Polls Show Declining Public Confidence in Trump’s Economic Management

March 18, 2025March 19, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Recent surveys indicate growing public dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump’s handling of the U.S. economy. For the first time, a majority of Americans disapprove of his economic policies, according to an NBC News poll. Conducted from March 7 to 11, the survey of 1,000 registered voters found that 54 percent disapprove of Trump’s economic management, while 44 percent approve. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. NBC News noted this marks the first instance in its national polling where Trump’s economic approval rating has fallen into majority disapproval.

Why It Matters

Economic trust has been central to Trump’s appeal, especially in contrast to former Vice President Kamala Harris. His economic management was seen as crucial to securing a Republican victory in 2024. However, growing frustration among voters about unmet campaign promises, fears of a potential recession, and proposed tariffs on imports are contributing to declining support.

What to Know

Despite Trump achieving one of his highest overall approval ratings at 47 percent, concerns about the economy persist. The NBC poll shows that 55 percent disapprove of his approach to inflation and the cost of living, with only 42 percent approving. Additionally, just 18 percent of respondents describe the economy as “good” or “excellent,” while 43 percent view it as poor, and 39 percent rate it as “fair.”

A CNN poll conducted from March 6 to 9 by SSRS similarly found that 56 percent disapprove of Trump’s economic management. This represents the highest level of economic disapproval recorded during his presidency. The survey, which included 1,206 U.S. adults, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

Another YouGov/Economist poll conducted from March 9 to 11 among 1,699 U.S. adults found that 47 percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of jobs and the economy, while 43 percent approve. This marks a shift from a late-January poll in which 49 percent approved, and 37 percent disapproved, indicating a 10-point rise in economic disapproval in just over a month. The margin of error for this poll is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

What People Are Saying

Kristen Hopewell, an economist and director at the University of British Columbia’s Liu Institute for Global Issues, commented on the potential impact of Trump’s tariff policies. She told Newsweek, “There’s no state that won’t be harmed by Trump’s tariffs—but some will be hit even harder than others. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will raise costs for manufacturers across the U.S., undermining their competitiveness. This will hurt the biggest hubs of American manufacturing—California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana, Wisconsin, and North Carolina—hardest.”

Mark A. DiPlacido, a policy adviser at the conservative think tank American Compass, defended Trump’s tariff policies in a March 17 opinion piece for Newsweek. He wrote, “The tariffs President Trump levied under his first administration raised more than $230 billion in revenue while reducing U.S. dependence on tariffed goods and avoiding inflation. Given the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit, President Trump is right to take tariffs to the next level. Whether through a simple global tariff of 10-20 percent—which could raise as much as $2.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years—or a wider set of reciprocal tariffs based on our trade balance with each foreign nation, the United States must assert its economic interests against the unfair practices of our trading partners.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed recession concerns during an appearance on NBC News’ Meet the Press, stating, “There are no guarantees. Like, who would’ve predicted COVID? I can predict that we’re putting in robust policies that will be durable. And could there be an adjustment? Because I tell you that this massive government spending that we’ve had, if that had kept going, we would have to wean our country off of that.”

President Trump himself weighed in on economic concerns via Truth Social on February 2. He wrote, “THIS WILL BE THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA! WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID. WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!”

What Happens Next

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has warned that Trump’s tariff policies against Canada and Mexico could negatively impact U.S. GDP growth. The OECD’s latest projections indicate that U.S. economic growth will be 2.2 percent in 2025 and 1.6 percent in 2026—both revised downward from previous estimates of 2.4 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively.

Approval Ratings Breakdown

Poll	Approval	Disapproval	Margin of Error
NBC News	44%	54%	±3.1%
CNN	42%	56%	±3.3%
YouGov/Economist	43%	47%	±3.2%

With declining approval ratings on economic matters, Trump faces a crucial challenge in convincing voters that his policies will lead to long-term growth. The coming months will determine whether he can regain confidence or if economic concerns will become a liability in the 2024 election.

Trump Escalates Attacks on Media, Accusing Outlets of Corruption and Illegal Behavior

March 15, 2025 Staff ReporterMedia 0

President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of the media on Friday, delivering some of his most forceful accusations yet. Speaking at the Department of Justice, he baselessly claimed that major news organizations, including CNN, were engaging in corrupt and illegal activities.

During his speech, Trump praised Florida district court Judge Aileen Cannon, whom he had appointed in 2020. Cannon ruled in his favor in January, preventing the Department of Justice from sharing a report regarding Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents with Congress.

Trump alleged that the media had unfairly targeted Cannon for this ruling, though he provided no evidence to support his claim. “They do it all the time with judges,” he stated, adding that media outlets “will write whatever these people say.”

“The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and MSDNC, and the fake news, CNN and ABC, CBS and NBC, they’ll write whatever they say,” Trump asserted. “And what do you do to get rid of it? You convict Trump.”

Trump further declared that such reporting was illegal, addressing Justice Department employees directly. “It’s totally illegal what they do,” he said. “I just hope you can all watch for it, but it’s totally illegal.”

Although Trump did not initially clarify who he was referring to, he later accused CNN and MSNBC of being “political arms of the Democrat Party.” He added, “In my opinion, they’re really corrupt.”

Both CNN and MSNBC declined to comment on his remarks.

Trump opened his speech by lauding the Justice Department’s past efforts in fighting organized crime. He claimed that under his leadership, the agency would return to its core mission of pursuing “killers, kingpins and spies,” as well as tracking down “terrorists and traitors” and dismantling “corrupt political machines all across America.”

Trump’s insistence on using the Justice Department in this manner aligns with his belief that the Biden administration has unfairly weaponized the agency against him. He claimed, “They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.”

However, reports indicate that Trump’s claims lack merit. His two federal indictments were brought by special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. While Garland was appointed by President Joe Biden, there is no evidence to suggest Biden personally influenced or ordered the indictments against Trump.

In his speech, Trump cited alleged instances of the Justice Department’s supposed weaponization, but he only mentioned cases that directly impacted him or referenced conspiracy theories popular among far-right circles—many of which have been debunked or are misleading.

Trump’s rhetoric built on his long-standing efforts to frame the press as an adversary to both the people and the government. His message appeared to be that media organizations whose coverage he dislikes could face consequences under a Justice Department reshaped by his administration.

Trump’s willingness to target unfavorable media coverage is not new. He is currently engaged in a civil lawsuit against the Pulitzer Board over its decision to uphold the 2018 National Reporting Prize awarded to The Washington Post and The New York Times for their coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election and its alleged links to his campaign.

In December, ABC News reached a $15 million settlement in a defamation case brought by Trump. Meanwhile, Paramount Global, which owns CBS News, is still dealing with a Trump lawsuit related to its “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Additionally, Trump has imposed a ban on the Associated Press, barring it from the Oval Office and Air Force One over its continued use of the term “Gulf of Mexico.”

Certain government agencies under the Trump administration have also signaled their intent to sever ties with media outlets he disfavors. In February, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the administration would cancel $8 million in Politico Pro subscriptions, citing a far-right conspiracy theory as justification.

On Friday, NPR reported that the U.S. Agency for Global Media had terminated its contracts with the Associated Press (AP) and Agence France-Presse (AFP). The agency also indicated it would allow its Reuters contract to expire on March 31.

Trump’s speech made clear that these actions are not isolated decisions but part of a broader campaign against the press—one that he appears intent on continuing and even escalating.

Bernie Sanders Leads the Charge Against Trump’s Second Term

March 10, 2025March 13, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Bernie Sanders stands on the back of a pickup truck, using a bullhorn to address an enthusiastic crowd outside a suburban Detroit high school. Several hundred supporters, unable to fit inside the packed gymnasium and overflow rooms, eagerly listen as he shares a remarkable turnout figure.

“What all of this tells me, is not just in Michigan or in Vermont, the people of this country will not allow us to move toward oligarchy. They will not allow Trump to take us into authoritarianism,” Sanders declared, prompting cheers. “We’re prepared to fight. And we’re going to win.”

At 83, Sanders is not seeking the presidency again, but the seasoned democratic socialist has positioned himself at the forefront of the movement resisting Donald Trump’s return to power. By openly challenging Trump’s governance and condemning his plans to dismiss tens of thousands of government workers, Sanders is defying those who want Democrats to focus on economic issues or remain passive.

For now, Sanders stands alone as the only progressive leader actively mobilizing national opposition to Trump.

His rally in Kenosha, Wisconsin, attracted 4,000 attendees. The following morning, he addressed about 2,600 in Altoona, a small town of under 10,000 people. The Detroit rally exceeded expectations, drawing 9,000 supporters. Each event was strategically held in a swing congressional district represented by a Republican.

Newly reelected for a fourth Senate term from Vermont, Sanders acknowledges that this is not the role he expected at this stage in his career.

His team initially delayed launching what they now call the “stop oligarchy tour” to see if a prominent Democrat would take on the role. But as no one stepped up, Sanders—who is not officially a Democrat despite his close ties to Senate Democrats and past presidential bids—found himself at the center of speculation about another White House run.

“This is like presidential campaign rallies, isn’t it? But I’m not running for president, and this is not a campaign,” Sanders told The Associated Press. “You gotta do what you gotta do. The country’s in trouble and I want to play my role.”

A Fractured Democratic Opposition

Since losing the White House, Democrats have struggled to form a unified strategy or rally behind a single leader to counter Trump’s aggressive policies, including his efforts to reduce government oversight and strengthen the influence of billionaire Elon Musk.

No coordinated effort has emerged to organize the anti-Trump resistance.

“You look around—who else is doing it? No one,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., when asked about Sanders’ efforts. “My hope is that the dam will break in terms of Democrats going on the offense … We need to take the argument directly to the people.”

Ocasio-Cortez, a longtime Sanders ally, plans to join him on the road and make independent appearances in Republican-held districts in Pennsylvania and New York, particularly where GOP lawmakers have avoided in-person town halls.

“It’s not about whether Bernie should or shouldn’t be doing this. It’s about that we all should,” she said. “But he is unique in this country, and so long as we are blessed to have that capacity on our side, I think we should be thankful for it.”

Apart from Sanders, much of the organizing has fallen to grassroots groups like Indivisible, which have successfully pressured some House Republicans. In response to public outcry, some GOP lawmakers have distanced themselves from Musk or questioned the policies being pushed by his allies.

Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, who has frequently criticized Democratic leadership, praised Sanders’ activism.

“I wish more Democrats were traveling the country, including to red states, to rally the majority against Musk and Project 2025,” Levin said. “Sure as hell beats (House Democratic leader Hakeem) Jeffries traveling the country for his children’s book tour during a constitutional crisis.”

Jeffries, during the last congressional recess, made two appearances promoting a children’s book on democracy. He also traveled in support of House Democrats and was recently in Selma, Alabama, to mark the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

The reality is that few Democratic leaders can draw large crowds on short notice or manage a national-scale operation. Rising Democratic figures with 2028 presidential potential, such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, have yet to establish strong national presences.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, one of Trump’s more vocal critics in Congress, said Democrats must improve their organization.

“People are desperate to be plugged into action right now. People see the threat. They are anxious and angry and motivated and they want to be sent in a direction to help,” he said.

Murphy acknowledged that Sanders still faces resistance from many Democrats who see his progressive proposals—such as Medicare for All, free public college, and the Green New Deal—as too extreme.

Five years ago, Democrats united around Joe Biden to prevent Sanders from securing the 2020 presidential nomination.

“There still are a lot of folks who view Bernie as a danger to the party,” Murphy admitted. “Whereas I see his message as the core of what we need to build on.”

Sanders’ Focus on the Working Class

While Sanders was a staunch Biden supporter over the past four years, he criticized the Democratic Party after Kamala Harris’ defeat, arguing that Trump’s win was possible only because Democrats had “abandoned” the working class.

United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain, who introduced Sanders in Michigan, urged Democrats to follow Sanders’ example.

“They’ve got to take a hard look in the mirror, in my opinion, and decide who the hell they want to represent,” Fain said. “We’ve been clear as a union, if they aren’t looking out for working-class people, we’re not going to be there for them.”

Voices from the Crowd

The diverse crowds attending Sanders’ rallies included some who had never supported his previous campaigns but now see him as the strongest opposition to Trump.

“I’m here because I’m afraid for our country. The last six weeks have been horrible,” said Diana Schack, a 72-year-old retired lawyer at her first Sanders rally. “I am becoming a more avid Bernie fan, especially in light of the work he’s doing traveling around the country. These are not normal times.”

In Kenosha, Amber Schulz, a 50-year-old medical worker, demanded more action from Democrats.

“Bernie is the only politician I trust,” she said.

Tony Gonzales, a 56-year-old independent voter from Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, expressed concern that Trump might try to extend his presidency beyond two terms, despite constitutional limits.

“It’s a dangerous time right now,” Gonzales said. “What Bernie has to say—and the turnout—is important. His voice is still being heard.”

Over the weekend, Sanders continued to push his long-standing populist message, calling for expanded social programs, free health care, and free public higher education. He especially criticized Trump’s administration, which he said is dominated by billionaires like Musk.

“They want to dismantle the federal government and cut programs that working people desperately need,” Sanders warned.

“Yes, the oligarchs are enormously powerful. They have endless amounts of money. They control our economy. They own much of the media, and they have enormous influence over our political system,” he continued. “But from the bottom of my heart, I believe that if we stand together, we can beat them.”

Sanders’ Future in the Fight

At 83, with a history of heart issues, Sanders’ long-term role in the movement remains uncertain. However, his spokesperson confirmed he has not had health concerns since his 2019 hospitalization.

For now, Sanders shows no signs of slowing down. His 2020 campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, is helping coordinate his stops, backed by a team of former campaign staffers working on a contract basis.

Shakir, who unsuccessfully ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee, acknowledged differing strategies within the party on how to confront Trump.

Last month, veteran political strategist James Carville suggested Democrats should “roll over and play dead,” hoping that Trump’s actions would lead to a backlash.

“One theory is you can play dead; you can strategically retreat,” Shakir said. “Or, you play alive, and you go out to people and you talk to them with conviction and integrity.”

Inside the Vatican’s Power Struggles: The Papal Election and Its Historical Echoes

March 3, 2025 Staff ReporterReligion 0

As a historian and editor of a three-volume history of the papacy, watching the newly released film Conclave was practically obligatory. The movie, featuring Ralph Fiennes as the dean of the College of Cardinals, is a political thriller centered around the death of a fictional pope and the intense internal battle to elect his successor. It portrays the Vatican as a place filled with intrigue, scandals, and ruthless competition for power.

The film has gained additional relevance with real-world events, as Pope Francis has recently been hospitalized in critical condition in Rome due to double pneumonia. Despite his health struggles, the Vatican announced this week that the 88-year-old pope continued his duties, appointing four new bishops from his hospital bed. However, today, he suffered a setback with a severe breathing crisis.

Adapted from Robert Harris’ 2016 novel, the film has received numerous award nominations and several major wins. It provides a close look at the politics involved in electing a pope to lead the world’s 1.36 billion Catholics. The movie presents a stark divide between reactionary cardinals who wish to restore traditional practices, including the Latin Mass, and reformist cardinals who support modernization and inclusivity, such as interfaith dialogue and broader acceptance within the Church. Remarkably, the deceased pope in the movie influences the Church’s future leadership even after his passing.

Last month, I conducted research in the Vatican Apostolic Archives, and I found the language and behavior of the film’s characters strikingly authentic. Even more compelling was how closely the onscreen struggle between Vatican factions mirrors the ongoing power dynamics within the Catholic Church today.

Rival Factions in the Vatican: Fiction and Reality

Pope Francis represents a more progressive faction within the Church and has been vocal on contemporary political matters. He has openly supported efforts to combat climate change, called for workers’ rights, and has not hesitated to criticize world leaders. Notably, he has condemned former U.S. President Donald Trump for his stance on refugees and migrants, as well as former Vice President Kamala Harris for her support of abortion rights. Furthermore, he has approved blessings for same-sex couples and individuals in “irregular” circumstances, including divorced and LGBTQ+ Catholics.

Despite his efforts to modernize the Church, a significant conservative faction remainsfirmly opposed to his reforms. These traditionalists resist his leniency on issues related to LGBTQ+ and divorced Catholics, preferring a return to older traditions such as the Latin Mass and stricter gender roles. This internal struggle makes predicting the next papal election particularly difficult.

Within the College of Cardinals, conservatives hold a numerical advantage. Of the approximately 252 members, only 138 are eligible to vote in the papal election. However, much like the late pope in the film, Francis has taken strategic steps to shape the future of the Church. Since becoming pope in 2013, he has appointed 149 new cardinals, many from underrepresented developing nations. By diversifying the College of Cardinals, he may be increasing the chances of a progressive successor.

The future leadership of the Catholic Church will ultimately bedetermined in the next conclave, and despite some modern changes, the process remains remarkably similar to what it was centuries ago.

The Evolution of Papal Elections

The term “conclave” originates from Latin, meaning “with key,” referencing how cardinals are sequestered—effectively locked away—during the process of electing a new pope. The method of papal selection has undergone significant transformations over the centuries, largely to prevent corruption and external interference.

During the Middle Ages, popes wielded far greater power than they do today. In addition to providing spiritual guidance, they played a key role in politics, diplomacy, and economic affairs, controlling the wealthiest institution in Europe. As a result, papal elections were often chaotic and fraught with violence.

Initially, the selection of a pope was decided by the “people of Rome,” but in practice, this meant that the process was dominated by mobs, aristocrats, monarchs, or any influential figure who controlled the city. Elections could be settled either through negotiation or by brute force. It was not uncommon for those in power to handpick the next pope.

Power Struggles and Looting

Alongside external pressures, an unfortunate tradition emerged where mobs would loot the deceased pope’s possessions—including the garments from his very corpse. This gruesome practice is subtly referenced in Conclave, when a cardinal asks Fiennes’ character if he can take the late pope’s chess set.

There were several reasons behind this looting—greed was certainly a factor, but so was the belief that relics belonging to a holy figure held special significance. Additionally, the common people may have resented the loss of their role in selecting the pope and sought compensation through theft.

In an effort to bring order to this chaotic process, Pope Nicholas II issued a decree in 1059 stating that only clergy—specifically cardinal-bishops—could elect the pope. A century later, Pope Alexander III expanded voting rights to include all cardinals and established the two-thirds majority rule, which remains in place today.

However, these reforms did not eliminate the turbulence surrounding papal elections. For centuries, conflicts and rivalries continued, and looting expanded to include the homes of cardinals. Running for pope remained a dangerous ambition—often leading to violence or destruction of property.

The Establishment of the Conclave System

In 1274, Pope Gregory X introduced a key reform: sequestering cardinals in strict isolation during the election process. This ensured that external influences could not manipulate the outcome. Additionally, the uncomfortable conditions—limited attendants, simple living quarters, and reduced meals—encouraged cardinals to reach a decision swiftly. If they failed toelect a pope within three days, they were restricted to just one daily meal. The motivation to avoid hunger likely expedited many elections.

Despite these precautions, controversies still arose. Following the death of Pope Gregory XI in 1378, the cardinals elected Pope Urban VI but quickly regretted their decision. Just months later, they deposed him and elected a new pope, Clement VII. This led to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417), during which two rival popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon, France, divided the Catholic Church for nearly 40 years.

Modern Papal Elections and the Next Conclave

While modern conclaves are unlikely to produce dual papacies, the next election—whenever it takes place—will still be significant. Cardinals will once again be isolated and left to vote based on their conscience.

The practice of using smoke signals to communicate election results is a relatively recent tradition, originating in the 1800s. Initially, the Vatican burned paper ballots to indicate whether a decision had been reached. Over time, this evolved into a more elaborate system: black smoke signals a deadlock, while white smoke announces that a new pope has been chosen.

Though modern conclaves take place behind closed doors, political maneuvering remains a part of the process. Cardinals continue to lobby for their preferred candidates, shaping the future direction of the Catholic Church. Whether the next pope will continue Francis’ progressive approach or revert to more traditional values will depend on the collective decision of these cardinals.

Joëlle Rollo-Koster, a professor of medieval history at the University of Rhode Island and editor of The Cambridge History of the Papacy, brings extensive knowledge of papal history to her work. Her expertise offers valuable insight into both the historical and contemporary significance of the conclave system.

Trump Administration’s Move to Control Press Pool Sparks Media Uproar

February 27, 2025 Staff ReporterMedia 0

A dispute over a long-standing media practice in Washington has become a flashpoint in the broader struggle between the Trump administration and the press.

At the center of the controversy is the White House press pool, a rotating team of journalists who cover the president when it is not feasible for the entire press corps to be present. Traditionally, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has overseen this arrangement—but that changed this week.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the administration would now decide which journalists would be part of the pool. She argued that the WHCA had unfairly maintained a “monopoly over the privilege of press access.”

Leavitt framed the move as an effort to modernize the press corps, stating it was designed to align with “the media habits of the American people in 2025, not 1925.” She added that the White House sought to “restore power to the American people who President Trump was elected to serve.”

However, the WHCA and press freedom advocates see this shift in starkly different terms.

Critics argue that the administration’s move is a deliberate attempt to exert control over media coverage of Trump, prioritizing outlets favorable to the administration while sidelining those that take a more independent stance.

WHCA President Eugene Daniels warned that the decision “tears at the independence of a free press in the United States.” He added, “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

This battle over the press pool is emblematic of a larger pattern in Trump’s approach to the media.

Trump played a key role in redefining the term “fake news,” which originally referred to deliberately misleading content spread on social media for profit. He repurposed the phrase to discredit critical reporting, turning it into a rallying cry against mainstream media.

Although most presidents have had conflicts with the press, Trump’s hostility stands out.

During his first term, he frequently branded the media as “enemies of the people.” On multiple occasions, he shared memes depicting violent attacks on CNN, one of his main media adversaries.

Now, just over a month into his second term, Trump is engaged in a legal battle with The Associated Press (AP). The dispute stems from the AP’s refusal to adopt Trump’s preferred terminology for a body of water bordering southern Louisiana, western Florida, and eastern Mexico.

For decades, it has been known as the Gulf of Mexico. However, Trump issued an executive order renaming it the Gulf of America.

The AP has refused to comply fully, citing its large international audience and journalistic standards. The agency stated that it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico while acknowledging Trump’s executive order.

This stance did not satisfy the administration, which responded by barring the AP from key events and excluding it from the press pool.

The AP has challenged the decision in court. While a judge recently denied its request for immediate reinstatement, a full hearing is scheduled for next month.

Meanwhile, another media controversy erupted on Wednesday when Trump misrepresented a dispute involving CBS’s “60 Minutes” and former Vice President Kamala Harris during last year’s campaign.

Trump has sued CBS over an edited quotation from Harris that he claims constituted election interference. Many journalists argue that the edit was a routine practice used to accommodate time constraints.

During remarks on Wednesday, Trump alleged that CBS had manipulated Harris’s statements. “They gave her an answer … And they wrote out a—they put her words from another question that was asked about a half an hour later, and they put that into the question,” he claimed.

CBS, however, has denied any wrongdoing, stating that Harris’s words were not taken out of context.

Despite these various disputes, much of the attention in Washington remains focused on the White House press pool.

The pool was created out of necessity due to space limitations. The entire White House press corps cannot fit into locations like the Oval Office or Air Force One. As a result, a smaller group of reporters takes turns covering events and provides updates to the rest of the media.

Participation in the pool often comes with significant travel costs, which can be prohibitive for journalists from smaller or independent outlets. Those who are included typically follow a rotating schedule that is assigned on a monthly, alphabetical basis.

Following Leavitt’s announcement, a new controversy emerged when HuffPost revealed that its reporter, S.V. Dáte, had been removed from the press pool rotation.

Dáte had been scheduled to cover the White House on Wednesday but was informed late the previous night—after 10 p.m.—that there was “no room” for him in the pool. However, Axios ultimately took his place.

An Axios spokesperson later told Politico that the outlet had been “unaware” of the circumstances under which it was given the assignment.

As tensions escalate, the dispute has sparked rare moments of media solidarity.

Conservative outlets such as Newsmax and Fox News have publicly supported the AP’s efforts to challenge the White House’s restrictions.

On Tuesday, Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich issued a warning to right-wing social media users who cheered the Trump administration’s press pool decision.

“Just wait til a Dem admin plays that same game. You’ll hate it,” Heinrich posted on social media.

Republicans Tout Musk’s Young Tech Team as Government Saviors Amid Privacy Concerns

February 25, 2025 Staff ReporterYouth 0

Concerns have been raised about billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk’s access to sensitive government data, with critics viewing his group of young tech experts as an unregulated risk to privacy. However, conservatives see the situation differently.

Influential voices in right-wing politics characterize these engineers, most of whom are in their early 20s, as some of the world’s brightest minds, stepping in to rescue the U.S. government from excessive bureaucracy.

This development comes at a time when young progressives feel sidelined by the Democratic Party, with the party’s grip on younger voters—particularly young men—weakening. Republicans have seized on this contrast as a promotional opportunity.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point, a group that has organized Republican voter turnout efforts, praised the engineers as “young prodigies” and “all-stars” with IQs so high they would “melt the charts.”

“This is a Gen Z, millennial takeover of the federal government,” Kirk said on his February 4 podcast. “And we always thought it was coming from the left. But this is the geriatric, the kind of nursing home regime that has been pushing the country into oblivion. Now the young guns are taking over the country for the better.”

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has rapidly integrated itself into federal agencies, restructuring operations with little oversight while gaining access to sensitive taxpayer data.

Musk, the world’s richest man, has referred to the DOGE team as “some of the world’s best software engineers.” Trump, in a recent interview with Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity, also praised them as “very brilliant young people.”

“He attracts a young, very smart type of person,” Trump said of Musk. “I call them high-IQ individuals.”

Many of the engineers linked to DOGE have ties to Musk’s companies, while some are connected to Silicon Valley billionaire and longtime Musk associate Peter Thiel, according to WIRED magazine. One staffer, who resigned amid controversy over past racist social media posts, was quickly rehired. The Wall Street Journal initially linked the 25-year-old employee, Marko Elez, to an account that had posted statements such as “I was racist before it was cool” and “Normalize Indian hate.”

Kirk and other conservative commentators have celebrated the engineers’ involvement in the Trump administration. During the February 4 episode of the “Happy Women” podcast, host Jen Horn said, “these kids … are literally just living and breathing these numbers.” Her co-host, Katie Gorka, added, “I’ve often thought we’re going to be saved ultimately by these kids.”

A heated exchange over DOGE erupted between Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Musk’s social media platform, X. The debate revolved around the Trump administration’s decision to enlist DOGE in efforts to upgrade aviation safety.

“They have no relevant experience,” Clinton commented in response to Duffy’s announcement of DOGE’s involvement. “Most of them aren’t old enough to rent a car.”

Duffy fired back, saying, “We’re moving on without you because the American people want us to make America’s transportation system great again. And yes, we’re bringing the 22-year-olds with us.”

The Republican embrace of Musk’s engineers reflects their strategy in gaining support from younger voters in last year’s election.

Trump’s Democratic opponent in 2024, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, barely secured a victory among voters under 30, with nearly half opting for Trump, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 voters. This marked a significant shift from 2020 when Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, won around 60% of voters under 30 against Trump. Although other age groups also leaned more toward Trump last year, the shift was most pronounced among young voters.

For Alex Dwyer, chairman of the Kansas Federation of Young Republicans, the recognition of young DOGE engineers has been exhilarating. As a 28-year-old financial analyst in Wichita, he has long felt that young professionals were overlooked in both government and the workplace.

“DOGE is showing that our talents and abilities are finally being recognized as having value,” Dwyer said. “… The party has finally woken up that if you want to appeal to the youth, you have to involve them in the party.”

Trump’s campaign effectively engaged young men like Dwyer, many of whom were concerned about the economy and felt alienated by progressive social policies and the so-called “culture wars,” according to Melissa Deckman, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute and author of The Politics of Gen Z.

Trump’s outreach strategy targeted young men through alternative media, including right-wing podcasts and social media platforms that amplify far-right views. Deckman noted that the glorification of DOGE in these spaces reinforces the message that young men are being prioritized.

“Historically, you think of the GOP being the party of old fuddy-duddy white guys not passing the baton, and then suddenly there’s this cultural shift to highlighting the contributions of younger people,” she said. “… Meanwhile, when given the chance to pass the torch, Democrats lately have not been very successful in doing that, and young people are fed up.”

However, not all young voters are buying into this narrative.

Sunjay Muralitharan, national president of College Democrats of America, dismissed DOGE as an “unconstitutional threat to American democracy” and doubted that it would significantly boost Republican youth support.

“Most young people can see through this surface-level pandering,” he said. “The image of the richest man in the world gutting vital agencies speaks more here.”

Muralitharan pointed out that young leaders have also been making an impact within the Democratic Party. Recent examples include gun control advocate David Hogg, who was elected vice chair of the party this month, and Florida Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost, currently the youngest member of the U.S. House.

John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, argued that Democrats simply fail to highlight their young leaders as effectively as Republicans do.

“Democrats have plenty of young people in consequential jobs,” he said. “They’re just not as good at letting us know about it.”

Della Volpe added that seeing DOGE engineers influence real-world policy could serve as a powerful signal to young voters, further complicating Democratic efforts to mobilize a younger generation already questioning what the party has done for them.

“Republicans are seeing a weakness in Democrats through young people, and they’re taking advantage of it,” he said.

Basil Smikle, a Democratic political strategist and professor at Columbia University’s School of Professional Studies, noted that many young men disillusioned with the current political landscape might view DOGE as proof that they, too, can wield power. He urged Democratic leaders to step aside and give young people a greater role in shaping the party’s message.

“If you don’t, Republicans are going to go back to the same playbook and beat us every time,” he warned.

Trump’s Approval Rating Dips as Economic Concerns Grow Amid Tariff Threats

February 19, 2025February 23, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

U.S. President Donald Trump’s approval rating has seen a slight decline in recent days as concerns about the U.S. economy rise. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, more Americans are worried about the country’s economic direction, especially as the president continues to threaten multiple nations with tariffs.

The six-day poll, which concluded on Tuesday, found that 44% of respondents approved of Trump’s performance as president. This represents a slight drop from the 45% approval rating recorded in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from January 24-26. His approval was slightly higher at 47% in a separate poll conducted on January 20-21, just as he returned to the White House.

Meanwhile, disapproval of Trump’s presidency has increased more significantly. The latest poll found that 51% of Americans disapproved of his job performance, a notable jump from 41% in the immediate aftermath of his return to office.

Despite the overall decline in approval, Trump continues to receive considerable support for his immigration policies. The poll found that 47% of respondents approved of his stance on immigration, which includes promises to intensify deportations of undocumented migrants. This level of support has remained relatively unchanged since January.

However, economic concerns among the public appear to be growing. The percentage of Americans who believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction increased to 53% in the latest poll, up from 43% in the January 24-26 survey. Additionally, public confidence in Trump’s handling of the economy has dropped. His approval rating for economic management fell from 43% in the previous poll to 39% in the most recent one.

Economic performance has been a cornerstone of Trump’s political appeal, with many voters believing that his policies would benefit the economy. His current approval rating on economic matters is still higher than the final rating of his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, who left office with just 34% approval on economic issues. However, Trump’s standing on this front has weakened compared to earlier in his presidency. In February 2017, during the first full month of his first term, Reuters/Ipsos polling showed him with a 53% approval rating on the economy.

Inflation remains a particularly troubling issue for Trump. In the latest survey, only 32% of respondents approved of his handling of inflation, signaling potential early disappointment in his economic policies. This follows several years of rising prices, which contributed to Biden’s struggles in the last presidential election. Trump won that election by securing a victory in the Electoral College while also narrowly winning the popular vote against Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris.

Recent data from the U.S. Labor Department highlights ongoing economic challenges, as consumer prices in January rose at their fastest rate in nearly a year and a half. Americans are facing higher costs for various goods and services, and additional economic reports suggest that U.S. households anticipate inflation to increase further. These concerns have been exacerbated by Trump’s February 1 announcement of steep tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada.

Although tariffs on Mexico and Canada have been postponed until March, Trump has set March 12 as the start date for other duties on imported steel and aluminum. He has also instructed his administration to design a system of global reciprocal tariffs.

The poll reveals that the majority of Americans are not in favor of new tariffs on imported goods. Fifty-four percent of respondents opposed such measures, while 41% expressed support. However, the public appears to be more divided on tariffs specifically targeting Chinese imports. In this case, 49% of respondents were in favor, while 47% were opposed.

Conducted online, the Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,145 U.S. adults across the country. The survey has a margin of error of approximately two percentage points in either direction

Indian-Americans, H-1B Visas, and the Struggle for Fair Recognition

February 15, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology 0

The H-1B visa program, designed to help U.S. businesses access specialized foreign professionals, has become a battleground for political and cultural disputes. Prominent figures like former President Donald Trump and entrepreneur Elon Musk champion the program, emphasizing its role in sustaining American innovation and global competitiveness. However, staunch MAGA conservatives such as Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller strongly oppose it, arguing that it displaces American workers and lowers wages. This division within the MAGA movement has intensified the controversy, placing Indian professionals—the largest group of H-1B recipients—at the center of a heated national debate, inadvertently casting a shadow over the broader Indian-American community.

For Indian-Americans like myself, especially those active on social media, the hostility directed at H-1B visa holders has become deeply personal and often toxic. My social media feed on X is inundated with inflammatory rhetoric, misleading information, and outright racist commentary. The criticism extends beyond immigration and employment issues, touching even my religion—Hinduism—which is frequently distorted, ridiculed, or misrepresented. What initially began as a policy discussion has morphed into an aggressive campaign against Indian professionals and their cultural identity.

These narratives are not limited to online platforms; they reverberate across global media. News outlets in India and beyond amplify these stories, portraying the United States as a nation struggling with racism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance. This depiction damages America’s reputation abroad, leading many to believe that the American dream is fading. Such perceptions overlook the significant contributions Indian-Americans have made to this country in various fields.

However, both the critics of the H-1B visa program and international skeptics fail to grasp the full picture. Indian-Americans are not defined by these attacks. They are not passive participants in America’s story—they are key contributors shaping its present and future. Through leadership, innovation, and an unwavering commitment to American ideals, Indian-Americans are helping propel the nation forward.

Indian-Americans are excelling in government, business, and technology, redefining leadership roles at every level. Kash Patel, a prominent attorney, is poised to assume the leadership of the FBI. Harmeet Dhillon, a civil rights lawyer from Chandigarh, has been appointed Assistant Attorney General. Meanwhile, entrepreneur and political commentator Vivek Ramaswamy is considering a run for governor in Ohio, potentially becoming the first Indian-American to lead a crucial swing state.

Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a practicing Hindu, has been selected by President Trump to serve as Director of National Intelligence. Her appointment highlights the increasing presence of Indian-Americans in national security and the growing recognition of religious diversity in U.S. leadership. Gabbard’s outspoken embrace of her Hindu faith underscores the need to counter religious prejudice with education and pride.

In another historic milestone, Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, has become the first Indian-American Second Lady. A highly respected legal expert and former clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Usha Vance exemplifies the contributions Indian-Americans continue to make to the country’s political and cultural landscape.

These figures represent just a fraction of the Indian-American impact on the U.S. Across generations, Indian-Americans have shattered barriers and transformed industries. Vice President Kamala Harris, whose mother immigrated from India, became the highest-ranking woman in U.S. history, with a potential path to the presidency. Tech industry titans Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella continue to lead Google and Microsoft, revolutionizing the global technology sector.

Indian-American influence extends far beyond government and technology. In healthcare, approximately 100,000 Indian-American doctors and medical professionals serve communities across the country, providing essential care and contributing to medical advancements. In academia, Indian professors and researchers are shaping disciplines, mentoring future generations, and pushing the boundaries of scientific discovery. Their influence reaches finance, where Indian-Americans hold executive roles in major financial institutions, and entertainment, where they enrich American culture through storytelling and artistic expression.

Despite these remarkable achievements, Indian-Americans remain grounded in their heritage while embracing their American identity. They do not engage in divisive acts like flag-burning or denouncing their adopted homeland. Instead, they celebrate America’s values, contribute actively to its progress, and turn obstacles into opportunities. They take immense pride in their dual identities, strengthening the fabric of American society.

Nevertheless, criticisms of the H-1B visa program are not entirely unfounded. The program has undoubtedly provided a gateway for skilled professionals to contribute to the U.S. economy, but it is far from perfect. Many employers exploit the system, using it as a means to underpay workers and sideline American job seekers. For visa holders, the H-1B process often feels like a form of modern indentured servitude, trapping them in bureaucratic backlogs and limiting their career mobility.

The uncertainty surrounding visa renewals, coupled with the inability to change jobs freely, places immense stress on H-1B workers and their families. These structural flaws highlight the urgent need for reform. The system should be designed to reward merit and contributions rather than create hurdles that impede talented professionals from fully integrating into the workforce.

Fixing the H-1B program is not just about fairness—it is about unlocking the full potential of America’s workforce. Meaningful reform would introduce greater transparency, establish wage protections, and ensure that skilled immigrants are not exploited. By addressing these issues, the U.S. can maintain its competitive edge in science, technology, and innovation. With Silicon Valley’s continued advocacy and influence on policymakers, there is hope that these longstanding problems will finally be resolved.

The story of Indian-Americans is one of perseverance, ambition, and extraordinary success. They have overcome adversity, broken through barriers, and left an indelible mark on every sector of American life. Their contributions far outweigh the hostility of critics, proving that America remains a land of opportunity for those who strive to make a difference.

By reforming broken systems and addressing systemic challenges, the U.S. can fully harness the talents of Indian-Americans and other immigrant communities. This is not just about fixing an immigration policy—it is about reaffirming the principles that make America a beacon of hope and progress.

Indian-Americans will continue to rise above the noise, driven by resilience and the pursuit of excellence. Their presence in leadership, business, and innovation will shape America’s future, ensuring that the nation remains at the forefront of global progress. The challenges they face only serve to strengthen their resolve, reinforcing the idea that hard work and determination can overcome even the most entrenched prejudices.

In the end, the American dream remains alive—not just for Indian-Americans but for all who believe in the promise of a better future through perseverance and contribution.

Trump Administration Moves to Eliminate Federal DEI Roles

January 23, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

The Trump administration has mandated that all federal employees working in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) roles be placed on administrative leave by Wednesday evening, with agencies required to devise plans to terminate these positions by the end of the month.

This directive, issued via a memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on Tuesday, marks a significant reversal of the DEI policies instituted by the previous administration. The memo demands immediate action, giving federal agencies until 5 p.m. ET Wednesday to suspend DEI employees with paid leave and remove all online content related to DEI offices. By January 31, agencies are expected to submit comprehensive plans for a “reduction-in-force” targeting these positions.

The memorandum further orders the cancellation of all DEI-related training and contracts. Additionally, federal employees are encouraged to report any programs that might be attempting to continue DEI efforts under alternative labels, warning of “adverse consequences” for failing to comply.

The exact number of federal employees impacted by these changes remains unclear. However, the White House has framed the move as a positive development for the country.

“President Trump campaigned on ending the scourge of DEI from our federal government and returning America to a merit-based society where people are hired based on their skills, not for the color of their skin,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday night.

President Trump, during his campaign, made dismantling DEI initiatives a central promise, claiming such programs undermine fairness and meritocracy. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at closing all federal DEI offices, describing them as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.”

The broader Republican movement has frequently targeted DEI programs as part of an effort to oppose what they label as “woke” policies. Critics argue that these initiatives promote reverse discrimination and exacerbate racial divisions. For instance, during the election, some used “DEI hire” accusations as a pointed critique of Vice President Kamala Harris, implying her position was influenced by such policies.

Advocates for DEI, however, contend that these programs are essential tools for fostering equality in education and workplaces. They argue that DEI initiatives help diversify recruitment and retention efforts, allowing organizations to draw talent from nontraditional backgrounds. While acknowledging that DEI efforts may have imperfections, proponents emphasize their role in creating more equitable opportunities across various sectors.

Donald Trump Sworn In As The 47th US President

January 20, 2025January 21, 2025 Ajay GhoshWorld, USA 0

“The golden age of America begins right now,” declared Donald Trump in his inaugural address on January 20, 2025, immediately after he was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. Trump said the US would “flourish and be respected” under his leadership. Trump is taking charge of the world’s most powerful nation, even as the Republicans claim unified control of Washington and setting out to reshape the country’s institutions.

Trump was sworn in by Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts, marking a political comeback after being convicted of felonies. His running mate, JD Vance, was sworn in by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The ceremony was moved inside to the U.S. Capitol Rotunda because of frigid weather for only the first time since Ronald Reagan’s second inauguration 40 years ago.

Photos of the swearing-in show Trump with his hand at his side, not on the Bible, as has been a long held tradition. Using a Bible during the presidential oath is traditional but not required; only the oath is mandated by the Constitution. Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams, and Lyndon B. Johnson did not use a Bible for their oaths.

The high-profile, solemn ceremony was attended by, among others, Tech billionaires, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, cabinet nominees, and former presidents, who were all at the ceremony in the rotunda of the US Capitol. Country music star Carrie Underwood performed “America the Beautiful.”

President Donald Trump claimed today, January 20, 2025, is “liberation day.” He went on to state that, “It is my hope that our recent presidential election will be remembered as the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” Trump added that his presidential victory showed that “the entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda with dramatic increases in support from virtually every element of our society.”

Inauguration ceremony for Trump's second presidential term — Photo Credit: Reuters

He went on to thank Black and Hispanic voters for “the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote. We set records and I will not forget it,” the president said. “I’ve heard your voices on the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come.”

