Trumps Indictment: Historical and Future Implications V
MidnightSonneteer said:
Evangelicals, and white men categorically, who try to set their family policy to the old testament, are some of the stupidest and most hazardous people most folks will ever encounter.
Religious zealots are the greatest threats to humankind. And if John M. Robertson, over 9,000,000 died for the Christian crusades to the East covering the period from 1095 to 1291. That's 3,000,000 more than the holocaust.
Evangelicals, and white men categorically, who try to set their family policy to the old testament, are some of the stupidest and most hazardous people most folks will ever encounter.
Religious zealots are the greatest threats to humankind. And if John M. Robertson, over 9,000,000 died for the Christian crusades to the East covering the period from 1095 to 1291. That's 3,000,000 more than the holocaust.
September 20, 2024
Heather Cox Richardson
Sep 21, 2024
On September 16, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten wrote that while it’s “[p]retty clear that [Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala] Harris is ahead nationally right now… [h]er advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil. Average it all, Harris’[s] chance of winning the popular vote is 70%. Her chance of winning the electoral college is 50%.” Two days later, on September 18, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) skipped votes in the Senate to travel to Nebraska, where he tried to convince state legislators to switch the state’s system of allotting electoral votes by district to a winner-take-all system. That effort so far appears unsuccessful.
In a country of 50 states and Washington, D.C.—a country of more than 330 million people—presidential elections are decided in just a handful of states, and it is possible for someone who loses the popular vote to become president. We got to this place thanks to the Electoral College, and to two major changes made to it since the ratification of the Constitution.
The men who debated how to elect a president in 1787 worried terribly about making sure there were hedges around the strong executive they were creating so that he could not become a king.
Some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to choose the president, but this horrified others who believed that a leader and Congress would collude to take over the government permanently. Others liked the idea of direct election of the president, but this worried delegates from smaller states, who thought that big states would simply be able to name their own favorite sons. It also worried those who pointed out that most voters would have no idea which were the leading men in other states, leaving a national institution, like the organization of Revolutionary War officers called the Society of the Cincinnati, the power to get its members to support their own leader, thus finding a different way to create a dictator.
Ultimately, the framers came up with the election of a president by a group of men well known in their states but not currently office-holders, who would meet somewhere other than the seat of government and would disband as soon as the election was over. Each elector in this so-called Electoral College would cast two votes for president. The man with the most votes would be president, and the man with the second number of votes would be vice president (a system that the Twelfth Amendment ended in 1804). The number of electors would be equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state in Congress. If no candidate earned a majority, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation casting a single vote.
In the first two presidential elections—in 1788–1789 and 1792—none of this mattered very much, since the electors cast their ballots unanimously for George Washington. But when Washington stepped down, leaders of the newly formed political parties contended for the presidency. In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won, but Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republicans (which were not the same as today’s Democrats or Republicans) was keenly aware that had Virginia given him all its electoral votes, rather than splitting them between him and Adams, he would have been president.
On January 12, 1800, Jefferson wrote to the governor of Virginia, James Monroe, urging him to back a winner-take-all system that awarded all Virginia’s electoral votes to the person who won the majority of the vote in the state. He admitted that dividing electoral votes by district “would be more likely to be an exact representation of [voters’] diversified sentiments” but, defending his belief that he was the true popular choice in the country in 1796, said voting by districts “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the US. were they assembled together.”
Virginia made the switch. Alarmed, the Federalists in Massachusetts followed suit to make sure Adams got all their votes, and by 1836, every state but South Carolina, where the legislature continued to choose electors until 1860, had switched to winner-take-all.
This change horrified the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who worried that the new system would divide the nation geographically and encourage sectional tensions. He wrote in 1823 that voting by district, rather than winner-take-all, “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” He proposed a constitutional amendment to end winner-take-all.
But almost immediately, the Electoral College caused a different crisis. In 1824, electors split their votes among four candidates—Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford—and none won a majority in the Electoral College. Although Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, when the election went to the House, the state delegations chose Adams, the son of former president John Adams.
Furious Jackson supporters thought a developing elite had stolen the election, and after they elected Jackson outright in 1828, the new president on December 8, 1829, implored Congress to amend the Constitution to elect presidents by popular vote. “To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate,” he wrote; “it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or…the House of Representatives.”
Jackson warned that an election in the House could be corrupted by money or power or ignorance. He also warned that “under the present mode of election a minority may…elect a President,” and such a president could not claim legitimacy. He urged Congress “to amend our system that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.”
But by the 1830s, the population of the North was exploding while the South’s was falling behind. The Constitution counted enslaved Americans as three fifths of a person for the purposes of representation, and direct election of the president would erase that advantage slave states had in the Electoral College. Their leaders were not about to throw that advantage away.
In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery (except as punishment for a crime) and scratched out the three-fifths clause, meaning that after the 1870 census the southern states would have more power in the Electoral College than they did before the war. In 1876, Republicans lost the popular vote by about 250,000 votes out of 8.3 million cast, but kept control of the White House through the Electoral College. As Jackson had warned, furious Democrats threatened rebellion. They never considered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, whom they called “Rutherfraud,” a legitimate president.
Cont below
Heather Cox Richardson
Sep 21, 2024
On September 16, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten wrote that while it’s “[p]retty clear that [Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala] Harris is ahead nationally right now… [h]er advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil. Average it all, Harris’[s] chance of winning the popular vote is 70%. Her chance of winning the electoral college is 50%.” Two days later, on September 18, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) skipped votes in the Senate to travel to Nebraska, where he tried to convince state legislators to switch the state’s system of allotting electoral votes by district to a winner-take-all system. That effort so far appears unsuccessful.
In a country of 50 states and Washington, D.C.—a country of more than 330 million people—presidential elections are decided in just a handful of states, and it is possible for someone who loses the popular vote to become president. We got to this place thanks to the Electoral College, and to two major changes made to it since the ratification of the Constitution.
The men who debated how to elect a president in 1787 worried terribly about making sure there were hedges around the strong executive they were creating so that he could not become a king.
