Aaron Rupar of Public Notice reposted on social media, Neil Cavuto of the Fox News Channel was unimpressed. He said that although Comer had promised to present “a mountain of evidence” against President Biden, “none of the expert witnesses today presented…any proof for impeachment…. The way this was built up, ‘where there’s smoke there would be fire,’... but where’s there’s smoke today, we just got a lot more smoke.”

The Republicans on the committee repeatedly talked about the volume of evidence they have uncovered, but they were never able to link their piles of evidence to the president. Under questioning, their own witnesses said there was not enough evidence to impeach President Biden.

It seemed as if Republicans have become so accustomed to being able to say anything they want to on right-wing media without being challenged they thought a congressional committee would operate the same way. When the Democrats pushed back, they seemed flummoxed.

Comer lost control of the hearing as Democrats on the committee, thoroughly prepared, came out swinging. Representative Shontel Brown (D-OH) noted that “[t]he DOJ and FBI under former President Trump spent 5 long years looking into these Republican conspiracy theories, and debunked them. Repeatedly.” Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said, “The majority sits completely empty handed with no evidence of any presidential wrongdoing, no smoking gun, no gun, no smoke.”

Representative Summer Lee (D-PA) called out the Republicans by name for holding a sham impeachment hearing instead of funding the government and working for their constituents. She noted that 217,583 people living in the districts of the Republicans on the committee would lose their paychecks because of the Republican shutdown.

Most notably, the Democrats called out the places where witnesses or committee members had deleted words in quotations that changed their meanings. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) emphasized that the four Republican witnesses said they had not presented any first-hand witness accounts of crimes committed by President Biden, while the committee was blocking the testimony of witnesses who could testify to actual facts. She also noted that members of Congress could say anything they wanted because they are covered by the Constitution’s Speech and Debate clause protecting them,

Democrats also called out the many ways in which the Republicans were trying to discredit President Biden with speculation during an impeachment hearing to distract from the very real legal troubles of former president Trump. Representatives Mike Garcia (D-CA) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA) called out the Republicans for focusing on allegations about Hunter Biden and ignoring the very real issues involving Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who could not get a security clearance until Trump demanded he be given one, worked on Middle East issues in the White House, and then received a $2 billion investment from the Saudis shortly after Trump left office.

Most dramatically, Representative Greg Cesar (D-TX) asked the members of the Oversight Committee to raise their hands if they believe that both Hunter and Trump should be held accountable if they are found guilty on any of their indictments. The Democrats all raised their hands. The Republicans did not.

One senior republican aide told CNN’s Melanie Zanona: “This is an unmitigated disaster.”

It did not get better after the hearing ended. A fact-check by CNN’s Daniel Dale, Marshall Cohen and Annie Grayer tore apart the committee’s “evidence.” Although Comer said in his opening remarks that the committee has uncovered how “the Bidens and their associates…raked in over $20 million between 2014 and 2019,” all but about $7 million went to Hunter Biden’s business associates, who according to the Washington Post had “legitimate business interests,” and there is no evidence that President Biden himself received any of this money.

Comer’s accusation that money was wired to Joe Biden’s Delaware address did not note that the money was a loan, and it went to Hunter Biden’s bank account. Hunter Biden’s lawyers say that he used the Bidens’ Delaware home as his address at the time.

Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) claimed that documents released Wednesday from 2020 showed that the Department of Justice was protecting President Biden. But in 2020 Trump, not Biden, was president, and the official who urged Biden senior’s name be kept off a search warrant did so because there was no legal basis to include him in a search warrant concerning a business involving his adult son.

And on it went.

Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark wrote: “The charitable view is that the first hearing was a dumpster fire inside a clown car wrapped in a fiasco. To put it mildly, the GOP did not bring their best.”

At the end of the day, it seemed as if Democrats had flipped the script that has worked so well for so long on right-wing media. Rather than being on the defensive themselves, they put Republicans on the defensive. And because their hits were based in reality, rather than a false narrative, they left the Republican committee members with few options today other than to take to social media, once again, to boast of all the evidence they have accumulated against President Biden.