In his inaugural address Trump slammed the Biden administration — as former President Joe Biden sat steps away — for failing to “manage simple crisis at home. We now have a government that cannot manage a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumble into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad,” Trump said.

Per reports, Trump is expected to sign an executive order declaring that the federal government would recognize only two genders as well as a series of orders aimed at remaking America’s immigration policies, including ending asylum access, sending troops to the southern border and ending birthright citizenship.

Focusing on immigration, a major focus of his new administration, Trump said, the government “fails to protect our magnificent law-abiding citizens but proves sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals. We have a government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders or, more importantly, its own people.”

Hours before the change in US leadership, President Joe Biden issued pardons for Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and members of Congress who served on the committee investigating January 6. He also issued preemptive pardons for his brothers, James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and their spouses.

A coalition of veterans, public health professionals, teachers, and consumer advocates has filed a federal lawsuit against Trump’s special commission on government efficiency. Filed after Trump’s swearing-in, the suit seeks an injunction against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It claims Trump is not complying with federal transparency laws and argues that private commission activities must be public. Trump mentioned DOGE, led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in his inauguration speech.

Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, delivered the first benediction after Trump’s inaugural address. He is the second Orthodox rabbi to do so at a presidential inauguration. The tradition of clergy offering prayers at inaugurations dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second inauguration in 1937. Rev. Lorenzo Sewell, pastor of 180 Church Detroit, delivered the second benediction, expressing gratitude for the “millimeter miracle” given to the 45th and 47th presidents.

Trump’s Unfulfilled Promises

Ordinarily, presidents wait until they are in the Oval Office before breaking campaign promises. However, Donald Trump began this process before Inauguration Day. As a candidate, Trump promised to lower grocery prices. As president-elect, he acknowledged that achieving this goal would be “very hard” and expressed uncertainty about his ability to do so.

Trump had claimed that Elon Musk would find ways to cut “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget. As president-elect, his GOP megadonor publicly stated that the $2 trillion figure was more of a “best-case outcome” than a realistic goal, though there might still be a “good shot” at achieving half of it.

Perhaps most notably, Trump asserted during his campaign that he would successfully broker an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours, even during his transition period. He reiterated this promise during his presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, assuring Americans that “I will get it settled before I even become president.”

Despite these assurances, as Trump prepares to return to the White House, it is evident that this promise remains unfulfilled. Nearly three years after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the war, Europe’s worst since World War II, continues with no end in sight. The New York Times published an analysis noting that Trump “not only has failed to keep his promise; he has also made no known serious effort to resolve the war since his election in November.”

In summary, the president-elect did not attempt to honor his commitment. This was not merely a one-time statement; according to data published by NOTUS, Trump told voters on 33 occasions that he would end the conflict within one day. A recent Reuters report added that the president-elect’s team now concedes “that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise.”

A New Beginning in 2025

Trump’s second inaugural speech today marked a major departure from his tone the first time he took the Oath of Office in 2017, when Trump put aside the typical optimism and promises of unity with a dark portrait of national life as he spoke of “American Carnage.” He had declared then, “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.”

However, today, Trump portrayed himself in a positive manner. “Many people thought it was impossible for me to stage such a historic political comeback, but as you see here today, here I am,” Trump said in his inaugural address in 2025. “I stand before you now as proof that you should never believe that something is impossible to do in America,” he went on, adding: “In America, the impossible is what we do best.”

Biden’s Final Farewell: A Reflective End to a Half-Century Political Journey

January 19, 2025January 21, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

As President Joe Biden delivered his farewell addresses to his diplomatic corps, military leaders, and the nation, the scene contrasted sharply with the vision he had for the end of his political career. After over 50 years in Washington, Biden’s departure on Monday is marked by reluctance, as he firmly believes he had more to contribute. However, questions about his health and vitality linger.

Biden’s record in office is a mixture of achievements and lingering frustrations. His political career’s conclusion has left him estranged from some former allies who urged him to step aside. Many Democrats blame him for paving the way for Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Furthermore, his relationship with Vice President Kamala Harris has become strained, adding complexity to his final days in office.

As Biden departs Washington on his helicopter, the city he leaves behind is now under the control of his rival Trump. Biden’s ambition to solidify his legacy as the leader who vanquished Trump once and for all has given way to a more somber reality. Instead of being remembered as a transformative statesman, Biden fears he will be seen as an interim figure between two Trump administrations.

“While my term in office is ending, the work continues,” Biden said during a speech to mayors on Friday, signaling hope for the future while reflecting on his presidency.

A Term Defined by Highs and Lows

Biden’s presidency was eventful, defined by significant challenges and mixed outcomes. He guided the nation out of a devastating pandemic but faced criticism for the inflation that followed, partly fueled by his stimulus spending. Although he ended Trump-era immigration policies deemed inhumane, the surge in illegal crossings and the eventual reinstatement of some restrictions sparked backlash.

In foreign policy, Biden made the historic decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, ending the nation’s longest war. However, the chaotic and deadly withdrawal left a lasting stain on his administration. The war in Ukraine saw renewed alliances with Western nations, but the conflict continues with no clear resolution. In the Middle East, Biden brokered a last-minute ceasefire in Gaza, but critics noted Trump’s role in securing the deal.

Domestically, Biden’s investments in infrastructure and manufacturing created thousands of jobs, fostering new industries. Yet, as Biden himself acknowledged, “It will take time to feel the full impact of all we’ve done together. But the seeds are planted, and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.”

A Legacy of Contradictions

Biden’s efforts to restore normalcy to the presidency after Trump’s tumultuous years were overshadowed by decisions such as pardoning his son, Hunter. Despite criticism, he remains hopeful that history will ultimately recognize the merits of his administration.

During a 19-minute farewell address from the Oval Office, Biden emphasized the long-term impact of his presidency rather than listing immediate accomplishments. He also warned against the rise of a “tech-industrial complex” that he believes threatens democratic institutions. Critics, however, noted his reliance on financial support from billionaires, including those in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

“He’s forever frustrated we didn’t tell a good enough story about what the administration did,” a senior White House official remarked, highlighting Biden’s concerns about how his achievements were communicated to the public.

Biden’s allies remain optimistic about his legacy. “I think historians are not gonna be dealing with sound bites… They’re going to deal with the substance, and on substance, I think you’re going to find that Joe Biden is going to be treated very, very well,” said Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Strained Dynamics with Harris

As Biden’s presidency concludes, his comments about the election have strained his relationship with Kamala Harris. Biden has suggested in private conversations and interviews that he could have defeated Trump had he not been pressured to step aside. “It’s presumptuous to say that, but I think yes, based on the polling,” Biden told USA Today. However, polling data offered no such indication.

Every mention of Biden’s belief that he could have won is seen as a slight against Harris, who ultimately failed to defeat Trump. A former Harris adviser noted, “It’s a sign of disrespect whether he intends it or not.”

Although Biden has not directly criticized Harris, his remarks have caused friction within the Democratic Party. Harris’ supporters have expressed frustration over her unwavering loyalty to Biden during her campaign, with one former adviser commenting, “She was loyal to her detriment.”

The tension between Biden and Harris became evident when Biden modified his language after a conversation with Harris about his election comments. “I think I would have beaten Trump, could’ve beaten Trump,” Biden said. “I think Kamala could have beaten Trump, would have beaten Trump.” While the adjustment aimed to acknowledge Harris’ efforts, it further frustrated her supporters.

Despite these tensions, Harris has maintained a public show of unity with Biden. In the final days of their partnership, she stood by his side during key moments, including the announcement of the Middle East ceasefire deal and his farewell address from the Oval Office.

Reflecting on the Road Ahead

Biden’s departure from public office marks the end of a remarkable political career. As the nation’s youngest senator in 1972 and its oldest president, Biden is set to enter private life while remaining engaged in public discourse. “I’m not going to be out of sight or out of mind,” he assured reporters.

Biden’s post-presidency plans include raising funds for a presidential library and potentially writing a book. His legacy, however, remains a topic of debate. Democratic leaders have expressed a desire to move past the 2024 election losses. “This is our reality, and we have to move forward,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California.

Harris, 22 years younger than Biden, faces a different set of challenges. Many believe her political career is far from over, with possibilities ranging from a 2026 bid for California governor to a 2028 presidential campaign. “It is not my nature to go quietly into the night,” Harris told staffers, signaling her intent to remain active in politics.

A Complicated Legacy

As Biden and Harris part ways, their final days reflect the divergent paths they will take. Biden’s focus will shift to solidifying his legacy and ensuring his contributions are recognized. Harris, on the other hand, must navigate the challenges of shaping her own political future.

For Biden, the hope remains that time will provide a more favorable assessment of his presidency. “The seeds are planted,” he said, “and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.” Whether those seeds bear fruit as he hopes, only history will tell.

Indian American Representation in Congress Hits Record High

January 16, 2025January 18, 2025 Staff ReporterCommunity 0

Indian American representation in Congress has reached new heights, as lawmakers reflect on the growth of the community’s political presence. The 119th Congress saw the swearing-in of a record number of Indian American lawmakers, with Representative Suhas Subramanyam joining a growing cohort of trailblazing politicians.

Representative Ami Bera, the first Indian American elected to Congress, reflected on the strides made since he took office in 2013. “When I first took office in 2013, I was the only Indian American Member of Congress and the third ever in our nation’s history,” Bera remarked. “Since that day, I have been committed to ensuring we grow our representation in Congress. In the past decade, I am proud to be joined by incredible Indian American colleagues from around the country – Representatives Jayapal, Khanna, Krishnamoorthi, and Thanedar. With the swearing-in of the 119th Congress, our cohort has grown to a record six members with the election of Representative Subramanyam in Virginia. I look forward to welcoming even more Indian American Members of Congress in the future!”

Indian American lawmakers have long been part of the political fabric in the U.S., with their numbers steadily increasing over the years. Representative Pramila Jayapal, who emigrated from India as a teenager, shared her personal journey to Congress. “I first came to the United States from India when I was 16 years old, by myself and with nothing in my pockets. My parents sacrificed so much to send me here, where they believed I would have the best opportunities. Now, I’m proud to be one of the six Indian Americans serving in Congress and the only Indian American woman to ever be elected to the House of Representatives,” Jayapal said. “I’m thrilled that we are growing our ‘Samosa Caucus’ in this Congress with Representative Subramanyam and I look forward to continuing to work closely with these colleagues to deliver for our constituents and the country’s Indian American communities.”

Diversity and collaboration have been central to the success of the Indian American lawmakers’ coalition, with Representative Ro Khanna highlighting the role of the India Caucus in advancing U.S.-India relations. “As Co-Chair of the India Caucus, I’m proud to serve in this diverse Congress alongside a record number of Indian Americans and I’m excited to welcome Representative Suhas Subramanyam,” Khanna stated. “I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 119th Congress to strengthen America’s defense and strategic partnership with India.”

The term “Samosa Caucus” has become synonymous with Indian American lawmakers, coined by Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi to describe the growing group. Reflecting on its growth, Krishnamoorthi said, “Eight years ago I was proud to coin the phrase ‘Samosa Caucus’ for our diverse and dedicated group of Indian American lawmakers in Congress. Today, our historic Indian American representation continues to grow in Congress. I want to welcome Representative Subramanyam as the Samosa Caucus’s newest member, and look forward to working with him and my other Indian American colleagues to not only deliver for our constituents but pave the way for future generations of Indian Americans who wish to serve in Congress too.”

For Representative Shri Thanedar, an immigrant from India, his story is a testament to the American Dream. “When I first moved to this country from India, I arrived with just $20 in my pocket. Like so many immigrants before and after me, I came to America with a passion for hard work and a belief in our land of opportunity,” Thanedar recalled. “Today, I find myself in the United States Congress with a chance to promote the American Dream for people with stories like mine. Alongside our growing number of Indian-American lawmakers, I am excited about the prospect of supporting both the Indian-American community, my constituents in Michigan, and any other American who wants to chase their own American Dream.”

Representative Subramanyam’s election marked a historic moment for Virginia, as he became the first Indian American to represent the state in Congress. He expressed his gratitude for the opportunity, especially sharing the moment with his parents, who immigrated to the U.S. over 50 years ago. “This past Friday, my parents, who immigrated from India over 50 years ago, had the unique privilege of watching me be sworn in as the first Indian American to ever represent Virginia, and the entire East Coast, in Congress,” Subramanyam said. “My story is one that could only happen in a place like America. I am humbled to represent the Commonwealth alongside my fellow Indian American colleagues in Congress from across the country. And while I may be the first from Virginia, I am confident that I will not be the last.”

The significance of Indian American contributions to the fabric of American society extends beyond Congress, with notable figures excelling in various fields, from technology to medicine. Prominent Indian Americans lead some of the country’s most influential companies, such as Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Sundar Pichai of Google, Shantanu Narayen of Adobe, Arvind Krishna of IBM, and Raj Subramaniam of FedEx. These figures represent the growing influence of the Indian American community, reflecting the success of generations of immigrants who have made their mark in different industries.

The first Indian American to serve in Congress was Dalip Singh Saund, who represented California in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1957 to 1963. For many years, Saund was the sole Indian American presence in federal government, with Piyush “Bobby” Jindal being the only other member of Indian descent in the years between Saund’s tenure and the election of Representative Ami Bera in 2012.

The election of Kamala Harris to the U.S. Senate in 2016 was another milestone in Indian American political history. Harris, the first Indian American woman to serve in the Senate, made further history in 2020 when she became the first woman and first person of color elected Vice President of the United States. In 2024, she made history again by becoming the first woman of color to be nominated for president by a major party.

Vice President Harris’ groundbreaking political career has had a profound impact on Indian Americans across the nation. Her achievements have inspired many to follow in her footsteps, running for office at every level of government. The surge in Indian American political representation in recent years is indicative of a broader trend in which Indian Americans are increasingly recognized as essential voices in shaping U.S. policy and decision-making.

With the growing momentum, the next decade promises even more Indian Americans in political leadership roles. Lawmakers like Representative Bera are confident that this trend will continue, strengthening the Indian American community’s presence in shaping the country’s future. As Bera stated, “I look forward to welcoming even more Indian American Members of Congress in the future!”

Indian Americans have long been part of the American political landscape, and as the numbers continue to grow, their contributions to public service will undoubtedly continue to inspire future generations.

Joe Biden’s Tumultuous Presidency: Achievements, Missteps, and the Road to Trump’s Return

January 14, 2025January 17, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Standing at a lectern in Washington’s National Cathedral, Joe Biden eulogized former President Jimmy Carter as three former presidents—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—and Donald Trump looked on. Biden, like Carter, is a one-term president. The parallels were evident as Biden paid tribute to Carter, commending his foresight and achievements in civil rights, peace, nuclear non-proliferation, and environmental protection.

“Many think he was from a bygone era, but in reality, he saw well into the future,” Biden said.

Earlier that week, Biden reflected on his own presidency. “I hope history says I came in with a plan to restore the economy and America’s global leadership,” he stated in an interview. “And I hope it records that I did it with honesty and integrity.”

As Biden prepares to leave office with approval ratings near their lowest at 39%, history’s judgment remains uncertain. His presidency ends with his 2020 opponent, Donald Trump, poised to reclaim power, framing Biden’s tenure as a bridge between Trump’s two terms.

Author and strategist Susan Estrich summarized Biden’s legacy as one tied to Trump. “He’d like his legacy to be that he rescued us from Trump. But sadly, for him, it’s Trump again.”

Early Missteps and Challenges

Biden’s presidency faced setbacks from its early days. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was a turning point. Though the Trump administration had negotiated the exit, Biden approved it despite military advisors’ warnings. The resulting turmoil in Kabul damaged Biden’s approval, which fell below 50% and never recovered.

Domestically, inflation surged past 5% for the first time in 30 years by mid-2021. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Biden initially called it “transitory,” a stance contradicted by economists like Larry Summers. By June 2022, inflation peaked at 9.1%, forcing the administration to concede its miscalculations. Although inflation later dropped below 3%, public sentiment remained pessimistic.

The administration also struggled with the post-Covid surge in undocumented migration and was unprepared for Republican-led efforts to relocate migrants to northern cities. Other crises—shortages in Covid tests, rising egg prices, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade—compounded public dissatisfaction.

While many challenges were global in scope, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, they heightened the stakes for Biden, who sought to position Democrats as a competent counterweight to authoritarian regimes.

Biden’s Public Perception

Biden’s communication skills, once praised, appeared diminished. A senior White House official noted, “Watching Biden speak, I’m like, oh my God, this is a different person.” Special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents described him as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” reinforcing Republican attacks on his age.

The administration restricted Biden’s media interactions and carefully scripted his public appearances. Yet verbal gaffes and stumbles became ammunition for opponents. Biden’s age became a defining issue, particularly as his performance in public events appeared inconsistent.

Legislative Wins and Long-Term Goals

Despite challenges, Biden’s administration achieved significant legislative milestones. Early successes included the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan, which funded Covid vaccine distribution and reduced child poverty to record lows. His bipartisan infrastructure bill allocated $1 trillion to transportation, clean energy, and broadband expansion.

However, critics like historian Brent Cebul argued that the administration’s focus on long-term policy outcomes was out of sync with voters’ immediate needs. Biden himself admitted the delay in tangible benefits during a later interview.

Internal Struggles and Political Battles

Biden’s team excelled at navigating narrow congressional majorities, but internal dynamics became strained over time. A senior official admitted that as progress stalled, “infighting and frustration” grew. The administration faced mounting Republican opposition, including hearings on Afghanistan, Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and an impeachment inquiry in September 2023.

Biden’s presidency was marked by two distinct phases, says Cebul. The early period saw major accomplishments, but the later years were defined by less focus and greater public dissatisfaction.

A Beleaguered Re-election Campaign

On April 25, 2023, Biden announced his re-election campaign, framing it as a battle against Trump’s “extremists.” He championed “Bidenomics,” touting economic growth and inflation reduction. However, his message failed to resonate with many Americans.

During a June 2023 trip to Chicago, Biden emphasized restoring the American dream. “Bidenomics is about the future,” he declared. Yet his halting delivery and missteps undermined the message. Cebul criticized Biden’s focus on economic success, calling it “discordant” given public sentiment.

Despite internal and external doubts, Biden maintained he was the best candidate to defeat Trump. “I’m not a young guy,” he acknowledged in a campaign ad, “but I understand how to get things done for the American people.”

New Crises: Hamas and Hunter Biden

The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel added another challenge to Biden’s presidency. While Biden cautioned Israel against overreach, domestic support for his handling of the conflict waned.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s legal troubles, including a gun charge conviction and tax-related indictments, became a distraction. Biden’s decision to pardon his son after November’s election drew widespread criticism.

The End of a Presidency

Biden’s campaign effectively ended during a June debate with Trump in Atlanta. His confused performance reinforced concerns about his age and capabilities. Trump’s subsequent resurgence, marked by a unified party convention and response to an assassination attempt, solidified his lead.

In July, Biden withdrew from the race. Kamala Harris, Biden’s chosen successor, lost to Trump in the general election, sealing the final judgment on Biden’s political career as one of defeat.

Reflecting on Biden’s decision to seek re-election, Estrich argued, “We should have had primaries. His successor would have had time to make the case.”

Biden’s Legacy in Retrospect

Had Biden stepped aside after one term, his legacy might have been different. Avoiding a grueling campaign could have allowed him to be remembered for legislative achievements rather than missteps.

With Trump’s imminent return to office, much of Biden’s work faces potential dismantling. Attorney General Merrick Garland succinctly captured the uncertainty surrounding Biden’s legacy: “I’ll leave that to the historians.”

As Biden departs the White House, his presidency is framed by the successes of his early years and the challenges that defined its conclusion. His ultimate place in history rests on how the next chapter of American politics unfolds.

Biden Administration Removes Unpaid Medical Debt from Credit Reports, Opening Doors for Millions of Americans

January 9, 2025 Staff ReporterHealth 0

In a significant move to alleviate financial burdens for millions of Americans, the Biden administration has announced a final rule that will remove unpaid medical bills from credit reports. This change, unveiled on Tuesday, aims to prevent medical debt from hindering individuals’ access to mortgages, car loans, and small business loans.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the new rule will result in the removal of approximately $49 billion in medical debt from the credit reports of over 15 million Americans. This adjustment means that lenders will no longer be able to factor in unpaid medical bills when assessing loan applications.

The change is expected to have a noticeable impact on credit scores, with an average increase of 20 points for affected individuals. As a result, an estimated 22,000 additional mortgages could be approved each year. Vice President Kamala Harris, in a statement issued alongside the rule’s announcement, expressed her belief that the new measure would be “lifechanging” for millions of families across the country.

“No one should be denied economic opportunity because they got sick or experienced a medical emergency,” Harris remarked, underscoring the importance of the new rule for individuals whose creditworthiness had been unfairly impacted by medical expenses.

Additionally, Harris highlighted that states and local governments, utilizing the federal pandemic-era relief package from 2021, have already forgiven more than $1 billion in medical debt for over 700,000 Americans. This initiative has helped ease the financial struggles of many who have been burdened by medical costs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration’s plan to remove medical debt from credit reports was first announced in the fall of 2023, marking a significant step in addressing the financial strain caused by rising healthcare costs. The CFPB explained that medical debt is not a reliable indicator of a person’s ability to repay a loan, making it an unjust factor to include in credit evaluations.

In line with these developments, major credit reporting agencies—Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion—announced last year that they would no longer include medical collections debt under $500 on consumer credit reports. This move was an early sign of a growing recognition that medical debt does not necessarily reflect an individual’s financial reliability.

The new rule from the Biden administration builds on these earlier efforts by targeting the larger issue of outstanding medical debt on credit reports. The decision reflects a broader effort to improve economic access for individuals who are struggling with health-related financial hardships.

This shift in policy comes at a crucial time when healthcare costs continue to be a leading cause of financial strain for Americans. Medical bills have long been a barrier to financial well-being, often causing credit scores to drop significantly even when the debt stems from unavoidable circumstances such as emergencies or illness.

By removing medical debt from credit reports, the administration is aiming to level the playing field for individuals who may have faced unexpected medical emergencies but are otherwise financially responsible. The change is expected to make a significant difference in the lives of those who have been previously locked out of credit opportunities due to medical debt.

Experts have long pointed out the disconnect between medical debt and a person’s ability to repay loans. As the CFPB noted, medical debt is not necessarily an accurate measure of an individual’s overall financial health. Medical emergencies, which are often unpredictable and expensive, should not define a person’s creditworthiness. The new rule is expected to help rectify this by removing a substantial portion of medical debt from credit reports, allowing millions of Americans to rebuild their financial standing.

As part of the ongoing efforts to support those impacted by medical debt, Vice President Harris also emphasized the role of state and local governments in addressing the issue. The pandemic-era aid package provided the financial means for states to step in and relieve substantial amounts of medical debt. “More than $1 billion in medical debt has been wiped out for over 700,000 Americans,” Harris announced, highlighting the substantial efforts that have already been made to provide relief.

The rule’s implementation is expected to take effect in the coming months, with many hopeful that it will lead to a marked improvement in the financial outlook for millions of Americans. By addressing the root cause of credit score disparities, the Biden administration aims to promote greater economic fairness and help those who have been burdened by healthcare-related debt regain access to essential financial services.

The CFPB’s decision is a clear indication of the growing recognition that the U.S. healthcare system’s impact on personal finances is a serious issue. As medical bills continue to rise, individuals are often faced with the difficult choice of paying for care or risking their financial future. The new rule seeks to ease this burden and ensure that medical debt does not unduly harm people’s ability to secure loans or other forms of financial assistance.

Moreover, the rule aligns with broader efforts to improve consumer protection and ensure that credit reporting systems reflect a more accurate and equitable picture of an individual’s financial situation. The Biden administration’s move to remove medical debt from credit reports is expected to lead to a broader overhaul of how consumer credit is evaluated in the future.

In conclusion, the final rule announced by the Biden administration represents a significant step forward in the fight to address the financial toll of medical debt. By removing $49 billion in medical debt from the credit reports of millions of Americans, the new policy promises to make a meaningful difference in the lives of individuals and families who have been unfairly penalized due to health emergencies. Vice President Kamala Harris’s statement that the rule will be “lifechanging” for many underscores the transformative potential of this policy change. As more Americans gain access to fairer credit opportunities, this rule could open doors for those who have long been locked out of financial resources due to circumstances beyond their control.

Jimmy Carter Dies at 100: Tributes Pour in for Former President

December 30, 2024January 3, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100. The Carter Center confirmed that he was “surrounded by his family” at his home in Plains, Georgia, during his final moments on Sunday. His death marks the end of a remarkable life that included his time as a Navy lieutenant, peanut farmer, governor, and president.

The announcement prompted a wave of tributes from world leaders, including current and former U.S. presidents, who reflected on Carter’s enduring legacy. Preparations for a state funeral are underway to honor the only former U.S. president to reach the milestone age of 100.

Remembered by Leaders Across the Political Spectrum

President Joe Biden praised Carter’s life and character, calling him a “model of what it means to live a life of meaning and purpose.” In his statement on Sunday, Biden remarked, “He stands as a model of principle, faith, and humility. His life was dedicated to others.” Biden also expressed deep personal sorrow, describing Carter as a “dear friend.”

Vice President Kamala Harris joined the chorus of condolences, emphasizing Carter’s moral integrity and faith. “Carter was guided by a deep and abiding faith — in God, in America, and in humanity,” Harris said. She highlighted his ability to remind the nation and the world of “the strength in decency and compassion.”

Donald Trump, the president-elect, also paid his respects. While noting that he “strongly disagreed with [Carter] philosophically and politically,” Trump described him with “highest respect” and acknowledged Americans’ collective “debt of gratitude.”

State Funeral Plans

A series of public observances will take place to commemorate Carter’s legacy, beginning in Atlanta and Washington, D.C. A private interment will follow in Plains, Georgia, the small town where Carter was born and spent much of his life. Final arrangements are still being planned, and the ceremonies will be conducted by the Department of Defense’s Joint Task Force – National Capital Region.

A Life of Service and Principles

Before entering politics, Carter served as a U.S. Navy lieutenant and managed his family’s peanut farm in Georgia. His career in public service began when he was elected as Georgia’s governor, eventually leading to his presidency from 1977 to 1981.

Carter’s time in the White House was marked by significant accomplishments and challenges, including brokering the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Although his presidency was limited to one term, Carter remained an influential figure on the global stage through his humanitarian and advocacy work.

Tributes from Past Presidents and World Leaders

Other living former U.S. presidents also expressed their sorrow over Carter’s death. Barack Obama described him as “a beacon of moral clarity,” George W. Bush referred to him as a “great American,” and Bill Clinton honored his lifelong dedication to public service.

Condolences also poured in from leaders across the globe. Heads of state and lawmakers praised Carter’s unwavering commitment to peace, human rights, and humanitarian causes, reflecting the deep respect he garnered internationally.

Rosalynn Carter’s Legacy

Carter’s passing comes just a month after the death of his wife, Rosalynn Carter, who died in November 2023 at the age of 96. The couple had been married for over 75 years, making them the longest-married presidential couple in U.S. history. Rosalynn was widely recognized for her advocacy for mental health and humanitarian efforts, often working alongside her husband in their shared pursuits.

Honoring Carter’s Legacy

Jimmy Carter’s century-long life stands as a testament to a life well-lived in service to others. As President Biden aptly noted, he represented “faith and humility,” qualities that will continue to inspire generations.

The nation and the world now prepare to bid farewell to a leader whose legacy transcends politics, leaving behind a lasting imprint on history.

Trump’s Historic Comeback: A Journey of Struggles, Achievements, and American Resilience

December 30, 2024 Ajay GhoshUSA, Nation 0

Vinod George Abraham, CISA, CPA M.S (Tax)

In 2024, former President Donald Trump achieved a remarkable political victory, one that could reshape the future of America. After facing unprecedented challenges, including unfair treatment by political elites and the justice system, Trump made a historic comeback to win the popular vote, becoming the second president in U.S. history to regain the presidency after a loss. The first was Grover Cleveland, who defeated Benjamin Harrison in 1892, a resounding victory after losing his reelection bid four years prior. Trump, much like Cleveland, overcame immense adversity to return to the White House, earning the people’s vote in what many called a “golden age” for America.

Trump’s victory was not just a win for him, but a win for the American people, especially those tired of the Washington elite and the political establishment. The Democrats, backed by the powerful left-wing media, have long criticized Trump, claiming he was unfit for office. Despite this, he continued to fight for the people, and his resilience is evident in the battles he faced from the justice system.

The Federal Election Interference Case

One of the most significant legal challenges Trump faced was the Federal Election Interference Case, a politically motivated charge pushed by the left-wing establishment and the Justice Department. The case accused Trump and his allies of attempting to interfere with the election process, despite the overwhelming evidence showing his win was fair and square. For fair-minded people, this was a case built on a flimsy theory, and the injustice of the situation could not have been clearer. Trump fought back, and before the case even reached the Supreme Court, the American people voiced their support through their votes, ultimately proving the charges were baseless.

The Georgia Election Interference Case

Another case that gained significant attention was the Georgia Election Interference Case, which alleged that Trump had attempted to pressure state officials to change the outcome of the election. However, once again, there was no real evidence of wrongdoing. The case was nothing more than a political attack aimed at damaging Trump’s credibility. His supporters stood firm, recognizing the case for what it truly was—an attempt by Democrats to prevent his return to power.

The Classified Documents Case

The Classified Documents Case, in which Trump was accused of mishandling classified information, also became a focal point for his political opponents. The charges seemed exaggerated and politically motivated, as many saw parallels with other public officials who had mishandled sensitive materials without facing similar scrutiny. For the fair-minded, this case was another example of a biased justice system targeting Trump while ignoring the wrongdoings of others in power.

The Hush Money Case

Perhaps one of the most sensationalized cases was the Hush Money Case, which centered around alleged payments to silence individuals during the 2016 election. Once again, the charges were politically driven, aimed at tarnishing Trump’s reputation. Fair-minded individuals recognized that these charges were an attempt to distract from the real issues facing the nation. The case ultimately failed to hold any significant weight against Trump’s legacy and his enduring popularity.

The Supreme Court Victory

All of these cases were built upon novel legal theories, but ultimately, Trump triumphed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, affirming that the charges against him were based on flimsy arguments and political motivations. It was a historic win for the American legal system, which rejected the attempts to undermine a democratically elected leader. Trump’s victory was a testament to the strength of the people’s voice and the resilience of the American political system.

Trump’s Leadership: A New Era for America

Trump’s leadership has been defined by his relentless fight for the American people. His “America First” policies focused on securing the borders, reducing illegal immigration, and making the U.S. energy independent. His first tax cut, which made permanent reforms to the tax code, was a win for businesses and working-class Americans. Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which was highly successful during his first term, was a cornerstone of his immigration agenda, one that he promised to reinstate on day one of his second term.

Throughout his campaign, Trump emphasized a bold vision for America’s future. He promised to defeat inflation, lower energy costs, and restore the American dream. His proposed tariffs on foreign imports, particularly from China, were designed to protect American workers and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. By taking such a hard stance, Trump vowed to level the playing field for American businesses and consumers.

Trump’s work ethic, even at 78 years old, has been nothing short of inspiring. He tirelessly campaigned across the nation, speaking to voters in every state, whether red or blue. His message was clear: he was for the people, and he would fight for their interests no matter the obstacles.

A Golden Age for America

The promise of a “Golden Age” of America is now within reach, as Trump sets his sights on his second term in office. With the help of influential figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have joined forces to cut government waste, Trump is prepared to tackle the challenges that lie ahead. His proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) aims to reduce unnecessary spending and streamline federal operations. Trump’s ability to build alliances with former adversaries and unite the country under his vision for a prosperous America demonstrates his unparalleled political acumen.

As President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris continue to peddle optimism in the face of a faltering economy, Trump remains the only major candidate willing to confront the nation’s economic challenges head-on. His bold promises, such as revitalizing manufacturing, tackling inflation, and reducing government waste, have struck a chord with Americans who are ready for change.

Conclusion

Trump’s historic comeback is not just a personal victory but a triumph for the American people. His leadership has shown that when the people speak, nothing can stand in their way. With his unmatched work ethic, bold vision for America’s future, and unwavering commitment to putting the interests of the nation first, Trump has proven that he is a force to be reckoned with. His second term promises to bring about the Golden Age of America—a time of unparalleled prosperity, security, and national pride.

Palantir Technologies: The S&P 500’s Best-Performing Stock of 2024

December 25, 2024December 29, 2024 Staff ReporterMoney 0

The most impressive stock performer on the S&P 500 this year isn’t Nvidia or Tesla, but Palantir Technologies, a defense-focused, data-driven company led by eccentric billionaire Alex Karp. Known for its AI capabilities, Palantir has surged amidst the artificial intelligence boom and heightened expectations for defense spending.

A Record-Breaking Year

Palantir has emerged as the top-performing stock on the S&P 500 in 2024, boasting a remarkable 369% return year-to-date through Monday. Despite only joining the S&P 500 in September, much of its meteoric rise occurred in the last three months. This surge was fueled not only by the general market enthusiasm for AI-related stocks but also by heightened optimism regarding defense spending under Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Since Election Day, Palantir shares have soared 58%.

The company’s performance since its inclusion in the S&P 500 has been unparalleled. According to FactSet, its 166% rally during this period is unmatched by any other company on the index. This growth has catapulted Palantir’s market value from $37 billion to an astonishing $180 billion—a nearly ninefold increase from its $20 billion valuation during its 2020 initial public offering.

While Nvidia has also delivered impressive gains, climbing 172% this year as the leader in semiconductor technology for generative AI, it falls behind Palantir’s extraordinary ascent.

Broader Industry Success

Beyond the S&P 500, Palantir is the third-best-performing stock in 2024 among public companies with a market capitalization exceeding $50 billion. The company trails only Applovin, a marketing software firm with a 756% gain, and MicroStrategy, a prominent bitcoin investor with a 477% increase.

What Drives Palantir?

Palantir specializes in AI-powered analytics, providing solutions for managing and interpreting large data sets. Bank of America analyst Mariana Perez Mora noted earlier this year that the company benefits from “rapidly growing demand for AI platforms in both commercial and government end-markets.”

While Palantir is best known for its work with the Department of Defense, its client roster also includes prominent companies such as General Mills and United Airlines. In the third quarter alone, government contracts accounted for $408 million of the company’s $726 million in revenue.

Valuation Concerns

Despite its substantial market capitalization, Palantir’s relatively modest quarterly revenue of under $1 billion raises eyebrows. This disparity makes Palantir the most expensive stock on the S&P 500 based on its price-to-sales ratio. At 67, its ratio is nearly double that of the next-highest company, Texas Pacific Land Corporation, which stands at 37. By comparison, the S&P 500’s median price-to-sales ratio is a mere 3.

However, Perez Mora predicts that Palantir’s “dominant position in the AI-powered software market” will continue to support revenue growth and improve profitability over time.

Controversies Surrounding Palantir

Although Palantir is highly regarded for its advanced technology and impressive profit margins, the company has faced criticism, particularly from human rights groups. Ahead of its IPO, Palantir was scrutinized for its involvement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Critics linked Palantir’s data to raids targeting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

In a 2020 statement, Karp defended the company’s work, stating that its analytics helped ICE identify “people in our country who are undocumented.” He also acknowledged public concerns, saying, “I sympathize with the legitimate concern about what happens on our border, how it happens, and what enforcement looks like.”

Leadership and Wealth

Palantir’s cofounders have significantly benefited from the company’s rise. Alex Karp, who serves as CEO, now boasts a net worth of $7.5 billion, placing him among the world’s 400 richest individuals. Fellow cofounder Peter Thiel, a long-time tech investor, has a fortune of $15 billion, ranking him as the 148th wealthiest person globally.

Meanwhile, the other two cofounders, Stephen Cohen and Joe Lonsdale, officially joined the billionaire ranks last month.

Political Divisions Among Leaders

Interestingly, Palantir’s leadership reflects divergent political ideologies. Karp, who describes himself as a supporter of “populist-left politics,” backed Vice President Kamala Harris in the recent election. In contrast, cofounders Thiel and Lonsdale are prominent advocates for right-wing politics.

Following Trump’s victory in November, Lonsdale celebrated with the comment, “Daddy’s home.” Over the last decade, Thiel has donated tens of millions of dollars to Republican causes. Reflecting on Thiel’s vocal support for Trump in 2016, Karp told The New York Times this summer, “Because Peter had supported Mr. Trump, it was actually harder to get things done” at Palantir. Thiel did not endorse any candidate in the current election cycle.

A Unique Corporate Culture

Palantir’s close-knit and unconventional culture has also drawn attention. In a conversation with hedge fund billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller at a JPMorgan Chase event earlier this month, Karp described the company as “a rare cult with no sex and very little drugs, and we’re not poisoning anyone.”

Conclusion

Palantir Technologies’ extraordinary rise in 2024 reflects a combination of factors: the booming AI sector, increased defense spending expectations, and the company’s strong foothold in both government and commercial markets. However, its high valuation and controversial history highlight the challenges that lie ahead for this AI-driven powerhouse.

Democrats Grapple with Identity Crisis Following 2024 Election Defeat

December 24, 2024 Staff ReporterOpinion, Politics 0

Democrats analyzing their sweeping losses in the 2024 elections are uncovering deeper concerns about their party’s identity and approach. According to recent focus group findings by the progressive group Navigator Research, the issues go beyond the leadership of Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, pointing instead to broader, systemic problems.

The research included three focus groups, highlighting that even past Democratic supporters now view the party as weak and overly preoccupied with diversity and catering to elites. When asked to compare the Democratic Party to an animal, one participant chose an ostrich, stating, “They’ve got their heads in the sand and are absolutely committed to their own ideas, even when they’re failing.” Another likened the party to koalas, describing them as “complacent and lazy about getting policy wins that we really need.” A third participant bluntly declared that Democrats are “not a friend of the working class anymore.”

These findings, shared first with POLITICO, illustrate the uphill battle Democrats face as they sift through the aftermath of November’s significant losses. The party now enters an era of a second Trump presidency without a clear leader or unified plan to improve its electoral prospects. While some Democrats point fingers at President Biden, others attribute the losses to inflation or what they describe as “losing hold of culture.” However, the focus groups suggest the challenges are far more entrenched and could have implications extending beyond a single election cycle.

Rachael Russell, director of polling and analytics at Navigator Research, emphasized the gravity of the situation. “This weakness they see — [Democrats] not getting things done, not being able to actually fight for people — is something that needs to be figured out,” she explained. “It might not be the message, it might be the policy. It might be something a little bit deeper that has to be addressed by the party.”

The focus groups, conducted by the Democratic polling firm GBAO immediately after the election, included three categories of voters: young men in battleground states who backed Biden in 2020 but switched to Trump in 2024; voters in battleground states who supported Biden in 2020 but abstained in 2024; and voters in blue states who had previously supported Democrats, a third-party candidate, or skipped voting in 2020 but chose Trump in 2024.

“I think what the Democratic elites and their politicians believe is often very different from what the average Democratic voter is,” said a Georgia man who had supported Biden in 2020 but shifted to Trump in 2024. “The elites that run the Democratic Party — I think they’re way too obsessed with appealing to these very far-left social progressivism that’s very popular on college campuses.”

The perception of disconnect between Democratic leadership and everyday voters was a recurring theme. Participants expressed a belief that the party prioritizes progressive ideals embraced by academia over practical solutions for the working class, a sentiment that has eroded trust in the party’s ability to represent mainstream concerns.

The focus groups were complemented by a national post-election survey conducted by GBAO. This poll, which included 1,000 respondents, found that Trump received his highest approval rating since leaving office in 2020, with 47% viewing him favorably and 50% disapproving. These results align with the cautious optimism expressed by focus group participants about Trump’s second term.

Russell, however, suggested that Trump’s improved ratings might be a temporary phenomenon. She described the post-election period as a “honeymoon” phase, predicting that public opinion could shift once Trump begins enacting policies. “Once things start happening, it’s going to take a turn, and so it’s going to rely really heavily on the actions in the first 100 days to see how we go from here,” she said.

Despite their electoral struggles, Democrats may find opportunities to resonate with voters on key issues. Russell pointed out that topics like abortion rights, health care, and taxing the wealthy still hold significant appeal among the electorate. Additionally, some voters expressed concerns that Trump might overreach, particularly on trade tariffs, which could create openings for the Democratic Party to regain support.

The GBAO survey highlighted a disconnect between voter priorities and perceptions of Republican leadership. Two-thirds of respondents identified inflation as the most pressing issue for the incoming president to address. However, only one-third believed it was a priority for Trump or the Republican Party.

These findings underscore the complex challenges facing Democrats as they seek to rebuild. While some strategists argue that refining the party’s message could address voter concerns, others believe the problem may lie in deeper structural issues. The party’s inability to present itself as a champion of the working class and its perceived focus on elite and progressive causes have alienated many former supporters.

As Democrats face the reality of a second Trump presidency, their path forward remains uncertain. The focus group feedback suggests that reconnecting with disillusioned voters will require more than just adjusting campaign strategies. It may necessitate a fundamental reexamination of the party’s priorities, policies, and approach to governance.

Without a clear leader or cohesive strategy, Democrats risk further alienation from a voter base that increasingly views them as out of touch with the needs of everyday Americans. As one focus group participant summarized, the party must address perceptions of weakness and inaction to regain the trust of the electorate. Whether they can rise to the challenge remains to be seen.