Some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to choose the president, but this horrified others who believed that a leader and Congress would collude to take over the government permanently. Others liked the idea of direct election of the president, but this worried delegates from smaller states, who thought that big states would simply be able to name their own favorite sons. It also worried those who pointed out that most voters would have no idea which were the leading men in other states, leaving a national institution, like the organization of Revolutionary War officers called the Society of the Cincinnati, the power to get its members to support their own leader, thus finding a different way to create a dictator.
Ultimately, the framers came up with the election of a president by a group of men well known in their states but not currently office-holders, who would meet somewhere other than the seat of government and would disband as soon as the election was over. Each elector in this so-called Electoral College would cast two votes for president. The man with the most votes would be president, and the man with the second number of votes would be vice president (a system that the Twelfth Amendment ended in 1804). The number of electors would be equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state in Congress. If no candidate earned a majority, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation casting a single vote.
In the first two presidential elections—in 1788–1789 and 1792—none of this mattered very much, since the electors cast their ballots unanimously for George Washington. But when Washington stepped down, leaders of the newly formed political parties contended for the presidency. In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won, but Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republicans (which were not the same as today’s Democrats or Republicans) was keenly aware that had Virginia given him all its electoral votes, rather than splitting them between him and Adams, he would have been president.
On January 12, 1800, Jefferson wrote to the governor of Virginia, James Monroe, urging him to back a winner-take-all system that awarded all Virginia’s electoral votes to the person who won the majority of the vote in the state. He admitted that dividing electoral votes by district “would be more likely to be an exact representation of [voters’] diversified sentiments” but, defending his belief that he was the true popular choice in the country in 1796, said voting by districts “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the US. were they assembled together.”
Virginia made the switch. Alarmed, the Federalists in Massachusetts followed suit to make sure Adams got all their votes, and by 1836, every state but South Carolina, where the legislature continued to choose electors until 1860, had switched to winner-take-all.
This change horrified the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who worried that the new system would divide the nation geographically and encourage sectional tensions. He wrote in 1823 that voting by district, rather than winner-take-all, “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” He proposed a constitutional amendment to end winner-take-all.
But almost immediately, the Electoral College caused a different crisis. In 1824, electors split their votes among four candidates—Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford—and none won a majority in the Electoral College. Although Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, when the election went to the House, the state delegations chose Adams, the son of former president John Adams.
Furious Jackson supporters thought a developing elite had stolen the election, and after they elected Jackson outright in 1828, the new president on December 8, 1829, implored Congress to amend the Constitution to elect presidents by popular vote. “To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate,” he wrote; “it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or…the House of Representatives.”
Jackson warned that an election in the House could be corrupted by money or power or ignorance. He also warned that “under the present mode of election a minority may…elect a President,” and such a president could not claim legitimacy. He urged Congress “to amend our system that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.”
But by the 1830s, the population of the North was exploding while the South’s was falling behind. The Constitution counted enslaved Americans as three fifths of a person for the purposes of representation, and direct election of the president would erase that advantage slave states had in the Electoral College. Their leaders were not about to throw that advantage away.
In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery (except as punishment for a crime) and scratched out the three-fifths clause, meaning that after the 1870 census the southern states would have more power in the Electoral College than they did before the war. In 1876, Republicans lost the popular vote by about 250,000 votes out of 8.3 million cast, but kept control of the White House through the Electoral College. As Jackson had warned, furious Democrats threatened rebellion. They never considered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, whom they called “Rutherfraud,” a legitimate president.
Cont below
Cont from above
In 1888 it happened again. Incumbent Democratic president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes out of 11 million cast, but Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison took the White House thanks to the 36 electoral votes from New York, a state Harrison won by fewer than 15,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. Once in office, he and his team set out to skew the Electoral College permanently in their favor. Over twelve months in 1889–1890, they added six new, sparsely populated states to the Union, splitting the territory of Dakota in two and adding North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming while cutting out New Mexico and Arizona, whose inhabitants they expected would vote for Democrats.
The twentieth century brought another wrench to the Electoral College. The growth of cities, made possible thanks to modern industry—including the steel that supported skyscrapers—and transportation and sanitation, created increasing population differences among the different states.
The Constitution’s framers worried that individual states might try to grab too much power in the House by creating dozens and dozens of congressional districts, so they specified that a district could not be smaller than 30,000 people. But they put no upper limit on district sizes. After the 1920 census revealed that urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, the House in 1929 capped its numbers at 435 to keep power away from those urban dwellers, including immigrants, that lawmakers considered dangerous, thus skewing the Electoral College in favor of rural America. Today the average congressional district includes 761,169 individuals—more than the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska—which weakens the power of larger states.
In the twenty-first century the earlier problems with the Electoral College have grown until they threaten to establish permanent minority rule. A Republican president hasn’t won the popular vote since voters reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when his popularity was high in the midst of a war. The last Republican who won the popular vote in a normal election cycle was Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, 36 years and nine cycles ago. And yet, Republicans who lost the popular vote won in the Electoral College in 2000—George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote by about a half a million votes—and in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump.
In our history, four presidents—all Republicans—have lost the popular vote and won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy appears to be to do it again (or to create such chaos that the election goes to the House of Representatives, where there will likely be more Republican-dominated delegations than Democratic ones).
In the 2024 election, Trump has shown little interest in courting voters. Instead, the campaign has thrown its efforts into legal challenges to voting and, apparently, into eking out a win in the Electoral College. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives to which each state is entitled (100 + 435) plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. A winning candidate must get a majority of those votes: 270.
Winner-take-all means that presidential elections are won in so-called swing or battleground states. Those are states with election margins of less than 3 points, so close they could be won by either party. The patterns of 2020 suggest that the states most likely to be in contention in 2024 are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, although the Harris-Walz campaign has opened up the map, suggesting its internal numbers show that states like Florida might also be in contention. Candidates and their political action committees focus on those few swing states—touring, giving speeches and rallies, and pouring money into advertising and ground operations.
But in 2024 there is a new wrinkle. The Constitution’s framers agreed on a census every ten years so that representation in Congress could be reapportioned according to demographic changes. As usual, the 2020 census shifted representation, and so the pathway to 270 electoral votes shifted slightly. Those shifts mean that it is possible the election will come down to one electoral vote. Awarding Trump the one electoral vote Nebraska is expected to deliver to Harris could be enough to keep her from becoming president.