The hearing was designed to give the extremists of the Freedom Caucus one of their demands, likely in the hope that they would agree to pass a stopgap funding bill that would at least make it look like the House Republicans were trying to fund the government. But today, when House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) brought to the floor an extreme bill that would have made 30% cuts to food assistance, housing, education, funding for border agents, and so on, and insisted on closing the border while funding the government for only another 30 days, 21 extremists voted with the Democrats to kill it by a vote of 198 to 232.

This was a harsh blow not only to McCarthy but to all the Republicans in swing districts. House leaders forced them all to vote for a measure chock full of enormously unpopular cuts and then snatched away the prize of funding the government. Such a political disaster speaks very poorly of McCarthy, who should have never put members of his conference in such a position. Losing 21 of his members in this vote is an embarrassment. The loss weakens the party for 2024: the Democratic ads will pretty much write themselves.

And the members refusing to fund the government simply don’t appear to care, either about their colleagues or their constituents.

At any point, McCarthy could bring up before the House the bipartisan measure already passed by the Senate. Democrats would then likely make up the votes he would lose in his own conference. But the extremists would then challenge his speakership, and that is apparently a challenge he is unwilling to brave.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #clown car #House Republicans #corrupt GOP #GOP lies #government shutdown #cruelty #do your job

23 notes · View notes

strictlyfavorites · 2 months

Text

At least 59.4 percent of illegal immigrant-led homes use one or more welfare programs, compared with 39 percent of households headed by people born in the United States, according to the Dec. 19 report.

High rates of welfare use among illegal immigrants “primarily reflect their generally lower education levels and their resulting low-incomes, coupled with the large share who have U.S.-born children who are eligible for all welfare programs from birth,” the report reads.

“More than half of all illegal immigrant households have one or more U.S.-born children.”

Children born to illegal immigrants in the United States, also known as “anchor babies,‘ are considered to have automatic birthright citizenship even though the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on the matter. Illegal immigrants can’t access most welfare programs, a restriction that eases for their children who are born in the country.

“The American welfare system is designed in large part to help low-income families with children, which describes a large share of immigrants,” CIS states in the report.

A dozen states offer Medicaid to all low-income children regardless of immigration status. Such children also have access to various government food and meal programs.

Programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, free or subsidized lunch and breakfast for students, and Medicaid for children (Children’s Health Insurance Program) were “explicitly created for minors,” the report states.

The CIS report is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

“The reality is that illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP, a large share of them are poor, and they or their U.S.-born children have welfare eligibility; and many take advantage of this eligibility,” CIS stated.

“A very large share of immigrants come to America, have children, struggle to provide for them, and so turn to taxpayers for support. This can be seen as especially problematic given that there is already a large number of Americans who are also struggling to provide for their children.”

According to data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the total number of U.S.-born children of illegal aliens in the United States as of June stood at 5.78 million, a population more than two times that of Chicago.

FAIR estimates that “illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children impose a net annual cost of $150.6 billion on American taxpayers as of the beginning of 2023.” Over the past five years, the annual cost has risen by almost $35 billion.

“This burden will only continue to grow as a result of the Biden administration’s open-borders policies,” the organization warns.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Multiple GOP members have taken a strong stance against birthright citizenship. In 2018, former President Donald Trump said he would remove birthright citizenship via executive order, which didn’t happen.

In his 2024 campaign, President Trump has reiterated his position on the matter. In a May video, President Trump promised to sign an executive order on day one of his second term to solve the issue.

Such an order would end the “unfair practice known as birth tourism, where hundreds of thousands of people from all over the planet squat in hotels for their last few weeks of pregnancy to illegitimately and illegally obtain U.S. citizenship for the child, often to later exploit chain migration to jump the line and get green cards for themselves and their family members.”