Trump Administration Stacked with Donors and Billionaire Backers

December 15, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Nearly three dozen individuals appointed to serve in Donald Trump’s incoming administration have contributed financially to his campaign or supporting groups, according to an analysis of federal campaign records conducted by CNN. This highlights the significant role of wealthy donors in shaping the new government.

Notable among these donors is tech mogul Elon Musk, recognized as the largest disclosed political contributor in the 2024 election cycle. Although not officially part of Trump’s Cabinet, Musk has taken a central role in the administration’s transition process. He has been instrumental in developing the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, advising on personnel decisions, interacting with global leaders, and meeting lawmakers to discuss federal downsizing.

The analysis reveals that eight Cabinet appointees and their spouses have collectively donated over $37 million to Trump’s efforts. Linda McMahon, the billionaire wrestling executive selected to head the Education Department, has led these contributions. In addition, two other Cabinet picks, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik and Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, transferred campaign funds to pro-Trump efforts.

Musk alone has donated more than $277 million during this election cycle, with over $262 million directed to Trump’s campaign. Most of Musk’s contributions flowed to a super PAC he created to mobilize Republican voters in swing states. Brendan Glavin, research director at OpenSecrets, remarked, “No individual outside of self-funded candidates has spent as much to shape federal elections in a single cycle.”

Glavin further noted that Trump’s donors are being appointed to positions directly influencing policy, unlike the traditional trend of appointing donors to ceremonial roles.

The CNN review, covering over 90 high-level appointees announced in the five weeks since Trump’s victory, identified more than 30 donors who supported his campaign or affiliated groups. Trump transition team spokesman Brian Hughes defended these appointments, stating, “Millions of Americans joined President Trump in the movement to restore our nation’s greatness. Some of those who supported the campaign and helped deliver this decisive victory will now work with the president to fulfill his vision.”

This surge in donor involvement is a marked contrast from Trump’s first term, when five Cabinet members donated nearly $8 million combined, mostly driven by McMahon’s contributions in 2016. For the 2024 election, donations by Trump’s Cabinet far exceed those of President Joe Biden’s appointees, who collectively gave less than $100,000 during the 2020 election.

Billionaires Driving Policy

Elon Musk’s financial contributions tower over other donors. McMahon follows closely, donating $21.2 million, primarily to Make America Great Again, Inc., Trump’s leading super PAC. Additional seven-figure contributors include Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, selected for Commerce Secretary; hedge fund executive Scott Bessent, chosen for Treasury Secretary; and former Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler, tapped for the Small Business Administration.

Loeffler’s husband, Jeff Sprecher, also made substantial contributions, exceeding $2 million to pro-Trump efforts. Sprecher, CEO of the Intercontinental Exchange and owner of the New York Stock Exchange, appeared alongside Trump at the exchange’s opening bell ceremony. Loeffler’s spokesperson, Caitlin O’Dea, stated, “Senator Loeffler is proud to support President Trump for the same reasons millions of Americans gave him a historic victory: to restore prosperity, security, and opportunity.”

Trump’s renewed support from billionaires and corporate leaders represents a stark turnaround from the backlash he faced following the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021. Wealthy tech leaders are now backing Trump, seeking regulatory rollbacks and business-friendly policies.

Musk’s unprecedented donations helped Trump close the financial gap against Democratic rival Kamala Harris, who raised $1 billion after securing her party’s nomination in July. Super PACs, which face no donation limits but are prohibited from direct coordination with campaigns, became pivotal in the race. However, a 2024 Federal Election Commission ruling allowed Musk to align his ground game efforts with Trump’s campaign, further amplifying their impact.

Critics argue that such immense spending highlights flaws in the campaign finance system. Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, commented, “Musk exemplifies how campaign finance laws have failed. I fear for departments run by billionaires uninterested in their agency’s purpose.”

Still, defenders see value in wealthy appointees. Former Virginia congressman Tom Davis explained, “There’s nothing wrong with successful individuals giving back through government service. Their contributions reflect loyalty.”

Friends, Family, and High-Profile Appointments

Presidents traditionally reward donors with ambassadorships or honorary roles. Trump’s picks for such posts follow this pattern, with billionaires among his donors assuming diplomatic assignments. For instance, Arkansas investor Warren Stephens is Trump’s choice for ambassador to the United Kingdom, while Charles Kushner, named ambassador to France, is a close family member and donor.

Kushner, who donated $2 million to pro-Trump causes and received a presidential pardon in 2020, is Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law. Real estate tycoon Tom Barrack, another major donor, is Trump’s selection as ambassador to Turkey. Longtime Trump associate Steve Witkoff, who contributed $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC, will serve as a special envoy to the Middle East.

These appointments illustrate Trump’s preference for rewarding loyalty while consolidating power within a trusted network of allies and donors.

As the new administration takes shape, critics and supporters alike will closely monitor how these financially influential appointees influence policy and governance in Trump’s second term.

Donald Trump Rings NYSE Bell After Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ Recognition

December 12, 2024December 16, 2024 Staff ReporterProfile 0

Six months ago, Donald Trump made history as the first former U.S. president convicted of a crime, standing in a courtroom in lower Manhattan. Today, just blocks away from that courthouse, Trump is set to ring the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), a symbolic moment underscoring his resilience and political comeback. Adding to the significance of the occasion, Time magazine has named him its 2024 Person of the Year.

The honors highlight Trump’s complex relationship with New York, a city where he rose to prominence yet faced ostracism during his political career. They also reflect his transition from a polarizing former president who contested his election loss four years ago to a victorious president-elect who decisively reclaimed the White House in November.

Sam Jacobs, Time’s editor-in-chief, made the announcement on NBC’s Today show, emphasizing Trump’s unparalleled influence over the news cycle. “For better or for worse, [Trump] had the most influence on the news in 2024,” Jacobs said.

According to insiders familiar with his plans, Trump is expected to be present on Wall Street to officially open the trading day. These individuals, speaking anonymously to The Associated Press, confirmed that Trump’s appearance will mark his debut in this ceremonial role. While the NYSE often invites celebrities and business leaders to ring the bell, this occasion takes on special significance, blending culture, politics, and business.

Trump’s relationship with Time magazine is long-standing and occasionally contentious. First named Time’s Person of the Year in 2016 after his initial presidential victory, he appeared as a finalist this year alongside prominent figures like Vice President Kamala Harris, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, entrepreneur Elon Musk, and Kate, the Princess of Wales. Trump’s fascination with Time has been well-documented; he appeared on its cover as early as 1989 and has falsely claimed to hold the record for the most cover appearances. A 2017 Washington Post investigation even revealed that Trump displayed a fake Time cover featuring himself in several of his golf clubs.

Thursday’s event aligns Trump with a tradition of high-profile figures participating in the NYSE’s 9:30 a.m. ceremonial opening. Last year, Time CEO Jessica Sibley rang the bell to unveil Taylor Swift as the 2023 Person of the Year. During Trump’s presidency, his wife, Melania Trump, also participated, ringing the bell to promote her “Be Best” campaign focused on children’s well-being.

Trump’s current visit to New York, his former home city, is part of a broader pattern of appearances this year. Despite relocating to Florida, he has maintained a visible presence in New York, often blending legal obligations with strategic photo opportunities. Beyond required court appearances in Manhattan, Trump has made campaign stops at various city locations, including a firehouse, a bodega, and a construction site. A rally held in the Bronx was part of his outreach to voters in areas where he gained unexpected traction during the election.

Not all of his New York events have been without controversy. Trump capped off his campaign with a high-energy rally at Madison Square Garden. While the event aimed to energize his supporters, it faced backlash due to inflammatory remarks made by some speakers.

Trump’s journey to national prominence has always been intertwined with his image as a New York real estate mogul. His role on the reality TV show The Apprentice further cemented his reputation as a savvy businessman, a persona he leveraged during his presidential campaigns. Economic issues, particularly concerns about the middle class, played a central role in his recent victory.

The financial markets responded favorably to Trump’s electoral win. On November 5, the S&P 500 saw its best day in nearly two years, climbing 2.5%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged by 1,508 points, or 3.6%, while the Nasdaq composite rose 3%, with all three indexes breaking previous records. Trump, who often views stock market performance as a barometer of his popularity, suggested that his next term as president should officially begin the day after the election to credit him with these gains.

Trump’s economic agenda includes ambitious promises of historic growth, aligning with his business-focused approach to governance. His appointments for key administration roles predominantly feature individuals from the private sector, signaling a pro-business direction.

The business community has largely welcomed Trump’s plans to reduce corporate taxes and streamline regulations. However, his proposals to impose tariffs and target companies he perceives as politically adversarial have raised concerns. Broadly, Trump’s policies could have a mixed impact, with certain industries thriving under reduced taxes and deregulation while others face challenges from protectionist measures.

Historically, U.S. stock markets have tended to rise regardless of which political party controls the White House. Since 1945, however, markets have experienced slightly larger average gains under Democratic leadership. Despite this trend, Trump’s return to power has already begun shaping investor expectations. Market participants are closely watching the potential effects of his policies, including higher tariffs, lower tax rates, and deregulation.

In addition to his market impact, Trump is pursuing legal avenues to overturn his Manhattan conviction, a case that has loomed over his political resurgence. His legal team is actively working to have the verdict dismissed, arguing that his electoral victory underscores a mandate from the public.

As Trump rings the NYSE bell, his dual role as a businessman and political figure remains at the forefront. For Trump, the moment symbolizes both a personal and professional triumph, cementing his comeback in the heart of the financial world while affirming his broader influence on the national stage.

Joe Biden’s Legacy: Challenges Await Donald Trump in January

December 7, 2024December 10, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Joe Biden’s presidency appears set to leave behind a legacy of significant challenges for Donald Trump when he assumes office on January 20. The issues range from economic instability, including a skyrocketing $36 trillion federal debt—up by $13 trillion since 2020—to broader domestic and international crises. These include persistent inflation despite falling energy prices, dangerously depleted Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and a dwindling weapons stockpile. Other concerns include an educational system that struggles to teach basic skills, a housing crisis, a manufacturing slowdown, and a Justice Department facing waning public confidence.

Compounding these problems is the responsibility of managing U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s war with Russia and restoring stability in the Middle East. The multitude of challenges underscores the urgency for Trump to prepare to “hit the ground running.”

“If Joe Biden were a decent fellow and a patriot,” the article states, “he would be using his remaining weeks as president to fix some of the disasters he has created. Instead, he is doing just the opposite.”

Rather than seeking to rectify the issues created under his administration, Biden appears focused on spending what remains of the $375 billion authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The administration’s approach seems designed to ensure that these funds, controlled by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, remain out of reach for Trump’s incoming team.

Despite the billions allocated for green initiatives and infrastructure projects, including $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations and $42 billion to improve rural internet access, many programs have failed to deliver results. For instance, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s promise of 500,000 charging stations resulted in only eight being constructed. Similarly, Vice President Kamala Harris’s internet expansion efforts yielded little progress, symbolizing the administration’s inefficiency.

A hidden-camera video from Project Veritas captured Environmental Protection Agency adviser Brent Efron acknowledging the administration’s race to spend IRA funds. “Now we’re just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all,” Efron said, likening the situation to being on the Titanic and “throwing gold bars off the edge.” He also admitted that safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse had been overlooked in the rush, with funds being directed to tribes, nonprofits, and states to circumvent potential clawbacks by a Trump administration.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented on the video, suggesting it shows “The U.S. government is actively working to undermine the American people.”

In another move perceived as undermining Trump’s agenda, Biden agreed to protect some 42,000 Social Security Administration employees from returning to in-person work, a decision that complicates efforts to reform the federal workforce.

Additionally, Biden has not prioritized refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which was depleted in 2022 to combat soaring gasoline prices. At the start of Biden’s presidency, the SPR held 638 million barrels of crude oil; today, it holds just 392 million barrels, marking the lowest reserve level in 40 years. Although there has been a 12 percent increase in reserves over the past year, the stockpile remains insufficient to cushion against significant price shocks.

On the fiscal front, Biden leaves behind a Treasury portfolio that relies heavily on short-term debt, a shift attributed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Instead of issuing long-term bonds to finance the $1.8 trillion federal budget deficit, Yellen opted for two-year Treasury bills to avoid triggering a surge in mortgage rates. However, this strategy has left the country vulnerable to higher interest costs.

Robbert van Batenburg of the Bear Traps Report estimates that 30 percent of the debt is now in short-term notes, compared to just 15 percent in 2023. “The Treasury now faces a substantial volume of short-term debt maturing annually, which must be refinanced at significantly higher interest rates,” van Batenburg said, emphasizing the strain this will place on future budgets.

Beyond the economic challenges, Detroit automakers are grappling with billions in losses and layoffs, spurred by Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle mandates. Meanwhile, millions of undocumented migrants are straining budgets in cities led by Democrats, violent crime rates have risen due to weakened law enforcement policies, and military leaders warn of dwindling weapon supplies.

The incoming Trump administration will inherit these compounded challenges, described as “land mines on many fronts.”

Rather than attempting to mitigate the damage, the Biden administration appears focused on accelerating its policy agenda. “Now we’re just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all,” Efron reiterated in the undercover video.

The extent of the challenges underscores the uphill battle that awaits Trump’s team, as they prepare to address the economic, social, and geopolitical issues left in Biden’s wake.

Republicans Face Narrow Majority in House After Democrats Flip Key California Seat

December 4, 2024December 5, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Republicans will hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives next year, facing greater challenges to advance President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda as Democrats successfully flipped a significant seat in California. Democrat Adam Gray defeated GOP Rep. John Duarte in California’s 13th District, according to NBC News projections, following an extended vote count. This brings the Republican total to 220 seats versus 215 for Democrats. With such a narrow margin, Republicans can afford to lose only two votes on any House legislation if Democrats remain unified in opposition.

Duarte conceded the race on Tuesday evening, saying he called Gray to acknowledge the outcome, as reported by the Turlock Journal. This victory marks a crucial gain for Democrats, who flipped nine Republican-held seats across the nation, including three in California, while Republicans flipped eight Democratic-held seats.

California proved pivotal for the Democrats, with Gray’s win accompanied by victories for Democrats Derek Tran and George Whitesides, who unseated Republican Reps. Michelle Steel and Mike Garcia. Democrats also secured three seats in New York, one in Oregon, and benefited from redrawn congressional maps to flip one seat each in Alabama and Louisiana.

Meanwhile, Republicans gained seats in North Carolina due to its new congressional map and won key contests elsewhere. They unseated Democratic Reps. Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, flipped an open seat in Michigan, and defeated incumbents in Alaska and Colorado.

House races this election cycle attracted significant spending from campaigns and outside groups. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact reported that over $1.1 billion was spent on ads between September and Election Day. Democratic campaigns and allied organizations outpaced their Republican counterparts, spending $662 million compared to $485 million spent by the GOP.

The tight Republican majority reflects an increasingly competitive political landscape, partly influenced by the latest redistricting process. This narrowed the field of competitive races, leaving only about 40 House seats—roughly 10% of the chamber—decided by margins of less than 5%, according to NBC News Decision Desk data.

Despite losing control of the House, Democrats saw some encouraging trends. Vulnerable Democratic incumbents performed notably better than Vice President Kamala Harris, outpacing her by an average of 2.7 percentage points in House races, according to preliminary analysis by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The analysis, shared with NBC News, highlighted that Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in counties with lower education levels and a majority of voters of color.

Challenges Ahead for GOP Leadership

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, the party has a rare opportunity to advance its priorities through budget reconciliation. This legislative tool enables the majority party to bypass Senate filibusters and pass budget-related measures without needing Democratic support. However, the fragile Republican majority in the House could hinder these efforts.

Speaker Mike Johnson, who is expected to retain his position in the next Congress, will face significant hurdles in maintaining unity among his colleagues. The reconciliation package is expected to include extensions of tax cuts enacted in 2017 under Trump, which are set to expire next year. Proposals such as a tax exemption for income from tips, dubbed by Trump as “no tax on tips,” and the removal of the cap on the state and local tax deduction are likely components of this package.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a key Trump ally, is advocating for border security measures to be included in the reconciliation process. Trump has promised to initiate what he describes as “the largest deportation program in American history,” making immigration a central focus for his administration.

Further complicating the GOP’s legislative strategy are potential resignations and vacancies within the House. Trump has nominated two sitting House Republicans for key positions in his administration: Elise Stefanik of New York as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Mike Waltz of Florida as national security adviser.

Adding to the uncertainty is the recent resignation of Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who stepped down after Trump selected him as the next attorney general. Gaetz later withdrew from consideration due to allegations of sexual misconduct but confirmed he would not join the next Congress despite winning re-election.

Should Stefanik and Waltz resign simultaneously, the Republican majority in the House could narrow to just one seat, 217 to 215, until their replacements are elected.

Special Elections on the Horizon

Efforts to fill these vacancies are already underway. Florida’s State Department has scheduled a special election to replace Gaetz and Waltz, with primaries for their deep-red districts set for January 28 and special elections to follow on April 1.

In New York, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul will be responsible for setting a special election to replace Stefanik once she formally resigns. According to state law, the special election must take place 70 to 80 days after the governor issues a proclamation.

The upcoming special elections will be critical for both parties as they navigate the challenges of a closely divided Congress. For Republicans, maintaining unity and avoiding further internal divisions will be essential to advancing their legislative priorities. Meanwhile, Democrats will likely leverage their gains to resist key aspects of Trump’s agenda, ensuring a contentious political landscape in the months ahead.

Trump’s Diwali Outreach Highlights Desi Race to the White House

December 3, 2024 Staff ReporterCommunity 0

As the countdown to Election Day narrows to just five days, the race to the White House has proven to be one of the most remarkable in American history. It has delivered a mix of classic American election hallmarks—scandals, controversies, and dramatic moments—while introducing some unexpected twists, such as a vice presidential candidate discussing the merits of matar paneer on a popular podcast. With significant brown representation on both sides, the 2024 election has become one of the most Indian-influenced in history. Donald Trump has taken this to another level with a special Diwali message aimed at wooing Hindu Americans, a demographic that has traditionally leaned Democratic.

In a strongly worded statement on Diwali, Trump condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, pledged to protect Hindu Americans from what he described as the “radical left’s anti-religion agenda,” and vowed to deepen ties with India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Trump concluded his message with, “Also, Happy Diwali to All. I hope the Festival of Lights leads to the Victory of Good over Evil!” This direct outreach marks a strategic attempt to court Hindu Americans, who have shown shifting political allegiances in recent years.

Trump’s first comment addressed a long-standing concern within the global Hindu community: targeted violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. Under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, attacks during festivals like Durga Puja and demands for jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims, have drawn international criticism. Although interim Bangladeshi chief Muhammad Yunus has dismissed these concerns as “exaggerated,” protests in cities like New York have labeled him a “Hindu killer.” Trump’s remarks align with a widespread sentiment among Hindus that their grievances are often overlooked on the global stage.

The second part of Trump’s message referenced California’s controversial Senate Bill 403, commonly known as the California caste bill. Introduced by State Senator Aisha Wahab, the legislation aimed to outlaw caste-based discrimination by adding it to existing civil rights protections. While the bill was supported by groups like Equality Labs, its passage was met with resistance from Hindu American organizations, who viewed it as an unfair targeting of their community. Equality Labs’ study, which served as the basis for the bill, has been criticized for methodological flaws, including its reliance on self-reported surveys and snowball sampling, leading to concerns about demographic biases. Governor Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed the bill, citing existing civil rights laws that he argued were sufficient to address caste-based discrimination.

Interestingly, this debate unfolded in California, home to Vice President Kamala Harris. Speculation has suggested Harris may have influenced Newsom’s veto to avoid alienating Hindu voters within the Democratic Party. Trump’s remarks capitalized on this controversy, casting himself as a defender of Hindu Americans’ rights.

Trump’s third point highlighted his friendship with Narendra Modi, a figure revered by many Hindu Americans. Speaking on the Flagrant podcast, Trump praised Modi as “the nicest guy” and a “total killer” when needed. This warm relationship is a key aspect of Trump’s appeal to Hindu voters, especially in contrast to criticisms of Modi from figures like U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti over tensions involving Canada. Trump’s pro-India stance resonates with many Indian Americans, who view Modi as a symbol of Indian pride and global influence.

Meanwhile, Trump’s Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris, faces a unique challenge. As the daughter of an Indian immigrant, Harris’s candidacy represents a historic opportunity for Indian Americans. However, her support among this community is not guaranteed. The Carnegie Endowment recently reported a decline in Indian American alignment with the Democratic Party, dropping from 56% in 2020 to 47%. While Harris has strong support among women voters due to her stance on reproductive rights, younger Indian American men are increasingly drawn to Republicans, citing stricter immigration policies as a factor.

Harris’s mixed identity as both Black and Indian has not resonated uniformly within the Indian American community. Some critics feel she has not fully embraced her Indian heritage, pointing to moments like her 2020 video with Mindy Kaling making dosa, which was criticized as inauthentic. This perception has allowed Trump to make inroads with Indian Americans by promoting figures like Vivek Ramaswamy, a prominent Republican contender and the first openly Hindu presidential nominee.

Ramaswamy’s story as a second-generation immigrant mirrors the experiences of many Indian Americans. Though his version of Hinduism often appears to blend with Christian influences, he has become an important figure in the MAGA movement. While he was not selected as Trump’s running mate, Ramaswamy remains a key ally, with Time magazine calling him the “heir apparent” to Trump’s legacy. Ramaswamy’s prominence, coupled with the visibility of other Indian Americans like JD Vance—whose wife is Indian American—has positioned the Republican Party as a viable choice for voters seeking greater representation.

Cultural outreach has also played a role in this election cycle. JD Vance recently discussed his fondness for matar paneer on the Joe Rogan podcast, promoting Indian cuisine as a healthier alternative to plant-based meat. Such moments reflect a broader effort by Team Trump to connect with Indian Americans on a cultural level, emphasizing their contributions to American society.

Indian Americans, the second-largest immigrant group in the U.S., wield significant influence as one of the wealthiest and most highly educated communities. Their political importance has grown considerably, far surpassing stereotypes like Apu from The Simpsons. From technology to business, Indian Americans have made remarkable strides, and both parties are vying for their support in this closely contested election.

Trump’s campaign has even drawn on his past connections with the Indian community. ISKCON Kolkata vice-president Radharamn Das recounted an incident from 1976 when Trump allowed ISKCON devotees to use his train yard for their Rathyatra festival preparations. Reflecting on Trump’s recent brush with danger—surviving an assassination attempt—Das said, “Today, during the Rathyatra festival, it was Lord Jagannath’s turn to return the favour.”

As Election Day approaches, Trump’s strategy appears to hinge on awakening a sense of solidarity among Hindu Americans who feel marginalized by left-leaning policies. Comparisons to the Jewish community’s recent calls for greater attention to anti-Semitism highlight a broader appeal to groups who feel neglected. By addressing these concerns, Trump aims to rally a key demographic that could prove decisive in the election.

Whether this outreach will translate into votes remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear: the 2024 election has redefined what it means to campaign in America, with both parties embracing the diverse stories and values of Indian Americans.

Tulsi Gabbard’s DNI Nomination Sparks Controversy Amid Concerns Over Past Statements and Associations

December 1, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s selection as the next US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) by President-elect Donald Trump has reignited debates over her controversial political stances. Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her remarks on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have drawn intense scrutiny as she prepares for a role that would make her responsible for 18 intelligence agencies and serve as a principal adviser to the president.

If confirmed, Gabbard would oversee some of America’s most sensitive secrets, a responsibility that has raised concerns among former national security officials and lawmakers. Critics argue that her past actions and comments could damage trust and collaboration within the intelligence community and with foreign allies.

Retired diplomat Lewis Lukens, who previously served as deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, voiced apprehensions about Gabbard’s judgment, suggesting it could undermine intelligence-sharing relationships. “Her dubious judgment could give allies reason to question how safe it is to share intelligence with the US,” Lukens told the BBC.

Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve with deployments to Iraq and Kuwait, has dismissed such concerns, calling her detractors “warmongers” seeking to discredit anyone challenging Washington’s foreign policy orthodoxy. Trump defended his decision, praising Gabbard’s “fearless spirit” and commitment to public service, which he claimed would benefit the intelligence community.

Yet, Gabbard’s appointment has drawn praise from Russian state media, adding fuel to the controversy. Olga Skabeyeva, a prominent Russian talk show host, highlighted Gabbard’s criticism of US actions in Ukraine and her meeting with Assad as examples of her alignment with Russian perspectives. “Virtually from the first days of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, she explained its reasons,” Skabeyeva said.

Gabbard’s political career has been marked by a mix of anti-war rhetoric and skepticism toward US intelligence operations, earning her both admiration and criticism across party lines. However, her decision to visit Assad in 2017 during a “fact-finding” mission as a congresswoman stirred widespread outrage. Her subsequent doubts over US intelligence assessments that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against civilians exacerbated the backlash.

After a 2017 chemical attack in Syria killed over 80 people, the Trump administration launched airstrikes on a Syrian airbase, an action Gabbard labeled “reckless and short-sighted.” She argued that such moves risked escalating the Syrian conflict and hindering investigations into the attack. US intelligence and a UN panel later concluded that Assad’s government was responsible for the sarin gas attack. However, both Assad and Russia denied the allegations, claiming the airstrike hit a rebel-held depot containing chemical munitions.

These events loomed over Gabbard’s unsuccessful 2019 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Defending her stance, she asserted that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat.”

Her statements regarding Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine further fueled controversy. Gabbard suggested the war could have been avoided if the US and NATO had acknowledged Russia’s security concerns over Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. Additionally, she claimed that US-funded biolabs in Ukraine might be compromised, leading to the release of dangerous pathogens. This statement aligned with Russia’s unfounded allegations that the US was aiding Ukraine in developing biological weapons, drawing sharp criticism from figures like Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who accused Gabbard of spreading “treasonous lies.” In response, Gabbard sent Romney a cease-and-desist letter.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Gabbard accused Vice President Kamala Harris of being the “main instigator” of the Ukraine conflict, citing Harris’ support for NATO’s expansion. Trump’s former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, who opposed him in the Republican primary, recently declared that Gabbard’s views made her unsuitable for a high-level intelligence role. “This is not a place for a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathiser,” Haley stated.

Some officials worry Gabbard’s appointment could jeopardize the trust between the US and its allies. A former senior White House official expressed concern that her differing views on figures like Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin might disrupt intelligence diplomacy. “It certainly will raise real questions in the minds of foreign counterparts,” the official told the BBC. A former NATO official echoed this sentiment, questioning why someone with “wacky views” and no relevant background would be entrusted with such a critical position.

However, not all foreign allies expect drastic changes. Duncan Lewis, former head of Australia’s domestic spy agency, emphasized the strength of the US-Australian alliance, saying, “Our bilateral security relationship is strong and long-standing, and I expect that to continue.”

The nomination process for DNI is expected to be contentious. The DNI shapes the president’s daily intelligence briefing, giving them significant influence over national security priorities. Some senators have expressed reservations about Gabbard’s suitability. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and former CIA officer, noted that Gabbard’s past statements appear to favor adversarial positions. “Certainly, it gave me pause when I heard the nomination,” Slotkin said.

Senator James Lankford, a Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicated that Gabbard would face tough questions about her history, including the Assad meeting. Conversely, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt criticized accusations from Democrats that Gabbard was “compromised,” calling such claims “totally ridiculous” and baseless. Senator Markwayne Mullin, also a Republican, described Gabbard as a “solid choice” and encouraged skeptics to engage with her directly. “What I’ve been telling everybody is just sit down and talk to her,” Mullin said.

Gabbard’s nomination highlights the broader divisions within US politics over foreign policy and the role of intelligence. Her anti-establishment views and unconventional approach may appeal to Trump’s base, but they also raise significant concerns about her ability to foster trust and cooperation within the intelligence community and with global allies. As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a heated confirmation process, Gabbard’s past actions and statements will undoubtedly remain under the microscope.

Trump’s Strategy for Ending the Russia-Ukraine War Takes Shape, Amid Multiple Proposals and Uncertainty

November 28, 2024November 30, 2024 Staff ReporterWorld 0

President-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser designate, Mike Waltz, has been reviewing various strategies to resolve the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, including proposals from Gen. Keith Kellogg, who was recently appointed as special envoy to the two countries. Sources familiar with the matter revealed that while the specifics of the approach are still in development, one of the key initial steps likely to be advocated by Trump’s team is a ceasefire to temporarily freeze the conflict while both sides enter negotiations. In addition, Trump’s administration is expected to encourage European allies and NATO to share more of the financial burden for supporting Ukraine.

“We need to bring this to a responsible end,” Waltz told Fox News over the weekend. “We need to restore deterrence, restore peace, and get ahead of this escalation ladder, rather than responding to it.”

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly stated that if he had been president, the Russia-Ukraine war would never have started. He also vowed to put an end to the conflict, sometimes claiming that he could resolve the situation in a single day. In his September presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump refused to explicitly commit to Ukraine’s victory over Russia. Later that month, he suggested that Ukraine should have been more willing to make concessions to Moscow, claiming that “any deal, even the worst deal, would have been better than what we have right now.”

The proposals Waltz is considering include one from Gen. Keith Kellogg, who served as an adviser on national security during Trump’s first term. Trump expressed his satisfaction with Kellogg’s appointment, saying, “I am very pleased to nominate General Keith Kellogg to serve as Assistant to the President and Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Keith has led a distinguished Military and Business career, including serving in highly sensitive National Security roles in my first Administration. He was with me right from the beginning! Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!”

Kellogg’s plan suggests that continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine should be contingent upon Ukraine’s active participation in peace talks with Russia. It also calls for a formal U.S. policy aimed at seeking a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine conflict. Furthermore, the proposal recommends postponing Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which would be used as leverage to bring Russia to the negotiating table.

Waltz has also reviewed an alternative proposal supported by Trump’s former ambassador to Germany, Ric Grenell, which includes the creation of “autonomous regions” within Ukraine. However, Grenell has not yet provided detailed explanations on what such regions would entail. In a previous interview, Grenell stated, “Autonomous regions can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but you got to work through those details.”

Another proposal under consideration is one that could see Russia retaining control over its current territory in exchange for Ukraine receiving NATO membership. However, few figures within Trump’s inner circle seem keen on the idea of Ukraine joining NATO in the near future, a view that aligns with the Biden administration’s stance. President Joe Biden’s team has stated that while Ukraine will eventually join NATO, that process will only occur once the war has concluded.

Ukraine has been a central topic in Waltz’s discussions with Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser. Following these talks, a Trump transition spokesman confirmed the president-elect’s commitment to ending the war. Trump communications director Steven Cheung remarked, “As President Trump has said on the campaign trail, he is the only person who can bring both sides together in order to negotiate peace, and work towards ending the war and stopping the killing.”

While the Trump administration is exploring different paths to end the conflict, sources caution that it is still “too early” to define the strategy’s final shape. Trump’s approach to foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Ukraine war, is often subject to change, and the transition process suggests that the overall strategy remains fluid. One source involved in internal transition discussions noted that Trump’s positions tend to evolve, meaning his plans for Ukraine will likely shift over time.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been vocal about his hopes for a diplomatic resolution to the war, stating earlier this month, “From our side, we must do everything so that this war ends next year, ends through diplomatic means.” However, Zelensky has also rejected the idea of a ceasefire unless security guarantees from the West are included. Reflecting on past attempts to negotiate peace, Zelensky warned, “Ceasefire? We tried that in 2014, we tried to reach it and then we lost Crimea and then we had the full-scale war in 2022.”

Zelensky also remarked during a conference in Budapest that he believes Trump genuinely wants a swift resolution to the war. He noted, “I believe that President Trump really wants a quick decision to end the war. He wants this war to be finished. We all want to end this war, but a fair ending. … If it is very fast, it’s going to be a loss for Ukraine.”

Trump’s allies, who have been appointed to key national security positions, have indicated that the president-elect is considering various strategies to bring both Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. Some of these options appear to contradict his past statements on the conflict. For instance, Sebastian Gorka, recently appointed as one of Waltz’s top deputies, referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “thug” and suggested that the U.S. might increase military aid to Ukraine to expedite an end to the war. In a recent interview with Times Radio, Gorka said, “I will give one tip away that the president has mentioned, he will say to that murderous former KGB colonel, that thug who runs the Russian federation, you will negotiate now or the aid we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts. That’s how he will force those gentlemen to come to an arrangement that stops the bloodshed.”

Simultaneously, Trump’s team is considering taking a firm stance with Ukraine as well. One source familiar with the discussions noted that Trump may threaten to withhold aid from Ukraine unless the country agrees to negotiate with Russia. This approach would complement efforts to pressure Moscow while ensuring Ukraine is brought to the table for talks.

In recent weeks, the Biden administration allowed Ukraine to use U.S.-made long-range missiles to strike targets within Russian territory. This decision followed months of lobbying from Zelensky, who had requested approval to use the ATACMS missiles. The U.S. granted this request in mid-November. Additionally, the Biden administration lifted a restriction on U.S. contractors working in Ukraine, enabling faster repairs of advanced systems like F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missile defense systems.

As Trump prepares to take office, the war in Ukraine remains a key focus for his administration. The proposed strategies are still in flux, with Trump and his team considering a range of options to bring about a resolution. While the specific approach may change over time, Trump’s commitment to ending the war and bringing peace to the region remains a central priority.

Kamala Harris Urges Unity and Resilience in Post-Election Address

November 27, 2024November 30, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

In her first major speech to fundraisers and supporters following the November 5 electoral defeat, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a passionate call for unity and perseverance in the face of political challenges. Addressing a private gathering, Harris reaffirmed her dedication to safeguarding core American values and urged her audience to remain steadfast in their pursuit of progress.

“The promise of America will only be achieved if we stay in the fight,” Harris proclaimed, emphasizing the need for collective determination and action to uphold key principles. Her speech was a rallying cry to continue the struggle for democracy, justice, and individual freedoms.

Harris did not shy away from the tough road ahead, speaking openly about the hurdles that lie in the path of advancing fundamental ideals. “We’re gonna continue fighting for the rights of women to make decisions about their own body,” she declared. “We’re gonna continue fighting for our democracy, for equal justice.”

Acknowledging the anxiety and uncertainty gripping many Americans in the current political climate, Harris sought to inspire confidence and underscore the power of individual and collective action. “We are not powerless,” she assured her audience. “Hard work is good work. Hard work can be joyful work. And we must remain intentional, continuing to build community and coalitions.”

Her speech outlined a clear focus on key priorities, including reproductive rights, the preservation of democracy, and the pursuit of equal justice under the law. These issues, she asserted, are fundamental to the nation’s identity and its future.

“We’re going to continue fighting for the right of women to make decisions about their own body,” Harris reiterated, doubling down on her commitment to reproductive freedoms. “We’re going to continue fighting for our democracy, for the rule of law, for equal justice.”

Asserting the importance of unity, Harris called for an approach that emphasizes shared goals over division. “I’m continuing to build community, to build coalitions,” she said, expressing her belief in the common bonds that unite Americans. “We have so much more in common than what separates us as the American people, and we must continue to organize and mobilize and stay engaged.”

Delivered with conviction and optimism, Harris’s address served as a rallying point for her supporters and reaffirmed her commitment to advancing progressive values. By calling on her audience to remain engaged and proactive, Harris sought to reinvigorate her base and encourage collective action toward achieving shared goals.

The vast majority of Americans celebrate Thanksgiving, but their traditions and activities vary widely

November 25, 2024November 27, 2024 John Gramlich, Michael Rotolo, and Laura SilverCulture 0

Just a few weeks after a divisive presidential election, millions of Americans will break bread together for Thanksgiving. A new Pew Research Center survey shows how Americans plan to spend the holiday this year – and which Turkey Day traditions and activities are more common than others.

Here are the main takeaways from the survey, conducted Nov. 12-17, 2024, among 9,609 U.S. adults:

Around nine-in-ten Americans (91%) celebrate Thanksgiving. Large majorities in all major demographic groups observe the holiday, though some people are more likely than others to do so. For example, 96% of Americans ages 65 and older celebrate Thanksgiving, compared with somewhat smaller shares of younger adults.

Immigration status also plays a role. While 93% of adults born in the United States celebrate Thanksgiving, the same is true of 88% of immigrants who have been in the country for more than 20 years, 76% of immigrants who have been in the country 11 to 20 years, and 74% of immigrants who have been in the country for a decade or less.

Most Americans (74%) plan to have Thanksgiving dinner with other people this year. Another 5% plan to have Thanksgiving dinner alone, 2% don’t plan to have Thanksgiving dinner – whether it’s because they are working or traveling or for some other reason – and 10% didn’t know their plans yet at the time of the survey. The rest don’t celebrate Thanksgiving.

For some Americans, Thanksgiving dinner includes lots of other people. Around a quarter (26%) expect to have Thanksgiving dinner with more than 10 other people this year, including 7% who expect to have it with more than 20 others.

Smaller get-togethers are more common: 26% of Americans plan to have dinner with six to 10 other people, 15% with three to five other people, and 4% with one to two other people. The remaining Americans plan to have Thanksgiving dinner alone, don’t plan to have Thanksgiving dinner, didn’t know their plans yet or don’t celebrate Thanksgiving.

Around a third of Americans (34%) plan to have Thanksgiving dinner at their own home this year, whether hosting others or dining alone. Another 39% plan to go to someone else’s home, while 3% plan to go to a restaurant, hotel or other public place. The rest plan not to have Thanksgiving dinner, didn’t know their plans yet or don’t celebrate the holiday.

Older adults are more likely than younger people to have Thanksgiving dinner at their own home: 40% of Americans ages 50 and older plan to do so this year, compared with 29% of adults under 50.

Afternoon is the most popular time for Thanksgiving dinner, but there’s no consensus on early versus late afternoon. Some 36% of Americans prefer to have Thanksgiving dinner in the early afternoon (that is, between noon and 3 p.m.), while 38% prefer to have it in the late afternoon (between 3 and 6 p.m.). Only 11% of Americans prefer to have Thanksgiving dinner in the evening (after 6), and just 1% prefer to have it in the morning (before noon). Another 5% have no preference.

Dinnertime preferences follow a regional pattern. Americans who live in the Midwest and South are more likely to prefer Thanksgiving dinner in the early afternoon than the late afternoon. But people in the Northeast and West are more likely to prefer the late afternoon than the early afternoon.

There are also differences by age. Americans 65 and older are more likely to prefer Thanksgiving dinner earlier in the afternoon than later. Meanwhile, adults under 30 are more likely to prefer late afternoon over early afternoon.

It’s common for Americans to say grace or express gratitude at Thanksgiving dinner. Around two-thirds of U.S. adults say someone at their dinner typically says a prayer or blessing (65%) or says things they are thankful for (69%). And a majority of Americans (56%) say someone at their Thanksgiving dinner typically does both of these things.

A bar chart showing that prayers and expressions of gratitude are common at the Thanksgiving table.

Saying grace at Thanksgiving is especially common among certain religious groups. For example, 91% of White evangelical Protestants say someone at their Thanksgiving dinner typically says a prayer or blessing. The same is true for 88% of Black Protestants, 74% of Catholics and 72% of White nonevangelical Protestants. Prayer is much less common among those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” (45%), agnostics (39%), atheists (22%) and Jewish adults (22%).

Majorities across religious groups also say someone at their Thanksgiving dinner typically expresses gratitude. Many religiously unaffiliated Americans say this, too: 59% of those whose religion is “nothing in particular,” along with 61% of agnostics and 48% of atheists, say someone at their dinner typically says things they are thankful for.

Driving and Thanksgiving go hand in hand. The vast majority of Americans who plan to have Thanksgiving dinner away from home this year (89%) say driving is the main way they’ll get there. This works out to 38% of U.S. adults overall who expect to drive to their destination.

Only 2% of Americans overall expect to fly, while even fewer expect to take some other form of transportation, such as local or regional transit.

Most Thanksgiving travel takes less than an hour. A majority of those who plan to have Thanksgiving dinner away from home this year (69%) expect their trip to take less than an hour. That may have to do with the proximity of their family members: In a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, 55% of Americans said they live within an hour’s drive of at least some of their extended family.

Looking at adults overall, 29% expect their Thanksgiving travel to take less than an hour. Another 13% expect it to take longer than that, including 6% who expect it to take three hours or more.

Apart from eating, Americans expect to do a wide range of things this Thanksgiving. Certain long-running Thanksgiving traditions, like watching football or a parade, are still fairly popular: 35% of Americans say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll watch sports on Thanksgiving, and 19% say the same about watching a parade. Men are more likely than women to say they’ll watch sports, while women are more likely than men to say they’ll watch a parade.

A bar chart showing what Americans expect to do on Thanksgiving this year.

When it comes to conversation, 35% of Americans say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll talk about work or school on Thanksgiving. And in the wake of a presidential election that saw more than 154 million Americans cast ballots, 26% expect the election to come up. A similar share (24%) expect to talk about pop culture like music or movies, though far fewer (4%) expect to go to a movie.

Thanksgiving is a time for charity for many Americans, and 19% say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll donate food or goods, while 4% expect to volunteer somewhere.

Thanksgiving is also the unofficial start of the holiday shopping season. Accordingly, 15% of Americans say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll shop for the holidays on Thanksgiving Day this year.

Getting some exercise on Thanksgiving is a less popular idea: Only 4% of adults say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll play sports, while 3% expect to participate in a community walk or run, like a turkey trot.

Following Donald Trump’s reelection on Nov. 5, Trump voters are more likely than Kamala Harris voters to say they’ll talk about the presidential election this Thanksgiving. Some 36% of Americans who voted for Trump say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll talk about the election on Thanksgiving. A smaller share of Americans who voted for Harris (24%) say the same.