Rather than trying to win a majority of voters, just 49 days before the presidential election, Trump supporters—including Senator Graham—are making a desperate effort to use the Electoral College to keep Harris from reaching the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. It is unusual for a senator from one state to interfere in the election processes in another state, but Graham similarly pressured officials in Georgia to swing the vote there toward Trump in 2020.
—
Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-20-2024
In 1888 it happened again. Incumbent Democratic president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes out of 11 million cast, but Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison took the White House thanks to the 36 electoral votes from New York, a state Harrison won by fewer than 15,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. Once in office, he and his team set out to skew the Electoral College permanently in their favor. Over twelve months in 1889–1890, they added six new, sparsely populated states to the Union, splitting the territory of Dakota in two and adding North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming while cutting out New Mexico and Arizona, whose inhabitants they expected would vote for Democrats.
The twentieth century brought another wrench to the Electoral College. The growth of cities, made possible thanks to modern industry—including the steel that supported skyscrapers—and transportation and sanitation, created increasing population differences among the different states.
The Constitution’s framers worried that individual states might try to grab too much power in the House by creating dozens and dozens of congressional districts, so they specified that a district could not be smaller than 30,000 people. But they put no upper limit on district sizes. After the 1920 census revealed that urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, the House in 1929 capped its numbers at 435 to keep power away from those urban dwellers, including immigrants, that lawmakers considered dangerous, thus skewing the Electoral College in favor of rural America. Today the average congressional district includes 761,169 individuals—more than the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska—which weakens the power of larger states.
In the twenty-first century the earlier problems with the Electoral College have grown until they threaten to establish permanent minority rule. A Republican president hasn’t won the popular vote since voters reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when his popularity was high in the midst of a war. The last Republican who won the popular vote in a normal election cycle was Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, 36 years and nine cycles ago. And yet, Republicans who lost the popular vote won in the Electoral College in 2000—George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote by about a half a million votes—and in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump.
In our history, four presidents—all Republicans—have lost the popular vote and won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy appears to be to do it again (or to create such chaos that the election goes to the House of Representatives, where there will likely be more Republican-dominated delegations than Democratic ones).
In the 2024 election, Trump has shown little interest in courting voters. Instead, the campaign has thrown its efforts into legal challenges to voting and, apparently, into eking out a win in the Electoral College. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives to which each state is entitled (100 + 435) plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. A winning candidate must get a majority of those votes: 270.
Winner-take-all means that presidential elections are won in so-called swing or battleground states. Those are states with election margins of less than 3 points, so close they could be won by either party. The patterns of 2020 suggest that the states most likely to be in contention in 2024 are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, although the Harris-Walz campaign has opened up the map, suggesting its internal numbers show that states like Florida might also be in contention. Candidates and their political action committees focus on those few swing states—touring, giving speeches and rallies, and pouring money into advertising and ground operations.
But in 2024 there is a new wrinkle. The Constitution’s framers agreed on a census every ten years so that representation in Congress could be reapportioned according to demographic changes. As usual, the 2020 census shifted representation, and so the pathway to 270 electoral votes shifted slightly. Those shifts mean that it is possible the election will come down to one electoral vote. Awarding Trump the one electoral vote Nebraska is expected to deliver to Harris could be enough to keep her from becoming president.
Rather than trying to win a majority of voters, just 49 days before the presidential election, Trump supporters—including Senator Graham—are making a desperate effort to use the Electoral College to keep Harris from reaching the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. It is unusual for a senator from one state to interfere in the election processes in another state, but Graham similarly pressured officials in Georgia to swing the vote there toward Trump in 2020.
—
Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-20-2024
Conservative Republican White Christian Nationalist quote of the day:
If you’re a man, and your wife has pants, throw them away. I don’t want her publicly seen ever in public wearing pants. ~ Duncan Urbanek, Pure Words Baptist Church
https://youtu.be/8VdFM1sExuA?si=NIDGssMkI9B1D1TL
Time stamp: 3:14
People are sick of the hate.
3k max capacity at Sunset Park in Vegas - the entire area behind the press was empty- Trump said 20k showed up - people started leaving 5 minutes into the speech. Steady stream for the exits.
https://x.com/HalSparks/status/1799980475022467311
3k max capacity at Sunset Park in Vegas - the entire area behind the press was empty- Trump said 20k showed up - people started leaving 5 minutes into the speech. Steady stream for the exits.
https://x.com/HalSparks/status/1799980475022467311
Trump has launched a 1oz silver coin of his "very beautiful face " that he’s selling for $100.
I guess the bibles and shoes, or Melania's book aren't doing so well? To MAGA PEOPLE who will be fooled, here are 2 important things to know before buying it:
1) NONE of this money goes to his campaign.
2) 1oz of silver is worth $30, not $100.
September 21, 2024
Heather Cox Richardson
Sep 22
On Thursday, September 19, the day after the Federal Reserve began to lower interest rates two and a half years after it began to raise them to get inflation under control, President Joe Biden spoke to the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., a nonprofit, nonpartisan forum where leaders from around the world can speak to larger questions about the global economy.
Biden noted the interest rate cut and identified it as an important signal from the Federal Reserve to the nation that inflation, which at its post-pandemic peak was 9.1%, has come down close to the Fed’s target rate of 2%. He described it as “a declaration of progress…a signal we’ve entered a new phase of our economy and our recovery.”
But Biden told the audience he was “not here to take a victory lap.” Instead, he wanted to “speak about…how far we’ve come, how we got here, and, most importantly, the foundation that I believe [we’ve] built for a more prosperous and equitable future in America.” He wanted, he said, to make the country realize how much progress we’ve made, because if we don’t, the negative economic mindset he attributes to the pandemic will “dominate our economic outlook,” and we will miss “the immense opportunities in front of us right now.”