“At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify,” President Trump stated.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called for an end to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants during the second GOP debate, in September.

“Now, the left will howl about the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The difference between me and them is I’ve actually read the 14th Amendment. And what it says is that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof are citizens,” Mr. Ramaswamy said.

“So nobody believes that the kid of a Mexican diplomat in this country enjoys birthright citizenship—not a judge or legal scholar in this country will disagree with me on that. Well, if the kid of a Mexican diplomat doesn’t enjoy birthright citizenship, then neither does the kid of an illegal migrant who broke the law to come here.”

In July, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a proposal called “End Birthright Citizenship Fraud Act of 2023,” which aims to abolish automatic birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Under the legislation, at least one parent of the child must be a U.S. national or a refugee, have lawful permanent citizenship, or be an active member of the military.

“My legislation recognizes that American citizenship is a privilege—not an automatic right to be co-opted by illegal aliens,” Mr. Gaetz said in a statement.

“This is an important step in preserving the sanctity of American citizenship and ensures that citizenship is not treated as a loophole to be exploited but rather a privilege to be earned when legally migrating to our country.”

4 notes · View notes

trmpt · 8 months

Text

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

Remarks by President Biden Honoring the Legacy of Senator John McCain and the Work We Must Do Together to Strengthen Our Democracy

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests — (applause) — in the end, John McCain thought about the beginning. Five years ago, as John was dying from brain cancer, John wrote a farell- — a farewell letter to the nation that he said — that he served so well in both war and in peace.

His words tracked back centuries to America’s founding and then toward a triumphant future. Here’s what John wrote, and I quote, “We are citizens of the world — the world’s greatest republic. A nation of ideals, not blood and soil. Americans never quit. They never hide from history. America makes history.”

And John was right. Every other per- — every other nation in the world has been founded on either a grouping by ethnicity, religion, background. We’re the most unique nation in the world. We’re founded on an idea — the only major nation in the world founded on an idea. An idea that we are all created equal, endowed by our Cr- — in the image of God, endowed by our Creator to be — to be able to be treated equally throughout our lives.

We’ve never fully lived up to that idea, but we’ve never walked away from it. But there’s danger we’re walking too far away from it now, the way we talk in this deba- — in this country. Because a long line of patriots from — like John McCain kept it from ever becoming something other than what it is.

I often think about our friendship of 40 years. The hammer-and-tong debates we’d have in the Senate. We’d argue — we were like two brothers. We’d argue like hell. (Laughs.) I mean really go at one another. Then we’d go lunch together. (Laughter.) No, not a joke. Or John would ride home with me. I mean, we — we traveled the world together.

And, by the way, when he found this magnificent woman and got married, I’m the guy that convinced him to run in Arizona as a Republican. Bless me, Father, for — (makes the sign of the cross). (Laughter and applause.) No, but it’s — you’ve got to admit, Cindy, I did. I talked to him, and I said, “John, you can do this job. My only worry is you’ll do it too well.” (Laughter.)

But, look, running on opposite sides of the nation’s highest office when — when he was running for president and I was on the vice presidential ticket — we still remained friends.

The conversations we had — he had with my son, Beau — the attorney general of the state of Delaware, a decorated major in the U.S. Army, was a guy who spent a year in Iraq — about serving in a war overseas, about the courage in battle against the same cancer that took John and my son.

Two weeks ago, I thought about John as I was standing in another part of the world — in Vietnam. I don’t want to be — I — excuse me if I — it was an emotional trip.

I was there to usher in a 50-year arc of progress for the two countries, pushed by John and, I might add, another John — this is the former Secretary of State, John from Massachusetts, won the Silver Star as well.

Once at war, we are now choosing the highest possible partnership, made possible through John’s leadership. I mean that sincerely. Think about it.

While in Hanoi, I visited a marker depicting where John — what John — where John had endured all the pain. Imprisoned five and a half years. Solitary confinement for two years. Given an opportunity — an opportunity to come home if he just said a couple things. He was beaten, bloodied, bones broken, isolated, tortured, left unable to raise his arms above his shoulders again.