A bar chart showing that more Trump than Harris voters expect to talk about the election on Thanksgiving.

Trump voters who identify as conservative are the most likely to talk about the election: 39% say it’s extremely or very likely that they’ll do so on Thanksgiving, compared with 28% of Trump voters who identify as moderate or liberal. Among Harris voters, 28% of self-described liberals expect to talk about the election at Thanksgiving, compared with 20% of those who identify as conservative or moderate.

In fact, conservative Trump voters are about as likely to talk about the election this Thanksgiving as they are to talk about work or school (36%) – and much more likely to talk about it than to talk about pop culture (17%). By comparison, liberal Harris voters are more likely to talk about work or school (42%) and pop culture (38%) than the election.

Source Credit: Pew Research Center

Donald Trump Secures Narrow Yet Historic Win in 2024 Presidential Election

November 25, 2024November 26, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Donald Trump achieved a significant milestone by winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. This victory marks Trump as only the second Republican to secure the popular vote since 1988. The majority of counties in the U.S. saw their voting margins shift toward Trump, reflecting gains in both Republican-stronghold regions and traditionally Democratic areas.

Despite this accomplishment, Trump’s margins were relatively modest, especially by historical standards. Over the past 25 years, U.S. presidential elections have often been tightly contested, as seen in the 2000 Florida recount election and Trump’s own races in 2016 and 2020.

Adding to the complexity of his victory, Trump’s success did not translate into substantial gains for down-ballot Republicans. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives remains slim, and Democrats managed to win four Senate races in key battleground states, even as Vice President Kamala Harris lost those states to Trump.

During his election night celebration, Trump confidently declared, “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

However, Wayne Steger, a political scientist at DePaul University, interpreted the results differently, describing the election as sending “mixed signals.” According to Steger, a combination of factors such as inflation, immigration, identity politics, crime, education, and a growing conservative sentiment favored the Republican candidate. Still, he characterized the outcome as a “close election in which there was enough anti-Democratic sentiment to carry the day.”

Trump’s Victory in Context

Trump’s performance in the 2024 election has several notable aspects. He managed to secure wins in all seven battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Harris, in comparison, performed worse in these states than President Joe Biden did in 2020.

Trump’s margin of victory in these battleground states was significantly larger than the margins seen in close elections over the past two decades. For example, his combined margin in these seven states was approximately 760,000 votes. In contrast, the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore produced a collective margin of just 46,000 votes across the seven closest states—a figure about one-sixteenth of Trump’s margin in 2024.

Historical comparisons further underscore Trump’s achievement. Since 1932, only six candidates from the party out of power have garnered as large a share of the vote as Trump’s near 50%. These figures include political heavyweights such as Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Barack Obama in 2008, and Biden in 2020.

In the Electoral College, Trump secured 312 votes out of 538. While this figure falls short of the landslide victories achieved by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, or Reagan in 1984, it surpasses four of the seven elections held this century, including Biden’s win in 2020.

The Narrowness of Trump’s Victory

Despite his notable successes, other metrics highlight the narrow nature of Trump’s win. In terms of both percentage and raw vote counts, Trump’s margin of victory ranks as one of the slimmest in recent history.

As of November 20, Trump’s lead over Harris was 1.62%—a smaller margin than any winner since Bush in 2000, who prevailed with just a 0.51% lead. In the broader historical context, only John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Nixon in 1968 had smaller popular vote margins, at 0.17% and 0.7%, respectively.

In terms of raw votes, Trump’s margin of approximately 2.5 million is the fifth smallest since 1960. This figure is less than half of Biden’s margin in the 2020 election.

Moreover, Trump’s strong showing at the top of the ticket did not result in widespread Republican success down-ballot. In the seven battleground states, five held Senate races and one held a gubernatorial contest. While Republicans won Pennsylvania’s Senate race, Democrats triumphed in the Senate contests in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, as well as in North Carolina’s gubernatorial race.

In North Carolina, Democrats also secured wins in elections for lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and superintendent of public instruction. They were also narrowly leading in a state Supreme Court race.

The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to retain a narrow Republican margin, similar to the previous two years. In state legislatures, Republicans made only modest gains in chamber control, while Democrats managed to make inroads in other areas.

Barry Burden, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, described Trump’s victory as “solid and convincing.” However, he noted, “the 2024 elections were not a general endorsement of the Republican Party. Many Republicans down ballot did not perform as well as Trump.”

Implications for Future Elections

The 2024 election continues a broader pattern of close contests and fluctuating political control. Since 2000, the presidency, Senate, or House has changed hands 16 times across 13 election cycles.

This trend suggests that Democrats may be well-positioned for the 2026 midterms and potentially the 2028 presidential race. Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney emphasized the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the state of the country, remarking, “Unless Trump creates an abrupt change in the national mood, Democrats have a good chance at a successful 2026 midterm.”

Trump’s 2024 victory represents a blend of significant achievements and historical narrowness. His success in battleground states and his strong showing against an incumbent party underscore his electoral strength, but the modest margins and lack of a down-ballot boost highlight the complexities of his win. As the U.S. political landscape remains deeply divided, the coming years will test the durability of Trump’s mandate and the Republicans’ ability to consolidate their gains.

New Dawn For Thanksgiving

November 23, 2024November 25, 2024 Dr. Mathew Joys, Las VegasUSA 0

“May your Thanksgiving be filled with blessings, warmth, and joy.” Wishing you all bountiful Thanksgiving, a happy holiday season, and a healthy New Year.

Meticulously, we need to be thankful for all the blessings we acquired, both in personal and social life, indeed.

“It’s dawn again in America” was part of the slogan, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan’s 1984 presidential campaign displayed. The slogan may have been even more relevant this year, as the Republican Party won the presidential election and won a majority in the Senate.

“Thanksgiving” is an expression of gratitude and deep appreciation for the good things in life. Gratitude is a small word, but its scope, breadth, and depth are indescribable. Although we can express our gratitude to each other without any price, it is human nature to forget to express our gratitude. Thanksgiving is a wonderful time of the year when we gather with friends and family over turkey, stuffing, and other delicious home-cooked meals. It’s a great opportunity to remember with gratitude the most inspiring holiday in our lives. Americans celebrate Thanksgiving Day on the last Thursday of November every year.

This year, Thanksgiving Day will be a grand celebration, coming right after the presidential election. The media has assessed that the American people have brought Donald Trump and the Republican Party to power with a huge majority, realizing that the failed four-year administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has pushed the United States into a difficult situation of inflation. Political leaders of the world have recognized that the massive and decisive victory achieved by voting for obvious reasons such as millions of illegal immigrants, rising prices, and increasing crime is a victory for the American people.

In the Holy Bible, as per Chronicle 16:34 “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his love endures forever.”.

“He showed us extraordinary kindness. Let us not grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9),” Christian political thinkers have also come forward, citing many of the biblical verses. Let us hope that Trump and his followers will understand the will of the people and try to move forward by doing good, rather than wasting time on unnecessary talks and accusations of the past. Let us continue our work for the good of our country and the purpose of expressing gratitude to God. A slight feeling is on the horizon that we are starting to see changes!

Change was inevitable, and we brought it- let us be thankful.

Trump Secures Victory in 2024 as America Swings Right

November 21, 2024November 22, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

The nation witnessed a significant shift to the right in the 2024 presidential election compared to the 2020 race. Four years ago, President Joe Biden secured six out of seven critical battleground states, but this time, all those states moved toward President-elect Donald Trump. Furthermore, Trump is on course to win the popular vote, a stark contrast to Biden’s 7-million-vote lead in 2020.

Trump Dominates the Suburbs

Suburban areas played a decisive role in the election outcome. According to exit polls, over half of the voters in 2024 resided in suburban regions, making these areas pivotal swing zones in both the presidential race and closely contested House districts. Historically, the suburban victor has won 11 of the past 12 presidential elections, dating back to 1980. This year, Trump emerged victorious in the suburbs, securing 51% of the vote compared to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 47%.

Harris had hoped to mobilize suburban women in key swing states to her advantage. However, the anticipated support did not materialize. Exit polls revealed that Trump won white suburban women by a margin of seven points and white suburban men by a significant 27 points. While some suburban households had split votes, it wasn’t enough to propel Harris to victory.

In several swing states, Trump’s gains in suburban areas were substantial, based on near-final vote counts. The Philadelphia suburbs and two major counties near Detroit saw a net swing of nearly 60,000 votes in Trump’s favor. Similarly, in Wisconsin’s “WOW” counties—Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington—Trump gained over 10,000 votes. Georgia’s suburban counties near Atlanta also leaned toward Trump, contributing to his overall success.

Interestingly, in certain Atlanta metro counties, Harris outperformed Biden’s 2020 numbers, and her losses in the Charlotte metro area were not as severe as in the industrial Midwest. These trends offer Democrats a glimmer of hope for the Sun Belt’s future, even as the Midwest becomes increasingly challenging terrain.

Rural Areas Deepen Their Support for Trump

Rural America, long a Republican stronghold, turned out in record numbers for Trump. In 2024, he won 64% of the rural vote, the highest margin for any candidate since 1980. This performance surpassed even Trump’s previous high of 61% in 2016.

Trump’s dominance in rural regions helped him secure wins in key battlegrounds and bolster his popular vote tally in traditionally red states like Texas. In Texas alone, Trump gained a net of over 900,000 votes compared to 2020, and in Florida, his lead expanded by more than 1 million votes.

These gains were partly driven by Trump’s significant inroads with Latino voters, particularly in South Florida and South Texas. The shift among Latino communities further solidified his position in these critical states.

Harris Falls Short in Urban Centers

Urban areas, typically Democratic strongholds, presented challenges for Harris. While large cities remain central to Democratic success in swing states, Harris secured just 59% of the urban vote. This figure lagged behind the performances of Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton in previous elections.

This underperformance contributed significantly to Harris’s defeats in key states. For instance, in Maricopa County, Arizona, which encompasses Phoenix, Harris received approximately 61,000 fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. In contrast, Trump gained about 56,000 votes, resulting in a 117,000-vote swing in a single county.

A similar trend was observed in Wayne County, Michigan, home to Detroit. Harris’s support fell by more than 60,000 votes, while Trump gained roughly 24,000. Wayne County is home to a significant Black voter base, as well as the nation’s largest Arab American population in Dearborn, which numbers around 100,000. Many Arab American voters expressed dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s stance on the Gaza conflict, a factor that may have impacted Harris’s performance in the region.

The story was much the same in other major urban centers across swing states, including Las Vegas and Philadelphia. Even in traditionally blue states, Harris struggled to match Biden’s 2020 numbers. In New York, for example, Harris’s vote total declined by more than 800,000 compared to Biden’s performance four years earlier.

A Broader Electoral Landscape

The 2024 election results highlighted stark regional and demographic divides in American politics. Trump’s ability to consolidate support in rural areas and among suburban voters proved decisive, while Harris’s challenges in urban centers and among key demographic groups weakened her chances of victory.

These shifts suggest a changing political landscape, with Republicans making gains in areas where Democrats traditionally performed well, and Democrats focusing on emerging opportunities in the Sun Belt. As America moves forward, both parties will likely analyze these trends to shape their strategies for future elections.

Trump’s Bold Cabinet Picks: Provocation or Strategy?

November 17, 2024November 22, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

President-elect Donald Trump has stirred controversy with his selection of key cabinet members, signaling a combative approach to shaping his administration. Among the most talked-about nominations are former Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services, and Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense. These appointments have overshadowed more traditional choices like Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of State and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as secretary of the Interior.

The quartet of controversial nominees has placed Senate Republicans in a challenging position. With the GOP holding a slim 53-47 majority in the Senate, all four appointees require confirmation. Trump’s picks appear to reflect his tightening grip on the Republican Party following his decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential election.

This show of dominance poses a dilemma for Senate Republicans, particularly those skeptical of Trump. Figures like Sens. Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, who previously voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial, are likely to voice concerns. Trump’s tense relationship with outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell adds another layer of complexity.

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, a vocal Trump critic, remarked that nominating individuals like Gaetz tests the party’s willingness to align with Trump’s agenda. “It shows you are not serious. You are really just giving Republicans a test to see how much they will bend to your will,” she said.

Gaetz’s nomination has already sparked significant turbulence. The Florida congressman resigned his seat upon being nominated, effectively halting a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, illegal drug use, and potential misuse of his position. Gaetz denies any wrongdoing.

The question of whether senators should have access to the committee’s findings has become contentious. Speaker Mike Johnson argued against releasing the report, calling it a “terrible breach of protocol and tradition.” Nevertheless, the delay in the Ethics Committee’s vote to decide on the report’s release has intensified scrutiny.

Republican senators, including Collins and Murkowski, have expressed skepticism. Murkowski dismissed Gaetz’s nomination as “not a serious nomination for attorney general,” while Collins said she was “shocked” by the decision. Sen. Joni Ernst added that Gaetz faced an “uphill climb” for confirmation.

A new complication emerged when an attorney representing two women involved in the Ethics Committee investigation alleged that one of the women had witnessed Gaetz engaging in sexual activity with a minor. This accusation has further clouded Gaetz’s prospects for confirmation.

Trump’s other nominations have also raised eyebrows. Gabbard, in particular, may face intense opposition from Republicans wary of her past comments that align closely with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Former Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused Gabbard of being “likely a Russian asset” during an MSNBC interview, although Gabbard has dismissed such allegations as “completely despicable.”

Kennedy’s controversial views, particularly his vaccine skepticism, pose another obstacle. Hegseth, despite his military background, has limited experience managing an organization as vast as the Defense Department, which employs nearly three million people.

The motivations behind Trump’s choices have sparked debate. Some observers believe he is determined to assemble a cabinet more aligned with his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda, distancing himself from the traditional GOP establishment that characterized parts of his first term. Others see the nominations as a power move to assert control over remaining skeptics within the party.

A third theory posits that Trump may be deliberately advancing polarizing nominees to allow Republican senators to reject one and demonstrate independence while confirming the others. Under this scenario, Gaetz could serve as the sacrificial nominee. However, some argue that Gabbard’s contentious past could make her even more vulnerable to rejection.

Dan Judy, a Republican strategist, cautioned against overanalyzing Trump’s approach. “He is a creature of instinct and he acts on instinct,” Judy said. “For someone like Gaetz, [Trump] thinks, ‘He is loyal to me, he looks good on TV, and he is sitting next to me on the plane right now — why don’t we make him attorney general?’ I don’t think there is any Machiavellian strategy to it.”

Whether driven by strategy or impulse, Trump’s cabinet picks highlight the challenges his administration will bring. Senate Republicans now face the difficult task of balancing loyalty to their party leader with their constitutional duty to vet his nominees.

Trump’s Peacemaker Appeal Resonates in Kamala Harris’s Ancestral Chennai

November 16, 2024November 18, 2024 Staff ReporterIndia 0

On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, Bala Raja, an 84-year-old retired professional in Chennai, India, expressed unequivocal support for Donald Trump. Wearing a cap emblazoned with “NYC,” Raja confidently declared, “He’s the right man.”

Raja was not alone in his sentiment. Male voters globally, including in Besant Nagar, the Chennai suburb where U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, grew up, echoed their approval of Trump. Their rationale for supporting him centered on his potential as a peacemaker.

After a visit to the Varasiddhi Vinayaka Temple, overlooking the scenic seaside where Harris once walked with her grandfather, Raja elaborated on his views. “He will control everybody,” he said, asserting that Trump could effectively manage global powers like China and Russia. Reflecting on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he stated, “[Trump] would have stopped the war.” Another supporter, R. Srikanth, agreed. Drawing comparisons to Trump’s first term, Srikanth remarked that Vladimir Putin refrained from invading Ukraine during that time. “He’ll talk to Putin,” he added, emphasizing the hope for global peace under Trump’s leadership. “The world wants some sort of peace so everybody can grow.”

However, neither Raja nor Srikanth provided specifics on how Trump might achieve such peace, whether in Ukraine or Gaza. This lack of clarity mirrored Trump’s campaign rhetoric, which relied heavily on the slogan “peace through strength.” The concept resonated with many Indians, including 29-year-old engineer Goutam Nimmagadda. Watching the sunset along the Chennai coast on November 5, Nimmagadda said, “He wants to stop wars and all of that,” referencing the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. He speculated that this perception might explain the belief in Trump’s suitability for fostering global stability.

In India, favorable views of Trump are not new. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in June revealed that 42% of Indians expressed confidence in him—one of the highest global ratings. Among Indian men, 51% voiced confidence in Trump, compared to 32% of women. Globally, only men in Ghana, Nigeria, and Bangladesh displayed greater confidence in Trump. Contributing to this admiration may be the abundance of Trump-branded real estate in India, second only to the U.S., as reported by Indian media.

Sumitra Badrinathan, a political scientist at American University, attributes the emerging perception of Trump as a peacemaker to a broader narrative. “There’s a lot of people across the world who do believe this narrative that Trump is going to end the wars. It’s not unique to India,” she observed. This belief, fueled by campaign rhetoric and social media messaging, has gained traction internationally. Filtered through platforms like WhatsApp, it shaped opinions even in distant places like Chennai.

Milan Vaishnav, who directs the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, links these perceptions to the U.S.-India dynamic during Trump’s first term. The relationship between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump flourished during that period, marked by high-profile events like the “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston and the “Namaste Trump” gathering in India. Vaishnav noted, “The U.S. relationship with India really wasn’t something that was caught up in turmoil. In fact, you could argue that it went from strength to strength.”

This close association between the two leaders likely shaped Indian perceptions of Trump. Analysts suggest that a second Trump administration might see India capitalizing on robust trade ties with the U.S. while avoiding punitive tariffs. Additionally, India could face reduced scrutiny over its human rights record and its continued purchase of Russian oil amid Western embargoes.

Vaishnav highlighted the alignment between Modi and Trump as a potential factor in Trump’s favorable reception among Indian men. “They see similarities between Modi and Trump,” he said, adding that Modi’s efforts to position himself as a peacemaker may resonate with Trump’s narrative. Vaishnav referenced Modi’s meetings with both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier this year, where Modi sought to mediate and foster dialogue. “It’s this idea that we live in this chaotic world,” Vaishnav explained. “There’s a lot of instability, there’s a lot of global volatility. And we need these sort of larger than life strongman figures to essentially stabilize that system.”

Badrinathan, however, offered an alternative explanation for Trump’s peacemaker image: a lack of competing narratives. “I think we have to consider the simple explanation,” she said. “They did not hear any other message. This is the only one they heard.”

As Trump prepares for another term in the White House, his promise of “peace through strength” has clearly struck a chord with supporters in India, reflecting broader global sentiments. For some, his leadership embodies a vision of stability and strength amidst a volatile world, even if the specifics of his approach remain undefined.

Trump’s Shockwaves Reshape Washington with Controversial Nominations

November 15, 2024November 24, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

A political whirlwind swept through Washington on Wednesday as President-elect Donald Trump reshaped the political landscape with startling nominations that surprised even some members of his party. After meeting with President Biden at the White House and receiving a warm reception from the House GOP on Capitol Hill, Trump made bold moves that commanded the nation’s attention.

Among the most shocking decisions was his nomination of Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general. The announcement came shortly after Trump revealed his choice of Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman turned Republican from Hawaii, as director of national intelligence (DNI). These appointments overshadowed even Trump’s meeting with Biden and left other major announcements, such as the nomination of Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of state, largely unnoticed.

Trump had also surprised many a day earlier by naming Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his pick for defense secretary. Though criticized for his lack of relevant experience, Hegseth’s selection paled in comparison to the controversies surrounding Gabbard and Gaetz. Collectively, these choices signaled Trump’s intent to deliver a seismic jolt to Washington as he prepares to return to the White House after his recent election victory.

Trump’s decisive win over Vice President Kamala Harris was his strongest showing across three presidential campaigns, giving him a mandate he appears eager to leverage. His actions highlight his determination to dismiss traditional political norms and intensify his brand of right-wing populism. His victory also cemented his complete takeover of the GOP, sidelining figures like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney. In the next Trump administration, the old Republican establishment may have no significant influence.

The appointment of Gaetz as head of the Department of Justice epitomizes this shift. A staunch Trump ally, Gaetz is well-known for his outspoken support of the former president and his penchant for media attention. He played a pivotal role in the ousting of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and has remained a polarizing figure, even among Republicans. However, his nomination is clouded by past controversies, including his involvement in a Department of Justice investigation into alleged sex trafficking. Although he was not charged, Gaetz remains under scrutiny by the House Ethics Committee, which is investigating allegations of sexual misconduct and illegal drug use—charges he vehemently denies.

Gaetz’s confirmation in the Senate, where Republicans will hold a narrow 53-47 majority, is far from guaranteed. His divisive reputation has drawn criticism even from fellow GOP lawmakers. When informed of the nomination, Rep. Mike Simpson reportedly reacted with disbelief, saying, “Are you s—ting me?” according to a Huffington Post reporter.

Meanwhile, Trump’s choice of Gabbard as DNI has raised concerns for different reasons. In announcing her nomination, Trump praised her “fearless spirit” and her shift from the Democratic to Republican Party. Gabbard, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, is remembered for challenging Harris’s record on criminal justice during a 2019 debate. However, her stance on issues like Russia and Ukraine has been a source of controversy. Gabbard suggested that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might have been avoided if NATO had addressed Moscow’s “legitimate security concerns.” Additionally, she claimed the U.S. was involved in developing biological weapons in Ukraine, a statement that prompted Romney to accuse her of spreading “false Russian propaganda.” If confirmed, Gabbard would gain access to the nation’s most sensitive intelligence.

Trump’s unorthodox appointments highlight the stark contrast between him and the man he is set to replace in the Oval Office, both in temperament and ideology. Despite their fraught history, Biden hosted Trump at the White House for a two-hour meeting. This marked a significant departure from 2020, when Trump refused to extend the same courtesy to Biden after losing the election. Trump had then insisted, without evidence, that he had won—a claim that culminated in the January 6 Capitol riot.

Photos of Biden and Trump seated together before a roaring fire symbolized an uneasy truce. Trump described Biden as “very gracious,” a sentiment echoed by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who called Trump’s demeanor during the meeting “substantive.” Despite the pleasantries, it was a bittersweet moment for Biden, whose 2020 campaign framed his battle against Trump as a fight for the “soul of America.” Biden’s reelection hopes had dimmed following a lackluster debate performance, and Harris’s failure to extend his legacy added to the disappointment.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, Trump received a hero’s welcome from House Republicans, who celebrated his election victory. In a buoyant meeting, Trump joked about assembling a Cabinet with 15 members of the House GOP and teased his ally, Elon Musk, in good humor.

However, not everything went Trump’s way. Sen. John Thune triumphed in the race for Senate majority leader, defeating John Cornyn and Rick Scott. Scott, the preferred candidate of Trump’s MAGA base, received the least support in the secret ballot. Nonetheless, this development was a minor blip in an otherwise chaotic day dominated by Trump’s bold moves.

Trump’s decisions signal a willingness to challenge established norms and consolidate his grip on power. His nominations underscore his readiness to prioritize loyalty and ideological alignment over conventional qualifications, ensuring his second term will be as disruptive as his first. While the day included minor setbacks, it was largely a showcase of Trump’s unyielding drive to reshape Washington on his terms.

HinduPACT’s HinduVote Project Congratulates Donald J. Trump on his Election as the 47th President of the United States of America

November 15, 2024November 24, 2024 Ajay Shah, the President of VHPACulture 0

[Sugar Grove, IL] – HinduPACT’s HinduVote Project extends congratulations to President-elect Donald J. Trump on his election as the 47th President of the United States of America. We celebrate the democratic process, reflecting people’s will and upholding our nation’s foundational principles.

We express our sincere gratitude to Vice President Kamala Harris for graciously accepting the verdict and upholding the principles of the democratic process. The commitment to a peaceful transition of power reinforces the strength of our democracy and sets a commendable example for all Americans.

As we look forward to the future, we remind President-elect Trump of his promise to take immediate action to stop the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. We ask the President-elect to preserve the First Amendment rights of Hindus by sending a firm message to radical elements and to safeguard Hindus and their places of worship within the United States and abroad. The American Hindu community remains deeply concerned about the persecution, and we urge the incoming administration to address them with urgency and diligence.

The attention of the 47th President to the American Hindu Agenda 2024 is essential to the success and well-being of our community. This agenda outlines critical matters affecting American Hindus, including:

Protection of Religious Freedoms: Ensuring the rights of Hindus to practice their faith freely and without fear.
Combating Hate Crimes: Implementing policies to prevent and respond to acts of violence and discrimination against the Hindu community.
International Human Rights: Advocating for Hindus facing persecution in countries like Bangladesh and supporting global human rights initiatives.
Fair and Merit-Based Admissions and Employment Opportunities: Advocating for admissions in educational institutions and employment opportunities to be based on merit, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity for all. We support the Supreme Court’s decision in the Harvard v. Students for Fair Admissions case, emphasizing the importance of meritocracy and equal treatment under the law. We encourage the incoming administration to uphold these principles and ensure that policies reflect a commitment to merit, fairness, and equality.

We are eager to collaborate with President-elect Trump’s administration and request a meeting with his appointed officials to discuss these critical issues. We aim to create policies that reflect the values of inclusivity, justice, and mutual respect.

About HinduPACT’s HinduVote Project:

The HinduVote Project is an initiative of HinduPACT dedicated to empowering American Hindus through civic engagement, policy advocacy, and community outreach. Our mission is to ensure that American Hindus’ voices are heard in the democratic process and that their concerns are addressed at all levels of government.

For more information about the American Hindu Agenda 2024 and our ongoing initiatives, please visit www.hinduvote.org.

About HinduPACT:

The Hindu Policy Research and Advocacy Collective (HinduPACT) is an initiative of the World Hindu Council of America (VHPA) dedicated to the advocacy and policy research of issues concerning the American Hindu community. HinduPACT promotes human rights, voter education, and policies affecting American Hindus, aiming for peace and understanding through informed policy initiatives and grassroots advocacy. Visit https://hindupact.org for more details.

Trump’s Win Undermines Long-Standing Democratic Coalition as Voter Demographics Shift

November 11, 2024 Staff ReporterCulture 0

Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory stemmed from his ability to erode support among groups once considered pivotal for Democrats to hold the White House. Post-Obama’s historic 2008 victory, there was optimism within the Democratic camp that a “coalition of the ascendant”—younger people, minorities, college-educated individuals, and blue-collar workers—would secure their dominance for generations. This coalition was culturally progressive and endorsed a robust government role in social welfare, potentially cementing a Democratic hold on the presidency for years. Optimists believed “demography is destiny,” counting on the decreasing population of older, conservative white voters as non-white Americans were expected to form the majority by 2044.

However, over time, signs of vulnerability in the Democratic coalition emerged. Non-college-educated voters began drifting away, particularly noticeable during the 2010 and 2014 midterms, and their defection to Trump in 2016 marked a substantial loss. Though Joe Biden reclaimed enough of these voters in 2020 to win, Trump’s 2024 comeback demonstrated that the cracks in this coalition had deepened.

A New Coalition for Trump

In his 2024 campaign, Trump expanded his base beyond blue-collar workers by capturing a significant share of young, Latino, and Black voters. According to exit polls, he managed to secure 13% of the Black vote compared to John McCain’s 4% against Obama, 46% of the Latino vote versus McCain’s 31%, 43% of voters under 30 compared to McCain’s 32%, and a commanding 56% of those without a college degree, a group Obama had previously won. Trump celebrated this achievement, attributing it to a realignment within the electorate, remarking, “I started to see realignment could happen because the Democrats are not in line with the thinking of the country.”

Trump’s appeal was bolstered by a hardline stance on immigration, a key campaign point involving strict border enforcement and mass deportation policies. Biden and his Democratic allies refrained from such hardline measures, largely to avoid alienating immigrant-rights advocates. As a result, illegal border crossings surged under the Biden administration, with over eight million encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border. Kevin Marino Cabrera, a Miami-Dade County commissioner, pointed out that Democrats had moved significantly left on immigration, noting, “It’s funny how far to the left [the Democrats] have gone.”

This shift enabled Trump to secure Miami-Dade, a heavily Latino region in Florida, becoming the first Republican to do so since 1988. He also won Starr County in south Texas, a region with a 97% Latino population, with 57% of the vote—an area where only 15% voted for McCain in 2008. Anti-Trump Republican strategist Mike Madrid noted the limitations of the Democrats’ “demography is destiny” strategy, arguing it incorrectly assumed that all non-white voters shared a common political identity. “That is not and nor has it ever been the way Latinos have viewed themselves,” Madrid explained.

For some Black voters, the Democratic Party’s approach also felt limiting. Kenard Holmes, a South Carolina student, expressed frustration during the primaries, saying, “I hate that if you’re Black, you’ve got to be a Democrat or you hate Black people and you hate your community.” He shared that he felt Democratic leaders took Black voters’ support for granted.

Electoral Gains in Counties and Cities

As states continued counting votes, early results showed Trump’s electoral reach had expanded in at least 2,367 counties, with a reduction in support in only 240. For Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, it was essential to generate strong support in urban centers to counter Trump’s dominance in rural areas. Yet, she fell short of expectations, winning just 63% in Wayne County, Detroit, compared to Biden’s 68% in 2020 and Obama’s 74% in 2008.

Economic issues, along with immigration, topped voter concerns. Polls indicated that Trump had an edge over Harris in these areas, and his messaging, devoid of identity politics, appealed across racial lines. Nicole Williams, a Las Vegas bartender, commented, “We’re just sick of hearing about identity politics…We’re just American, and we just want what’s best for Americans.”

Democrats Grapple with the Loss

The Democrats are now in a period of introspection as they come to terms with Trump’s sweeping victory, which handed Republicans control of the White House, Senate, and possibly the House of Representatives. Left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders criticized the Democrats for focusing too much on identity politics at the expense of working-class voters. Some centrists, however, believe the issues extend beyond the economy and immigration, pointing to Trump’s success in using cultural issues to fracture the Democratic coalition.

Among the positions that Republicans spotlighted were proposals to reduce law enforcement funding, decriminalize certain border crossings, and bolster protections for transgender Americans. These policies, initially popularized after George Floyd’s murder and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, had become vulnerabilities when appealing to broader voter demographics. Harris’s 2019 presidential bid, for instance, included support for policies that her opponents would later exploit, including taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for federal prisoners. The Trump campaign capitalized on this, releasing ads with slogans like, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” These ads reportedly accounted for over $21 million of the campaign’s ad spending in October.

Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, suggested a more direct approach, saying, “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face.” Moulton highlighted his concern over policies affecting youth sports, reflecting a broader critique of Democratic stances on cultural issues.

On the other side, progressive Democrats defended their commitment to minority rights, asserting this stance as a core value. Congressman John Moran retorted on social media, stating, “You should find another job if you want to use an election loss as an opportunity to pick on our most vulnerable.”

Political strategist Mike Madrid offered a blunt critique of the Democratic coalition, describing it as an “unholy alliance” of working-class minorities and wealthier, culturally progressive white voters, bound primarily by opposition to Republicans. With that opposition weakened, the coalition’s cohesion was jeopardized.

Reflection and the Path Forward

Though future elections may occur under more favorable circumstances for Democrats, Trump’s unique ability to mobilize new and infrequent voters may be unmatched. However, the 2024 election results will likely continue to fuel Democratic soul-searching.

According to Harris’s campaign, the loss resulted from an unsettled public and residual economic and social disruptions from the Covid pandemic. “You stared down unprecedented headwinds and obstacles that were largely out of our control,” campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon wrote to the staff. Dillon noted that Harris’s performance in battleground states, though close, reflected the broader rightward shift across the nation.

This sentiment resonates with voters like Moses Santana, a Philadelphia resident who, despite identifying with a demographic that once leaned strongly Democratic, now questions the party’s effectiveness. “Joe Biden promised a lot of progressive things, like he was going to cancel student debt, he was going to help people get their citizenship,” Santana noted. “And none of that happened. Donald Trump is bringing [people] something new.”

2024 Election: Trump Secures Sweeping Victory with Unprecedented Demographic Gains

November 10, 2024November 13, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

The 2024 election delivered a surprising political upheaval, with former President Donald Trump winning not only the Electoral College but making strides in the popular vote, expanding his coalition in ways not previously seen. This win grants Trump the reins of Washington with an unparalleled level of control. Central to his victory were issues that resonated deeply with voters and a campaign that saw significant support, particularly among men. Here’s a breakdown of the factors and shifts that contributed to this election’s outcome.

Issues Favoring Republicans from the Start

Voters’ concerns about the economy and high rates of border crossings had simmered for two years, creating a fertile ground for Republican messaging. While indicators like low unemployment, rising wages, and reduced inflation signaled economic recovery, many Americans still felt squeezed by prices that remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Housing affordability continued to be a top concern, as did the rising interest rates driven by the Federal Reserve’s approach to combating inflation. Though the Fed recently began cutting rates, the effects will not be felt immediately—right as Trump re-enters the White House.

Voters appeared to hold the Biden administration responsible for their struggles despite the U.S. economy outperforming other developed nations. Vice President Kamala Harris, however, couldn’t sufficiently dissociate herself from these economic woes. Polls reflected Biden’s approval at a mere 40%, with two-thirds rating the economy poorly, and 75% of voters experiencing significant inflation-driven hardships over the past year. Trump gained voter trust not only on economic issues but also immigration, crime, and even foreign policy, though the latter was less of a priority for voters.

While Harris held the edge on abortion rights, it was a narrower lead than anticipated, failing to sway enough of the electorate to offset Trump’s strengths in other areas.

Surge in White Voter Turnout Boosted Trump

For the first time in decades, white voters’ share of the electorate increased—from 67% in 2020 to 71% in 2024—despite their steadily declining proportion of the overall population. This increase provided Trump with a vital advantage, as white voters have traditionally leaned Republican since at least 1976. With Latino and Asian American demographics growing, the larger-than-expected white voter turnout served as a powerful bolster to Trump’s numbers.

Expanded Coalition Driven Largely by Men

Trump attracted 46% of Latino voters, setting a new record for Republican support within this demographic, surpassing even George W. Bush’s 2004 levels. This surge was fueled largely by Latino men, who supported Trump by a significant margin, whereas Harris claimed 60% of Latina voters. A similar gender gap emerged among young voters, with Harris capturing 61% of young women (18 to 29), while young men narrowly leaned towards Trump. In fact, Trump won the male vote across all age brackets, with Harris unable to secure enough support among women to offset this trend.

Higher Female Voter Share Did Not Translate to Victory for Harris

While women constituted 53% of the electorate—an increase from 2020—Harris’s performance among female voters fell short of expectations. She won a majority of the female vote, including “moms,” while Trump claimed “dads,” but her 53% share was notably lower than Biden’s 57% in 2020. A divide among white women by education level was evident: Harris gained with college-educated white women, but Trump performed better with those without college degrees, who turned out in higher numbers. White men with and without college degrees also leaned towards Trump, leaving Harris unable to bridge the gap.

Gender Divide Raises Questions on a Female Presidency

Harris’s loss raises questions about the readiness of the American electorate to support a female president. Some analysts believe that being tied to the Biden administration’s struggles worked against her. Had a Republican been in office during this period of economic unease, Harris might have seen a different result. Surveys indicated gendered perceptions of her campaign promises, with most women seeing her proposals as sincere, while men expressed skepticism, viewing her promises as strategic vote-seeking moves. This divide will likely prompt ongoing discussion regarding gender dynamics in U.S. politics.

Ticket-Splitting Helped but Couldn’t Prevent GOP Dominance

Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in numerous House and Senate races, indicating a degree of ticket-splitting. Senate Democrats held margins against Republicans in many states, including Montana, Arizona, and Ohio, but fell short in Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Democrats also hoped to win or retain House seats in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and California, yet are expected to fall just short of the majority. The top-ticket outcome underscored the challenges of riding against a strong presidential ticket during election cycles.

Democratic Voter Turnout Was Noticeably Lower

Compared to Biden’s record-breaking 81 million votes in 2020, Harris may come up nearly 10 million votes short. Blue states like New York, New Jersey, and Maryland saw substantial declines in support, with Harris receiving roughly 900,000 fewer votes in New York, 500,000 in New Jersey and Maryland, 300,000 in Massachusetts, and 180,000 in Virginia. Director of the Monmouth Poll, Patrick Murray, noted a 15% drop in Northeastern states, Minnesota, and Illinois, while red states saw a 10% decline and swing states around 4%. In contrast, Trump improved his numbers across all regions, particularly in swing states.

Polls Underestimated Trump but Highlighted Key Trends

Polling averages underestimated Trump’s support, showing Harris with a slight lead, which ultimately didn’t hold. Trump is expected to win the popular vote 50%-48%, with polling largely reflecting Harris’s numbers but misjudging Trump’s base strength, especially in swing states. Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, with late-deciding voters swinging his way—this election was no exception. Trump won voters who decided in the last days and weeks by significant margins, demonstrating his late-game momentum.

Despite some miscalculations, the polls accurately captured certain dynamics, like Harris’s lower support among Latinos and young voters. While Harris’s campaign opened strong, the polls showed a tightening race about a month before the election, with Trump eventually leading in the swing state average. Factoring previous polling errors, analysts noted the potential for a major Trump Electoral College victory, which ultimately materialized.

Democrats Face a Crossroads on Future Strategy

As with every election loss, Democrats now face the task of analyzing their shortcomings and plotting a way forward. The Democratic Party’s ongoing struggle to connect with working-class voters—once a solidly Democratic base—remains a challenge. Harris narrowly lost suburban voters, and those earning between $30,000 and $100,000 largely supported Trump, while Democrats held onto wealthier, college-educated voters. This realignment could place Democrats at risk of becoming a party perceived as catering to elites—a demographic insufficient in numbers to guarantee future victories.

The future of the Democratic Party depends on its ability to regain working- and middle-class support, particularly as rural regions continue to favor Republicans. Yet, it’s worth noting how quickly political dynamics can shift. Just a decade ago, Republicans were worried about their standing among Latino voters and anticipated a permanent minority unless they pursued immigration reform. Yet, the party’s shift in direction resulted in record Latino support in this election.

Thus, while trends may seem to indicate one trajectory, political landscapes are fluid. The unexpected gains for Trump underscore that anticipated outcomes aren’t always what materialize. The Democratic Party now faces the challenge of recalibrating to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters as it contemplates the future.

Trump Secures Arizona, Completes Electoral Sweep in Key Battleground States

November 10, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Donald Trump has secured Arizona in the presidential election, marking a complete sweep across all seven key battleground states. The Associated Press called the Arizona race for Trump on Saturday, effectively solidifying his victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. With the Arizona win, Trump now has a decisive electoral college lead with an anticipated final tally of 312 votes against Harris’s 226, surpassing the 270 votes required for a White House victory.

This victory in Arizona restores the state to the Republican camp after Joe Biden won it in 2020 and represents Trump’s second win there since his initial 2016 campaign. During his campaign, Trump emphasized issues such as border security and economic stability, aligning Harris with inflation and unprecedented levels of illegal border crossings during Biden’s administration. His stance on these matters appeared to resonate with voters in Arizona, contributing to his success in the state.

Alongside Arizona, Trump clinched victories in other crucial swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Nevada. In 2020, Biden had defeated Trump by securing six out of these seven swing states, narrowly losing only North Carolina. Biden’s 2020 win brought him 306 electoral college votes to Trump’s 232, an inversion of Trump’s previous success. Trump’s victory in 2016 also saw him capturing 306 electoral votes in his race against Hillary Clinton.

The Associated Press reports that nationwide, Trump garnered approximately 74.6 million votes, or 50.5% of the popular vote, surpassing Harris’s 70.9 million votes, which accounted for 48%.

In Arizona’s closely watched Senate race, Republican Kari Lake trails Democratic candidate Ruben Gallego by a narrow margin. Lake, who has publicly disputed the legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 presidential win, was behind Gallego with 48.5% to his 49.5%, a gap of around 33,000 votes as of mid-morning on Saturday.

Other races within Arizona remain highly competitive, including the contest for the state’s sixth congressional district between incumbent Republican Juan Ciscomani and Democratic contender Kirsten Engel.

The broader election outcome signals a shift in power as Republicans appear to be nearing control of the House of Representatives, complementing their victory in the Senate. With majorities in both chambers, Republicans would be positioned to advance a comprehensive policy agenda, potentially focusing on tax and spending reductions, energy sector deregulation, and enhanced border security measures.

Billionaire Fortunes Surge Following U.S. Election, Led by Musk’s Record Gains

November 10, 2024 Staff ReporterMoney 0

Following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, eight of America’s wealthiest individuals saw unprecedented gains. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, these top billionaires collectively gained $63.5 billion on Wednesday. While nine Americans and one Frenchman hold the highest positions on the list, the only American billionaire who saw a decline was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. His net worth fell by $80.9 million, leaving him at $202 billion on Thursday, November 7. The sole billionaire outside the U.S. within the top ten, French businessman Bernard Arnault, also experienced a decrease in wealth, with a $2.8 billion drop in net worth.

According to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index, here’s how the wealth of America’s richest surged and who benefited the most:

Elon Musk

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was the biggest gainer, with his wealth soaring by $26.5 billion. Musk’s net worth now stands at $290 billion, attributed in part to his support for Trump. Trump has even suggested Musk could hold a position in his administration. In an October rally in New York, Musk was prominently seen supporting Trump as he rallied alongside him at Madison Square Garden.