Biden reminded the audience that when he and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in January 2021, having “inherited the worst pandemic in a century and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” they found “there was no real plan in place—no plan to deal with the pandemic, no plan to get the economy back on its feet. Nothing—virtually nothing.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the U.S. wouldn’t see a full economic recovery until at least 2025.
But, Biden said, he “came into office determined not only to deliver immediate economic relief for the American people but to transform the way our economy works over the long term; to write a new economic playbook,” investing in ordinary Americans and promoting fair competition.
Immediately, Biden and the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan—without a single Republican vote—to launch “one of the most sophisticated logistical operations in American history” to get coronavirus vaccines into every person in America. Without addressing the pandemic, there could be no economic recovery, he said. The American Rescue Plan also “delivered immediate economic relief for those who needed it the most,” preventing “a wave of evictions, bankruptcies, and delinquencies and defaults” like those that had followed economic crises in the past and had “weakened the recovery and left working families permanently further behind,” a process Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called “economic scarring.”
The economic crash had tanked local and state tax revenues, so the administration funded state and local governments to keep teachers and first responders working, small businesses open, and more housing being built. It expanded the Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in half. The American Rescue Plan included the Butch Lewis Act, which protected the pensions of millions of union workers and retirees.
During the pandemic, factories shut down, and supply chains—from shipping to port operations to trucking networks—were tangled. The reopening of the global economy sent inflation skyrocketing, and then Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine sent food and oil prices even higher.
Biden reminded the members of the Economic Club of the massive cargo ships stuck outside the Port of Los Angeles before the 2021 holidays, and the shortage of baby formula, and explained that his administration brought together business and labor to repair supply chains and “unclog our ports, trucking networks, and shipping lines.” (Although Biden didn’t note it, Republicans in 2021 suggested that the “reckless spending” of the American Rescue Plan meant that Christmas would be “ruined,” but the administration worked to smooth out the tangles and by July 2024 the Port of Los Angeles saw record-breaking volume passing through it, up 37% from July 2023.) Biden also released oil reserves to stabilize global markets and increased energy production to record highs. Together, these measures began to ease inflation.
Nonetheless, Biden said, critics claimed that the economic supports of the American Rescue Plan would make people leave the labor market—remember “The Great Resignation”?—and that it would take significant unemployment to lower prices. But rather than backing off, Biden and Harris seized the moment to invest in the United States. They wrestled the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law through Congress to rebuild roads, bridges, ports, airports, trains, and buses; to remove lead pipes from schools and homes; and to provide affordable high-speed internet access to every American.
Cont below
Heather Cox Richardson
Sep 22
On Thursday, September 19, the day after the Federal Reserve began to lower interest rates two and a half years after it began to raise them to get inflation under control, President Joe Biden spoke to the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., a nonprofit, nonpartisan forum where leaders from around the world can speak to larger questions about the global economy.
Biden noted the interest rate cut and identified it as an important signal from the Federal Reserve to the nation that inflation, which at its post-pandemic peak was 9.1%, has come down close to the Fed’s target rate of 2%. He described it as “a declaration of progress…a signal we’ve entered a new phase of our economy and our recovery.”
But Biden told the audience he was “not here to take a victory lap.” Instead, he wanted to “speak about…how far we’ve come, how we got here, and, most importantly, the foundation that I believe [we’ve] built for a more prosperous and equitable future in America.” He wanted, he said, to make the country realize how much progress we’ve made, because if we don’t, the negative economic mindset he attributes to the pandemic will “dominate our economic outlook,” and we will miss “the immense opportunities in front of us right now.”
Biden reminded the audience that when he and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in January 2021, having “inherited the worst pandemic in a century and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” they found “there was no real plan in place—no plan to deal with the pandemic, no plan to get the economy back on its feet. Nothing—virtually nothing.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the U.S. wouldn’t see a full economic recovery until at least 2025.
But, Biden said, he “came into office determined not only to deliver immediate economic relief for the American people but to transform the way our economy works over the long term; to write a new economic playbook,” investing in ordinary Americans and promoting fair competition.
Immediately, Biden and the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan—without a single Republican vote—to launch “one of the most sophisticated logistical operations in American history” to get coronavirus vaccines into every person in America. Without addressing the pandemic, there could be no economic recovery, he said. The American Rescue Plan also “delivered immediate economic relief for those who needed it the most,” preventing “a wave of evictions, bankruptcies, and delinquencies and defaults” like those that had followed economic crises in the past and had “weakened the recovery and left working families permanently further behind,” a process Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called “economic scarring.”
The economic crash had tanked local and state tax revenues, so the administration funded state and local governments to keep teachers and first responders working, small businesses open, and more housing being built. It expanded the Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in half. The American Rescue Plan included the Butch Lewis Act, which protected the pensions of millions of union workers and retirees.
During the pandemic, factories shut down, and supply chains—from shipping to port operations to trucking networks—were tangled. The reopening of the global economy sent inflation skyrocketing, and then Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine sent food and oil prices even higher.
Biden reminded the members of the Economic Club of the massive cargo ships stuck outside the Port of Los Angeles before the 2021 holidays, and the shortage of baby formula, and explained that his administration brought together business and labor to repair supply chains and “unclog our ports, trucking networks, and shipping lines.” (Although Biden didn’t note it, Republicans in 2021 suggested that the “reckless spending” of the American Rescue Plan meant that Christmas would be “ruined,” but the administration worked to smooth out the tangles and by July 2024 the Port of Los Angeles saw record-breaking volume passing through it, up 37% from July 2023.) Biden also released oil reserves to stabilize global markets and increased energy production to record highs. Together, these measures began to ease inflation.
Nonetheless, Biden said, critics claimed that the economic supports of the American Rescue Plan would make people leave the labor market—remember “The Great Resignation”?—and that it would take significant unemployment to lower prices. But rather than backing off, Biden and Harris seized the moment to invest in the United States. They wrestled the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law through Congress to rebuild roads, bridges, ports, airports, trains, and buses; to remove lead pipes from schools and homes; and to provide affordable high-speed internet access to every American.