As I stood there paying my respects, I thought about how much I missed my friend. And it’s not hyperbole. I — from the bottom of my heart, I mean this.

I thought about something else as well. I thought about how much America missed John right now, how much America needed John’s courage and foresight and vision. I thought about what John stood for, what he fought for, what he was willing to die for. I thought about what we owed John, what I owed him, and what we owe each other — we owe each other — we owed each other as well — and Americans as well.

You see, John is one of those patriots who, when they die, their voices are never silent. They still speak to us. They tug at both our hearts and our conscience.

And they pose the most profound questions: Who are we? What do we stand for? What do we believe? What will we be?

For John, it was country first. Sounds like a — like a movie, but it’s real with John: honor, duty, decency, freedom, liberty, democracy.

And now, history has brought us to a new time of testing. Very few of us will ever be asked to endure what John McCain endured. But all of us are being asked right now: What will we do to maintain our democracy? Will we, as John wrote, never quit? Will we not hide from history, but make history? Will we put partisanship aside and put country first?I say we must and we will. We will. (Applause.)

But it’s not easy. It’s not easy

#president biden #john mccain #president biden dedication of john mccain library #democracy

7 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

A new pro-forced pregnancy proposal in the South Carolina General Assembly that would make people who obtain abortion care eligible for the death penalty was portrayed as coming from the fringes of the Republican Party by one GOP lawmaker—but with 21 state Republicans backing the legislation, critics said the idea is representative of the party's anti-choice agenda.

Proposed by state Rep. Rob Harris, the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023 would amend the state's criminal code to give a zygote, or fertilized egg, "equal protection under the homicide laws of the state"—meaning obtaining an abortion could be punishable by the death penalty.

The bill does not include an exception for people whose pregnancies result from rape or incest, and political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen noted its language is vague enough to suggest that some people who suffer miscarriages could become eligible for the death penalty.

The exceptions provided by Harris include only people who are "compelled" by others to have an abortion against their will or people whose continued pregnancies carry the threat of "imminent death or great bodily injury," although numerous cases since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade have demonstrated how exceptions to protect a pregnant person's life often put their safety at risk.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), a rape survivor, spoke on the House floor last Friday about the bill and warned that its lack of exceptions for rape survivors was part of a "deeply disturbing" trend.

"To see this debate go to the dark places, the dark edges," said Mace, "has been deeply disturbing to me as a woman, as a female legislator, as a mom, and as a victim of rape."

But with nearly two dozen co-sponsors, said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid, the proposal appears to come from the "horrifically mainstream 'pro-life' GOP."

"It's not just one lone extremist," wrote Tessa Stuart at Rolling Stone.

Harris and his co-sponsors—seven of whom have requested to have their names removed from the legislation as it's garnered national attention—are just the latest policymakers to propose punishments for people who obtain abortions. Alabama's Attorney General said in January that residents should be prosecuted for taking abortion pills, and former President Donald Trump said as a presidential candidate in 2016 that "there has to be some form of punishment" for abortion patients before walking back the statement.

A number of Texas lawmakers have proposed making people who obtain abortions eligible for capital punishment in recent years.

"If this surprises you," said historian Diana Butler Bass of the South Carolina proposal, "you haven't been paying attention."

32 notes · View notes

reading-writing-revolution · 9 months

Photo

(via White men have controlled women’s reproductive rights throughout American history – the post-Dobbs era is no different)

More than a year after the Supreme Court ended federal protection for abortion rights in the United States, disagreements over abortion bans continue to reverberate around the country. Candidates sparred over the idea of a federal abortion ban during the Aug. 23, 2023, Republican presidential debate. And abortion is likely to figure prominently in the November 2023 contest for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, removing women’s federal constitutional right to get abortions and giving states the power to pass laws about the legality of the procedure, the 6-3 vote was by a four white men, one Black man and a white woman majority.