Jeff Bezos

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos saw a $7.14 billion increase, bringing his net worth to $228 billion. This boost came just days after Bezos explained his choice not to have The Washington Post, which he owns, endorse Vice President Kamala Harris. According to CNN, Bezos’ financial rise aligns with this decision to remain politically neutral.

Larry Ellison

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, another prominent Trump supporter, saw his fortune grow by around $10 billion, taking him to a net worth of $193 billion as of Thursday.

Bill Gates

Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, saw a significant rise in his wealth, with a $1.82 billion increase, reaching $159 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index reported Gates’ net worth was buoyed despite him not endorsing a candidate this election cycle.

Larry Page

Former Alphabet CEO and Google co-founder Larry Page also saw a notable increase in his wealth, gaining $5.53 billion. His net worth now stands at $158 billion.

Sergey Brin

Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s wealth rose by $5.17 billion, boosting his net worth to $149 billion.

Warren Buffett

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett’s net worth saw a $7.58 billion increase, rising to $148 billion. Known for his long-standing support of Democratic causes, Buffett did not endorse any candidate this election.

Steve Ballmer

Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, experienced a $2.81 billion increase in wealth, bringing his net worth to $146 billion. Like Gates and Buffett, Ballmer also refrained from openly supporting a candidate this year but has historically backed Democratic initiatives.

These billionaires, despite varying political leanings, benefited collectively as the Bloomberg Billionaires Index calculated an overall gain of $63.5 billion in their net worth. This significant rise comes amid Trump’s confirmed win in the election, with U.S. media projecting he will secure over 300 electoral votes. In December, Trump is expected to be officially recognized as the next U.S. president after winning the popular vote on November 5.

Though Elon Musk has been vocal in his support for Trump, many of these billionaires, including Gates, Ballmer, Page, Brin, and Buffett, have historically endorsed Democratic causes or candidates.

Trump’s Broadened Coalition and Key Gains Propel His Return to the White House

November 9, 2024November 11, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Donald Trump’s path back to the White House was marked by pivotal shifts among both small demographic groups and larger population categories, according to the AP VoteCast survey of over 120,000 voters nationwide. His electoral success hinged on retaining his core base—white voters, those without college degrees, and older voters—while also making gains among younger voters, Black and Hispanic men. Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, saw slight improvement, particularly with white, college-educated men in urban areas. However, these gains fell short in balancing her losses in other groups.

Trump’s Increased Share of the Youth Vote

Compared to 2020, Trump’s coalition included a larger portion of younger voters. Trump’s base grew primarily due to his ability to secure slightly more than half of voters over the age of 45, while Harris secured a comparable share of voters under 45. However, older voters remain a larger segment of the electorate, giving Trump an advantage since roughly 60% of voters in the 2024 election were over 45 years old. Although he retained a similar portion of older voters as in 2020, Trump managed to increase his appeal among younger voters. He captured nearly half of the under-45 demographic in 2024, a notable rise from the four in 10 he won in 2020.

This increase was even more pronounced among the youngest voters aged 18 to 29. Trump garnered support from nearly 46% of this age group, marking a significant increase from the 36% he had attracted in the previous election.

Support Among Voters Without a College Degree

Voters without college degrees continued to form a core part of Trump’s coalition, with approximately six in 10 Trump voters lacking a college education. A majority of voters in this election did not hold college degrees, and Trump held a strong lead among them, securing 55% of their support compared to Harris’ 40%. This outcome reflected a downturn for the Democrats since Biden nearly matched Trump among non-college-educated voters in 2020, drawing 47% compared to Trump’s 51%.

Trump’s success among non-college-educated voters was largely driven by gains among non-white men and younger voters without college degrees. Additionally, he drew more support from non-white women without a college degree than he had in the last election. In contrast, Harris retained the level of support that Biden had achieved among college-educated voters, who constituted 44% of the electorate, with the majority backing her. About four in 10 college-educated voters chose Trump, a figure that left Harris struggling to balance her losses among voters without college degrees.

Trump’s Standing Among White, Black, and Hispanic Voters

Trump’s 2024 coalition was primarily white, much like it was in 2020, yet it grew more diverse as he made gains among small but significant groups. Approximately three-quarters of the electorate consisted of white voters, with their support for Trump remaining stable at a national level. Notably, Trump made some inroads among Black and Hispanic voters, each group making up around 10% of voters in this election.

While Harris received support from roughly eight in 10 Black voters, this figure dropped from the nine in 10 Black voters who supported Biden in the last election. Similarly, although Harris secured more than half of Hispanic voters, this figure fell slightly from Biden’s nearly 60% share.

Trump’s outreach among young Black men eroded a crucial demographic for the Democrats, as about three in 10 Black men under the age of 45 supported Trump—a near doubling of his support from 2020. Additionally, young Latino men showed increased openness to Trump; around half of Latino men under 45 cast their votes for Harris, a dip from the six in 10 who supported Biden.

Urban, Suburban, and Rural Divide in Trump and Harris Support

Much like the last election, Trump’s strongest backing came from rural areas, whereas Harris saw her most concentrated support in urban centers. Nearly 45% of voters identified as suburban residents, with approximately half supporting Harris and 46% favoring Trump. Trump commanded about six in 10 voters from small towns and rural areas, while Harris received the same level of support among urban voters.

Education also played a role in shaping regional support. Trump made modest gains among urban voters without college degrees, as well as non-white voters in urban and rural areas. His support among white men without a college degree living in urban areas also rose, with around six in 10 backing him compared to just half in 2020.

In contrast, Harris made strides over Biden’s 2020 numbers among urban, college-educated white men. About two-thirds of this group supported her, an increase from Biden’s support among half of them in the last election.

Expectations about Harris and Trump as president

November 9, 2024 Pew ResearchOpinion, USA 0

Voters overall are divided in their predictions about how Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump would perform as president – with negative expectations outweighing positive ones for both candidates. And while majorities of voters see both Trump and Harris as bringing change to Washington – though more say this about Trump than Harris – they are also split over whether that change would have positive or negative effects.

Would Trump and Harris be above or below average presidents?

Voters’ predictions for a Harris or Trump presidency

Voters are more likely to say each of the presidential candidates would be poor or terrible presidents than to say they would be good or great at the job.

More voters today say Trump would be a “good” or “great” president than say this about Harris (41% vs. 36%). But similar shares of voters say each would be a “poor” or “terrible” president (48% say this about Trump, 46% about Harris).

Views of a potential second Trump presidency are more polarized than views of a potential Harris presidency: Voters are more likely to say Trump would be great than to say this about Harris (22% vs. 14%). But they’re also more likely to say Trump would be terrible (38%) than to say the same for Harris (32%). Voters are more likely to predict Harris would be an “average” president (18% say this about her, 11% about him).

Supporters’ views of their candidate

While most supporters of both candidates offer positive predictions about how their candidate would perform as president, Trump supporters are more likely to say a potential Trump presidency would be good or great than Harris’ supporters are to say this about her.

84% of Trump supporters say he would be a good or great president, including 46% who say he would be great. Just 13% say he’d be an average president.
73% of Harris supporters say that she would be a good (44%) or great (29%) president, while 24% say she’d be an average president.

Very small shares of each candidate’s supporters (just 2% each) say their candidate would be a poor or terrible president.

Supporters’ views of the opposing candidate

About nine-in-ten among both Harris supporters (91%) and Trump supporters (89%) predict that the opposing candidate would be a poor or terrible president. Harris supporters are particularly likely to say Trump would be a terrible president (76% say this). By comparison, 67% of Trump supporters predict Harris would be terrible.

Who would bring change – for good or bad – to Washington

Most voters say Trump will change Washington but are split over whether that will be good or bad

An overwhelming majority of registered voters say that Trump would change the way things work in Washington, but they are fairly divided over whether that change would be for the better or for the worse.

While 41% say Trump would change things for the better, a somewhat larger share (48%) say he would change things for the worse. Relatively few (10%) say that he would not change things much either way.

In contrast, three-in-ten voters say Harris would not change things much either way in Washington, while 41% say she would change things for the worse and 29% say she would change things for the better.

Harris and Trump supporters have different opinions on whether their candidate would change the way things work in Washington:

40% of Harris supporters say that Harris would not change the way things work much in Washington, while 59% say she’d change things for the better.
86% of Trump supporters say Trump would change things for the better. Just 12% say he would not change things much.

Overwhelming shares of both Harris (92%) and Trump (83%) supporters say the opposing candidate would change things in Washington for the worse. But Trump supporters are more likely to say Harris would not change things much (16%) than Harris supporters are to say this about Trump (6%).

Harris presidency: Biden’s policies versus a new direction

Nearly six-in-ten voters (58%) expect Harris to continue President Joe Biden’s policies, while about four-in-ten (41%) expect her to take the country in a different direction.

Among the 58% who say Harris would continue Biden’s policies, far more say this would be a bad thing (41%) than say it would be a good thing (16%).
Those who say she’ll take the country in a different direction are more likely to say this would be good (30%) than bad (10%).

Most voters say Harris would continue Biden’s policies

More than half of Harris supporters (58%) say she would take the country in a different direction – and they nearly unanimously view this course positively.

About four-in-ten Harris supporters (41%) say that she would continue Biden’s policies and most of this group (33%) say doing so would be a good thing for the country.

Trump supporters

Conversely, an overwhelming majority of Trump supporters (76%) say Harris would continue Biden’s policies – and this group nearly unanimously sees that as bad for the country. Only about a quarter of Trump supporters (23%) say Harris would take the country in a different direction – and most of this group (19%) say that would be a bad thing.

Have Harris and Trump clearly explained their views on issues?

When it comes to several major issues, voters are fairly divided on whether the candidates have clearly explained their policies and plans, with two notable exceptions.

75% of all voters say Harris has clearly outlined her views on abortion, including 93% of her supporters and 59% of Trump backers. About six-in-ten voters (61%) also say Trump has been clear about his views on abortion.
70% of all voters say Trump has clearly explained his policies and plans for addressing illegal immigration. Nearly all of his supporters (94%) and about half of Harris’ supporters (48%) say Trump has been clear about his plans on this issue.

Most voters say both candidates have made their abortion policies and plans clear, and that Trump has been clear about his plans for addressing illegal immigration

At least half of each candidate’s supporters say their candidate has clearly outlined their policies and plans for each of the policy domains asked about in the survey. But no more than a quarter of each candidate’s supporters say the other candidate has been clear about their policies and plans – with the exceptions of both candidates’ abortion policies and Trump’s policies on immigration.

Trump supporters are somewhat more likely than Harris’ to say their candidate has been clear on issues, while also being less likely to say the candidate that they oppose has clearly outlined their positions.

Addressing the concerns of supporters versus all Americans

Vast majority of voters say the candidates should address the concerns of all Americans

Both Harris (89%) and Trump (86%) supporters overwhelmingly say that, if their candidate is elected, they should focus on addressing the concerns of all Americans – even if it means that some of their supporters will be disappointed.

Only 10% of Harris supporters and 14% of Trump supporters say that their candidate should focus primarily on the concerns of those who voted for them without worrying too much about the concerns of those who did not.

These opinions closely mirror those of Biden and Trump supporters in 2020.

Views of whether the next president will work with the opposing party

Voters’ views on whether Harris and Trump, if they win the election, will work with the opposing party

A 55% majority of voters say it is likely that Harris will work with Republicans in Washington if she wins. A much smaller share (37%) say it is likely Trump will work with Democrats if he wins.

Majorities of each candidate’s supporters believe it is at least somewhat likely that their candidate will work with the opposition on important issues facing the country:

91% of Harris supporters believe it is very or somewhat likely she will work with Republicans in Washington if she wins, including 38% who say this is very likely.
70% of Trump’s supporters think he’d be at least somewhat likely to work with Democrats if he wins. Just 19% say this is very likely.

In 2016 – the last time this question was asked leading up to an election – voters were more likely than they are today to say Trump would work with Democrats if he won (45% said this was at least somewhat likely).

Voters’ assessments about whether Harris would work with Republicans are on par with their beliefs about a potential victory for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Ticket-Splitting Voters Shape Key Senate Races While Supporting Trump’s Presidential Win

November 9, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Duane Canther, a 66-year-old union worker in Michigan, reflects a growing group of voters who split their ballots in recent elections. Although Canther supported President-elect Donald Trump, he backed Libertarian Joseph Solis-Mullen over the major party candidates in Michigan’s Senate race, which was narrowly won by Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers by just 0.4 percentage points. Trump, by comparison, led the presidential race in Michigan with a 1.4-point margin. Canther explained his choice, saying, “I voted just to say I voted for somebody. They say if you don’t vote you can’t complain.” He added, “I felt both of them were flipping back and forth on certain things,” referring to the main party Senate nominees.

Similar voting patterns were evident in Wisconsin, where Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin retained her seat despite Trump winning the state. “Ticket-splitting” voters played a significant role, as demonstrated in North Carolina, where Trump won, but voters chose Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein for governor. Trump also prevailed in Nevada, where Democratic incumbent Sen. Jacky Rosen defeated her Republican rival Sam Brown. Trump appears set to win Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Reuben Gallego is leading Republican Kari Lake in the Senate race.

Some critical exceptions to this trend included Republicans successfully ousting incumbent Democratic Senators Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. Despite their losses, all three outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in their respective states. Although ticket-splitting has diminished in recent decades due to increased partisanship, outcomes in key states indicate it remains influential. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, remarked, “There are still differences between presidential and Senate races, and those differences broke in Democrats’ favor across these states.”

In these swing states, Democrats actively worked to separate themselves from President Joe Biden, whose approval ratings have been low. In Arizona, Gallego emphasized strengthening border security, while Rosen highlighted bipartisan efforts to upgrade Nevada’s infrastructure. Baldwin, in Wisconsin, focused on policies supporting farmers, and Slotkin stressed her commitment to American manufacturing in Michigan. Some experts argue that many Trump supporters either refrained from voting down-ballot or chose third-party candidates. Others contend that down-ballot Democrats swayed Trump voters by promoting a distinct image from the national Democratic Party.

Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained, “The Senate candidates are often well known to voters” due to intensive campaigns, which include extensive advertising. Burden noted that similar voter turnout across both presidential and Senate races indicates that a portion of voters deliberately chose candidates from opposing parties. He elaborated, “So voters in some places are making real distinctions to say this is not somebody who is aligned with Trump or represents him in the same way, or this is someone who has the state’s interest in mind in a way that other candidates don’t. And that really is a different story from one state to the next.”

Historically, split-ticket voting was more prevalent, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when political parties were more ideologically diverse. For instance, although Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1984, states he won, like Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, elected Democratic Senators. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996, Republican Senators were still elected in Clinton-carrying states such as Arkansas, Oregon, and Maine. As parties have become more polarized, voters have found it increasingly challenging to justify choosing candidates from both parties. Burden estimates that only about one in ten voters now split their ballots.

Today, some of the last remaining Senate Democrats from conservative states include Tester, Brown, and retiring West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who will be succeeded by Republican Sen.-elect Jim Justice. According to political scientists, split-ticket voters typically show lower political engagement, possess limited candidate knowledge, lack strong party affiliation, and often decide late. Burden pointed out that these voters are more influenced by individual candidates’ performance rather than national politics, stating, “They’re much more responsive to who the individuals are and to their performance in office and much less susceptible to the Washington style of defining politics.”

While Trump’s victory did not hinge on split-ticket voters, their behavior shows the limits of his appeal in certain regions. He would have still achieved the 270 electoral votes necessary to win without Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, or Arizona, all states where Democratic Senate candidates won or are leading. If Trump had also lost North Carolina, the electoral map would have shifted, favoring Harris.

Ticket-splitting is also more common in gubernatorial races. Maryland’s former Republican Governor Larry Hogan, who served from 2015 to 2023, led a heavily Democratic state but lost his Senate race to Democrat Angela Alsobrooks. Voters in Maryland also chose Harris for president.

The Democratic Senate candidates’ victories will determine the scale of the Republican majority in the upper chamber. It is projected to be between 52 and 55 seats. A smaller majority would limit Republicans’ legislative leverage, requiring bipartisan support to overcome the 60-vote threshold needed to counter a filibuster. As Burden noted, “Ticket splitters are more casual voters, but they end up being the ones who make a big difference.”

Indian-Americans Welcome Trump’s Return, Praise Strong Leadership to Address Inflation and Global Conflicts

November 8, 2024November 11, 2024 Staff ReporterCommunity 0

Members of the Indian-American community expressed optimism following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, seeing him as the leader the country needs to tackle inflation and illegal immigration. Many in this community see Trump’s win as a return to a leadership style they believe is crucial, particularly in handling domestic issues and maintaining firm international relations.

Donald Trump’s victory adds him to the list of U.S. presidents who have served nonconsecutive terms, a distinction he now shares only with Grover Cleveland, who held office from 1885-1889 and 1893-1897. However, Trump’s re-election came with a unique precedent—he is the first president with both criminal convictions and two impeachments. Despite these controversies, including events tied to the January 6 Capitol riots, these issues appeared to have little sway on voters’ willingness to support his return to the White House.

Dr. Avinash Gupta, a cardiologist and community leader within the Indian-American population, emphasized Trump’s leadership qualities as a critical factor in his support for the re-elected president. “Trump is a strong leader. The country needs strong leadership,” he told PTI. Comparing Trump’s previous term with that of President Biden’s, Gupta pointed out what he perceived as clear differences, especially noting the economic stability under Trump’s administration and a lack of new military conflicts during his tenure. “We have seen what Trump did for four years, and then we saw the Biden-Harris administration for four years. The difference was very clear,” Gupta said, stressing that the Biden administration struggled to match Trump’s achievements in areas like economic strength, secure borders, and U.S.-India relations.

For Gupta, who has been vocal about the need for a steady hand in international affairs, Trump’s leadership is vital at a time when global conflicts are straining diplomatic ties and peace efforts. He specifically pointed to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. “We need a strong leader who can put an end to all these wars and achieve global peace. We know that Trump is not a typical politician, so only he will be able to achieve this,” Gupta said, reflecting confidence in Trump’s non-traditional approach as essential for resolution. Earlier in the year, Trump had pledged to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, a promise he reiterated following a congratulatory message from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on his Republican presidential nomination.

Echoing this sentiment, Gupta stated, “Definitely, I think if somebody can stop the war, Trump can stop the war.” According to Gupta, this sense of conviction resonates within the Indian-American community, where there is broad support for Trump’s goal of global stability.

Deepa, an Indian-American business owner in New York, voiced similar support. Having previously voted for Trump, she cited his experience and previous success as reasons behind her choice. “He knows what should be done for the country. He is the right person,” she remarked. Deepa, who wished to keep her last name private, mentioned that her backing for Trump is personal and rooted in her belief in his capacity to deliver on promises. “Everyone has their personal choice. I think Trump is better,” she explained. Deepa added that her preference for Trump over Kamala Harris was not influenced by gender; rather, it came down to a trust in action over rhetoric. “Her being a woman does not matter. (The Democrats) never deliver on their promises. They say they will do something but they don’t. Trump is not like that. He does what he says,” she stated. Living with her young family in Long Island, Deepa shared that the predictability and decisiveness she sees in Trump are key to her support.

A New Jersey businessman, who requested anonymity, voiced his concerns about the struggles faced by business owners due to the challenging economic environment. “Businesses are hurting. It is becoming unsustainable,” he said, stressing the impact of inflation and what he considers a deteriorating economy. For him and others, the current economic strain has highlighted the need for a leader who can effectively address rising costs and stabilize the financial climate. The businessman noted that domestic challenges, coupled with pressing international issues such as the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, underscore the need for someone like Trump to steer the country forward.

Trump’s potential impact on U.S.-India relations remains a point of optimism for his Indian-American supporters. When asked who between Harris and Trump would better serve the interests of the two nations, the consensus was clear. “Trump, of course,” several members of the community remarked. Many within the Indian-American community see Trump as uniquely positioned to deepen the diplomatic and economic ties between Washington and Delhi, with some pointing to his previous tenure as indicative of his commitment to a strong bilateral relationship.

As Trump prepares for another term, his supporters within the Indian-American community are hopeful that his promises to reduce inflation, curtail illegal immigration, and address international conflicts will see decisive action.

Pollsters Again Misjudge Trump’s Support, Miss Key States in 2024 Election

November 8, 2024November 10, 2024 Staff ReporterMedia 0

For the third time in a row, U.S. polling organizations faced challenges predicting Donald Trump’s electoral performance in key states during the recent presidential election. Several major polls significantly underestimated his support in crucial battleground areas, leading to a surprising outcome.

One of the most notable polling errors came from veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Iowa. In her final poll for The Des Moines Register, Selzer predicted that Vice President Kamala Harris would lead Trump by three points in Iowa. However, this forecast proved inaccurate, as Trump ultimately won the state by a large margin. According to AP News, Trump won Iowa by 13.2 percentage points, defeating Harris 55.9% to 42.7%. “The poll findings we produced for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom did not match what the Iowa electorate ultimately decided in the voting booth today,” Selzer said on Tuesday. She added that she would review data from multiple sources to understand the reason behind the discrepancy.

Another significant error came from a poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College, which was released two days before the election. This poll indicated that Harris had a strong lead in states like Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin, with Pennsylvania and Michigan showing a tie between the two candidates. Yet Trump ended up either leading or winning in all these states.

Even in states traditionally seen as Democratic strongholds, polling discrepancies were apparent. According to the Xinhua News Agency, the discrepancies were particularly severe in New Jersey, where a Rutgers survey conducted in mid-October missed Trump’s actual performance by a significant margin. Additionally, Trump outperformed his polling average by 4.1% in Maryland, while Harris underperformed by 1.2%, as reported by The Independent.

James Johnson, founder of J.L. Partners, one of the few firms that accurately predicted Trump’s win, noted that many polling organizations repeated past mistakes from the 2016 election. “The key thing is people made the same mistakes they did in 2016,” Johnson told Newsweek. He explained that pollsters underestimated a segment of Trump’s base — individuals who are less engaged politically and more likely to be too busy to respond to pollsters.

Nate Cohn, The New York Times’ chief polling analyst, added that the issue might lie in structural biases within survey response rates. He noted that “white Democrats were 16% likelier to respond than white Republicans,” suggesting that polling samples may not accurately reflect the actual voter demographic. This observation was highlighted by Vox, which reported that these structural issues could contribute to the skewed polling data.

Despite the notable misses, some pollsters argued that overall polling data wasn’t entirely off. According to Yahoo News, many election models regarded the race as a toss-up, giving both candidates similar odds of winning. For instance, FiveThirtyEight and Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin each predicted a 50% chance of victory for Harris, while Split Ticket estimated her odds at 53% and The Economist at 56%.

A final Yahoo News/YouGov poll had Trump and Harris tied at 47% each among likely voters, with around 6% of voters supporting third-party candidates or remaining undecided. According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis cited by Yahoo News, U.S. presidential election polls have typically shown an average error margin of four percentage points since 2000.

Interestingly, online betting markets seemed to more accurately capture Trump’s chances in the election. Major betting platforms, including Betfair, Kalshi, Polymarket, PredictIt, and Smarkets, had all assigned Trump better-than-even odds of winning as election day approached. The polling missteps have drawn widespread criticism and renewed questions about the reliability of the industry’s methods.

During his election night broadcast, Comedy Central host Jon Stewart highlighted the public’s frustration with polling accuracy. He humorously remarked, “I don’t ever want to hear, ‘We’ve corrected for the overcorrection with the voters,’” pointing out the ongoing challenges in accurately gauging public sentiment.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Trump held a 3.5% lead in the popular vote, although this margin could decrease as more votes are counted in populous states such as California. He has secured wins in five of the seven critical battleground states, with results still pending in Nevada and Arizona, as reported by Yahoo News.

The persistent issues in polling accuracy, particularly in relation to Trump’s support, have sparked broader questions among polling experts. These experts are examining the industry’s adaptability to shifts in voter behavior and communication patterns, especially considering that less politically engaged voters are less likely to respond to traditional polling methods.

Kamala Harris Concedes, Pledges Peaceful Transition as Trump Prepares for Second Term

November 7, 2024November 8, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

In one of the most intense presidential elections in U.S. history, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris conceded defeat to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, ending a hard-fought campaign for the White House. Speaking to her supporters for the first time after the results, Harris, the outgoing Vice President, committed to a peaceful transition of power, a promise underscored by indirect references to Trump’s previous reluctance to leave office following his defeat in the 2020 election.

“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuelled this campaign,” Harris told the crowd gathered at Howard University, her alma mater. Her supporters, visibly emotional, listened as she affirmed her continued faith in America’s promise despite the disappointing outcome. “My heart is full today—full of gratitude for the trust you have placed in me, full of love for our country, and full of resolve,” she said, expressing appreciation for her supporters’ efforts throughout the campaign.

While acknowledging the election results, Harris stressed her personal disappointment: “The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear me when I say: The light of America’s promise will always burn bright.” She emphasized that the ideals and principles she advocated during the campaign would endure beyond the election.

In an effort to inspire hope amidst the difficult news, Harris invoked what she described as “a law of history,” referencing the belief that “only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” She continued, “I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, billion stars. The light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service.” Harris encouraged her supporters to hold onto hope and stand together with optimism and resilience.

She also urged her followers to accept the election results and come to terms with the outcome. “Folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now, I get it. But we must accept the results of this election,” she remarked, acknowledging the challenges her supporters might face in accepting the outcome but emphasizing the importance of democratic norms.

Harris disclosed that she had spoken with Trump earlier in the day to assure him of her administration’s cooperation in the transition process. “I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition and that we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris stated, underscoring her dedication to a smooth handover.

Meanwhile, Trump addressed his own supporters in a victory speech, promising a renewed focus on his campaign pledge to “Make America Great Again, again.” The 78-year-old Republican thanked his campaign team and his voters for their unwavering support, calling his triumph “magnificent.” Trump’s victory was clinched with wins in key battleground states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, among others. These decisive victories underscored the electorate’s attention to critical issues such as the economy, immigration, inflation, and healthcare.

In the lead-up to his return to the White House for a second term, Trump spoke of his confidence in reviving America’s fortunes and building on his previous policies. His return to the presidency after his controversial exit in 2020 marks a significant chapter in U.S. politics, with a historic comeback for a former president.

Current President Joe Biden also reached out to Trump by phone, with plans to address the nation on Thursday (Eastern Time). In his conversation, Biden congratulated Trump on his victory and expressed his commitment to a peaceful and cooperative transition process. According to a senior White House official, Biden reiterated the importance of unity and invited Trump to meet with him in the White House. “President Biden expressed his commitment to ensuring a smooth transition and emphasized the importance of working to bring the country together. He also invited President-elect Trump to meet with him in the White House,” the official noted. The two teams are expected to schedule a specific date for the meeting soon.

Trump’s inauguration will mark him as the 47th President of the United States, a position he last held before a contentious departure four years ago. His return to office underscores the impact of his continued influence and his enduring appeal among his base, as well as the broader American public’s division on key issues shaping the nation’s future.

Shift in Indian American Support Shines Spotlight on Usha Vance Amid Republican Victory

November 7, 2024November 8, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Usha Chilukuri Vance, born and raised in California, represents the deep-rooted connection of Telugu-speaking Indians in America, with nearly 200,000 people from the community residing in the state. Her connection to India has taken on new significance following the recent U.S. election, which has seen her husband, JD Vance, become the Republican candidate for Vice President. The importance of her Telugu heritage and the influence of Indian Americans in U.S. politics is highlighted by the fact that celebrations and prayers were conducted in Indian villages in support of both Democratic and Republican candidates.

Political Support Echoes in Indian Villages

Although separated by thousands of kilometers, the election in the United States resonated in two villages in India, each with its own connection to the candidates. In Tamil Nadu’s Thulasendrapuram village, where Kamala Harris’s maternal ancestry is rooted, residents held special prayers for the Democratic candidate. Thulasendrapuram, the village of Harris’s mother Shyamala Gopalan, reverberated with chants and hymns as villagers rallied in support of Harris, whose mother emigrated from Chennai to America.

Conversely, prayers were also held in Andhra Pradesh’s Vadluru village, the ancestral hometown of Usha Chilukuri Vance’s family, for JD Vance and his campaign. With JD Vance married to Usha, an American-born woman of Indian heritage who shares ties with Andhra Pradesh, the Republican campaign stirred enthusiasm in her ancestral land. Usha’s family emigrated from Andhra Pradesh, with her parents working as professionals in the United States—her father an engineer and her mother a biologist. Her faith remains a core part of her life, and she practices Hinduism; she has even influenced her husband to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, showcasing the cultural bridge between their backgrounds.

Kamala Harris and Usha Vance: Iconic Figures of the Indian-American Narrative

As Harris praised her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, for her “courage and determination” in moving to America alone at just 19, parallels were drawn with Usha Vance’s own journey alongside her husband, JD Vance. Usha met JD Vance while studying at Yale Law School, and their relationship flourished. The couple eventually married in a traditional Hindu ceremony, blending their faiths and traditions.

For many Indian Americans, particularly those in California, where Telugu is widely spoken, Usha Vance’s prominence brings new visibility to their community. Although JD Vance’s candidacy might appear surprising given the historical Democratic allegiance among Indian Americans, Usha’s active role and strong connection to her cultural roots make her a significant figure within the Indian-American diaspora, particularly for Telugu speakers.

Usha Vance’s Influence in Her Husband’s Career

Usha Vance has played a central role in JD Vance’s political life, frequently supporting and advising him on his political journey. The New York Times reports that the two organized a group at Yale Law School to explore themes of “social decline in white America,” illustrating her involvement in his early career. Usha has gained professional experience as a litigator, beginning her career at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, a prestigious law firm where she worked in both San Francisco and Washington, D.C., from 2015 to 2017. Later, she clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 before returning to Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in January 2019.

The couple’s partnership has been instrumental to Vance’s career, and JD Vance often speaks of Usha as his “partner in every sense of the word.” Her support has helped him navigate the challenges of political life, and her influence has contributed to his rise within the Republican Party. This shift has aligned the Telugu community and the broader Indian-American base with a renewed interest in Republican politics, marking a distinct shift in the typically Democratic-leaning Indian-American electorate.

Changing Political Landscape Among Indian Americans

The shift in Usha Vance’s prominence coincides with a broader political shift within the Indian-American community. The “Indian Americans at the Ballot Box” survey, conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, underscores this change, showing a slight increase in Republican support among Indian Americans. The survey indicates that 57% of Indian Americans now identify as Democrats, a drop from 66% in 2020, while those identifying as Republicans have risen from 18% to 27%.

During the 2020 Presidential election, Indian Americans overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidate Joe Biden, with 68% casting their votes for him compared to 22% for the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump. However, by 2024, support among Indian Americans had shifted, with approximately 60% favoring the Democratic Party led by Kamala Harris and 30% aligning with Trump. This change highlights the evolving political preferences within the Indian-American community, particularly as more Indian-American men lean towards the Republican Party, whereas Indian-American women tend to favor the Democratic Party.

The Rise of Republican Support Among Indian Americans

Although the majority of Indian Americans still support the Democratic Party, the slight shift towards Republican support reflects a diversification of political views within the community. This change is not merely a shift in party allegiance but also signifies the expanding influence of Indian Americans in U.S. politics, as they navigate a spectrum of political choices that reflect a growing sense of agency within the community.

The 2024 election cycle reveals that Indian Americans, historically steadfast in their support for the Democratic Party, are now reconsidering their affiliations. As Republicans welcome an increasing number of Indian Americans, especially among the younger generations, prominent figures like Usha Vance play a key role in representing this change.

Two Faces of the Indian-American Dream

Kamala Harris and Usha Vance symbolize the diversity and resilience of the Indian-American experience. While Harris, with her maternal Tamil Nadu heritage, has become a symbol for Democratic supporters, Usha Vance represents a new alignment for Indian Americans with the Republican Party, particularly among Telugu-speaking communities. Each woman embodies a distinct aspect of the Indian-American narrative, yet together they highlight the contributions and accomplishments of this diverse community within the U.S. political landscape.

For the Telugu-speaking population, which has grown significantly in recent years, Usha Vance’s presence in American politics resonates as a point of pride. Donald Trump’s victory has brought renewed focus to Usha, especially among Telugu Americans in the U.S., who celebrate her influence and her husband’s achievement.

A Community Reflects on its Political Identity

The recent Republican victory, symbolized by Usha Vance’s rise, reflects a significant cultural and political shift within the Indian-American diaspora. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana’s increasing immigrant numbers have bolstered Republican support, showing a community keenly aware of its influence and willing to embrace diverse political identities. The desi focus in America, once firmly behind Kamala Harris, has begun to include figures like Usha Chilukuri Vance, whose heritage and professional success provide a fresh lens for examining the political landscape.

Both Kamala Harris and Usha Vance, with their respective ties to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, offer a rich dual narrative for Indian Americans, showcasing how the community has navigated, contributed to, and flourished within the United States. The evolution of the Indian-American political base mirrors the community’s own journey in America—adaptable, resilient, and increasingly influential across the political spectrum.

Trump’s Reelection Raises Questions of Media Credibility and Future Direction

November 7, 2024 Staff ReporterMedia 0

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency has ignited a pivotal moment for American media. His victory over Kamala Harris has sparked widespread debate among journalists and media observers, particularly around issues of credibility, influence, and engagement with audiences. These concerns may take years to fully unravel, but the election has already set off introspective conversations within the industry: What does this resurgent “red wave” signify about the current media landscape in the United States?

In the hours following Trump’s reelection, a faction of his supporters asserted that the victory signaled a decisive rejection of mainstream news outlets. On Wednesday morning, the lead story on The Federalist did not focus on Trump himself, but instead targeted what it called the “corporate media industrial complex,” which it declared “2024’s biggest loser.” Commentator Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire took to X (formerly Twitter) to echo this sentiment, claiming, “Legacy media is officially dead… Their ability to set the narrative has been destroyed. Trump declared war on the media in 2016. Tonight he vanquished them completely. They will never be relevant again.”

Walsh’s assertion of a media downfall may be overstated — Tuesday’s extensive election coverage reflected the continuing relevance of the press — yet his perspective is not uncommon among Trump’s supporters, many of whom are highly skeptical of the media. They not only distrust much of what they read but increasingly avoid engaging with mainstream sources at all. This division poses a critical question for the industry: Is there any way to bridge the gap and regain the trust of these viewers?

In a recent column for New York magazine, a quote from an unnamed TV executive underscored this issue and quickly circulated on social media. “If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they’re not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely,” the executive observed. “A Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form. And the question is what does it look like after?”

The term “dead” may be an exaggeration, but the sentiment reflects legitimate concerns among journalists. A significant trust deficit persists between Trump’s base and traditional media outlets, and it is prompting some in the industry to consider whether a shift in approach is necessary. One Trump campaign aide suggested the press might benefit from a more humble stance. “Maybe we have a point,” the aide commented. “Maybe ‘misinformation’ is a lazy word that was never applied to press coverage of Biden’s health or the border. Maybe ‘offensive’ things aren’t offensive to most.”

Media analysts, such as Semafor’s Dave Weigel, have pointed out that the power of mainstream media has weakened with each election cycle. He noted on Wednesday morning that “On Harris-friendly cable news, ex-Republicans broadcast their horror at who Trump was and what he’d done; in the new social media and podcasts favored by Republicans, all of that was whining disconnected from what voters really cared about.” His observation resonates with a segment of Trump voters who feel that major outlets are out of touch with the issues they prioritize.

CNN political commentator Scott Jennings echoed this view during CNN’s early morning election coverage, describing Trump’s win as “something of an indictment of the political information complex.” Jennings remarked, “We have been sitting around for the last couple of weeks and the story that was portrayed was not true. We were told Puerto Rico was going to change the election. Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley voters, women lying to their husbands. Before that it was Tim Walz and the camo hats. Night after night after night we were told all these things and gimmicks were going to somehow push Harris over the line. And we were just ignoring the fundamentals. Inflation; people feeling like they are barely able to tread water at best; those were the fundamentals of the election.”

Jennings added that for journalists and political commentators, this election outcome underscores the importance of connecting with a portion of the American public that feels alienated from traditional media narratives. “I think for all of us who cover elections and talk about elections and do this on a day-to-day basis, we have to figure out how to understand talk to and listen to the half of the country that rose up tonight and said, ‘We have had enough,’” he stated.

Liberal commentator Ashley Allison responded, emphasizing a need for inclusivity in media coverage, noting, “I think we have to listen to everybody, actually. The people who voted for Kamala Harris are struggling too. They are feeling ignored too. A Republican’s pain is no greater or less than a Democrat’s pain.”

Looking ahead, Trump’s relationship with the press is likely to be strained, a continuation of his combative stance toward the media during his previous term. Historically, Trump has not been satisfied with the nature of news coverage, even from outlets like Fox News, which has generally shown him support. Recently, he reportedly expressed frustration to Fox patriarch Rupert Murdoch over the network’s decision to run Democratic advertisements.

Trump’s reelection could signal a new period of antagonism between his administration and both impartial and opposition-leaning media organizations. This potential clash raises important questions: Will Trump act on his frequent threats against the press? For instance, he has suggested multiple times that he might pursue revoking broadcast licenses for TV stations. Additionally, he could choose to restrict access to the White House for journalists who cover him unfavorably.

There are concerns as well that media outlets might practice self-censorship to avoid conflict with Trump, a strategy that could alienate readers and viewers who do not support him. Amid these uncertainties, some media companies are working to reassure their staff about the value of independent journalism. On Wednesday, Conde Nast chief Roger Lynch sent a memo to his employees emphasizing the organization’s commitment to independent reporting, writing, “Now, more than ever, we are steadfast in our mission to uphold the principles of independent journalism. A thriving, independent press, as protected by the First Amendment, is vital to democracy and the future we all share.”

As Trump’s second term approaches, both traditional and digital media outlets face numerous challenges in responding to the needs of a deeply divided audience. Newsrooms are tasked not only with providing factual reporting but also with reaching out to audiences that have increasingly turned to alternative media. The coming years will likely shape the future of American journalism, as reporters and editors seek to navigate these turbulent times and rebuild public trust.

Trump Poised for Second Term with Loyalist Kash Patel Eyed for CIA Role

November 7, 2024 Staff ReporterProfile 0

Republican Donald Trump has narrowly defeated Democratic contender Kamala Harris, clearing his path back to the White House for a second term. His remarkable comeback was marked by commanding victories in key swing states, enabling him to surpass the critical 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency.

The 78-year-old President-elect is expected to select high-level officials to fill his cabinet, with names being circulated for key roles. Among those likely to be considered for high-ranking posts is Kashyap “Kash” Patel, a prominent Trump loyalist of Indian descent, rumored to be a top contender for the CIA Director position.

Patel, a former Republican House staffer, held several senior roles in defense and intelligence during Trump’s previous term and was a frequent figure on the campaign trail, advocating for Trump. He notably served as Chief of Staff to Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, solidifying his alignment with Trump’s administration.

Born to Indian immigrants from East Africa, Patel has deep ties to his heritage, with ancestral roots in Vadodara, Gujarat. Raised in New York, he graduated from the University of Richmond before earning a law degree and a Certificate in International Law from University College London. Initially struggling to secure a position in a top law firm, Patel launched his career as a public defender, dedicating nearly nine years in Miami courts to cases ranging from murder to drug trafficking and financial crimes.

Vast Experience in Government

Patel transitioned from public defense to federal service by joining the Department of Justice as a prosecutor specializing in terrorism. He led major investigations and prosecutions involving high-profile terror groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS and served as the Justice Department’s Liaison Officer to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), where he collaborated on counterterrorism missions globally.

His role expanded further when he became Principal Deputy to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, where he oversaw all 17 intelligence agencies and played a key role in delivering the President’s Daily Briefing, an essential update for the Commander-in-Chief on national and international security matters.

House Intelligence Committee and the Nunes Memo

Patel’s career took a pivotal turn when Rep. Devin Nunes, then-chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, recruited him to spearhead the committee’s probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Patel was instrumental in drafting the “Nunes Memo,” a document that criticized the Justice Department’s practices in securing a surveillance warrant for a former Trump campaign volunteer. The memo became widely known and garnered praise from Trump himself.

Roles in the Trump Administration

Following his work on the Nunes Memo, Patel was appointed to several high-profile positions in Trump’s administration. In February 2019, he joined the National Security Council (NSC), later advancing to Senior Director of the Counterterrorism Directorate. His responsibilities included overseeing critical operations targeting ISIS and Al-Qaeda leaders and managing efforts to repatriate American hostages held by the Syrian government.

By February 2020, Patel had moved to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) as Principal Deputy to Acting Director Richard Grenell. He later became Chief of Staff to Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, where he wielded considerable influence over the Department of Defense’s strategy and transition operations.

A Polarizing Figure

Patel’s strong alignment with Trump on matters of national security has made him a divisive figure within the intelligence community. Toward the close of Trump’s initial term, discussions took place about naming Patel as a deputy director at the CIA or FBI. However, some officials, including CIA Director Gina Haspel and Attorney General Bill Barr, voiced opposition, questioning Patel’s qualifications for such roles.

Post-Government Work and Prospects

After departing from government service, Patel remained an outspoken supporter of Trump’s agenda, branching into business and media ventures. He published a memoir titled Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, in addition to children’s fiction aimed at promoting Trump’s values. Patel also sits on the board of directors for the Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of the social media platform Truth Social.

As Trump secures his second term, speculation around Patel’s potential appointment as CIA Director has grown, driven by his steadfast loyalty to Trump and his advocacy for significant reforms in government institutions. These reforms reportedly include curtailing FBI authority, restructuring the Justice Department, and enforcing stricter measures against government leaks and media transparency.