Cont below
Cont from above
The administration insisted that U.S. contracts must use U.S. workers and U.S. products. With the CHIPS and Science Act, it brought back semiconductor chip manufacturing to the U.S., and private companies from around the world are investing tens of billions of dollars in new chip factories in the U.S. that are already employing construction workers and will soon employ factory workers. Factory construction is at a record high now, and the Biden-Harris administration created more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs.
Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act that will help cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 and is creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. That law also permits Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, saving taxpayers an estimated $160 billion over the next decade.
With inflation under control and a record 16 million jobs created, the administration’s policies proved, Biden said, that it’s possible to bring down inflation while also safeguarding jobs and wages for American workers and promoting economic growth. A record nineteen million people have applied to start new businesses. More Americans have health insurance than ever before. The racial wealth gap is the smallest in 20 years. And rather than creating a recession, these measures kept economic growth above 3% last year. The stock market is at record highs.
Biden contrasted his economic policies, based in the idea that the economy grows from the middle out and the bottom up, with those of former president Trump, whose policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are based in the idea that the economy grows best when markets drive it and that concentrating wealth at the top of society permits individuals to invest more efficiently than the government can. Biden noted that, in contrast to his own approach, Trump’s policies killed manufacturing jobs and saw very little factory construction, while creating the largest budget deficit in American history.
Biden listed these comparisons to make the point that, as he said, “[f]or the past 40 years, too many leaders have sworn by an economic theory that has not worked very well at all: trickle-down economics. Cut taxes for the very wealthy…and hope the benefits trickle down. Well, guess what? Not a whole lot trickled down to my dad’s kitchen table. It’s clear, especially under my predecessor, that trickle-down economics failed. And he’s promised it again—trickle-down economics—but it will fail again.” He noted, as former president Bill Clinton pointed out at the Democratic National Convention, that since 1989 the U.S. has created about 51 million jobs, and 50 million of them have come under Democratic presidents.
“I’m a capitalist,” Biden said, “ut I believe capitalism is the greatest force to grow the economy for everybody.” He called for more affordable housing, affordable childcare, and lower healthcare costs, noting that those policies will increase economic growth. He called for higher taxes on the very wealthy to pay for those pro-growth policies and to cut the deficit.
And then Biden brought the economic discussion back to his argument before the State Department in 2021, just after he took office. He told the audience at the Economic Club that we have such a dynamic system, and foreign companies are willing to invest here, because of the stability provided in the U.S. by the rule of law. Indeed, [b]it is the rule of law that protects investments and capital, as evidenced by the fact that autocrats stash their money not in their own countries or other dictatorships, but in liberal democracies where investments cannot be taken away or legal protections changed on a dictator’s whim.
After listing the extraordinary economic successes of the past three and a half years, Biden told the audience: “American business, our economic dynamism can’t succeed…without a stability and security that makes us the envy of the world.”
–-
Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-21-2024
The administration insisted that U.S. contracts must use U.S. workers and U.S. products. With the CHIPS and Science Act, it brought back semiconductor chip manufacturing to the U.S., and private companies from around the world are investing tens of billions of dollars in new chip factories in the U.S. that are already employing construction workers and will soon employ factory workers. Factory construction is at a record high now, and the Biden-Harris administration created more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs.
Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act that will help cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 and is creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. That law also permits Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, saving taxpayers an estimated $160 billion over the next decade.
With inflation under control and a record 16 million jobs created, the administration’s policies proved, Biden said, that it’s possible to bring down inflation while also safeguarding jobs and wages for American workers and promoting economic growth. A record nineteen million people have applied to start new businesses. More Americans have health insurance than ever before. The racial wealth gap is the smallest in 20 years. And rather than creating a recession, these measures kept economic growth above 3% last year. The stock market is at record highs.
Biden contrasted his economic policies, based in the idea that the economy grows from the middle out and the bottom up, with those of former president Trump, whose policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are based in the idea that the economy grows best when markets drive it and that concentrating wealth at the top of society permits individuals to invest more efficiently than the government can. Biden noted that, in contrast to his own approach, Trump’s policies killed manufacturing jobs and saw very little factory construction, while creating the largest budget deficit in American history.
Biden listed these comparisons to make the point that, as he said, “[f]or the past 40 years, too many leaders have sworn by an economic theory that has not worked very well at all: trickle-down economics. Cut taxes for the very wealthy…and hope the benefits trickle down. Well, guess what? Not a whole lot trickled down to my dad’s kitchen table. It’s clear, especially under my predecessor, that trickle-down economics failed. And he’s promised it again—trickle-down economics—but it will fail again.” He noted, as former president Bill Clinton pointed out at the Democratic National Convention, that since 1989 the U.S. has created about 51 million jobs, and 50 million of them have come under Democratic presidents.
“I’m a capitalist,” Biden said, “ut I believe capitalism is the greatest force to grow the economy for everybody.” He called for more affordable housing, affordable childcare, and lower healthcare costs, noting that those policies will increase economic growth. He called for higher taxes on the very wealthy to pay for those pro-growth policies and to cut the deficit.
And then Biden brought the economic discussion back to his argument before the State Department in 2021, just after he took office. He told the audience at the Economic Club that we have such a dynamic system, and foreign companies are willing to invest here, because of the stability provided in the U.S. by the rule of law. Indeed, [b]it is the rule of law that protects investments and capital, as evidenced by the fact that autocrats stash their money not in their own countries or other dictatorships, but in liberal democracies where investments cannot be taken away or legal protections changed on a dictator’s whim.
After listing the extraordinary economic successes of the past three and a half years, Biden told the audience: “American business, our economic dynamism can’t succeed…without a stability and security that makes us the envy of the world.”
–-
Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-21-2024
The above viewer's right is Josh Stein, current AG, who I was asked to photograph at several local events. An upstanding gentleman who will make a fabulous governor and replacement of Roy Cooper. The other was council member Robert Kellogg.
Trump dumped Robinson like a hot potato. He's toast in North Carolina.
Several Mark Robinson campaign staffers quit as fallout over online posts continues
The campaign said in a news release Sunday that senior adviser Conrad Pogorzelski III, campaign manager Chris Rodriguez, the campaign's finance director and the deputy campaign manager “have stepped down from their roles with the campaign.” Information on new campaign staffers would be forthcoming soon, the release said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/several-mark-robinson-campaign-staffers-quit-as-fallout-over-online-posts-continues/ar-AA1r0czU?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ACTS&cvid=dc5aa2e5dc4c4228ac30684ce7fdb344&ei=14
Ahavati said:Truth not chattel.