Since that decision - Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization - more than 1,500 state legislators, who are overwhelmingly white men, have voted for full or partial abortion bans.

#abortion #white supremacy #news #politics

12 notes · View notes

bighermie · 10 months

Text

Share Link

Report: Donald Trump to Sit down with Tucker Carlson in Lieu of First Republican Presidential Debate https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2023/08/18/report-donald-trump-to-sit-down-with-tucker-carlson-in-lieu-of-first-republican-presidential-debate/

Fuck Fox News. Fuck the RNC.

7 notes · View notes

naturalrights-retard · 6 months

Text

GOP Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has lit up what would otherwise have been mind-numbingly boring Republican presidential debates by hitting the candidates HARD on their support for the warfare-welfare state. Is Vivek the future of the GOP?

11 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 7 months

Text

This was a big week in American politics. It began with a devastating poll showing that Donald Trump was beating Joe Biden in a presidential match up in five out of six swing states. Then, on Tuesday, the voters spoke for the last time until the Iowa caucuses happen in mid-January and delivered the Democrats a very good night in multiple states that underscored the continuing power of the abortion issue. And on November 8, the five remaining challengers to former President Donald Trump met in their final debate of the year, an event that revealed the continuing struggle of Republicans opposed to renominating Trump to coalesce around an alternative to him.

What have we learned from these events?

1. Biden’s unpopularity does not mean that voters won’t vote for Democrats.

Our political system is obsessively focused on the President of the United States — his prospects, preferences, personnel, and health. During election years, there is considerable attention to his poll numbers and overall political standing. But as the special elections in 2021, the midterm elections in 2022, and now the off-year elections of 2023 have shown, President Biden’s unpopularity has failed to have the devastating effects on Democratic candidates that were widely predicted by pundits. For example, in September, analysts at FiveThirtyEight looked at 30 special elections that took place before the 2023 November elections, mostly state legislative seats. They calculated the seat’s base partisanship — their historical tendency towards one party or another — and then looked at the vote margin for Democrats running in those seats. On average, Democratic candidates in these races did about 11 points better than their historical average.

On election night 2023, Democrats won control of the Virginia legislature following a campaign in which the incumbent Governor Glenn Youngkin spent a lot of money and pulled out all the stops in an attempt to get a legislature which could help him enact a conservative agenda and catapult him into the presidential race. Instead, the opposite happened, and Democrats retained control of the Senate and gained control of the House of Delegates. We looked at the most competitive races (according to ABC News) in the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates to see what kind of a swing there was.

Because of redistricting, we can’t compare the 2023 vote precisely to the 2019 vote. But thanks to the Virginia Public Access project, we can compare how Senate and House candidates performed against the vote in their district for governor in 2021. In these 13 close Senate and House districts, the Republican Governor Youngkin won all but one in 2021, but in 2023, Republicans won seven (one remains too close to call), and Democrats won five. Democrats managed to flip a few seats — enough to retain control of the Senate and take control of the House of Delegates.

In the seven districts where Republicans won, their margin shrank compared to Youngkin’s vote in 2021. For instance, in Senate District 27, Republican Tara Durant performed 6.31 percentage points worse than Youngkin did in 2021, winning by only 2.19% of the vote compared to Youngkin’s margin of 8.5%.

A presidential star may have dimmed in Virginia, but one was born in Kentucky, where Democratic Governor Andy Beshear won re-election in a very Republican state, increasing his share of the vote from 49.2% in 2019 to 52.5% and winning several counties that had voted for Donald Trump in 2020. But Beshear will remain a lonely man. Every other statewide race in Kentucky went to Republicans. The votes for Attorney General and Agriculture Commissioner were virtually unchanged from four years before. The Republican Secretary of State saw a substantial increase in his vote but the Republican candidate for state treasurer saw a small decrease in his vote. In Mississippi, the statewide races from governor on down saw Republicans winning by almost the exact margins they won in 2019. So don’t put either state in the Democratic column for 2024.