Donald Trump Triumphs Over Kamala Harris to Secure Second Term as U.S. President

November 6, 2024November 7, 2024 Staff ReporterWorld 0

Former President Donald Trump has emerged victorious against Vice President Kamala Harris in the U.S. presidential race, a result called by the Associated Press on Wednesday morning. This win marks Trump’s return to the White House as the 47th president of the United States. Securing 277 Electoral College votes, Trump surpassed the required 270 with a decisive victory in Wisconsin early Wednesday. His success in other critical swing states, such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and North Carolina, was instrumental in clinching the election. Alongside his electoral advantage, Trump currently leads in the popular vote, holding 51% of returns.

This victory is historically significant as Trump becomes only the second U.S. president to serve two nonconsecutive terms, joining Grover Cleveland, who achieved this in 1892. During his first term, Trump left a lasting mark on the Supreme Court, appointing three justices—Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. These appointments contributed to a more conservative bench, which played a pivotal role in overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

With his second term, Trump is positioned to make further impactful decisions regarding the Supreme Court. Republican pollster Frank Luntz indicated that the opportunity for more appointments may be imminent. “There are a couple justices that will probably be retiring in the next year or two,” Luntz noted, although he did not specify which justices he anticipated stepping down. Currently, the two oldest conservative justices on the court are Clarence Thomas, aged 76, and Samuel Alito, aged 74. Given the Republicans’ control of the Senate—responsible for confirming Supreme Court nominees—Luntz predicted that “whomever [Trump] wants is going to end up on the Supreme Court.”

In addition to potential Supreme Court nominations, CBS News highlights that Trump may have the opportunity to appoint additional federal judges, potentially shaping the judiciary for years to come.

This victory signals a new chapter in Trump’s political journey and foreshadows significant shifts in U.S. judicial appointments.

Donald Trump Wins Presidency, Ushering in New Era for US-India Relations

November 6, 2024November 7, 2024 Staff ReporterIndia 0

Former U.S. President Donald Trump made a stunning return to the White House on Tuesday, winning over Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. In his victory speech at West Palm Beach, Florida, Trump expressed optimism about the future. “This will be the golden age of America. America has given us an unprecedented mandate,” he stated, underscoring his vision for the nation under his renewed leadership.

As Trump prepares to take office again, India closely observes how his policy decisions might impact areas such as trade, finance, and the H-1B visa program. Here’s how Trump’s policies could shape key sectors in India:

Trade Relations

Under Trump’s leadership, the administration is anticipated to advocate for U.S.-centric trade policies, possibly urging India to ease trade restrictions or face higher tariffs. Such moves could impact key Indian industries, including information technology, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, all of which export significantly to the U.S. Trump’s focus on balanced trade might prompt India to revisit its trade strategy while potentially opening up new business opportunities.

A Nomura research report assessed the economic and geopolitical consequences of Trump’s second term, particularly for American financial sectors and Asian nations, with a specific focus on India. The analysis suggests that although Trump might adopt a strict stance on trade and currency, India could still benefit. The report highlights two primary trade issues between India and the U.S. during Trump’s term. Firstly, India’s existing trade surplus with the U.S. could be examined more critically, potentially subjecting Indian goods to new tariffs. Secondly, trading partners perceived as manipulating currency might face penalties. However, the report notes that the “China Plus One” approach, which encourages shifting supply chains from China to other countries like India, could help India offset some of these potential trade disruptions.

Impact on the Indian Stock Market

Trump’s potential impact on emerging markets, equity prices, and currency values raises questions among financial experts due to his anti-globalization policies. Sameer Narang, ICICI Bank’s head of economic research, weighed in: “If Trump is elected as President, it could imply higher rates, gold prices, and global USD regime than our base-case forecasts, while crude prices could be lower. A Harris victory could mean that the markets could trade closer to our base-case projections with rates likely to ease and global USD to trade flat.”

Trump’s approach to trade could strengthen U.S. economic growth, enabling Wall Street to outperform other global markets. This could potentially lead to rising yields, especially on long-term investments, as investors anticipate more government bond issuance. Analysts from ICICI Bank suggest that a second Trump term could also bolster the global position of the U.S. dollar, reduce Brent crude prices, and lower global base metal prices, reflecting shifts in Chinese growth. At the same time, gold prices might increase due to a rise in demand for safe-haven assets.

H-1B Visa Policy Adjustments

During his previous term, Trump’s administration imposed stricter rules on the H-1B visa program, making eligibility requirements more rigorous and enhancing application reviews. Moving forward, Trump may consider increasing the wage thresholds for H-1B visa holders, aiming to safeguard American jobs. This could mean fewer available visas and a restructuring of the cap system to prioritize applicants with specialized skills or advanced degrees.

The possible changes to the H-1B visa program may directly impact Indian workers, as a significant number of H-1B holders originate from India. Should the new administration proceed with these adjustments, it could reshape the dynamics of U.S.-India workforce exchange, affecting Indian IT and tech companies that rely on sending skilled workers to the U.S.

In summary, Trump’s return to the Oval Office brings potential shifts across several sectors that could influence the trajectory of U.S.-India relations. From trade policies to stock market dynamics and immigration reforms, India’s future interactions with the U.S. will likely depend on how Trump navigates his administration’s economic and international priorities.

Trump vs. Harris: A Presidential Race No One Predicted

November 5, 2024November 6, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

The 2024 U.S. presidential election presents a scenario that few would have imagined years ago. Donald Trump, after a dramatic fall from grace, has clawed his way back to lead the Republican Party, and Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged from political obscurity to secure the Democratic nomination. It’s an election where history has been made repeatedly, creating an air of unpredictability around the outcome.

Trump, once considered unlikely to regain political traction following his departure from the White House and two impeachments, is now the Republican nominee. Harris, who has endured a low-profile term as vice president, was unexpectedly thrust into the limelight when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, endorsing her as his successor. For both candidates, it has been a journey defined by unlikely comebacks and controversies that have further polarized the nation.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse remarked on the surreal nature of this election: “If someone had told you ahead of time what was going to happen in this election, and you tried to sell it as a book, no one would believe it.” Newhouse emphasized the energizing yet divisive nature of the campaign, hoping it would ultimately lead to a better America.

For Trump, the Republican path was complex but achievable. Despite facing significant opposition within his own party and severe legal challenges, his resilience surprised many political analysts. After Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump’s encouragement of his supporters led to a violent storming of the U.S. Capitol, many Republicans distanced themselves. They anticipated that other figures, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, might emerge as viable alternatives. Yet, Trump’s influence persisted, with the party ultimately failing to fully abandon him.

In the year following his announcement to run against Biden, Trump encountered four major legal indictments. Two of these cases related to his alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, while another involved mishandling classified documents. A New York court convicted Trump of falsifying business records in May, making him the first U.S. president to face criminal conviction. Even so, his political momentum was largely unaffected, and his supporters rallied around his cause, viewing his legal troubles as evidence of a biased system.

Trump’s campaign was fueled by widespread frustration over inflation and the issue of border security. He criticized Biden’s age and mental fitness, despite only a four-year age difference, and pointed out the administration’s struggles. These concerns resonated with many voters, lending credibility to Trump’s campaign. On July 13, during a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, which ended with him rallying his supporters while injured. The incident became an iconic image of his resilience, bolstering his support among Republican voters.

While Trump’s resurgence dominated headlines, Harris experienced a turnaround of her own. She was initially seen as a likely replacement for Biden’s vice-presidential candidate but lacked a solid base due to her low-profile performance and limited influence. However, Biden’s unexpected decision to step aside in favor of Harris changed everything, giving her an opportunity to reshape her political identity. “We are not going back,” Harris declared, framing her campaign as a push for progress and inclusivity.

Her evolution as a leader began in June 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Harris became a vocal proponent of abortion rights, a stance that resonated strongly with a significant portion of the electorate. Her bold move to show solidarity with expelled Tennessee lawmakers protesting for gun control further showcased her willingness to champion progressive causes.

Following Biden’s announcement, Harris moved swiftly to consolidate support within the Democratic Party. By the time she formally accepted the nomination, her team had launched an aggressive campaign focused on progressive policies. In her only debate with Trump on Sept. 10, Harris promoted plans to restore abortion rights and aid small businesses, contrasting with Trump’s call for economic protectionism and divisive rhetoric on immigration. Trump accused her of being “the worst vice president in the history of our country,” a claim that added fuel to an already intense election season.

The vice president’s campaign has benefited from her increased connections with influential local figures and communities. Since stepping into her new role, Harris has worked to position herself as a capable leader, emphasizing both her vision for America and her role in advancing equality and social justice.

Despite these distinct campaign strategies, the race between Trump and Harris remains tight. Pundits and pollsters continue to scrutinize every shift in public opinion, knowing that even minor fluctuations could determine the election’s outcome.

Harris Campaign Gains Momentum in Final Days Amid Tight Race Against Trump

November 5, 2024November 6, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Vice President Kamala Harris and her team are confident about their standing in the last hours of the presidential race, fueled by recent signs of support from undecided voters and a surprising poll in Iowa showing Harris leading in a traditionally Republican stronghold. After a period of concern, as former President Donald Trump seemed to gather momentum, the Harris campaign is now optimistic.

A critical shift has emerged in Harris’s favor, with data suggesting an advantage among last-minute deciders, especially women, which could prove pivotal in the election outcome. “Vice President Harris looks to be in a strong position going into Election Day,” remarked Jamal Simmons, Harris’s former communications director. “The data is leaning in her direction and she’s got the gait of a winner.” Simmons also observed, “People are ready to turn the page on the Trump era.” His views echo the optimism of Democrats who saw Harris’s rise in popularity following her nomination, though the campaign has faced ups and downs since then.

Democrats grew concerned as Harris’s economic messages appeared to struggle in key “blue wall” states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But recent data, alongside favorable signs from late-breaking voters, has restored optimism. A major turning point occurred after a Trump rally in New York City where a comedian’s comments about Latinos seemingly backfired, causing Trump to lose support, according to campaign focus groups.

As of late last week, Harris’s team reported strong internal polling, showing her leading among a crucial group of battleground-state voters who decided on her in the campaign’s final days. This momentum was further bolstered by an Iowa poll conducted by The Des Moines Register/Mediacom, showing Harris at 47% compared to Trump’s 44%. Although Iowa leans conservative, the Harris team views this lead as an indicator of her potential success in other battleground states. A strategist close to the campaign noted, “Even if she doesn’t win Iowa, it’s a good bellwether for other states like Michigan and Wisconsin and maybe Pennsylvania.” The strategist highlighted that Harris’s support among women and older voters could lead her to victory.

Additional evidence of Harris’s rising support came from a New York Times/Siena poll that reported her leading Trump in several battleground states. Harris held slight advantages in Nevada (49% to Trump’s 46%), North Carolina (48% to Trump’s 46%), and Wisconsin (49% to Trump’s 47%). Georgia was nearly tied, while Pennsylvania and Michigan were neck and neck. The only state where Trump led was Arizona, where he was ahead with 49% to Harris’s 45%.

An NBC News poll on Monday underscored Harris’s strong lead over Trump on abortion, with a notable 20-point advantage. Harris also polled better on representing middle-class interests, an area of concern for many voters.

Democratic strategist Fernand Amandi, who was involved in former President Barack Obama’s Florida victories in 2008 and 2012, observed a shift in mood among Democrats in recent days. Amandi attributed the shift to Harris’s favorable trajectory and suggested that Trump’s harsh rhetoric may have influenced voters’ sentiments. At a recent event, Trump had made controversial remarks about former Rep. Liz Cheney, who supports Harris. Trump referred to Cheney as a “war hawk” who deserved gunfire, prompting significant backlash. “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?” Trump said at the Arizona rally, while on stage with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “Let’s see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face.” Trump later clarified, saying he intended to comment on Cheney experiencing combat, not a firing squad.

During a Pennsylvania rally, Trump continued his combative tone, expressing regret about his departure from office in 2020. He also described Democrats as “demonic” and suggested that a gunman aiming at him should also target the “fake news.” These statements have raised concerns within the Harris camp. Amandi stated, “It’s all very chaotic and disturbing, and it’s confirming all the worst fears coming out of the Harris campaign about him.”

Despite the growing optimism within the Harris camp, some Democrats remain cautious. One strategist observed that while energy seems to have shifted toward Harris, the race remains close with polls within the margin of error. Additionally, NBC polling revealed that two-thirds of voters feel the country is on the wrong track. Trump holds a lead over Harris on the economy, polling at 51% to her 41%, and on managing the cost of living, with 52% supporting Trump compared to 40% for Harris.

Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland reflected this uncertainty, commenting, “We’re certainly not the heavy favorites… but we do think we have momentum on our side.” Cardin highlighted the natural anxiety that accompanies high-stakes elections. “There’s real concern about this election. When you have that, you’re going to be always nervous. Even if you were the heavy favorite, you would be nervous.”

Amandi, while sensing Harris’s growing momentum, stopped short of declaring optimism. “I’ll feel optimistic when the networks call 270,” he stated, referring to the number of Electoral College votes required to win the presidency.

With just hours until the election, Harris’s campaign has reason for cautious optimism, thanks to signs of support from crucial demographics. However, the close nature of the race and the high stakes keep both sides on edge as the final results await.

American Voters Prepare for 2024 Presidential Election as Tight Race May Delay Results

November 5, 2024November 6, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Americans are casting their votes in a tightly contested presidential election on Tuesday, with polling hours beginning to close at 18:00 EST (23:00 GMT) and wrapping up at 01:00 EST (06:00 GMT) on Wednesday. Despite previous elections where results were called within hours, this year’s competitive race between Democratic Vice-President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump may require additional time before a winner is declared. In past elections, winners have been named by late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, but this year’s close competition could delay media outlets from projecting a definitive victor.

The razor-thin margin of victory in some states may also lead to recounts. For instance, Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state, mandates a recount if the margin between candidates is less than 0.5%. In the 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s margin was only slightly above 1%, highlighting how close this year’s results could be. Legal disputes are also anticipated, with more than 100 lawsuits filed before election day, primarily by Republicans questioning voter eligibility and management of voter rolls.

Delays in results could also be exacerbated by election-related disruptions, such as issues at polling sites. However, in certain areas like Michigan, the speed of vote counting has improved since 2020, as fewer mail-in ballots were cast compared to the pandemic election period.

Historically, results for most presidential races have been declared within hours. For instance, Trump was confirmed as the 2016 winner by 03:00 EST on election night, and in 2012, Obama’s reelection was projected before midnight. However, the 2000 election serves as a notable outlier; the battle between George W. Bush and Al Gore extended over five weeks and was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, which ruled to halt Florida’s recount, securing Bush’s win.

This election is expected to hinge on outcomes from seven key swing states where both Harris and Trump have viable chances of victory. Early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, breaking records in states like Georgia, where election officials estimate around 75% of ballots will be counted within the first two hours after polls close. North Carolina’s votes, on the other hand, are expected to be available by night’s end. Pennsylvania may take at least 24 hours for a sufficient number of votes to be tallied to determine a winner, while Michigan’s results are anticipated late Wednesday. Wisconsin could provide early data after its polls close at 21:00 EST, though a final outcome may not be available until the next day.

In Arizona, preliminary results might be reported as soon as 22:00 EST, but Maricopa County, the state’s largest, warns that full results might not arrive until early Wednesday. The situation in Nevada could be even more prolonged, as mail-in ballots postmarked on election day are accepted until 9 November.

Election analysts caution against interpreting early vote counts as definitive, noting that in 2020, initial results favored Trump before mail-in ballots boosted Biden’s totals. This led to Trump’s subsequent false claims that the election was “stolen.” Experts predict similar shifts may occur this year, with a possible “red mirage” favoring Trump or a “blue mirage” suggesting an early lead for Harris. According to the University of Florida’s Election Lab, over 83 million Americans have voted early, with women constituting 54% of these voters—a demographic that may benefit Harris. However, Republican turnout in early voting has also risen significantly, indicating a less predictable trend.

The process of tallying votes usually starts with those cast on election day, followed by early and absentee ballots, challenged votes, and finally military and overseas ballots. Local election officials, some appointed and others elected, conduct canvassing to verify and process each ballot. This meticulous process involves comparing cast ballots with active voter lists, checking for any ballot damage, and resolving inconsistencies. The votes are then fed into electronic scanners to be tabulated, though some cases may require manual recounts or verification. Strict regulations govern every state and county, including who can oversee the canvassing and how partisan observers are permitted to monitor vote counting.

After every valid ballot is included, the electoral college process begins, determining the presidency based on electoral votes rather than popular votes. Each state awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority, a result confirmed after electoral college meetings on 17 December. On 6 January, the newly convened US Congress meets to count these votes and formally confirm the next president.

Following the 2020 election, Trump refused to accept defeat, calling on supporters to protest at the Capitol on the day Congress certified Biden’s win. Trump also pressed Vice-President Mike Pence to reject the results, though Pence declined. Despite attempts by some congressional Republicans to overturn Biden’s victory, reforms since then have clarified that the vice president lacks the authority to discard electoral votes unilaterally. Still, concerns persist that efforts to contest the 2024 results could arise at local and state levels, especially given that Trump and Republican leaders, including running mate JD Vance, have refrained from unequivocally committing to accept the election outcome.

If the election results in a tie—an outcome that would yield each candidate 269 electoral votes—then the House of Representatives would vote to select the president in a procedure called a contingent election, while the Senate would choose the vice-president. Although such a situation has not occurred in roughly 200 years, it remains a constitutional possibility.

The new president will be inaugurated on 20 January 2025, marking the 60th such ceremony in US history. During this event, the president-elect will pledge to uphold the Constitution before delivering their inaugural address on the grounds of the US Capitol.

Historic Showdown in 2024 Presidential Election: Harris and Trump Stand Poised to Make History

November 4, 2024November 5, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 1

As the 2024 presidential race nears its conclusion, America is on the brink of witnessing a historic moment, regardless of the outcome.

Should Vice President Kamala Harris win, she would become the first woman to hold the highest office in the United States. In contrast, if former President Donald Trump emerges victorious, he would be the second president in history to secure a return to the White House after a failed reelection bid, and the first former president to achieve this despite a criminal conviction.

ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove reflected on the weight of this election, stating, “You hear inevitably every four years that this is the most important election of one’s lifetime, but there is no question in my mind that this is the most important election of my lifetime, and probably the most important since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency and the fate of the country was in the balance.” Updegrove attributed the extraordinary nature of this election to both the historic backgrounds of Harris and Trump, and the ideological stakes of the race, which he described as a pivotal moment for American democracy and global diplomacy.

The political spectrum is polarized by the stark differences between Harris and Trump. “I’ve never in my life, again, seen such a marked difference in what the candidates stand for and the policy positions they have articulated,” Updegrove noted, pointing to Trump’s unconventional stance on key issues as a departure from traditional U.S. leadership.

The 2024 election cycle itself has been one of unprecedented twists and turns. President Joe Biden initially launched his reelection campaign in April 2023 and dominated the primary season with uncontested wins across all states. However, a highly anticipated and early debate with Trump in June turned the tables, as Biden’s performance led to increased concerns about his age, especially among his Democratic supporters. In July, after mounting pressure from his party, Biden stepped down, subsequently endorsing Harris—already the first Black and South Asian woman to serve as vice president—to succeed him as the Democratic nominee. By early August, Harris officially took the helm of the Democratic ticket following a virtual delegate voting process.

During her acceptance speech in Chicago, Harris spoke about the overarching themes of her campaign, calling it a “fight for America’s future.” Political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus from the University of Houston remarked on the extraordinary nature of Harris’s rise to the top of the ticket, observing, “It is exceptionally rare for presidential candidates to swap certain roles in the middle of the campaign, period. It was a wild moment for an already crazy cycle.”

Rottinghaus highlighted the historical significance of Harris’s candidacy, suggesting that her potential victory would symbolize a landmark achievement in the U.S. fight for diversity and gender equity in leadership roles. “If she wins, it will break barriers that the nation has been fighting to break since the 1920s. For a nation that has been more challenged in terms of race relations to nominate and then elect a Black woman is, by any counts, progress,” he added.

Despite the potentially groundbreaking nature of her candidacy, Harris has largely refrained from making her race or gender a focal point in her campaign messaging. Jim Kessler, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way, described this as a prudent approach. “That’s smart because voters aren’t interested in making history so much as being happy with where the country is going, and the voters feel very mixed,” Kessler noted.

In a recent interview with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, Harris addressed the subject of the history she could make. Harris candidly stated, “I am fully aware of my gender and race. And I know that it will be very significant in terms of the glass that will be broken. But I do not expect that anyone is going to vote for me because of my gender or race. It has to be because I earn their vote with a plan to make their lives better.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s third White House bid, announced in November 2022, has been riddled with legal battles and controversy. Over the course of his campaign, Trump has been indicted four times, with one case resulting in a conviction for falsifying business records related to hush money payments to an adult film actress during his 2016 campaign. Trump has vowed to appeal the conviction.

Despite these challenges, Trump emerged victorious in nearly every Republican primary state, fending off over a dozen rivals, including his former vice president. Most competitors dropped out before the first voting event in Iowa, and Trump was officially nominated by the Republican Party in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, not long after surviving an assassination attempt where he was shot in the ear. Updegrove characterized Trump as a figure of resilience, saying, “He’s a study in resilience and defiance, resurging despite two impeachments, Jan. 6, criminality and consistently flouting democratic norms during his presidency and as a candidate.”

If elected, Trump would join Grover Cleveland in the rare position of serving non-consecutive terms, making him the only U.S. president since 1892 to achieve such a feat.

Reflecting on the impact this election will have on future generations, Rottinghaus commented on the unique dynamics of both major parties in the race. “The Democrats were hungry for a win and despite having an incumbent president who was otherwise performing well needed to energize the ticket dramatically,” he observed. He also pointed out that Trump’s firm grip on the Republican Party essentially ensured his nomination, an outcome rarely seen in modern political history. “On the Republican side, Trump co-opted the Republican Party in a way that made his nomination inevitable. I don’t think we ever had a situation like this in the modern era,” Rottinghaus added.

The final days of the race are drawing intense attention to an election season that has defied expectations on every front. As Americans prepare to cast their ballots, they do so with a palpable awareness of the potential to shape the nation’s future and, as some political analysts argue, secure or redefine the democratic values of the United States.

Vice President Harris Holds Slim Lead Over Trump in Final Pre-Election Polling

November 3, 2024November 4, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

With Election Day just around the corner, Vice President Kamala Harris has taken a slight national lead over former President Donald Trump, as indicated by the latest YouGov presidential model released on Friday. According to YouGov’s final assessment, Harris is outpacing Trump by a narrow 3-point margin, capturing 50 percent of voter support compared to Trump’s 47 percent.

The election projection grants Harris a lead with 240 electoral votes, leaving her Republican opponent close behind at 218 votes, while 80 electoral votes are still considered toss-ups. This latest model shows a slight shift from the October 16 analysis, which projected Harris with 250 electoral votes to Trump’s 219, with only 69 electoral votes classified as uncertain.

In highlighting the states that are expected to be pivotal in the outcome, YouGov identified Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia as the primary battlegrounds, notably excluding Michigan from this list.

In Nevada, Harris narrowly leads with 50 percent of support, while Trump follows closely at 48 percent. However, Arizona presents a reverse scenario, with Trump leading Harris by an identical 3-point margin.

North Carolina and Pennsylvania are showing an even tighter race, with Harris maintaining a slight edge of 49 percent to Trump’s 48 percent in each state. Wisconsin also reflects a slim lead for Harris, with the vice president polling at 49 percent compared to Trump’s 47 percent.

The polling in Georgia tips slightly in Trump’s favor, with the former president leading by a single point, polling at 49 percent to Harris’s 48 percent.

Further corroborating this close race, The Hill/Decision Desk HQ’s polling index puts Harris marginally ahead on a national level, capturing 48.3 percent of support compared to Trump’s 48 percent.

The national poll, conducted between October 25 and October 31, included responses from 57,784 registered voters and has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

Democrats Face Tight Odds in Pursuit of White House and Full Congressional Control in 2024 Elections

November 3, 2024November 4, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Two prominent betting companies, Betfair and Star Sports, are now offering odds on the Democrats sweeping the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives in the upcoming November 5 elections. Betfair’s odds for the Democrats to capture all three branches are 6/1, giving them a 14.5 percent chance, while Star Sports rates a Democratic sweep at 7/1, or 12.5 percent. The stakes are particularly high as the 2024 presidential race remains exceptionally close, with polls suggesting a narrow lead for Republican candidate Donald Trump over Democrat Kamala Harris.

Polling website 538 recently released an analysis of the race, revealing Trump has a slight advantage, with 48 percent support versus 46.7 percent for Harris. Due to the Electoral College system, though, winning the popular vote doesn’t guarantee an overall victory, and 538 currently assigns Trump a 52 percent chance of winning, compared to Harris’s 48 percent.

If the Democrats succeed not only in retaining the White House but also in capturing both chambers of Congress, it would substantially strengthen Harris’s legislative capabilities, allowing for smoother passage of her policy proposals. Betfair spokesperson Sam Rosbottom explained, “Even if the Democrats manage to eke out a win against Donald Trump, their legislative agenda could be hampered if they are unsuccessful in the Senate and the House of Representatives.” He highlighted the importance of both chambers, especially as Democrats have been keen on reclaiming ground in the House after losing their majority there in 2022. “We’ve crunched the numbers and give the Democrats 6/1 odds of winning the presidency as well as both chambers in Congress. This gives them only a 14 percent chance of doing so, compared to the 45 percent chance that the Republicans have of winning all three,” he added.

The situation in Congress is particularly tense. Currently, the Democrats hold a fragile majority in the Senate, with 51 seats compared to 49 held by Republicans. The GOP, which has been eager to regain control of the upper chamber after falling short in the November 2022 elections, sees significant opportunities this election cycle. William Kedjanyi, a political betting analyst with Star Sports, suggested that Republicans could secure control over both chambers and maintain their influence in the House. “Republicans could have more to celebrate next week, with the prospect of seizing control of the Senate, as well as maintaining their majority in the House of Representatives. We price a GOP clean sweep at 6/4, with the Democrats an unlikely 7/1 to complete a federal government trifecta,” he noted.

One critical Senate race involves the West Virginia seat held by Joe Manchin, an independent who initially ran as a Democrat. This seat is widely seen as a likely win for Republicans. However, there is also a high-profile race in Texas, where Democratic Representative Colin Allred is challenging Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Polls indicate Cruz holds a modest lead, varying from 1 to 7 points, but this seat remains on the Democratic radar as a potential pick-up.

In November 2022, the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives, leading to a change in leadership from Nancy Pelosi to Republican Kevin McCarthy, and later to Mike Johnson. A recent study by *The Economist*, dated October 31, estimates that Democrats have a 54 percent chance of retaking the House in the upcoming election, while Republicans hold a 46 percent probability of retaining their majority.

To gain further insight, Newsweek attempted to reach out to the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party, though no responses were received by the time of publication.

As the election approaches, these odds reflect the high stakes for both parties and the uncertainty that continues to characterize the 2024 race.

Stock Market Hints at Potential Democratic Win, Despite Betting Markets Favoring Trump

November 3, 2024November 4, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Wall Street executives, political bettors, and cryptocurrency traders are increasingly wagering on former President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Yet, the stock market appears to suggest an alternate outcome. The U.S. stock market has surged recently, with the S&P 500 index climbing over 10% since August, an increase that could indicate stability in the current administration rather than a shift in power.

The S&P 500, while not a direct reflection of the broader economy, has historically served as a strong predictor of electoral outcomes. Over the past 96 years, it has accurately forecasted the incumbent party’s success or failure in all but four presidential races. As a general trend, a drop in the S&P 500 before an election hints at investor uncertainty, likely associated with the prospect of a new administration. Conversely, a rise signals stability, which the market often associates with the continuity of the current party in power. Based on the recent rise in the S&P 500, some analysts believe Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket, may secure victory.

“The market’s making a call for Harris to win,” says Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial, which has studied the correlation between stock movements and election outcomes. “When there’s more certainty about the incumbent party winning the White House, we know for the most part the policies they’ve [installed]. There’s just a level of comfort that the market has with that certainty.”

With the presidential race appearing as a close contest, voters are searching for clarity on the likely winner. This uncertainty has fueled interest not only in public opinion polls but also in election-betting markets and other indicators. Notably, election-betting markets are currently leaning toward Trump, as are other unconventional predictors, like the “Redskins Rule” and the outcome of the World Series.

“People are just naturally going to feel anxiety,” explains Justin Grimmer, a professor of public policy at Stanford University. “All of these things, I think, are ways for people to try to relieve this anxiety they have about this election.”

However, the S&P 500’s reliability as a predictor remains controversial. Monica Guerra, head of U.S. policy at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, points out that the index is no “crystal ball.” She suggests that the year’s stock market gains may be attributed more to tech companies and the Federal Reserve’s measures against inflation than to election outcomes. Trump has also often credited himself for market gains, arguing that a potential return to office would continue to benefit investors.

Despite these doubts, the S&P 500’s history as a forecasting tool is difficult to ignore. The index, which represents the largest public companies in the U.S., has correctly anticipated the election outcome in 20 of the last 24 contests. For example, in 2016, the index dropped 2.3% before Election Day, reflecting the transition from Democratic to Republican leadership with Trump’s unexpected victory. “You were laughed at for even thinking about it,” Turnquist recalls of Trump’s 2016 win. “But the market was right.”

Nonetheless, the index has not always been accurate. Its performance in 2020 suggested Trump would defeat President Joe Biden. Despite this, many investors remain convinced that Trump is favored to win again in the upcoming election. Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller highlighted this sentiment on Bloomberg Television, noting that various factors—including the performance of bank stocks, crypto prices, and Trump’s social media venture—indicate optimism for a Trump victory. Trump Media, for instance, has seen its stock price surge by over 200% since it hit a low last month.

Additionally, a selection of stocks that stand to gain from a Trump administration has recently shown upward movement. Morgan Stanley released a report identifying a “Republican basket” of investments, which includes companies in energy, banking, and cryptocurrency. This Republican portfolio has outperformed a similar Democratic-focused portfolio by 10% over the year.

Guerra emphasizes that mixed signals within the market reflect a tight and polarized electorate. “Part of the reason why we have conflicting indicators right now is because of how divided the electorate is and how tight it is in these swing states,” she notes. “This is a true toss-up. You can see that dynamic play out both in the markets and the economy.”

In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt underscored Trump’s poll dominance, adding that Republicans are making significant strides in voter registration and early voting compared to prior elections. “Voters know that Kamala Harris has destroyed our country, but President Trump will fix it — and that is why he is well-positioned for victory on November 5,” she asserted.

The Harris campaign did not provide comments in response.

Some experts, such as Reena Aggarwal, a finance professor at Georgetown University, remain skeptical of the S&P 500 as a comprehensive predictor. According to Aggarwal, the stock indexes today are less representative of the U.S. economy than they were in previous decades, mainly due to the outsized influence of tech companies. Additionally, the number of major private companies that are not publicly traded has grown, reducing the representativeness of public stock performance.

In past decades, the stock market better reflected the “broad economy,” as industrial and energy corporations with extensive workforces made up a more substantial part of the index. Now, tech giants dominate, leading to a disconnect between the stock market and the overall economy. “The market and the broader economy — there’s a disconnect,” Aggarwal points out.

For Stanford’s Grimmer, the historical link between economic indicators and presidential elections remains relevant but is ultimately limited. He warns against reading too much into patterns based on specific data points, noting that voters’ economic perspectives vary widely as Election Day approaches. Thus, the stock market may not be the best gauge of who will prevail.

“You can only use history so much,” Grimmer advises. “We’re just going to have to wait and find out. It’s a coin flip.”

Trump and Harris Locked in Tight Race as Election Day Nears

November 2, 2024November 3, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

As Election Day approaches, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris remain locked in a close contest, with both vying for the crucial 270 electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. According to recent polling, neither candidate holds a decisive lead, and the battle for votes in swing states is especially fierce.

In key battleground states, Harris has a narrow lead in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Trump is leading by small margins in Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. The polling data from 538, as of Friday, suggests these races are within the margin of error, highlighting how close the contest remains. Past elections have shown, however, that polling does not always accurately predict election outcomes, leaving the final result still uncertain.

The latest data reveals several potential paths for each candidate to reach the necessary Electoral College votes and clinch the presidency. If the polls accurately reflect Election Day outcomes, Trump would emerge victorious in states where he currently holds slight leads, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. This would give him a total of 287 electoral votes, putting him well above the required threshold. However, his lead in these states remains within 2.4 percentage points, making the results susceptible to polling errors.

Another possible scenario could favor Harris if the polls slightly understate her support. In that case, Harris could win by securing all electoral votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and even one electoral vote in Nebraska, which could bring her exactly to 270 votes. Such a path remains plausible, though it relies on her maintaining and potentially expanding her leads in these key states.

If Trump’s lead has been understated by polling, he could secure Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina, which would place him at 268 electoral votes, just two votes shy of victory. In this situation, winning Pennsylvania would push Trump past the 270 mark, enabling him to clinch the election.

So far, more than 65 million Americans have voted, which represents roughly 40% of the total turnout in 2020. Although the early voting data offers insights into voter demographics, it remains difficult to gauge who currently holds the advantage. Early voting records indicate a higher turnout among women voters, a demographic that the Harris campaign and Democrats have emphasized in recent days.

Moreover, data shows that 41% of early voters are registered Democrats, while 39% are Republicans. In contrast, during the same period in the 2020 election, registered Democrats made up 45% of early voters, with Republicans accounting for 36%. This shift could suggest a tighter race among early voters than in the previous election, though whether this trend will hold through Election Day remains to be seen.

Kamala Harris’ Running Mate Tim Walz Joins Diwali Celebrations at Bharatiya Temple in Pennsylvania

November 2, 2024 Staff ReporterCulture 0

On October 31, 2024, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, running mate to Vice President Kamala Harris, attended Diwali celebrations at the Bharatiya Temple in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. His visit was part of a broader initiative by the Harris-Walz campaign to connect with various communities across the nation. Governor Walz was warmly welcomed by Montgomery County Commissioner Neil Makhija, the first Asian American to serve as a county commissioner in Pennsylvania’s history, a milestone across all 67 counties in the state. He was also greeted by Atul Sangal, Secretary of the Bharatiya Temple’s Board, and the temple’s priest, Pundit Sri Seshasai Rompicharla.

Governor Walz participated in the temple’s diya lighting ceremony, a central aspect of Diwali celebrations that symbolizes the victory of light over darkness. During the event, he expressed his appreciation and wished the attendees a joyful and peaceful Diwali. “Happy Diwali to everyone. It’s a privilege for me to be with you on this special day, a privilege to stand amongst you,” said Governor Walz. He highlighted the strong sense of unity and love he felt within the temple community, adding, “You can feel the sense of community here. You can feel the sense of love. You can feel the sense that there is something bigger than all of us.” Walz shared that joining Harris on the presidential ticket was “a privilege” of a lifetime.

Governor Walz also acknowledged the contributions of the Indian and South Asian communities in Pennsylvania and Minnesota, noting their significant role in the cultural fabric of both states. “I know that in Pennsylvania, as well as Minnesota, the Indian and South Asian community is so much a fabric of our state and who we are,” he stated, recognizing the influence of these communities. He further expressed gratitude to Pennsylvania lawmakers and Governor Josh Shapiro for formally establishing Diwali as a state holiday. “It matters,” Walz said, highlighting the significance of the holiday’s official recognition.

Vice President Kamala Harris also issued a statement, extending her Diwali greetings to the Indian community and celebrating the global observance of the festival.

Election Day Approaches: Polls Show Swing States Favoring Trump

October 31, 2024November 3, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

As Election Day nears, with just one week left, the swing states are displaying a notable shift according to recent polls and betting odds. Pennsylvania has narrowly tipped back in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump, but the overall trend in other swing states tells a different story.

In the past two months, national polls have consistently indicated a lead for Harris, though this advantage has gradually decreased as Trump has made significant gains. Presently, he leads in five of the seven pivotal swing states that are expected to be crucial in deciding the outcome of the race.

While many states have historically leaned blue or red—like the 38 states that repeatedly voted for the same party between 2000 and 2016—certain states fluctuate from election to election. The battleground states of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin are currently in a tight race, making it difficult to predict an outcome.

Pennsylvania plays a critical role in securing victory for either candidate, as both Trump and Harris are vying for the state’s 19 Electoral College votes on Election Night.

Here is the latest snapshot of the polls and betting odds as we approach Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 5.

Current Polling Leaders in Swing States

According to the ABC News project 538, Harris currently leads the national polls by a margin of 1.4%, with Harris at 48.1% compared to Trump’s 46.6%. However, in Pennsylvania, Trump holds a slight lead of 0.3%. The state of Arizona shows Trump ahead by 1.9%, while Georgia also has Trump leading by 1.6%. In Michigan, Harris leads by 0.5%. Trump has a narrow advantage of 0.2% in Nevada, while in North Carolina, Trump is ahead by 1.3%. Wisconsin is currently a tie, indicating that Harris’s lead has diminished since last week’s results.

The website 270towin presents a slightly different perspective, showing Harris leading the national polls by 0.9% over Trump. In Pennsylvania, Harris has managed to regain a slight lead over Trump by 0.3%. Arizona indicates Trump leading by 1.7%, and in Georgia, he has a lead of 0.9%. Michigan shows Harris ahead by 1.5%. Nevada shows Trump ahead by 0.3%, North Carolina has Trump leading by 1.1%, and Wisconsin shows Harris with a 0.4% advantage. It appears that Trump has gained ground since the previous week’s polls.

Real Clear Politics shows that national betting odds have slightly shifted in favor of Trump, who has a marginal advantage of 0.1% over Harris. In Pennsylvania, the odds favor Trump by 0.4%. Arizona has Trump ahead by 1.5%, while Georgia shows a 2.3% lead for Trump. Michigan indicates Trump is ahead by 0.2%, Nevada shows a 0.7% advantage for Trump, and North Carolina has him leading by 0.8%. In Wisconsin, Trump is favored by 0.3%. This trend reflects Trump maintaining a slight lead in all swing states as well as in national odds compared to last week’s polling results.

Betting Odds Indicate Trump’s Growing Popularity

Polymarket, a cryptocurrency trading platform, reveals strong betting public sentiment favoring Trump in the national race, with a significant 66.1% support compared to Harris’s 33.8%. In Pennsylvania, Trump is favored at 62%, with Harris trailing at 38%. Arizona shows Trump favored at 75% over Harris’s 26%. Georgia mirrors this trend, with Trump at 75% compared to Harris at 27%. In Michigan, Trump leads with 56% to Harris’s 46%. Nevada shows Trump favored at 68% over Harris’s 33%. North Carolina indicates Trump is favored at 73% over Harris’s 27%. Lastly, in Wisconsin, Trump is favored at 60%, with Harris at 42%. Across all states, the betting odds reflect a growing preference for Trump compared to the previous week’s polling data.

Assessing the Reliability of Election Odds and Polls

Historically, the betting favorite has lost only twice since 1866, according to The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to providing analysis and commentary. However, assessing polling accuracy presents a more complicated picture, as different pollsters may target varied audiences, which can introduce higher margins for error.

Confidence in public opinion polling has waned following significant errors in the presidential elections of 2016 and 2020. Research conducted by Pew indicates that many polls underestimated the appeal of Republican Donald Trump during both elections.

The fluctuating dynamics in the swing states as Election Day approaches indicate a highly competitive race, and the changing odds reflect a landscape that could still shift significantly in the final days leading up to November 5. With Trump gaining traction in key battlegrounds, the outcome remains uncertain, and both candidates will need to focus their efforts strategically to secure victory in this crucial election.

A Global Celebration of Light and Unity

October 30, 2024October 31, 2024 Staff ReporterReligion 0

Around one billion people across the world, including those in the U.S., will celebrate Diwali this week. Known as the “Festival of Lights,” Diwali, or Deepavali, is one of India’s most cherished holidays, rooted in ancient traditions that reflect a spectrum of beliefs and cultural practices.

Diwali originated in India over 2,500 years ago and has evolved into a celebration that lasts up to five days in some regions, though it can also be observed in a single day depending on personal customs and location. This year, Diwali coincides with the U.S. presidential election season, where Vice President Kamala Harris, who holds both Black and South Asian heritage, could make history. Harris, a practicing Christian, has embraced her Indian heritage by celebrating Diwali publicly at her official residence in Washington, D.C. In a previous message, she urged people to “remember to honor the light within one another.” Her presence has inspired many South Asian Americans, such as Deepak Sarma, a 54-year-old scholar who shared that Harris’ position “helps elevate” the South Asian American community, adding, “We’re part of the American landscape.”

Diwali’s Significance Beyond Hinduism

While Diwali is often associated with Hindu traditions, its celebration extends to various South Asian religions, each finding unique meaning in the festival. For some Hindus, Diwali marks Lord Rama’s return from exile, a symbol of righteousness restored. “Other Hindus,” Sarma explains, “believe it to be the celebration of the killing of the asura (demon) Narakasura by Lord Krishna.” For others, Diwali is a time to worship Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, or to honor “the victory of knowledge over ignorance.”

Sikhs celebrate Diwali to mark the release of Guru Hargobind, who was imprisoned in 1617 and freed two years later. Ravi Gupta, a religious studies professor at Utah State University, points out that Diwali has a special resonance for Jains as well, who remember Lord Mahavira’s enlightenment. “In each of these Indic traditions, we find that Diwali holds some sort of significance and a reason for celebration, often a representation of hope and the victory of goodness,” Gupta says.