Indeed, and that's why I like the Amazing Atheist, who pointed out a biblical approval (his word; the passage says miscarry) of abortion, albeit misogynistically motivated in all likelihood...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31&version=NIV#:~:text=23%20%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98The%20priest%20is%20to%20write%20these%20curses,guilt%20and%20will%20be%20able%20to%20have%20children.
https://youtu.be/T8z3Lm1KR9I?si=OR0-j11-_Pl9IVcu
Sorry, but I don't remember the time stamp where he mentions it.
Indeed, and that's why I like the Amazing Atheist, who pointed out a biblical approval (his word; the passage says miscarry) of abortion, albeit misogynistically motivated in all likelihood...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31&version=NIV#:~:text=23%20%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98The%20priest%20is%20to%20write%20these%20curses,guilt%20and%20will%20be%20able%20to%20have%20children.
https://youtu.be/T8z3Lm1KR9I?si=OR0-j11-_Pl9IVcu
Sorry, but I don't remember the time stamp where he mentions it.
September 23, 2024
Heather Cox Richardson
Sep 23, 2024
“There’s nothing sadder than an aging salesman trying to close one last deal,” MSNBC’s Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote on September 21. Beckwith went on to list seven of Trump’s most recent campaign promises, most delivered off the cuff at rallies, that are transparent attempts to close the deal with different groups of voters.
Trump is also threatening voters. On September 19, he told two Jewish audiences that he had not been “treated properly by voters who happen to be Jewish,” and that if he doesn't win the 2024 election, “the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss,” adding in that case, “Israel, in my opinion, will cease to exist within two years.” Opponents were quick to point out that these threats echo old antisemitic tropes scapegoating Jews. When Jake Tapper asked Arkansas senator Tom Cotton to comment on Trump’s statement on Sunday, Cotton’s answer brought small comfort: “Well, Jake, Donald Trump has been saying things like this for at least 11 months.”
Trump’s social media posts about women sounded both desperate and delusional. Trump has boasted of overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion, but that loss is enormously unpopular. So he is caught between the reality that his white extremist evangelical base continues to support banning abortion while voters in a general election are just as adamant that they want abortion rights protected.
Trump insists that there was a driving popular demand for returning decisions about abortion to the states, but this is a lie; there was no such popular demand. And now a two-year lag in the commissions that study maternal death means that stories of women who died because the new laws deprived them of medical care are beginning to hit the news.
On Friday, news broke that maternal deaths in Texas skyrocketed after the state’s 2021 abortion ban, rising by 56% compared to an 11% increase across the rest of the nation. Just before midnight, Trump posted a rant that included his usual lie about after-birth executions:
“WOMEN ARE POORER THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, ARE LESS HEALTHY THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, ARE LESS SAFE ON THE STREETS THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, ARE MORE DEPRESSED AND UNHAPPY THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, AND ARE LESS OPTIMISTIC AND CONFIDENT IN THE FUTURE THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO! I WILL FIX ALL OF THAT, AND FAST, AND AT LONG LAST THIS NATIONAL NIGHTMARE WILL BE OVER. WOMEN WILL BE HAPPY, HEALTHY, CONFIDENT AND FREE! YOU WILL NO LONGER BE THINKING ABOUT ABORTION, BECAUSE IT IS NOW WHERE IT ALWAYS HAD TO BE, WITH THE STATES, AND A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE - AND WITH POWERFUL EXCEPTIONS, LIKE THOSE THAT RONALD REAGAN INSISTED ON, FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER - BUT NOT ALLOWING FOR DEMOCRAT DEMANDED LATE TERM ABORTION IN THE 7TH, 8TH, OR 9TH MONTH, OR EVEN EXECUTION OF A BABY AFTER BIRTH. I WILL PROTECT WOMEN AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN BEFORE. THEY WILL FINALLY BE HEALTHY, HOPEFUL, SAFE, AND SECURE. THEIR LIVES WILL BE HAPPY, BEAUTIFUL, AND GREAT AGAIN!”
In North Carolina the core members of Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson’s campaign staff resigned yesterday along with all but three members of the campaign staff—two spokespeople and a bodyguard—after the CNN report about Robinson’s offensive writings on a pornography website, including his declaration that he considers himself a “black NAZI,” and that he would like to own slaves. And yet the North Carolina Republican Party is openly defending Robinson. Today the Republican Governors Association announced it was not going to buy any more ad time in North Carolina, a potential disaster for Trump as well as Robinson.
Trump’s ability to command the Republicans appears to be waning. House Republican leadership has apparently accepted a deal to fund the government through December 20 without the addition of the voter suppression bill Trump wanted, and today Nebraska Republican state senator Mike McDonnell said he would not vote to change the way Nebraska allots its electoral votes so close to the election despite great pressure from Trump loyalists to do so.
Meanwhile, MyPillow executive Mike Lindell, a Trump loyalist, is using a neo-Nazi code to advertise his pillows for $14.88, a reference to the fourteen words “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” and, since “H” is the eighth letter of the alphabet, a reference to “Heil Hitler.”
When the Trump campaign released a photo of the candidate with his grandchildren near him on a plane, Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch noted: “When he lets the grandkids near him on the plane for a photo op, that’s when you know he’s really panicking.” Today, Trump had an event stop at a grocery store in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, where he chatted with supporters. He handed a $100 bill to a customer and promised that “we’ll do that for you from the White House, all right?”
The election is not the only reason Trump might be worried. Shares of Trump media continue to fall, and his new crypto platform does not appear to be taking off. On Sunday he announced “the launch of our Official Trump Coins! The ONLY OFFICIAL coin designed by me—and proudly minted here in the U.S.A.,” but his other meme coins have lately aroused little interest in what seems to be an oversaturated market. Technology reporter Brian Krassenstein noted that the new coins cost $100, while the 1 ounce of silver in one costs $30. Veterans’ advocate Travis Akers pointed out on social media that less than 24 hours after Trump’s advertisement, the Jacksonville FBI office warned against collectible coin scams.