So, why the big difference between polls showing Biden in trouble and elections where Democrats do well? The easiest answer is that there is, perhaps, no relationship between the two; down-ballot Democrats might continue to do well in off-year and midterm elections, and Biden could lose nevertheless. A second possibility is that the polls are just wrong on a systematic basis due to single-digit response rates and their difficulty in measuring voter turnout. A third possibility is that the cost of living is a very powerful motivator and that voters blame the president but not other office holders for this problem. A fourth possibility is that voters just don’t like Biden because of personal characteristics such as his age and the perception that he is not a strong leader.

One thing is clear: The Biden campaign would be ill-advised to over-interpret the significance of these recent Democratic victories for the president’s prospects in 2024.

2. Where the right to choose is in question, the abortion issue is very powerful and helps the Democrats.

In those places where Democrats did well, the explanation was pretty simple: As in previous elections, if voters perceive that a woman’s right to abortion is on the ballot in some fashion, pro-choice candidates do well. In Kentucky, where a six-week ban on abortion and a trigger law was upheld by the State’s Supreme Court, access to abortion is difficult, despite the defeat of a constitutional amendment denying any protections for abortion by a large margin in November 2022.

The abortion issue remains top of mind in Kentucky, and Beshear’s campaign for governor focused heavily on it, hammering his Republican opponent for his opposition to exceptions to an outright ban on the procedure.

In Virginia, abortion is currently legal up until the end of the second trimester. But Gov. Youngkin pushed for an abortion ban after 15 weeks that included exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Democrats ran on this issue in almost all the competitive districts, and voters apparently rejected Youngkin’s proposal, which he termed a sensible compromise around which Republicans and the country could coalesce.

Those who persist in believing that the abortion issue doesn’t have continuing strength should look at another, even more powerful lesson from Tuesday night. The abortion referendum on the Ohio ballot, amending the state’s constitution to establish a right to “carry out one’s own reproductive decisions… including on abortion,” would preserve the right to abortion up to 23 weeks. The Ohio referendum won with 56.6% of the vote, garnering support from one in five Republicans and carrying 18 counties that Trump had won in 2020.

The Ohio referendum was the latest victory of the pro-choice movement in solidly conservative states. In Kansas, the pro-choice referendum garnered 59% of the vote; in Montana and Kentucky, 53%. In Michigan, a swing state, the pro-choice position got 56% of the vote, and in the liberal states of Vermont and California, it got 73% and 68% of the vote.

3. The Republican debate revealed both Republican divisions on abortion and the impact of President Biden’s weak standing in national polls on the Republican race.

Chris Christie argued that abortion should be left to the states while Tim Scott advocated a national ban on the procedure after 15 weeks, a stance that is likely to be more popular in the Republican primary contests than in the general election. Nikki Haley argued that such a ban has no chance of gaining enough support in the Senate and renewed her plea for a consensus-based approach to the issue, a stance that would play better in the general election than among socially conservative Iowa Republicans. For his part, Ron DeSantis ducked, contenting himself with criticizing the weakness of Republican efforts in state referendum contests.

Meanwhile, the man who wasn’t on the stage — former president Trump — has made it clear that he regards abortion as a political loser for Republicans and will do his best to deemphasize it as a national issue in 2024. If he is the Republican nominee, Democrats are unlikely to let him off the hook and will remind voters of his central role in selecting three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

No matter whom the Republicans select as their standard-bearer, the issue will remain important in the national debate, although probably not as central as it has been in the states since the Court ended the Roe era. The presidency is a distinctive office whose occupants are held responsible for the economy and national security, not just their stance on social issues. Reflecting this reality, the moderators of the debate led with the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, waiting to raise abortion until close to the end of the event. No doubt President Biden’s campaign will try to capitalize on the pro-Democratic tilt of this issue, but he will be judged by his performance in other areas as well. Abortion will be helpful to him in 2024, but it is not the silver bullet that will help him defeat his Republican opponent.