The Cultural and Culinary Symbolism of Diwali

The word “Deepavali” translates to “garland of lights,” a reference to the traditional lighting of lamps that marks the festival. Sarma, who was born on Diwali, highlights that placing garlands on statues in temples is a common gesture of reverence. “People aren’t garlanding other people with lights,” Sarma notes, explaining how lighting lamps in front of temples is a significant part of the ritual.

Diwali is celebrated on the night of a new moon, making the illuminating effect of lights particularly striking. Streets and homes in India are aglow with oil lamps as a way of guiding Lakshmi to well-lit homes, according to Gupta. The lighting is complemented by festive fireworks, embodying “the victory of light over darkness.”

Food holds a central place in Diwali festivities. Sweets, homemade or store-bought, are shared generously, with soan papdi, jalebi, and almond burfi among favorites. “Food is everything” during Diwali, Gupta remarks. As the festival progresses, the Govardhan Puja or Annakuta, which translates to “mountain of food,” is celebrated by creating a literal pile of food to honor a story where Lord Krishna protected his village by lifting a mountain. Gupta advises consuming food responsibly: “Although it’s celebrating plenty, it’s also emphasizing the fact that food is very much a gift and it is special.”

Vibrant colors also contribute to the festive atmosphere, with intricate rangoli designs drawn outside homes to symbolize sacredness and invite good fortune. Wearing colors like red signifies new beginnings, growth, and prosperity.

Embracing Diwali Regardless of Background

Diwali celebrations are open to everyone, not just those of Indian or Hindu backgrounds. Sarma, who consults for companies such as Netflix and American Greetings, suggests gifting a Diwali card or greeting friends with “Happy Diwali.” However, Sarma also cautions that it’s essential to avoid assumptions: “Not every person that’s South Asian or Indian or has Indian heritage may have learned about the tradition or celebrated it.”

In the U.S., approximately 80% of Indian Americans identify as Hindu, according to Pew Research, while the rest belong to various faiths, including Islam, Christianity, and Sikhism. Gupta plans to celebrate Diwali with a two-day gathering with family and friends in Logan, Utah, while Sarma will share sweets with friends and dine at an Indian restaurant near Cleveland, Ohio, in addition to gifting their children a book or pen as a token of the holiday’s spirit. As Sarma puts it, “The greatest thing that I could give my children is the thirst for knowledge.”

Trump Campaign Faces Internal Struggles as Election Approaches

October 29, 2024October 31, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

As the United States heads toward the November 5 presidential election, a fiercely contested race unfolds between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris. Recent online claims suggest that all is not harmonious within Trump’s campaign as he vies for a second term.

Political commentator Brian Krassenstein recently shared on the platform X that a message allegedly from “Trump Campaign insiders” implies Trump himself doubts his victory. According to the post, Trump’s supposed “only true path to victory” involves creating the perception that he is winning, making any challenge to the results seem credible. However, Krassenstein quickly dismissed the authenticity of the message, noting that the chat could be “a random text message sent by anyone on the planet to anyone on the planet,” similar to questionable claims from Harris’s campaign that speculate President Biden fears Harris may struggle to secure a win.

In his commentary, Krassenstein argued that Trump is relying heavily on claims of election rigging, a tactic he previously used. He emphasized the strong integrity of America’s election process, calling it “one of the safest on the planet.” He commented, “Seems as if things are pretty bad in the Trump campaign right now. I can’t believe that Trump appears to once again be relying on the notion that the election is rigged to try and sneak his way back into the most important office on the planet.”

Adding to these campaign challenges are reports of tension between Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Allegedly, Trump expressed frustration over Ivanka’s limited involvement in his current campaign, purportedly even using an offensive term to describe her due to her reduced public support. In contrast to her significant role during Trump’s first presidential term, Ivanka and her stepmother, Melania Trump, have mostly kept a low profile this season, making only sporadic public appearances.

Krassenstein’s post cited insiders who claimed, “He is also apparently using the B-word to describe his own daughter Ivanka Trump because she hasn’t spent enough time campaigning for him this election cycle.” This distance from the political scene marks a significant shift for Ivanka, who held a high-profile advisory role during Trump’s initial presidency but has since opted for a quieter, private life. Hindustan Times quoted a source stating, “She is very happy, living her best life. She has completely moved on from politics, and even though her dad is the leading Republican candidate this time, she really doesn’t care.”

According to OK! Magazine, an insider revealed that Ivanka had informed her father from the start of his campaign that she wanted no involvement. Reflecting on her past dedication, the insider noted, “During the first election, she wanted to support him and be a good daughter, dedicating four years to his administration, but she’s had enough. She doesn’t want to do it anymore.”

Indian Americans Show Strong Democratic Leanings in 2024 Election but Support for Republicans Rises

October 28, 2024October 29, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Ahead of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5, six in ten Indian American registered voters, or 61 percent, have expressed plans to vote for Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee and current Vice President, according to the Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS) 2024. Thirty-two percent intend to vote for her Republican opponent and former President, Donald Trump. Conducted between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15, 2024, the IAAS sheds light on the political inclinations and concerns of the Indian American community, a group that is both highly educated and economically influential.

The survey results reveal a steady Democratic loyalty among Indian Americans, though the community’s alignment has slightly shifted. Forty-seven percent identify as Democrats, down from 56 percent in 2020, while the number of Indian Americans identifying as Republicans has remained stable, and the share of independents has risen.

One of the survey’s most striking findings is a noticeable gender gap in voting intentions. Sixty-seven percent of Indian American women plan to vote for Harris, while only 53 percent of men share this preference. Conversely, a larger proportion of men, 39 percent, intend to support Trump, while 22 percent of women plan to vote for the former president. This divide is even more pronounced in different age groups: for voters over 40, 70 percent of women and 60 percent of men support Harris. However, among voters under 40, while 60 percent of women back Harris, men in this age range are split almost evenly between Harris and Trump.

The survey also highlights lukewarm views among Indian Americans toward prominent Indian American Republicans, such as Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Usha Vance, wife of Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance. Notably, there is a trend of asymmetric polarization in these perceptions: Democratic-leaning respondents rate these Republicans more negatively than Republicans rate Democratic figures.

Among policy priorities for Indian Americans, abortion has emerged as a key concern, especially among Democrats and women. Abortion and reproductive rights have become pivotal in this election cycle, ranking as the community’s second-most important issue after inflation and tied with jobs and the economy. Other concerns include healthcare, climate change, and U.S.-India relations, each resonating with substantial portions of the community.

The survey underscores that the Republican Party’s disadvantage among Indian Americans extends beyond personalities and aligns closely with policy issues. Many Indian Americans report that they distance themselves from the Republican Party due to its perceived intolerance toward minorities, its stance on abortion, and its association with Christian evangelists. As a result, many Indian American Democrats identify more with their party’s progressive values on these issues.

Indian Americans are an increasingly significant voting bloc due to their rapid population growth and high socioeconomic status. Between 2010 and 2020, the Indian American population grew by 50 percent, with over 70 percent of foreign-born members arriving in the U.S. after 2000. The survey categorizes Indian Americans as “high propensity” voters, with 96 percent of registered respondents indicating they will vote in the upcoming election. Given the community’s median household income of $153,000—more than double the national average—Indian American voters are highly sought after by both parties.

Economic concerns, especially inflation, are central for Indian American voters, with 17 percent identifying inflation as their top priority. Employment opportunities follow closely, emphasizing the community’s focus on financial stability. Additionally, U.S.-India relations hold significant importance, particularly aligning with the Democratic Party’s stance on international diplomacy. Nevertheless, Republicans, including Trump, are increasingly positioning themselves on this issue, reflecting a notable departure from previous campaigns.

Kamala Harris’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate has noticeably boosted enthusiasm among Indian American voters. Harris, who has Indian heritage, is the first woman of South Asian descent on a major U.S. party’s presidential ticket, a milestone that resonates strongly within the community. According to the survey, 51 percent of respondents reported feeling more motivated to vote due to her nomination, while only 12 percent reported a decrease in enthusiasm. This support is especially pronounced among older and immigrant Indian Americans, who view Harris as a symbol of cultural pride and American identity.

However, Harris’s candidacy does not inspire equal enthusiasm across all segments of the community. Younger, U.S.-born Indian Americans, while recognizing her heritage, are more likely to prioritize her policy stance over her background. Many respondents supportive of Harris cited her liberal and progressive policies as primary reasons, demonstrating a preference for policy alignment over ethnic representation.

Indian Americans’ growing involvement in U.S. politics reflects a blend of cultural heritage and civic engagement. Although the community predominantly supports the Democratic Party, the Republican Party’s increasing appeal, particularly among younger, U.S.-born Indian American men, signals a possible shift in voting patterns. The survey notes that “Republican economic policies and a focus on national security resonate with segments of Indian American voters, particularly men under 40.”

Whether these trends signify a temporary shift or an enduring realignment in the political landscape remains uncertain. However, with their high voter turnout and significant representation, Indian Americans are positioned to be a defining force in future U.S. elections. The evolving political preferences within this community suggest that both major parties will continue to invest considerable effort in courting Indian American voters, a demographic that has proven to be influential both in numbers and in economic power.

Hindu Americans’ Influence in US Politics Rises Amid Concerns Over Religious Freedom

October 26, 2024October 27, 2024 Staff ReporterCulture 0

The 2024 US elections may not place a Hindu in the White House, but the campaign season has underscored the rising influence of the world’s 1.2 billion Hindus in American politics.

While Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democratic candidate, identifies as a Christian, she has Hindu heritage through her Indian mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a Brahmin from India. On the Republican side, Usha Vance, the wife of Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance, also hails from a Brahmin Hindu background. Across the nation, five Indian Americans hold seats in Congress, and nearly 50 occupy positions in state legislatures, representing Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim backgrounds.

The emergence of Hindu Americans in US politics has gained momentum over the last decade, although Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian American Congressman, was elected in 1957. In 2023, Shri Thanedar, a Democratic representative, launched a caucus for Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain Americans, indicating the increasing presence of Indian Americans in politics. Though Hindu Americans represent only around 1% of the US population, their influence extends beyond numbers due to their high socioeconomic status. In 2022, the median household income for Indian Americans was $145,000, offering them the means to support political campaigns. “There was always a Hindu vote, which was not recognized publicly, but it is being recognized now,” said Democratic strategist Ramesh Kapur.

As Hindu influence grows in American politics, concerns arise back in India, where many Christians fear that the increasing political clout of Hindu Americans might embolden US policies that overlook religious freedom issues in India. Rajesh Sampath, a professor who converted to Catholicism, expressed unease over “the uncritical acceptance of the Indian American rise.” He warned that a lack of scrutiny into candidates’ views on Hindu nationalism or Hindutva could “have adverse effects on civil rights, not only for Indian Christians in India but also in terms of race and equality here in the US.”

Though Hindu politicians in the US come from both major political parties and embrace diverse domestic policies, some critics are troubled by their silence regarding religious freedom for minorities in India. For example, US arms deals with India have proceeded smoothly despite calls to designate it a “Country of Particular Concern” due to religious rights concerns. According to Neal Christie, executive director of the Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations, US policymakers hesitate to condemn India’s religious freedom violations due to “many lawmakers’ vested economic interests in India and their fear of backlash from Hindu nationalists in their constituencies.”

Allen Brooks of the Assam Christian Forum observed that while American politicians, particularly Hindu leaders, readily denounce attacks on Hindu temples in the US, they rarely speak out on abuses against minorities in India. Meanwhile, as China is increasingly seen as a geopolitical threat, US leaders of both parties have nurtured ties with Hindu nationalist groups to bolster trade and security partnerships with India. Sampath argued that these politicians “have cultivated significant ties with Hindu nationalists for geopolitical gains, prioritizing trade…over the pressing issue of religious freedom for minorities.”

Under Narendra Modi’s leadership, the influence of Hindu nationalism has extended overseas, with Hindu American groups supporting Indian organizations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) in their political outreach. John Dayal, a human rights activist, believes these groups promote values that resonate with segments of the Republican platform, aligning around themes of nationalism, tradition, and cultural identity. “Their main role for the moment is exonerating Prime Minister Modi and cleansing his image,” said Dayal. He warned that the “power wielded by affluent upper-caste Indian Americans” in politics and business could amplify such ideologies, posing potential risks.

This growing influence has raised concerns over the impact of Hindu American politicians on US foreign policy. Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican candidate, praised Modi as an “excellent” leader who has “restored Indian national pride,” yet he made no reference to Modi’s record on human rights, drawing criticism from advocacy groups. Christie questioned the compatibility of Hindu American legislators’ values with principles of tolerance and fairness if they align with exclusionary nationalism in India. Dayal echoed these concerns, adding that organizations like the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) are perceived to advocate for India’s government interests while sanitizing Hindu nationalist actions.

A 2024 report from Political Research Associates alleged that HAF presents itself as a mainstream civil rights organization in the US, while opposing caste discrimination protections and supporting the BJP, India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party. By “capitalizing on fears of radical Muslims,” said Christie, the HAF advances a narrative that perpetuates harmful stereotypes against Christians in India, often labeled as “Rice Christians” for allegedly converting for material incentives.

As Hindu Americans’ political alignment shifts, data shows evolving affiliations. Although 68% of Indian Americans identify with the Democratic Party, a growing segment—29%—now leans Republican, according to a 2023 Pew Research study. The 2024 Asian American Voter Survey revealed that only 46% of Indian Americans plan to vote for Joe Biden, down from 65% in 2020. While this survey did not ask directly about Kamala Harris, it found that 54% of Indian Americans viewed her favorably. However, some Hindu voters criticize Harris and Biden for policies perceived as indifferent to their views on religious freedom and US-India relations. Political scientist Sangay Mishra observed that “Hindu Americans are increasingly framing their political choices around support for India,” and viewing Democratic critiques of Indian policies as antagonistic.

On the Republican side, candidates like Ohio state lawmaker Niraj Antani have emphasized their Hindu identity, advocating for religious freedom and traditional values. Antani frequently references his Hindu faith, recently praising the opening of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, India, a symbol of Hindu nationalist pride.

The Indian Christian community in the US, however, remains cautious. When Modi visited Biden in 2023, protests erupted in the US against rising violence in the Indian state of Manipur, where over 200 Christians had died in communal violence. These protests continued, as Indian expats and Christians staged prayer vigils in six American cities, urging peace in India. Despite this, Christie noted that many Indian American Christians avoid speaking out, fearing repercussions that might jeopardize their safety, financial stability, or citizenship.

“Indian American Christians are a minority within the minority,” Sampath explained, “trying to survive as an Indian Christian minority within the larger Indian diaspora.” Christie emphasized that religious advocacy shouldn’t be selective, suggesting, “If we benefit Muslims, Christians will benefit… Human rights is not a zero-sum game.”

Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: Who Will Win the White House in 2024?

October 25, 2024October 27, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

On November 5, American voters will head to the polls to choose their next president. Originally, this election was expected to be a rematch of the 2020 race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. However, the race took an unexpected turn in July when Biden ended his campaign and endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris. This shift has raised a major question: will the U.S. see its first woman president, or will Donald Trump return for a second term?

As election day approaches, we’ll track the latest polls and analyze how each candidate’s campaign is impacting the race.

National Polls: Who is Ahead?

Since Harris entered the race in late July, she has maintained a narrow lead over Trump in national polling averages, though the gap has fluctuated over the past months. Initially, Harris enjoyed a significant boost, reaching a nearly four-point lead by the end of August. Her numbers stabilized throughout September, even following the only debate between her and Trump on September 10, a widely viewed event that attracted almost 70 million viewers. However, recent polling indicates a tightening race as the gap between them has narrowed.

National polls, though indicative of a candidate’s popularity, don’t guarantee an election outcome. The U.S. presidential election operates through an electoral college system. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes proportional to its population, totaling 538 votes. A candidate must secure at least 270 to win the presidency. Consequently, the true battleground lies not in national support but in key swing states where both candidates have a viable chance of winning.

Battleground States: Who Leads Where?

In the crucial swing states, the contest remains extremely close. Polling averages show no clear frontrunner in these decisive states, which include Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Since Harris entered the race, the data has shown interesting trends in these states, though the limited number of state-level polls and their inherent margin of error complicate any definitive conclusions. In Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, for instance, both candidates have traded the lead since early August, with Trump pulling slightly ahead in recent weeks. In Nevada, Harris has held a slight edge.

In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Harris consistently led by two to three points since early August. However, polling in these states has also tightened significantly. Notably, Trump has taken a small lead in Pennsylvania, a state critical for both candidates due to its relatively high number of electoral votes among the swing states. A win in Pennsylvania could greatly improve either candidate’s path to the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.

These three states were Democratic strongholds until Trump flipped them red in 2016, helping him secure the presidency. In 2020, Biden reclaimed them for the Democrats. Should Harris manage to hold these states, her path to the White House would be significantly easier. Her campaign’s gains underscore the changes since Biden left the race. On the day he withdrew, he trailed Trump by almost five points across the swing states and by 4.5 points in Pennsylvania alone. This trend shift highlights the importance of these battleground states and Harris’s appeal in those areas Biden struggled to secure.

How Polling Averages Are Created

The polling data in the graphics presented above are averages calculated by the polling analysis site 538, part of ABC News. To determine these averages, 538 gathers results from individual polls conducted by various polling firms across the nation and in swing states. Only polls from companies meeting specific quality standards—such as transparency about sample size, polling dates, and data collection methods—are included in these averages.

These standards ensure reliability to a certain extent, but all polls come with inherent limitations, which 538 addresses by applying a consistent methodology to create an average that ideally reflects overall trends.

Can the Polls Be Trusted?

Polls currently show Harris and Trump nearly tied across most swing states, suggesting an extremely close race. Given the small margins between them, it’s challenging to predict a winner based solely on current data.

Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, as seen in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Polling companies have since adjusted their methods to better capture voter sentiment. They are now trying various approaches to make poll results more representative of the voting population’s composition. However, these adjustments are complex, requiring educated assumptions about voter turnout and other unpredictable factors that can only be tested once voters actually cast their ballots on November 5.

Bill Gates Reportedly Donates $50 Million to Nonprofit Supporting Kamala Harris’s Presidential Campaign

October 24, 2024October 25, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Bill Gates, one of the world’s richest individuals, has privately revealed that he recently contributed about $50 million to a nonprofit organization backing Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, according to a report by The New York Times. Despite the significant donation, Gates has not made any public endorsement of Harris, marking a departure from his usual approach of staying away from direct political contributions.

Gates, known for co-founding Microsoft, has long maintained a neutral stance in the political sphere. Throughout his career, he has refrained from making contributions that could associate him with specific candidates or political campaigns. Though he does not share a close personal relationship with Harris, Gates has previously expressed approval of the Biden-Harris administration’s climate change policies. According to sources speaking to The New York Times, Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are increasingly worried about potential threats to family planning and global health initiatives should Donald Trump win the presidency again.

The report suggests that Gates is particularly concerned about the future of these programs, many of which have been critical to global health, under a potential second Trump administration. The former president has made it clear that he intends to reverse many of the current administration’s policies, raising alarm among those who support programs that benefit international health and family planning. Gates’s donation may reflect his growing recognition of the role political leadership plays in shaping the future of these global initiatives.

When asked to respond to the New York Times report, Gates did not directly confirm or deny the substantial donation to the Harris-aligned nonprofit. While he did not offer an explicit endorsement of Harris’s candidacy, Gates acknowledged the high stakes of the 2024 presidential election. He pointed out that he has always taken a bipartisan approach to his work, supporting initiatives that cross party lines. However, he emphasized that the upcoming election presents a unique situation, hinting that it may be one of the reasons for his decision to get involved in political giving at this level. “This election is different,” Gates reportedly said, underscoring the potential risks he sees with a Trump comeback.

Gates’s reluctance to engage directly in politics has long been noted, particularly by his Democratic allies. Some within his circle have tried to encourage him to become more involved in political donations over the years, but he has resisted. His reluctance has been shaped by his belief in maintaining a neutral position, especially given his role as a leading philanthropist and businessman.

However, Gates is said to be experiencing mounting pressure from within his own family, specifically from his children Rory and Phoebe Gates. Both of Gates’s children have reportedly become Democratic donors themselves, with Rory, in particular, playing an active role in Democratic fundraising efforts. They have been pushing their father to take a more visible stand in political matters, especially as the 2024 election approaches. This family dynamic may have contributed to his decision to donate to the Harris-supporting nonprofit.

Despite Gates’s recent donation, many of the wealthiest backers of Harris remain cautious about associating themselves too closely with her campaign. Some donors fear potential repercussions from Donald Trump, who has a history of publicly targeting those who oppose him. In his previous run for office, Trump was known for openly criticizing his rivals and threatening retaliation against high-profile figures who supported his political opponents. This lingering fear of retaliation has led some wealthy supporters to contribute anonymously or through less direct channels, avoiding public identification as Harris’s supporters.

The political landscape for the 2024 election appears to be more charged than usual, with high-profile figures like Gates stepping into the arena, despite personal reluctance or historical disengagement. Gates’s involvement in the Harris campaign—albeit in the form of a large financial contribution rather than a public endorsement—signals a shift in the strategies of traditionally neutral or apolitical philanthropists.

Many observers are interpreting Gates’s donation as a response to the broader implications of the 2024 election, particularly for global health and climate change initiatives. His foundation has long been at the forefront of funding programs that address health disparities, poverty, and family planning, both in the U.S. and globally. A Trump return to office could potentially disrupt or defund these programs, leading to what Gates and others view as dire consequences for international health systems.

While Gates has not definitively aligned himself with Harris, his donation could be seen as a vote of confidence in the current administration’s approach to tackling issues like climate change and global health. Gates has been vocal about the need for coordinated action on climate policy, praising the Biden-Harris administration for its efforts in this area. He has also spoken at length about the importance of addressing global health inequities, issues that are closely tied to the work his foundation has been engaged in for decades.

However, for Gates, the decision to donate to a campaign-related nonprofit may also be a reflection of his belief in the critical importance of family planning and health initiatives. These are areas where Gates has invested considerable time and resources, and a change in administration could pose a significant threat to the progress made in these fields. For someone like Gates, who has worked tirelessly on these issues through his foundation, the potential impact of the election may have been too important to ignore.

The report from The New York Times also highlights the increasing involvement of high-profile figures like Gates in shaping the outcome of the 2024 election, even if they are not traditionally associated with political donations. Gates’s decision to make such a significant contribution, despite his longstanding practice of staying out of politics, underscores the unprecedented nature of the upcoming election and the concerns many have about the direction the country might take.

For now, Gates continues to avoid a full public endorsement of any candidate, but his $50 million donation has certainly caught the attention of political observers. Whether Gates will continue to increase his political involvement as the 2024 election nears remains to be seen. However, his shift in strategy—driven by concerns over global health, family planning, and climate change—suggests that the stakes of this election are motivating even the most apolitical figures to take action.

John Kelly Criticizes Trump, Labels Him Fascist and Recounts Praise for Hitler’s Generals

October 23, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

In a striking series of interviews, John Kelly, the retired Marine general who served as Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff, openly criticized the former president. Kelly stated that Trump fits “into the general definition of fascist” and shared that Trump expressed a desire for the “kind of generals Hitler had.” The comments, published just two weeks before Election Day, have sparked further concerns about how Trump may wield power if re-elected.

Kelly’s accusations are part of a growing trend of former White House aides warning about Trump’s approach to leadership. In his interviews, Kelly detailed his time working with Trump, saying the ex-president preferred a dictator-like approach to governance. As Trump’s chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, Kelly observed Trump’s admiration for authoritarian figures, leading him to question Trump’s commitment to democratic principles.

Speaking to The New York Times, Kelly reinforced these concerns by stating that Trump “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.” Furthermore, in a separate conversation with The Atlantic, Kelly confirmed Trump’s unsettling praise for Nazi-era generals. Trump reportedly told Kelly that he wished his military personnel would show him the same loyalty that Adolf Hitler’s generals showed to the German dictator. When Kelly questioned whether Trump truly meant Hitler’s generals, Trump affirmed his comment. “Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals,” Trump said, according to Kelly. In response, Kelly recounted explaining that some of those generals, such as Rommel, had been involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler and were forced to commit suicide.

Trump’s campaign has vehemently denied these allegations. Alex Pfeiffer, a campaign adviser, dismissed the claims, calling them “absolutely false” and asserting that “President Trump never said this.” Despite the denial, the accusations have already been seized upon by Trump’s political opponents. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, running as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, reacted strongly to the reports. At a rally in Wisconsin, Walz expressed his disgust, stating, “The comments about Hitler’s generals make me sick as hell.” He continued, “The guardrails are gone. Trump is descending into this madness—a former president of the United States says he wants generals like Adolf Hitler had.”

Kelly’s remarks come during a critical point in the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump has increasingly hinted at using the U.S. military against his political opponents, whom he has referred to as the “enemy within.” These comments have alarmed Democrats, with Harris describing Trump as “unhinged” and warning that his rhetoric poses a threat to democratic values. “This is a democracy,” Harris said in an interview with Fox News. “In the United States of America, the president should be able to handle criticism without threatening to lock people up for it.”

Kelly criticized Trump’s inflammatory language, cautioning that even mentioning such ideas for political gain is dangerous. According to The New York Times, Kelly read out a definition of fascism during one of his interviews: “It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Kelly then noted that Trump’s behavior and views align with this definition, explaining that Trump “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

In Kelly’s view, Trump’s inability to grasp constitutional principles and the proper role of government officials was a key issue. “Trump never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted,” Kelly said. He added that Trump’s desire to control officials in the same way he managed his business dealings showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how government functions. According to Kelly, Trump struggled to grasp that top officials’ loyalty was to the Constitution, not to him personally.

Trump’s campaign has been quick to reject Kelly’s accusations, labeling him as someone suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Campaign communications director Steven Cheung dismissed the comments, saying Kelly had “totally beclowned himself with these debunked stories.”

One of the more shocking aspects of Kelly’s interviews was his account of Trump praising Adolf Hitler. “He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too,’” Kelly told The New York Times. This sentiment reportedly surfaced multiple times during Trump’s presidency, and Kelly confirmed similar accounts to The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, noted that Trump’s admiration for Hitler was one of the most disturbing things Kelly had encountered while serving in the White House.

Trump’s frustration with the U.S. military leadership has been well-documented. According to Goldberg, Trump was frequently annoyed by the fact that American military officers swore an oath to the Constitution rather than to the commander-in-chief. The former president’s desire for absolute loyalty, similar to that shown by Nazi generals, was a recurring theme in Kelly’s retelling.

CNN’s Jim Sciutto also reported similar claims in his book The Return of Great Powers. Sciutto shared an incident where Trump allegedly praised Hitler’s role in rebuilding the German economy. Kelly confronted Trump about the comment, reminding him that Hitler’s actions ultimately led to global conflict and immense suffering. Kelly recounted saying to Trump, “Sir, you can never say anything good about the guy. Nothing.”

In 2022, reporters Peter Baker and Susan Glasser documented another instance of Trump comparing his military officers to German generals in their book The Divider: Trump in the White House. According to the book, Trump lamented that his generals were not more like Hitler’s. Kelly confirmed these accounts to The Atlantic, describing a similar exchange with Trump.

The Atlantic also revealed a separate, troubling story about Trump’s reaction to the cost of a fallen servicemember’s funeral. According to sources cited by the publication, Trump had initially volunteered to pay for the funeral of Fort Hood Pfc. Vanessa Guillen, who had been murdered while on duty. However, when presented with the $60,000 bill, Trump allegedly refused to pay, making disparaging remarks about the servicemember’s ethnicity. Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, was instructed not to cover the costs. Trump’s campaign has denied this account, with Pfeiffer calling it “an outrageous lie” designed to smear Trump just two weeks before the election.

With the 2024 election fast approaching, Kelly’s criticisms highlight the ongoing concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his potential return to power. Despite the former president’s denials, these claims will likely continue to fuel debates surrounding Trump’s view of the presidency and the U.S. military.

Harris Holds Slim Lead Over Trump in Key Battleground States Ahead of Election

October 22, 2024October 23, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 1

With Election Day fast approaching, Vice President Kamala Harris is leading former President Donald Trump in four key battleground states, while Trump holds narrow leads in two others. The polling, released Monday by the Washington Post-Schar School, surveyed voters in seven swing states that are critical in determining the outcome of the election.

According to the poll, Harris is leading Trump among likely voters in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while Trump is ahead in Arizona and North Carolina. In Nevada, the two candidates are tied, each securing 48 percent of voter support.

In Georgia, Harris has a slight advantage with 51 percent of the vote compared to Trump’s 47 percent. The Peach State, which narrowly favored President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, has become a significant focus of Harris’s campaign. Her late-entry campaign efforts have centered heavily on Georgia, as she seeks to build on the Democratic momentum from the previous election.

Harris also holds a lead in Wisconsin, where she has 50 percent of voter support, compared to Trump’s 47 percent. Michigan is another close state, with Harris leading by just two percentage points over Trump. Both states are crucial for the Democrats, and Harris has benefited from the active campaigning of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, both of whom are Democrats.

Pennsylvania, with its 19 electoral votes, is seen as one of the closest contests in the election. Harris currently has a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Trump in the state. Pennsylvania is a crucial swing state that could play a decisive role in determining the overall winner of the election.

Meanwhile, Trump is ahead in Arizona, a state that was narrowly won by Biden in 2020. Arizona has become a key battleground once again, and Trump’s focus on immigration issues has resonated with voters there. According to the poll, Trump leads Harris 49 percent to 46 percent in the state. His efforts to regain control of Arizona have centered on his strong stance on immigration, which remains a central issue for voters in the region.

Trump is also leading in North Carolina, another important state in the upcoming election. The poll found Trump has 50 percent of voter support in the state, compared to Harris’s 47 percent. Both candidates plan to make campaign visits to North Carolina in the coming days, especially in light of the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, which struck the western part of the state.

As the election nears, both candidates are fighting for every vote in these critical states, knowing that the outcome in these regions could determine who wins the presidency. Harris’s campaign has focused on continuing the work of the Biden administration, particularly in addressing economic and social issues, while Trump has positioned himself as a candidate who can restore the policies and priorities from his first term in office, particularly with regards to immigration, the economy, and foreign policy.

The polling data from The Washington Post-Schar School adds to the broader picture of a highly competitive election. According to a separate aggregation of polls from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ, Harris currently has a 1.5 percentage point lead over Trump. This suggests that while Harris may have an edge in several swing states, the race remains tight, and the final outcome is far from certain.

The Washington Post survey was conducted from September 29 to October 15, gathering responses from 5,016 voters across the seven battleground states. The margin of error for the survey is 1.7 percentage points, indicating that while Harris leads in several states, the results are close enough that the race could still shift in favor of either candidate as Election Day approaches.

As the final two weeks of campaigning unfold, both candidates are expected to ramp up their efforts in these swing states, making frequent visits and targeting key voter demographics in an attempt to sway undecided voters. The remaining time will be crucial as Harris and Trump aim to solidify their support and secure the electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Both campaigns are expected to focus on a few major issues that are particularly relevant to voters in these states. For Harris, the emphasis has been on economic recovery, healthcare access, and social justice reforms, while Trump has focused heavily on immigration, law and order, and rebuilding the economy in the wake of the pandemic.

The closeness of the race in several states reflects the deep political divisions that have marked this election cycle. Both Harris and Trump have their respective bases of support, but the key to winning may lie in convincing the relatively small number of undecided voters who are still weighing their options.

In Georgia, where Harris leads by 4 percentage points, the Democratic Party is hoping to replicate the success it had in 2020, when Biden narrowly won the state. Harris has made several trips to Georgia in the closing weeks of her campaign, highlighting the importance of voting rights and economic recovery. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, is counting on a strong turnout from his supporters in rural areas of the state, where his message of economic revival and conservative values resonates deeply.

In Wisconsin and Michigan, Harris’s slim leads are bolstered by the active support of Democratic governors who are popular in their respective states. Both Tony Evers of Wisconsin and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan have campaigned alongside Harris, emphasizing her commitment to expanding healthcare access, protecting workers’ rights, and addressing climate change.

Trump, however, remains a formidable opponent in these states, particularly in areas that have experienced economic hardship in recent years. His message of bringing back manufacturing jobs and revitalizing the economy has found a receptive audience among many voters in the industrial Midwest, where economic concerns often take precedence over social issues.

The race in Pennsylvania is perhaps the most closely watched, given its significant electoral vote count and its history as a swing state that can determine the outcome of national elections. Harris’s narrow lead in the state reflects the importance of voter turnout in urban areas like Philadelphia, as well as the support she has garnered from labor unions and progressive groups. Trump, meanwhile, has focused on rural and suburban voters, where his message of economic revival and his tough stance on crime and immigration have resonated strongly.

As Election Day approaches, both campaigns are preparing for a final push to win over undecided voters in these battleground states. With just two weeks left, the outcome of the election remains highly uncertain, and it is clear that every vote will count in determining the next president of the United States.

Zelensky Unveils “Victory Plan” Aimed at Ending War with Russia

October 18, 2024October 22, 2024 Staff ReporterWorld 0

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has unveiled a much-anticipated “victory plan” to the members of parliament, designed to bolster Ukraine’s position and ultimately bring an end to the ongoing conflict with Russia.

In his address to the Ukrainian parliament in Kyiv, Zelensky stated that the plan has the potential to conclude the war, which began with Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, by next year.

Key components of the strategy include a formal request for NATO membership, lifting restrictions imposed by allies on the use of long-range Western-supplied weaponry against targets deep within Russia, a steadfast commitment to preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and the continuation of military operations into Russia’s western Kursk region.

The Kremlin dismissed Zelensky’s initiative, with a spokesperson suggesting that Kyiv needed to “sober up.”

During his address, Zelensky also condemned China, Iran, and North Korea for their support of Russia, labeling them a “coalition of criminals.” He went further to assert that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “gone mad,” emphasizing Putin’s intent to wage wars.

Zelensky indicated that he would be presenting this victory plan at an EU summit scheduled for Thursday. “We are at war with Russia on the battlefield, in international relations, in the economy, in the information sphere, and in people’s hearts,” he stated in parliament.

The plan consists of five essential points:

An invitation for Ukraine to join NATO.
Enhancing Ukraine’s defense capabilities against Russian forces, which includes seeking permission from allies to deploy their long-range weapons on Russian territory and continuing military operations within Russia to prevent the establishment of “buffer zones” in Ukraine.
The implementation of a non-nuclear strategic deterrent package on Ukrainian soil to contain Russia.
Joint protection of Ukraine’s vital natural resources by the United States and the European Union, along with collaborative economic initiatives.
For the post-war period, a proposal to replace some US troops stationed in Europe with Ukrainian soldiers.

Zelensky also mentioned that three “addendums” related to the plan would remain confidential and only be disclosed to Ukraine’s partners.

In Kyiv, residents expressed their views to the BBC, with many showing support for Zelensky’s initiative. “We should not give up territory,” said Anatoly, who added that he hoped for Ukraine’s NATO membership and increased support from its allies. Nadia emphasized that the effectiveness of the plan hinged on the security guarantees Ukraine could secure. Another resident, Maria, highlighted the urgent desire for a swift conclusion to the war, stating, “people want to end the war as soon as possible.”

Zelensky’s proposal was shared with US President Joe Biden, as well as presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, in September. Key allies, including Britain, France, Italy, and Germany, have also reportedly been briefed on the plan. On Wednesday evening, Zelensky updated Biden on the “victory plan.”

He expressed gratitude for a new $425 million defense assistance package from the United States, which includes air defense systems and long-range weaponry. The White House characterized the package as encompassing “a range of additional capabilities,” including air defense and artillery systems, along with ammunition and hundreds of armored vehicles. In response to Zelensky’s “victory plan,” the White House noted that “the two leaders tasked their teams to engage in further consultations on next steps.”

Last month, officials from the Biden administration expressed concern that the plan lacked a comprehensive strategy, suggesting it was merely a reiteration of requests for additional weaponry and the removal of restrictions on the use of long-range missiles, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Analysts in both Ukraine and the West speculate that the White House is keen to avoid escalating tensions with Russia in light of the upcoming US presidential election.

However, Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, downplayed concerns regarding the implications of a potential Trump presidency on the war. He told BBC Newshour that “no matter who becomes the next American president, he or she will have to follow American interests and it is in the best American interest to support Ukraine.”

Zelensky’s conditions for peace appear increasingly at odds with the surrounding circumstances. In his speech before parliament, he acknowledged the rising fatigue within the nation. His own weariness was evident as he remarked, “victory has become for some an uncomfortable word and it’s not easy to achieve.”

National morale is waning under the strain of a mounting death toll, a contentious mobilization law, and persistent Russian assaults on Ukrainian territory. It is increasingly believed that any peace agreement would necessitate Ukraine conceding territory in exchange for security guarantees. Nevertheless, Zelensky showed no signs of yielding to compromise that could bring the war to a close. Instead, he reaffirmed his commitment to compelling Russia to negotiate without ceding any Ukrainian territory, aiming to bolster Ukraine’s military capabilities.

Merezhko asserted that Zelensky’s address did not imply any territorial concessions, categorizing such ideas as “out of the question.” He contended that the comprehensive plan could be realized with the consent of Ukraine’s allies rather than involving Russia.

In public statements, Zelensky continues to portray the war as existential, cautioning that Putin is intensifying his position. He framed his vision as a prospective investment opportunity for Western allies concerning natural resources and economic potential.

Zelensky is determined that his beleaguered troops continue to fight. However, with the Ukrainian military heavily dependent on Western support, the success of his “victory plan” will hinge on the endorsement of the next US president.

NATO’s new Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, responded to Zelensky’s proposal by calling it a “strong signal” from Kyiv. “That doesn’t mean that I here can say I support the whole plan – that would be a bit difficult because there are many issues that we have to understand better,” he added. Rutte expressed confidence that “in the future, Ukraine will join us [NATO].”

Immediately following Zelensky’s address, the Kremlin dismissed the plan as an “ephemeral peace plan,” insisting that Ukraine must “sober up.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked that the only path to ending the war was for Ukraine to “realise the futility of the policy it is pursuing.”

New U.S. Rule to Simplify Subscription Cancellations and Increase Transparency

October 17, 2024October 22, 2024 Staff ReporterBusiness 0

Health clubs demanding in-person or certified mail cancellations and cable subscriptions requiring lengthy customer service calls to cancel have long frustrated consumers. Representatives often use aggressive tactics to discourage cancellations. These types of hurdles are set to change with a new U.S. rule designed to simplify the cancellation process for subscriptions, making it just as easy to cancel as it is to sign up.

Federal regulators report receiving around 70 complaints daily from individuals facing difficulties in canceling subscriptions or being charged for subscriptions they didn’t realize they had signed up for. In response, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has implemented a new regulation aimed at tackling these complaints.

The newly introduced rule, dubbed “click to cancel,” mandates that businesses, from retailers to gyms, offer cancellation processes that are as simple as their subscription sign-ups. Specifically, for online subscriptions, canceling should require the same number of clicks as signing up. If a business requires in-person sign-ups, there must be an option to cancel online or over the phone, making the cancellation process more flexible for consumers.

The rule also requires businesses to be more transparent during the sign-up process. This ensures that people fully understand the terms of their subscriptions, avoiding situations where they feel deceived or trapped. FTC Chair Lina Khan emphasized this point in a statement, saying, “Too often, businesses make people jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription. Nobody should be stuck paying for a service they no longer want.”

The “click to cancel” rule is part of a broader push by the Biden administration to reduce the burden of so-called junk fees, which are often hidden or unclear charges that consumers face when signing up for services. Vice President Kamala Harris has incorporated the initiative into her economic platform as a presidential candidate. The White House publicly supported the new rules upon their finalization on Wednesday.

Most of the rule’s provisions are set to take effect in about six months. Not only will these changes simplify the cancellation process, but they will also enhance the FTC’s ability to assist consumers in recovering money from companies that violate the rule. However, the final version of the rule does not include a previously proposed requirement that companies periodically remind customers about recurring charges, which was initially considered but later removed from the regulation.

The issue of difficult subscription cancellations is not new, and the FTC has taken action in the past against companies that have made it hard for consumers to cancel services. One of the most prominent cases involved Amazon, which the FTC accused of tricking customers into signing up for Prime memberships that were intentionally difficult to cancel. This lawsuit highlights how widespread the issue of subscription traps has become.

While the new rule has garnered support from the Biden administration and consumer advocates, it has faced strong opposition from business groups and some of the FTC’s Republican commissioners. Critics argue that the FTC is overreaching its authority by imposing new requirements on businesses, particularly so close to the upcoming election.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the most vocal opponents of the new rule, labeled it as a “power grab” by the FTC, accusing the agency of trying to micromanage business practices. The Chamber stated, “The regulators made a power grab … to micromanage business decisions,” reflecting their concerns about increased regulatory burdens on companies.

Despite this opposition, the Biden administration remains committed to the initiative, framing it as part of a larger effort to protect consumers from unfair fees and practices. The “click to cancel” rule, along with other measures aimed at addressing junk fees, is seen as a critical part of the administration’s consumer protection agenda.

For consumers, the new rule is a welcome change, as it promises to reduce the frustration of dealing with complex and often deliberately difficult cancellation processes. Whether it’s a gym membership, a streaming service, or a magazine subscription, consumers will now have a much easier time canceling services they no longer want or need.