Trump’s wife, Melania Trump, is also looking for cash. On Wednesday, September 18, she released a video to advertise her forthcoming book. In the video, she said she stands “proudly behind my nude modeling work.” Since her nude photos were 100% not in the public conversation, her statement seemed designed to pump sales by suggesting there are nude photos of her in the book.
Today, Pamela Brown, Jeremy Herb, and Shoshana Dubnow of CNN reported that Trump’s most recent financial form reveals that Melania was paid $237,000 to appear at a campaign event in April, although it is not clear who cut the check for that appearance. The reporters say that such six-figure payments for her campaign appearances are not unusual, although payment for a spouse’s campaign appearances at all is highly unusual.
cont below
Heather Cox Richardson
Sep 23, 2024
“There’s nothing sadder than an aging salesman trying to close one last deal,” MSNBC’s Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote on September 21. Beckwith went on to list seven of Trump’s most recent campaign promises, most delivered off the cuff at rallies, that are transparent attempts to close the deal with different groups of voters.
Trump is also threatening voters. On September 19, he told two Jewish audiences that he had not been “treated properly by voters who happen to be Jewish,” and that if he doesn't win the 2024 election, “the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss,” adding in that case, “Israel, in my opinion, will cease to exist within two years.” Opponents were quick to point out that these threats echo old antisemitic tropes scapegoating Jews. When Jake Tapper asked Arkansas senator Tom Cotton to comment on Trump’s statement on Sunday, Cotton’s answer brought small comfort: “Well, Jake, Donald Trump has been saying things like this for at least 11 months.”
Trump’s social media posts about women sounded both desperate and delusional. Trump has boasted of overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion, but that loss is enormously unpopular. So he is caught between the reality that his white extremist evangelical base continues to support banning abortion while voters in a general election are just as adamant that they want abortion rights protected.
Trump insists that there was a driving popular demand for returning decisions about abortion to the states, but this is a lie; there was no such popular demand. And now a two-year lag in the commissions that study maternal death means that stories of women who died because the new laws deprived them of medical care are beginning to hit the news.
On Friday, news broke that maternal deaths in Texas skyrocketed after the state’s 2021 abortion ban, rising by 56% compared to an 11% increase across the rest of the nation. Just before midnight, Trump posted a rant that included his usual lie about after-birth executions:
“WOMEN ARE POORER THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, ARE LESS HEALTHY THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, ARE LESS SAFE ON THE STREETS THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, ARE MORE DEPRESSED AND UNHAPPY THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO, AND ARE LESS OPTIMISTIC AND CONFIDENT IN THE FUTURE THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO! I WILL FIX ALL OF THAT, AND FAST, AND AT LONG LAST THIS NATIONAL NIGHTMARE WILL BE OVER. WOMEN WILL BE HAPPY, HEALTHY, CONFIDENT AND FREE! YOU WILL NO LONGER BE THINKING ABOUT ABORTION, BECAUSE IT IS NOW WHERE IT ALWAYS HAD TO BE, WITH THE STATES, AND A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE - AND WITH POWERFUL EXCEPTIONS, LIKE THOSE THAT RONALD REAGAN INSISTED ON, FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER - BUT NOT ALLOWING FOR DEMOCRAT DEMANDED LATE TERM ABORTION IN THE 7TH, 8TH, OR 9TH MONTH, OR EVEN EXECUTION OF A BABY AFTER BIRTH. I WILL PROTECT WOMEN AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN BEFORE. THEY WILL FINALLY BE HEALTHY, HOPEFUL, SAFE, AND SECURE. THEIR LIVES WILL BE HAPPY, BEAUTIFUL, AND GREAT AGAIN!”
In North Carolina the core members of Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson’s campaign staff resigned yesterday along with all but three members of the campaign staff—two spokespeople and a bodyguard—after the CNN report about Robinson’s offensive writings on a pornography website, including his declaration that he considers himself a “black NAZI,” and that he would like to own slaves. And yet the North Carolina Republican Party is openly defending Robinson. Today the Republican Governors Association announced it was not going to buy any more ad time in North Carolina, a potential disaster for Trump as well as Robinson.
Trump’s ability to command the Republicans appears to be waning. House Republican leadership has apparently accepted a deal to fund the government through December 20 without the addition of the voter suppression bill Trump wanted, and today Nebraska Republican state senator Mike McDonnell said he would not vote to change the way Nebraska allots its electoral votes so close to the election despite great pressure from Trump loyalists to do so.
Meanwhile, MyPillow executive Mike Lindell, a Trump loyalist, is using a neo-Nazi code to advertise his pillows for $14.88, a reference to the fourteen words “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” and, since “H” is the eighth letter of the alphabet, a reference to “Heil Hitler.”
When the Trump campaign released a photo of the candidate with his grandchildren near him on a plane, Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch noted: “When he lets the grandkids near him on the plane for a photo op, that’s when you know he’s really panicking.” Today, Trump had an event stop at a grocery store in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, where he chatted with supporters. He handed a $100 bill to a customer and promised that “we’ll do that for you from the White House, all right?”
The election is not the only reason Trump might be worried. Shares of Trump media continue to fall, and his new crypto platform does not appear to be taking off. On Sunday he announced “the launch of our Official Trump Coins! The ONLY OFFICIAL coin designed by me—and proudly minted here in the U.S.A.,” but his other meme coins have lately aroused little interest in what seems to be an oversaturated market. Technology reporter Brian Krassenstein noted that the new coins cost $100, while the 1 ounce of silver in one costs $30. Veterans’ advocate Travis Akers pointed out on social media that less than 24 hours after Trump’s advertisement, the Jacksonville FBI office warned against collectible coin scams.
Trump’s wife, Melania Trump, is also looking for cash. On Wednesday, September 18, she released a video to advertise her forthcoming book. In the video, she said she stands “proudly behind my nude modeling work.” Since her nude photos were 100% not in the public conversation, her statement seemed designed to pump sales by suggesting there are nude photos of her in the book.