As the debate moderators indicated with their opening question, there is a central question that each of the candidates on stage needed to answer: Why would I be a better nominee than the man who isn’t here tonight? President Biden’s current weak standing in the polls is limiting their responses. Back in the spring, they hoped to be able to argue that while Donald Trump was a fine president, he was likely to lose to Biden in 2024 as he did in 2020. But now, with recent polls indicating that Trump leads Biden nationally and in key swing states, his Republican challengers are forced to offer more substantive answers that risk antagonizing Trump’s supporters.

Nikki Haley went the farthest down this road, criticizing him for allowing the national debt to rise by $8 billion during his presidency and for being “weak in the knees” on Ukraine and other foreign policy issues. Ron DeSantis said that Trump is “a lot different guy than he was in 2016” and held him responsible for a string of Republican losses since then. Chris Christie focused on Trump’s legal difficulties, arguing that “anybody who’s going to be spending the next year and a half of their life focusing on keeping themselves out of jail . . . cannot lead this party or this country.” It remains to be seen whether any of these arguments will gain traction with a Republican electorate that seems inclined to give Trump a pass on all of them.

Indeed, the big winner of last night’s debate may well have been the man who boycotted it. DeSantis performed better than he had in the two previous debates, and Haley — though strong — was less dominant. If DeSantis’s improved showing slows her effort to emerge in Iowa as the principal alternative to Trump, she may not gain the momentum she would need to defeat Trump in New Hampshire, an outcome that would destroy his aura of invincibility and transform the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. The political landscape has been frozen in time for some months now, with an incumbent president and a former president at the top and everyone else vying for attention.

As international events unfold, the question is: Will anyone or anything change this equation, or will we be looking at the widely anticipated rematch?

8 notes · View notes

mightyflamethrower · 9 months

Text

President Joe Biden’s defenders have been on a wild ride this past year. It began with them arguing that the president knew absolutely nothing about his family’s influence-peddling business to arguing that it’s no big deal that Chinese communist wire payoffs happen to have Biden’s home address listed on them.

The quality of the excuses, unsurprisingly, has been deteriorating rapidly.

They largely entail repeating the words “no” and “evidence” in a perpetual loop. But, this week, when Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., released financial records of Hunter Biden receiving two wire transfers totaling $260,000 in 2019 from Beijing with the president’s Delaware home listed as the beneficiary address, the White House jumped into action.

“Imagine them arguing that, if someone stayed at their parents’ house during the pandemic, listed it as their permanent address for work, and got a paycheck, the parents somehow also worked for the employer,” wrote White House spokesman Ian Sams. “It’s bananas. Yet this is what extreme House Republicans have sunken to.”

Speaking of bananas, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States wasn’t reported until January 2020, and shutdowns were still a year away when Hunter Biden used his dad’s house as a beneficiary address on a wire payment. According to Hunter’s own memoir, he was living in Los Angeles with his new wife at the time.

Of course, even if the pandemic had been raging by summer 2019, Hunter Biden wasn’t a college student visiting home. He was a 49-year-old who had the wherewithal to craft numerous international million-dollar deals—not to mention allegedly evade taxes, buy firearms illegally, and score crack and prostitutes.

Why would Hunter need to stay at Daddy’s house? Why do they keep talking about this grown man as if he were a toddler? For God’s sake, this is an accomplished artist whose work goes for upwards of a million dollars.

And it wasn’t a “paycheck,” but a wire transfer from a Chicom investment firm that his father repeatedly lied about to the American people.

In an October 2019 presidential debate, Joe Biden incredulously claimed that Hunter never benefited from Chinese interests: “My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China.” It was weird, even then, that Biden could make such an assertion with confidence, considering that not long before he had claimed to “never” have spoken to Hunter about his “overseas business dealings.”

Perhaps one day the president will be asked by the political media why he made this claim, and whether he knew his address was being used on Biden Inc. paperwork at the time. And while they’re at it, they could ask him whether he was at his Wilmington house in 2017 when his son threatened his Chinese partner, Henry Zhao, with the words, “I am sitting here with my father.”

Let’s also remember that not only did Joe Biden fly his son to Beijing aboard Air Force Two during an official visit in 2013 to meet with potential investors, but the vice president met Jonathan Li, whose name is on the 2019 wire transfer, for coffee. The two would talk again on the phone—probably just some “casual conversations” or “niceties about the weather.” Joe was even kind enough to write college recommendation letters for his son and daughter.

It’s a really weird coincidence that the same guy happens to have Joe Biden’s address on a wire transfer. A cynic might start to piece together these stories and come to the conclusion that there’s actually plenty of evidence the president had created the “illusion” of access to the White House on his son’s behalf—at the very least, enriching his entire family.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

5 notes · View notes

dumbestthingiveeverheard · 11 months

Text

Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard: 7/21/2023

Note: Starting Monday, 7/24/2023, the amount of entries on this list will be upped from three to, at most, five. Due to this, I have also decided to open submissions to the blog.

Third place: Dagen McDowell of Fox News

Today on Outnumbered, she said the following about a story revolving around--prepare yourselves, this might be the scandal that brings Biden down--the President wearing sneakers:

Well I made a joke last night on Hannity, those shoes, my father will be 87 in a week, and to a man of that generation wearing those shoes, particularly as commander in chief in public, when you're going on, this is formal business -- that's the equivalent of wearing your bedroom slippers outside. That's like wearing a speedo and flip-flops to a funeral. So these elitist snobs in the White House are blithely lying to the American people over and over again because they think we're stupid, and we're not. We've cared for elderly parents and relatives and we can look at this man and see what's going on. We know dementia, we know age, we know Alzheimer's when we see it. And we look at Joe Biden and think, we would not let him drive our car in an empty church parking lot. We know what's happening with him. It's sad, but distressing.

First off, you have to admire the audacity of somebody to call others snobs while she is saying it's possible a person has a serious mental condition because of their choice in foot wear. Also, Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated to the Presidency in his street clothes. Although, what do I expect from a network that spent weeks during the Obama Administration talking about the color of his suit?

Second place: Laura Ingraham

While engaging in the continuing quest by the media to make RFK Jr.'s Presidential Campaign a thing, we got the normal talking points. Among them that the DNC must be really scared of him because Joe Biden hasn't agreed to debate him yet--never mind that in 2020 Donald Trump not only never debated either Bill Weld, Mark Sanford, or Joe Walsh, but state Republican primaries even cancelled primaries specifically to prevent either of those candidates from getting a foothold within the party.

However, while talking about how popular RFK Jr. is, Laura showed this poll:

Now fourteen percent is not nothing, especially when you're a primary challenger to an incumbent President. However, after two straight years of Biden bashing by the mainstream media along with the perpetual push to make RFK Jr. into something other than a waste of everyone's time, the odds of RFK Jr. doing any better are rather unlikely. For reference, fourteen percent is about the percent of votes gotten by Newt Gingrich in 2012, John Anderson in 1980, George Wallace in 1976, and Al Gore in 1988. Hardly the battle similar to that Ford and Reagan had for the Republican Nomination back in 1976, fuck it's not even the fight Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy had back in 1980 or the fight George Bush and Pat Buchanan had back in 1992.

Winner: Ron DeSantis

I think the headline "Florida Schools Will Teach How Slavery Brought ‘Personal Benefit’ to Black People" from The Daily Beast sums this story up perfectly. The article also notes that High Schools are going to be taught that a deadly massacre against black citizens in 1920 included “acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans.”

I wish to remind you all that Ron DeSantis wants to become President, presumably so he can implement this education system across the country.

Ron DeSantis, you've said the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

#dagen mcdowell #laura ingraham #ron desantis

7 notes · View notes