Today, Pamela Brown, Jeremy Herb, and Shoshana Dubnow of CNN reported that Trump’s most recent financial form reveals that Melania was paid $237,000 to appear at a campaign event in April, although it is not clear who cut the check for that appearance. The reporters say that such six-figure payments for her campaign appearances are not unusual, although payment for a spouse’s campaign appearances at all is highly unusual.
cont below
Cont from above
On Saturday, Trump said he would not debate Vice President Harris again, saying it was “too late” for another debate, although he then suggested he would be interested in doing one if the Fox News Channel broadcast it.
The Trump campaign is openly vowing to use federal forces against political opponents, but it is not clear the news is coming from Trump himself, so much as from those surrounding him. Vice presidential candidate Ohio senator J.D. Vance has doubled down on his insistence that a Trump administration will deport legal as well as undocumented immigrants.
His stand has earned him a rebuke from the editorial board of the Dayton [Ohio] Daily News, which expressed alarm at Vance’s lies about immigration and his evident belief that the ends justify the means. “History, of course, offers no shortage of atrocities committed when the truth is viewed as an inconvenient obstacle in your way,” the board wrote. It called Vance “an embarrassment not only to himself, but to Ohio.”
On Sunday, the “Trump Team” posted on social media that “As soon as I take office, we will immediately surge law enforcement to every city that is failing to turn over criminal aliens” and “bring down the full weight of the federal government on any jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with ICE and Border Patrol.”
This threat is in keeping with Michael Schmidt’s report in the New York Times yesterday outlining how Trump used the criminal justice system to retaliate against those he saw as his enemies.
Bipartisan endorsements for Democratic candidates Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz continue to pile up. Today, three former chairs of the Maine Republican Party “enthusiastically” endorsed Harris.
After Teamsters president Sean O’Brien said the 1.3-million-member organization would not endorse either candidate in 2024, making the Teamsters the only one of the nation’s ten major unions not to endorse Harris, joint councils of the Teamsters have endorsed Harris and Walz on their own. These endorsements matter not only for votes, but also for get-out-the-vote efforts in crucial Midwestern states. Also crucial to Pennsylvania is today’s endorsement of Harris by members of the state’s Polish American community, who expressed concern that Trump would enable Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade Poland. There are 800,000 people of Polish descent in Pennsylvania.
On Sunday, a bipartisan group of 741 national security leaders—some of the biggest names in the field—endorsed Harris. “To the American People,” they wrote. “We are former public servants who swore an oath to the Constitution. Many of us risked our lives for it. We are retired generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors, and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are loyal to the ideals of our nation—like freedom, democracy, and the rule of law—not to any one individual or party.
“We do not agree on everything, but we all adhere to two fundamental principles. First, we believe America’s national security requires a serious and capable Commander-in-Chief. Second, we believe American democracy is invaluable. Each generation has a responsibility to defend it. That is why we, the undersigned, proudly endorse Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States.
“This election is a choice between serious leadership and vengeful impulsiveness. It is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Vice President Harris defends America’s democratic ideals, while former President Donald Trump endangers them.
“We do not make such an assessment lightly. We are trained to make sober, rational decisions. That is how we know Vice President Harris would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief, while Mr. Trump has proven he is not up to the job.”
—
Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-23-2024
On Saturday, Trump said he would not debate Vice President Harris again, saying it was “too late” for another debate, although he then suggested he would be interested in doing one if the Fox News Channel broadcast it.
The Trump campaign is openly vowing to use federal forces against political opponents, but it is not clear the news is coming from Trump himself, so much as from those surrounding him. Vice presidential candidate Ohio senator J.D. Vance has doubled down on his insistence that a Trump administration will deport legal as well as undocumented immigrants.
His stand has earned him a rebuke from the editorial board of the Dayton [Ohio] Daily News, which expressed alarm at Vance’s lies about immigration and his evident belief that the ends justify the means. “History, of course, offers no shortage of atrocities committed when the truth is viewed as an inconvenient obstacle in your way,” the board wrote. It called Vance “an embarrassment not only to himself, but to Ohio.”
On Sunday, the “Trump Team” posted on social media that “As soon as I take office, we will immediately surge law enforcement to every city that is failing to turn over criminal aliens” and “bring down the full weight of the federal government on any jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with ICE and Border Patrol.”
This threat is in keeping with Michael Schmidt’s report in the New York Times yesterday outlining how Trump used the criminal justice system to retaliate against those he saw as his enemies.
Bipartisan endorsements for Democratic candidates Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz continue to pile up. Today, three former chairs of the Maine Republican Party “enthusiastically” endorsed Harris.
After Teamsters president Sean O’Brien said the 1.3-million-member organization would not endorse either candidate in 2024, making the Teamsters the only one of the nation’s ten major unions not to endorse Harris, joint councils of the Teamsters have endorsed Harris and Walz on their own. These endorsements matter not only for votes, but also for get-out-the-vote efforts in crucial Midwestern states. Also crucial to Pennsylvania is today’s endorsement of Harris by members of the state’s Polish American community, who expressed concern that Trump would enable Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade Poland. There are 800,000 people of Polish descent in Pennsylvania.
On Sunday, a bipartisan group of 741 national security leaders—some of the biggest names in the field—endorsed Harris. “To the American People,” they wrote. “We are former public servants who swore an oath to the Constitution. Many of us risked our lives for it. We are retired generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors, and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are loyal to the ideals of our nation—like freedom, democracy, and the rule of law—not to any one individual or party.
“We do not agree on everything, but we all adhere to two fundamental principles. First, we believe America’s national security requires a serious and capable Commander-in-Chief. Second, we believe American democracy is invaluable. Each generation has a responsibility to defend it. That is why we, the undersigned, proudly endorse Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States.
“This election is a choice between serious leadership and vengeful impulsiveness. It is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Vice President Harris defends America’s democratic ideals, while former President Donald Trump endangers them.
“We do not make such an assessment lightly. We are trained to make sober, rational decisions. That is how we know Vice President Harris would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief, while Mr. Trump has proven he is not up to the job.”
—
Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-23-2024