One key aspect of the rule is its focus on transparency. By requiring businesses to provide clear information about subscription terms before customers sign up, the FTC hopes to prevent situations where people unknowingly commit to long-term services or recurring payments. This level of transparency is expected to reduce complaints from consumers who feel misled or caught off guard by charges they didn’t anticipate.

As FTC Chair Lina Khan noted in her statement to NPR, the rule aims to ensure that consumers don’t feel “tricked or trapped into subscriptions.” By setting a clear standard for subscription sign-ups and cancellations, the FTC is attempting to level the playing field between businesses and consumers, ensuring that both parties have a fair and straightforward understanding of the agreement.

The rule’s requirement for subscription services to have cancellation processes that mirror the ease of sign-up is a significant change. In the past, many businesses made it quick and simple to enroll in a service but then imposed substantial barriers when customers tried to cancel. This new regulation ensures that such practices will no longer be acceptable, as businesses will now be required to offer equally accessible cancellation methods.

The exclusion of the periodic reminder requirement from the final version of the rule, while disappointing to some consumer advocates, means that businesses won’t need to send regular notifications reminding customers of their recurring payments. However, the core of the rule still represents a significant step forward in consumer protection, as it tackles one of the most frustrating aspects of subscription services: the difficulty of canceling.

Ultimately, the success of the “click to cancel” rule will depend on its enforcement. With increased authority to take action against companies that violate the regulation, the FTC is positioned to ensure that businesses comply with the new standards. Consumers who encounter difficulties canceling their subscriptions will now have a stronger recourse to seek refunds or other forms of compensation.

As the rule takes effect in the coming months, it will be interesting to see how businesses adapt to the new requirements. Some may need to overhaul their cancellation processes entirely, while others may already have systems in place that align with the new standards. Regardless, the rule marks a major shift in how subscription services are regulated and sets a precedent for future consumer protection efforts.

In the end, the “click to cancel” rule stands as a victory for consumers who have long been frustrated by confusing and cumbersome subscription practices. As businesses adjust to the new regulation, consumers can look forward to a simpler, more transparent experience when managing their subscriptions.

Kamala Harris Criticizes Trump in Heated Fox News Interview, Defends Biden Administration’s Record

October 17, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

In her first appearance on Fox News since taking office, Vice President Kamala Harris used the opportunity to attack her Republican rival, Donald Trump, while defending her record and the Biden administration’s policies. The interview, held Wednesday, highlighted Harris’s efforts to appeal to disaffected Republican and independent voters as the 2024 presidential race heats up.

When questioned on issues such as illegal border crossings and violent crimes involving undocumented immigrants during President Joe Biden’s tenure, Harris directed her criticism at Trump. She repeatedly mentioned the former president’s opposition to a bipartisan border security bill earlier in the year. “We have a broken immigration system,” she said, laying the blame on Trump for his refusal to back reforms.

Harris also didn’t shy away from addressing concerns about Biden’s age and mental sharpness, an issue raised frequently by Republicans. Turning the tables, she labeled Trump as “unstable” and questioned his fitness for office, emphasizing, “We should all be concerned.”

The vice president further accused Fox News of downplaying Trump’s divisive rhetoric, noting that the former president had often referred to political opponents as “the enemy within.” She said, “Here’s the bottom line: He has repeated it many times, and you and I both know that. And you and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.”

Harris made it clear that, in a democracy, the president should be able to handle criticism without threatening retribution. “This is a democracy,” she stated, “And in a democracy, the president of the United States – in the United States of America – should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he would lock people up for doing it.”

The interview was part of Harris’s broader effort to appeal to Republican voters who are uncomfortable with Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, Harris has been campaigning alongside prominent Republican figures like former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and others from Trump’s administration who have distanced themselves from the former president.

Earlier on Wednesday, Harris spoke at an event in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, near the historic site where George Washington crossed the Delaware River during the American Revolution. The event gathered over 100 Republicans supporting her campaign, including figures such as former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger and former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan.

During the Fox News interview, Harris also sought to differentiate herself from President Biden, a departure from her earlier statements. She stressed that her presidency, if elected, would not be a continuation of Biden’s administration. “My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency,” Harris told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “I represent a new generation of leadership,” she added. “I, for example, am someone who has not spent the majority of my career in Washington, DC. I invite ideas, whether it be from the Republicans who are supporting me who were just onstage with me minutes ago, and the business sector and others who can contribute to the decisions I make.”

In another key segment of the interview, Harris was pressed about a Trump campaign ad that highlighted her previous stance on gender-affirming care for prisoners, a position she supported during her time as a California senator and presidential candidate in 2019. When asked whether she still supports using taxpayer funds for such care, including for undocumented immigrants, Harris was careful to emphasize her commitment to following the law.

“I will follow the law, and it’s a law that Donald Trump actually followed. You’re probably familiar with, now it’s a public report that under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available on a medical necessity basis, to people in the federal prison system,” she explained. Harris pointed out that the Trump administration had allowed such services, calling the ad’s criticism hypocritical: “I think, frankly, that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, you know, stones when you’re living in a glass house.”

Pressed again by Baier on whether she would personally advocate for taxpayer funding of gender-affirming surgeries, Harris remained firm, reiterating her position: “I would follow the law, just as I think Donald Trump would say he did.”

Throughout the interview, Harris repeatedly referred to the bipartisan border security bill that was blocked by Republicans earlier this year. She argued that the failure to pass this legislation has exacerbated the challenges at the US-Mexico border, where facilities are overwhelmed by the number of migrants entering the country.

Baier challenged Harris on the Biden administration’s decision to roll back Trump-era immigration policies, leading to several tense exchanges between the two. At one point, Baier pressed Harris to estimate how many undocumented immigrants had been released into the U.S. during Biden’s presidency. “Just a number. Do you think it’s 1 million, 3 million?” he asked. Harris refused to provide a figure, instead reiterating her point about the broken immigration system.

“Bret, let’s just get to the point, OK? The point is that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired,” she responded. Harris acknowledged the tragic consequences of a system in disrepair, including the case of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Georgia nursing student who was killed by an undocumented immigrant released by U.S. authorities. “First of all, those are tragic cases. There’s no question about that. There is no question about that, and I can’t imagine the pain that the families of those victims have experienced for a loss that should not have occurred,” she said.

But Harris was quick to return to her criticism of Republican opposition to border security reforms, saying, “It is also true that if a border security bill had actually been passed nine months ago. It would be nine months that we would have had more border agents at the border, more support for the folks who are working around the clock trying to hold it all together.”

Harris maintained that both parties agree on the need to fix the system: “I have no pride in saying that this is a perfect immigration system,” she admitted. “I’ve been clear — I think we all are — that it needs to be fixed.”

In response to questions about her stance on benefits for undocumented immigrants, Harris remained evasive, reiterating only that she would “follow the law.” She also confirmed that she does not support decriminalizing illegal border crossings. “I do not believe in decriminalizing border crossings, and I’ve not done that as vice president,” she said. “I will not do that as president.”

Kamala Harris Seen as Key to Tackling Medical Debt Crisis Amid Presidential Campaign

October 17, 2024 Staff ReporterMoney 0

Patient and consumer advocates are turning to Vice President Kamala Harris as they hope she will intensify federal efforts to alleviate medical debt should she win the upcoming presidential election. Harris, the Democratic nominee, is viewed as a critical figure in safeguarding access to health insurance for Americans, which experts agree is the best protection against debt caused by medical expenses.

Under the Biden administration, strides have been made to strengthen financial protections for patients. This includes a notable proposal by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to eliminate medical debt from consumer credit reports. President Biden’s 2022 signing of the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes a $35-a-month cap on insulin for Medicare enrollees, has also helped ease some financial burdens. Additionally, bipartisan efforts across state legislatures have led to laws aimed at curbing aggressive debt collection practices.

Despite these advancements, advocates argue that there is much more the federal government could do to address the problem affecting 100 million Americans. The weight of medical debt often leads individuals to work extra jobs, lose their homes, or reduce spending on essentials like food.

“Biden and Harris have done more to tackle the medical debt crisis in this country than any other administration,” said Mona Shah, senior director of policy and strategy at Community Catalyst, a nonprofit organization leading efforts to strengthen protections against medical debt. “But there is more that needs to be done and should be a top priority for the next Congress and administration.”

However, these advocates fear that a second term for former President Donald Trump could reverse progress. During his first term, Trump and congressional Republicans attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a move that analysts predicted would strip health coverage from millions of Americans and raise costs for those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes and cancer. Trump also promoted cheaper “skinny plans” that offered minimal coverage but left people vulnerable to significant out-of-pocket expenses if they became ill. Though Trump signed the bipartisan No Surprises Act, which shields consumers from certain surprise medical bills, his stance against the ACA and his intent to roll back the Inflation Reduction Act continue to raise concerns.

“People will face a wave of medical debt from paying premiums and prescription drug prices,” warned Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, a consumer group advocating for federal health protections. “Patients and the public should be concerned.”

The Trump campaign has not offered detailed plans regarding health care or medical debt in the run-up to the election. Trump has hinted at improving the ACA but has yet to provide specifics.

Harris, on the other hand, has pledged to protect the ACA and extend expanded subsidies for insurance premiums under the Inflation Reduction Act. These subsidies are set to expire next year, and Harris has voiced strong support for renewing them. Additionally, she has endorsed more government spending to purchase and cancel old medical debts. While these efforts have brought relief to hundreds of thousands, many advocates believe retiring old debts only offers a temporary solution without more systemic reforms.

“It’s a boat with a hole in it,” said Katie Berge, a lobbyist for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Her group was one of over 50 organizations that last year urged the Biden administration to take more aggressive steps in addressing medical debt.

“Medical debt is no longer a niche issue,” said Kirsten Sloan, a federal policy expert at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “It is key to the economic well-being of millions of Americans.”

One significant proposal currently in development is a set of CFPB regulations that would bar medical bills from appearing on consumer credit reports. This move could boost credit scores, making it easier for Americans to rent apartments, secure jobs, or obtain loans. Harris has expressed strong support for this initiative, stating in June that medical debt “is critical to the financial health and well-being of millions of Americans.” She added, “No one should be denied access to economic opportunity simply because they experienced a medical emergency.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, has also taken steps to address medical debt. Walz, who has shared that his family struggled with medical debt during his youth, signed a law in June cracking down on aggressive debt collection practices in his state.

CFPB officials expect the new regulations to be finalized early next year. However, it remains unclear whether Trump would continue supporting these protections. His administration took little action on medical debt, and congressional Republicans have long been critical of the CFPB.

If Harris prevails in the election, consumer groups hope she will push the CFPB to take even more significant measures, including stricter oversight of medical credit cards and similar financial products offered by hospitals. These products often lock patients into interest payments on top of their existing debt.

“We are seeing a variety of new medical financial products,” noted April Kuehnhoff, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “These can raise new concerns about consumer protections, and it is critical for the CFPB and other regulators to monitor these companies.”

Beyond the CFPB, advocates are calling on other federal agencies, particularly the Health and Human Services (HHS) department, to become more involved. HHS oversees billions of dollars through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, giving the federal government substantial influence over hospitals and medical providers. Yet, to date, the Biden administration has not fully leveraged this power to address medical debt.

There are signs of what could come, however. North Carolina state leaders recently won federal approval for a program requiring hospitals to help alleviate patient debt in exchange for government aid. Harris has praised this initiative, and some see it as a potential model for future federal action.

Ultimately, for patients and consumer advocates, the stakes of the 2024 election are high. Harris’ focus on expanding health protections offers hope for more comprehensive solutions to the growing medical debt crisis. On the other hand, fears loom that a Trump victory could undo many of the hard-won gains and leave millions more vulnerable to the crushing burden of medical debt.

Donald Trump’s Radical Vision Looms Large as Kamala Harris Faces Critical Election Challenge

October 14, 2024October 15, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Donald Trump is outlining an extreme vision for a new White House term, one that could drastically alter America and send shockwaves around the globe. Vice President Kamala Harris has only three weeks to counter this, as she works to regain momentum in what has become a highly competitive race leading up to Election Day.

Trump, the Republican nominee, has intensified the most inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric in recent U.S. political history. He has made false claims, such as asserting that Haitian migrants living legally in the U.S. were eating pets in Ohio, and warned that outsiders with “bad genes” had “invaded” the country. During a rally in Arizona on Sunday, Trump baselessly suggested that if Harris won, “the entire country will be turned into a migrant camp.” In Colorado, just two days earlier, he vowed to initiate the “largest deportation operation in the history of the United States,” stating, “We will close the border. We will stop the invasion of illegals into our country. We will defend our territory. We will not be conquered.”

Trump escalated his rhetoric further over the weekend, threatening to use the military against what he called “the enemy from within.” In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” he hinted at turning the military on his political opponents. The former president, who incited violence after losing the 2020 election, had also said at a rally on Saturday that a heckler, who was exercising her right to free speech, should “get the hell knocked out of” her.

In another display of how Trump might use presidential power for personal and political advantage, he threatened to withhold federal disaster aid from California, a state run by Democrats. Trump also falsely accused Harris and President Joe Biden of denying aid to Republican districts affected by hurricanes. He even suggested that CBS should lose its broadcasting license because he disagreed with how the network handled Harris’ interview on “60 Minutes,” an interview he had declined to participate in. Trump’s allies raised concerns about how the potential new administration might treat big business, threatening to cancel Deloitte’s federal contracts after an employee allegedly leaked private messages from Senator JD Vance criticizing Trump.

Details have also emerged regarding Trump’s ties to foreign autocrats. The Kremlin recently confirmed that Trump had sent COVID-19 tests to Russia’s authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, during the pandemic—a pandemic Trump had frequently downplayed.

Although Trump has a history of making grand promises that do not always materialize, his past actions suggest his threats should not be dismissed. Furthermore, a recent Supreme Court ruling, which grants broad immunity to presidents, highlights the minimal constraints on executive power, raising concerns about Trump’s potential for authoritarian rule.

Trump’s increasingly extreme rhetoric has amplified the pressure on Kamala Harris. Prominent Democratic figures, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are urging voters in critical swing states to support Harris, particularly among Black and Latino communities. These voters will be essential in preventing Trump’s return to power.

Harris, during a rally in North Carolina on Sunday, sharpened her criticisms of Trump, accusing him of refusing to release his medical records and evading a second debate with her. She also noted his decision to decline an interview with “60 Minutes.” “He’s not being transparent with the voters,” Harris said. “It makes you wonder, why does his staff want him to hide away? One must question, are they afraid that people will see that he is too weak and unstable?”

Democratic Fears Rise

Many Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned that the initial excitement surrounding Harris’ campaign has not translated into a decisive lead over Trump. Despite her strong entry into the race and a successful debate performance, national polls show no clear leader.

The most recent polling averages suggest a tight race, and Democrats fear that, like Hillary Clinton in 2016, Harris could win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. The fact that the contest remains so close despite Trump’s extreme positions suggests that his message is resonating with a significant portion of the electorate. Republicans have blamed the Harris-Biden administration for rising inflation, and Trump has frequently pointed to the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as evidence of the current administration’s perceived weakness on the global stage. Additionally, Democrats’ failure to address immigration early in Biden’s term has left them vulnerable to Trump’s aggressive stance on the issue.

The close contest also reveals that, despite Trump’s unapologetic extremism, Democrats have once again struggled to produce a candidate or message that can decisively reassure voters. While many liberals and moderates are alarmed by Trump’s authoritarian vision, he continues to lead on what voters say is the top issue: the economy. A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 59% of respondents believe the economy is worsening, even though inflation has eased, interest rates are declining, and the job market remains strong.

Harris, as the incumbent vice president, faces an uphill battle. Her failure to distinguish herself from Biden’s policies in a recent interview with “The View” could prove costly, as Trump is likely to exploit this weakness all the way to Election Day. Harris has outlined policies to address housing affordability, healthcare costs, and immigration reform, but these initiatives have often been overshadowed by Trump’s dramatic promises to deport migrants, impose tariffs on trade rivals, and restore order to a chaotic world.

Still, there are signs of hope for Democrats. Trump’s polling numbers rarely exceed 48%, suggesting that his support remains capped, while Harris may still have room to gain. In a recent NBC News poll, 10% of voters indicated they might change their minds, and a small but potentially decisive portion of the electorate remains uncommitted. In key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia, even minor shifts in support could make a significant difference.

What Harris Must Do

Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik believes the election remains a 50-50 contest and that Harris has stalled while Trump has gained ground. He suggested the race could come down to which candidate can effectively position themselves as a change agent.

In a memo released Sunday, Trump’s campaign claimed that Harris had already lost the argument on change. “She can’t convince the voters that she is ‘the change agent’ in the race, that she will be better on the economy, inflation, immigration, crime, or improving people’s financial situation,” the memo stated. “The bottom line is that voters say President Trump will do a better job.”

Sosnik argued that Harris must rise to the pressure and scrutiny, giving voters a clear reason to support her. “They don’t feel like she has given them enough reason to vote for her,” he said.

Harris faces a complicated path, made more difficult by the lack of direct engagement with Trump, who has avoided most mainstream media and refuses to participate in a second debate. Trump’s rallies, once a staple of cable news coverage, now receive limited attention outside conservative media, meaning many voters may not fully grasp the extent of his increasingly extreme positions.

Obama, appearing at a rally for Harris in Pennsylvania last week, expressed disbelief at Trump’s continued popularity. “There is absolutely no evidence that this man thinks about anyone but himself,” Obama said. “Donald Trump sees power as nothing more than a means to an end.”

Nevertheless, Trump, despite his impeachments, criminal conviction, and attempts to undermine democracy, remains within striking distance of reclaiming the presidency—with a more radical agenda than ever before.

Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: Will America Elect Its First Female President?

October 13, 2024October 15, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

On November 5, voters across the U.S. will cast their ballots to elect the next president. Initially anticipated to be a repeat of the 2020 election, the race was drastically altered in July when President Joe Biden withdrew his bid for re-election and endorsed Vice-President Kamala Harris. This shift has set up a historic showdown: will Kamala Harris become the first female president, or will Donald Trump secure a second term?

As election day nears, poll trackers are closely monitoring the race for the White House, gauging the influence of campaign events on voter preferences.

Who Leads the National Polls?

Since her entry into the race at the end of July, Harris has held a steady lead over Trump in national polling averages. These polls, regularly updated and rounded to the nearest whole number, show Harris maintaining her advantage in the race.

One significant campaign event was a televised debate on September 10 in Pennsylvania, which attracted more than 67 million viewers. Polls conducted in the week following the debate suggested Harris gained momentum, with her lead growing from 2.5 percentage points before the debate to 3.3 points a week later.

Most of this gain can be attributed to a slight dip in Trump’s polling numbers. Although Trump’s popularity had been rising in the lead-up to the debate, his numbers fell by half a percentage point afterward.

The poll tracker indicates these marginal shifts, with trend lines showing the changing averages and dots representing the individual poll results for both candidates.

While national polls provide insight into each candidate’s popularity, they are not necessarily predictive of the election outcome. This is because the U.S. does not use a simple popular vote system to decide the president. Instead, an electoral college system determines the winner, with each state allocated a certain number of votes, reflecting its population size. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes out of 538 to win the presidency.

Who Leads in Swing State Polls?

In the current electoral race, the real battleground is in the swing states. Of the 50 states, only a few—referred to as battleground or swing states—are truly up for grabs. These are the states where the election will likely be decided, as most other states consistently lean toward one party.

Polling in the seven key battleground states reveals an extremely close race, with only one or two percentage points separating Harris and Trump. Pennsylvania, a pivotal state with the highest number of electoral votes among the battlegrounds, is particularly critical. Winning Pennsylvania would make it significantly easier for either candidate to reach the necessary 270 electoral votes.

Interestingly, the dynamics of the race have shifted dramatically since Harris replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee. On the day Biden dropped out, he was trailing Trump by nearly five percentage points in these battleground states. Harris has narrowed that gap considerably, reflecting her growing strength in these crucial regions.

However, it’s important to note that fewer state-level polls are conducted compared to national polls, meaning less data is available. Additionally, all polls have margins of error, which means actual voter preferences could differ slightly from the poll results.

Despite these limitations, the trends since Harris joined the race indicate some areas where she holds an advantage. Polling averages show that Harris has been leading in three key battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—since early August. Yet, these leads are narrow.

Historically, all three of these states were Democratic strongholds until Trump turned them red in 2016, helping him win the presidency. Biden managed to flip them back to the Democratic column in 2020, and if Harris can do the same this year, she will be well-positioned to win the election.

How Are Polling Averages Calculated?

The polling averages presented in this article are sourced from 538, a polling analysis website operated by ABC News. 538 gathers data from various polling companies, both at the national level and within battleground states.

To ensure accuracy, 538 uses strict quality controls and only includes polls from companies that meet certain transparency standards. For example, polling firms must disclose the number of people surveyed, the timing of the poll, and the method used—whether it was conducted by phone, online, or via text.

This level of detail is critical in ensuring the reliability of the polling averages.

Can We Trust the Polls?

As of now, polls suggest that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck-and-neck in the crucial swing states. With the race so close, predicting the outcome is difficult.

Recent elections have shown that polls can underestimate Trump’s support. This happened in both 2016 and 2020, when polling companies failed to accurately predict his level of backing. Polling organizations are working to address this issue by refining their methods, aiming to ensure their results better reflect the makeup of the voting population.

One major challenge for pollsters is accounting for voter turnout. Accurately predicting who will actually show up at the polls on November 5 remains a guessing game, despite efforts to improve polling accuracy.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be a close and potentially historic race. While Kamala Harris has a slight edge in national polls and is gaining ground in key battleground states, Donald Trump remains a formidable opponent. The election will ultimately be decided by the voters in a handful of crucial swing states, where the margins are razor-thin. As November 5 approaches, both candidates will be making their final push to sway undecided voters in these pivotal areas. The stakes are high, and the outcome is anything but certain.

Biden’s Diplomacy Faces Setbacks Amid Gaza War and Hezbollah Strikes

October 11, 2024October 15, 2024 Staff ReporterWorld 0

A year after the October 7 attacks and the beginning of Israel’s offensive in Gaza, U.S. President Joe Biden became the first sitting president to visit Israel during wartime. During his visit, he told Israel, “You are not alone,” but also warned its leadership not to make the same mistakes the U.S. did after 9/11.

In September of this year, Biden once again addressed the situation during the United Nations meeting in New York, urging restraint between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, responded defiantly, claiming Israel’s reach extended throughout the region. Less than two hours later, Israeli forces used American-supplied “bunker buster” bombs to strike southern Beirut, killing Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. This airstrike marked a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict since Hamas’s attack on Israel.

Biden’s diplomatic efforts appeared increasingly futile in the aftermath of the bombing, which used U.S.-supplied weapons. Over the past year, I have witnessed firsthand the complexities of U.S. diplomacy, following Secretary of State Antony Blinken on his trips back to the Middle East. Blinken has been at the center of these efforts, attempting to broker a ceasefire for the release of hostages in Gaza, but with little success so far.

The stakes in Gaza remain high. A year after Hamas broke through Israel’s militarized fence, killing over 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping 250 people, many hostages are still in captivity, including seven U.S. citizens. Some of them are believed to be dead. Israel’s retaliatory strikes have devastated Gaza, killing nearly 42,000 Palestinians, according to figures from the Hamas-run health ministry. The region has been reduced to ruins, with tens of thousands displaced, missing, or facing hunger.

As the war escalates, the conflict has expanded into the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, and last week, Iran fired 180 missiles at Israel, retaliating for Nasrallah’s assassination. This development threatens to engulf the region in broader conflict.

Diplomatic Struggles and Limitations

Throughout the conflict, the Biden administration has attempted to both support and restrain Netanyahu. However, its efforts to defuse tensions and achieve a ceasefire have been consistently thwarted. Biden’s administration claimed that U.S. pressure altered the course of Israel’s military operations. This is likely a reference to the belief that the invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza was less severe than it could have been, despite the extensive destruction there.

Before the invasion, Biden temporarily paused a shipment of 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs to Israel in an effort to prevent a full-scale assault. This decision prompted backlash from Republicans in Washington and Netanyahu himself, who criticized it as an “arms embargo.” Though Biden partially lifted the suspension, it was never reinstated. The State Department asserts that U.S. involvement has facilitated more humanitarian aid to Gaza, despite the ongoing humanitarian crisis and accusations of Israel blocking shipments. “It’s through the intervention and the hard work of the United States that we’ve been able to get humanitarian assistance into those in Gaza, which is not to say that this is… mission accomplished,” stated department spokesman Matthew Miller.

Blinken has taken on the brunt of diplomatic efforts in the region, making ten trips to the Middle East since October, while the CIA has worked behind the scenes to broker a Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. However, many attempts to close a deal have fallen short. On Blinken’s ninth visit, in August, optimism about a potential agreement quickly soured. In Doha, Blinken was informed that the Emir of Qatar, a key player in communicating with Hamas, was too ill to meet him. Although officials later claimed they had spoken by phone, the trip ended in failure after Netanyahu insisted on keeping Israeli troops along Gaza’s border with Egypt, a deal-breaker for Hamas and Egypt. A U.S. official accused Netanyahu of deliberately sabotaging the agreement.

During Blinken’s tenth visit to the region, he notably avoided visiting Israel, a sign of mounting frustrations and stalled progress.

Criticisms and Defense of U.S. Strategy

For critics, the Biden administration’s call for an end to the war, while supplying Israel with billions of dollars in military aid, is either a failure to apply leverage or a blatant contradiction. “To say [the administration] conducted diplomacy is true in the most superficial sense… they never made any reasonable effort to change the behavior of one of the main actors – Israel,” said former intelligence officer Harrison J. Mann, who resigned in protest of U.S. support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

However, Biden’s supporters argue that his diplomacy has made important gains, pointing to last November’s truce, which led to the release of over 100 hostages in Gaza. Additionally, U.S. officials claim the administration prevented an Israeli invasion of Lebanon earlier in the conflict, despite the ongoing exchanges of rocket fire between Hezbollah and Israel. Senator Chris Coons, a Biden loyalist, emphasized the importance of Biden’s efforts, stating, “He has been successful in preventing an escalation… despite repeated and aggressive provocation by the Houthis, by Hezbollah, by the Shia militias in Iraq.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also supported Biden’s approach, acknowledging his unprecedented support for Israel, including deploying U.S. military resources to the region. Yet Olmert criticized Netanyahu for repeatedly obstructing Biden’s diplomacy, attributing the failure to Netanyahu’s reliance on far-right ultranationalists in his government, who oppose any ceasefire. Olmert believes Netanyahu’s political alliances make it difficult for him to agree to a ceasefire, as it would weaken his coalition. “Ending the war as part of an agreement for the release of hostages means a major threat to Netanyahu, and he’s not prepared to accept it,” said Olmert.

Netanyahu, however, has denied blocking any ceasefire deals, insisting that he was in favor of U.S.-backed plans but that Hamas repeatedly changed its demands.

The Biden-Netanyahu Relationship

The relationship between Biden and Netanyahu is complex, with decades of history between them. While Biden is a passionate supporter of Israel, his critics argue that this stance has limited his ability to leverage real change. Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in the U.S. to denounce Biden’s policies, with many carrying signs calling him “Genocide Joe.”

Rashid Khalidi, Professor Emeritus of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, claims that Biden’s view of Israel was shaped by a time when the Jewish state was seen as being in existential danger, resulting in an outdated perspective on the region’s dynamics. Khalidi noted that many young Americans today, exposed to images of Gaza through social media, have a very different view. “They know what the people putting stuff on Instagram and TikTok in Gaza have shown them,” he said.

Looking ahead, the U.S. election could bring further change. Vice President Kamala Harris, who will face Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election, does not carry the same generational baggage as Biden. However, neither Harris nor Trump has outlined specific plans for resolving the conflict, leaving the future uncertain.

Biden’s Balancing Act: US Diplomacy Faces Hurdles in Israel-Gaza Conflict

October 11, 2024 Staff ReporterHealth, Technology 0

A year after Hamas launched its deadly attack on Israel, sparking a brutal war in Gaza, US President Joe Biden finds himself navigating a precarious path between support for Israel and efforts to broker a ceasefire. On October 7, 2023, after Hamas attacked, killing more than 1,200 people and kidnapping 250, including US citizens, Biden became the first sitting US president to visit Israel during a time of war. During his visit, he assured Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that “You are not alone,” but he also warned them not to repeat the mistakes made by the US in the aftermath of 9/11.

A year later, Biden’s efforts to restrain the escalation of violence while supporting Israel appear to be faltering. In September 2024, Biden led calls for de-escalation between Israel and Hezbollah at the United Nations, only for Israeli airstrikes to kill Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shortly after. This assassination, carried out with US-supplied bunker buster bombs, marked a significant turning point in the conflict, and Biden’s diplomacy seemed buried beneath the ruins of Beirut.

The US has made multiple attempts to broker a ceasefire and negotiate the release of hostages taken by Hamas. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has traveled to the Middle East ten times since the October 7 attacks, seeking to mediate between Israel and Hamas. Despite these efforts, US diplomacy has struggled to gain traction, and Blinken’s mission to secure a ceasefire has been repeatedly thwarted. On his ninth visit to the region in August 2024, optimism that a deal might be close evaporated when the Emir of Qatar, a key player in talks with Hamas, became unavailable, and Netanyahu insisted on keeping Israeli troops along Gaza’s border with Egypt. This condition was a deal breaker for both Hamas and Egypt, and the negotiations collapsed.

The situation on the ground in Gaza has deteriorated rapidly. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed nearly 42,000 Palestinians, according to figures from the Hamas-run health ministry. Thousands more remain missing, and the United Nations has reported record numbers of aid workers killed in Israeli strikes. Humanitarian groups accuse Israel of blocking essential aid, though the Israeli government denies these claims. The conflict has also spread beyond Gaza, with violence erupting in the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, and Iran firing missiles at Israel in retaliation for Nasrallah’s death.

Despite Biden’s administration claiming some success in moderating Israeli military actions, particularly in Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, where the invasion was reportedly less extensive due to US pressure, the overall goal of achieving a ceasefire remains elusive. Biden temporarily suspended a shipment of bombs to Israel in an attempt to restrain the military’s escalation, but this move was met with backlash from Netanyahu and US Republicans, leading the administration to partially lift the suspension soon after.

In Gaza, the humanitarian crisis continues to deepen, with famine-like conditions reported earlier in 2024. US officials, however, claim that their intervention has led to increased aid deliveries to the region. “It’s through the intervention and the involvement and the hard work of the United States that we’ve been able to get humanitarian assistance into those in Gaza, which is not to say that this is… mission accomplished,” says Matthew Miller, a State Department spokesman. “It is very much not. It is an ongoing process.”

Critics argue that US diplomacy has been superficial, given the billions in military aid sent to Israel. Some former officials claim that the US has failed to use its leverage over Israel to halt the violence. “To say [the administration] conducted diplomacy is true in the most superficial sense in that they conducted a lot of meetings. But they never made any reasonable effort to change the behavior of one of the main actors—Israel,” says Harrison J. Mann, a former US Army Major who worked in the Middle East and Africa section of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Mann resigned earlier this year, in protest of US support for Israel’s military operations, citing the high civilian death toll caused by American-supplied weapons.

However, Biden’s allies staunchly reject this criticism, pointing to the diplomatic success of last November’s truce, which resulted in the release of over 100 hostages in exchange for 300 Palestinian prisoners. The administration also claims credit for preventing an Israeli invasion of Lebanon earlier in the conflict, despite cross-border rocket fire between Hezbollah and Israel. Senator Chris Coons, a Biden ally, argues that the president has managed to prevent the war from spiraling even further, despite provocations from Iran-backed militias and other regional actors. “He has been successful in preventing an escalation—despite repeated and aggressive provocation by the Houthis, by Hezbollah, by the Shia militias in Iraq—and has brought in a number of our regional partners,” Coons says.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attributes Biden’s efforts to an unprecedented level of support for Israel, pointing to the extensive US military deployments in the region following the October 7 attacks, including aircraft carriers and a nuclear submarine. However, Olmert also believes that Netanyahu’s resistance has hindered Biden’s diplomacy. He suggests that Netanyahu’s reliance on far-right, ultranationalist cabinet members has prevented him from agreeing to a ceasefire. “Ending the war as part of an agreement for the release of hostages means a major threat to Netanyahu, and he’s not prepared to accept it,” Olmert says.

Netanyahu has consistently denied that he is blocking a ceasefire deal, asserting that he supports US-backed plans but has sought clarifications, while accusing Hamas of shifting its demands. The relationship between Netanyahu and Biden, shaped over decades, has been a key factor in the dynamics of US-Israel diplomacy. Though Biden has long been a staunch supporter of Israel, critics argue that his unyielding support has become a liability. As Gaza’s death toll rises, protesters in the US, many of them Democrats, have taken to the streets, denouncing Biden’s policies and accusing him of facilitating war crimes.

Rashid Khalidi, Professor Emeritus of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, believes Biden’s diplomacy is rooted in an outdated view of the region, one that fails to account for the decades of Palestinian suffering under occupation. “I think that Biden is stuck in a much longer-term time warp. He just cannot see things such as… 57 years of occupation, the slaughter in Gaza, except through an Israeli lens,” Khalidi says.

As the conflict drags on, Biden faces increasing pressure to shift his approach, both from within his own party and from a new generation of Americans who view the Gaza conflict through the lens of social media, witnessing the devastation firsthand. Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden’s successor as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election, represents a break from this generational mindset, though she, like her Republican rival Donald Trump, has yet to outline any concrete plans for ending the conflict. How the US election may influence the course of the Israel-Gaza war remains to be seen.

Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox Aspires To Be The First Indian-American And The First South Asian Woman In CT State Senate

October 10, 2024October 15, 2024 Ajay GhoshCommunity, Women 0

Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox will be the first ever Indian American and the first ever South Asian woman state senator in the state of Connecticut, if she is elected in the general elections to be held on November 5^th, 2024. “That’s really important, especially with this moment of Kamala Harris running for president.”

Gadkar-Wilcox, an Indian American won in the Democratic Party Primaries for the 22^nd District Connecticut State Senate seat, in a four-way primary held on August 13^th, 2024. She is pitted against Republican Chris Carrena of Trumbull for the senate seat on the general election ballot in November. CT 22^nd District consists of the town of Trumbull as well as parts of Bridgeport and Monroe. It has been represented by Democrat Marilyn Moore since 2015, who is retiring at the end of her current term.

Gadkar-Wilcox proudly states that she is a product of the American dream. “My father came to this country in 1969 and ended up designing parts for the space shuttle. I was born in New York City on the fourth of July to immigrant parents and worked hard to become a Fulbright Scholar and professor of constitutional and human rights law. As an engaged member of non-profit organizations in the community, I know how to work with others, and will work hard to provide the focused, measured, thoughtful leadership that our state needs.”

Referring to her roots to the Indian subcontinent, Gadkar-Wilcox says “Both of my parents were born in India, and I was inspired as a young adult by my grandfather’s stories of his presence at Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Quit India’ speech, his involvement in pro-Congress Party student protests, and his admiration for B.R. Ambedkar, both as a Maharashtrian and as an advocate for Dalit ‘untouchables.’ These led me to be intrigued by the issues of constitutional change at the time of India’s independence.”

An associate professor at Quinnipiac University, where she teaches Constitutional law and human rights, Gadkar-Wilcox spoke passionately about how she plans to represent the entire population in the Trumbull region that is fast growing and diverse.

“I’m very honored because it was a community effort,” Gadkar-Wilcox of Trumbull, a Quinnipiac University professor says. “We put a lot of hard work in, grassroots politics and engagement at the doors with other community members in Trumbull and Monroe coming out. I’m honored to represent us all.” Gadkar-Wilcox hopes her message will continue to resonate with voters. “We need to trust the people that we send up to Hartford, and that I will advocate for the things that I said I’ll advocate for,” she said.

Gadkar-Wilcox says, she believes that each municipality agrees on the same key issues: economic development by way of lowering property taxes, investing in education and overall maintaining good government practices. “I love the diversity of this district because you have to understand both the urban and suburban context,” she says. “You also have to be able to advocate and think about where we have common interests.”

As the CT state Senator, her focus is going to be on making sure that her district gets its fair share of state education funding, and improving Connecticut’s economic competitiveness through incentivizing Connecticut’s students to stay in the state to work on critical industries.

“When Bridgeport succeeds, Trumbull succeeds. When Bridgeport succeeds, Monroe succeeds,” says Gadkar-Wilcox. “As your State Senator, I will propose forming a new regional legislative caucus with legislators from Greater Bridgeport, including Bridgeport, Stratford, Shelton, Trumbull, Monroe, Easton, and Fairfield. This caucus would meet to discuss formulating policy, competing for state and federal grants, and eliminating the urban/suburban divide. On issue after issue, we are in this together. When we work together, we will succeed.”

Gadkar-Wilcox was awarded the prestigious William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, which enabled her to travel to India during the 2015-2016 academic year to continue her research on the framework of the Indian Constitution.

“My interest in understanding the pluralism informing the drafting of the Indian Constitution relates to my own experience of being raised in the United States by immigrant parents who instilled in us an appreciation and understanding of our own Indian cultural heritage. The process of operating in overlapping cultural spaces has always enabled me to approach issues from a different vantage point, which is what I see in the drafting of the Indian Constitution as well.”

Gadkar-Wilcox says, she believes in a government that prioritizes people, not special interests or personal benefit. “I believe in a system that preserves the fundamental values of our democracy by making sure that government is accountable and transparent. I believe absentee ballot abuse must be rejected, and that the people must have faith in our electoral processes.”

According to Gadkar-Wilcox, she is running for office out of concern for the “contentious and divided” political environment. “The time is now to take responsibility for getting our state back on the right path. We have an obligation to ensure that our children enjoy quality public education, preparing them to be innovators and problem solvers. We must find sustainable solutions to manage our budget while not imposing an undue burden on our residents. We must responsibly invest in upgrading our infrastructure, which is the economic lifeline to our state.”

Gadkar-Wilcox believes in “a government that invests in our future through public education, modernization of infrastructure, the fixing of gaping potholes, and the improvement of our quality of life. Together, we can tackle the fundamental structural issues our state faces and create a politics for the public good. I look forward to meeting you at your doorstep, and let’s take that vision to Hartford.”

Confident and determined, Gadkar-Wilcox says, “I hope to earn your support so that I may carry your voice to Hartford, working to ensure that you are not only able to thrive, but that Connecticut remains the place you are proud to call home. Together, we can tackle the fundamental structural issues our state faces and create a politics for the public good. I look forward to meeting you at your doorstep, and let’s take that vision to Hartford. It will be an honor to serve you.”

Gadkar-Wilcox says, her platform is based on creating a new kind of politics. “For too long we have allowed our representatives in Hartford to finger-point and leave messes for others to clean up. The time is now to take responsibility for getting our state back on the right path.”

Biden Questions Netanyahu’s Motives Amid Middle East Conflict and Election Concerns

October 7, 2024October 10, 2024 Staff ReporterWorld 0

President Joe Biden has expressed uncertainty about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is delaying a potential Gaza ceasefire agreement to influence the upcoming U.S. election. During an unplanned appearance at a White House press briefing on Friday, Biden was asked if he thought Netanyahu’s reluctance to agree to a ceasefire might be an effort to affect the election. He responded, “Whether he’s trying to influence the election, I don’t know – but I’m not counting on that.”

Biden did not hold back when addressing his long-time ally. He firmly stated, “No administration has helped Israel more than I have. None, none, none,” and emphasized that Netanyahu should not overlook this fact.

This exchange comes as some Democrats express concern over Netanyahu’s stance on the ceasefire. There are fears that Netanyahu is ignoring Biden’s requests for a ceasefire and a hostage release deal, potentially to undermine the Democratic Party’s chances in the November election. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy highlighted these concerns earlier this week in an interview with CNN, stating, “I don’t think you have to be a hopeless cynic to read some of Israel’s actions, some of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s actions, as connected to the American election.”

The conflict in the Middle East, particularly the escalating violence and lack of a diplomatic resolution, is believed to be negatively impacting both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who is set to replace him as the Democratic candidate. Polls suggest that the administration’s inability to secure a ceasefire and other diplomatic agreements is hurting their approval ratings, especially among Arab-American voters.

Biden’s support among Arab-Americans has notably decreased over the past year, a trend largely attributed to U.S. backing of Israel’s military actions. This growing discontent could pose a significant challenge for the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. For months, Biden has been advocating for a diplomatic resolution between Israel and Hamas, hinting several times that an agreement was near. A ceasefire deal ahead of the election would be a considerable achievement for the president and his party, but as the election draws closer, the possibility seems increasingly remote.

While the Biden administration has primarily criticized Hamas for its failure to negotiate a deal, the president has also been openly frustrated with Netanyahu. Recently, Biden publicly stated that Netanyahu was not doing enough to secure an agreement, signaling a shift in tone between the two leaders.

For his part, Netanyahu has denied claims that a deal is imminent. Earlier this month, in response to a U.S. official’s statement that a ceasefire agreement was 90% complete, Netanyahu said, “Hamas is not there with a deal. There’s not a deal in the making, unfortunately.” His rejection of such statements has highlighted the increasing strain between him and Biden, despite their decades-long relationship.

This growing rift stands in stark contrast to Netanyahu’s relationship with former U.S. President Donald Trump, the current Republican nominee, with whom the Israeli leader enjoyed a notably warm rapport.

As Israel continues its military actions in Gaza, it has also pushed forward with ground operations in southern Lebanon and has vowed to retaliate against Iran following a ballistic missile strike earlier this week. These developments are heightening tensions across the region and adding to the complexity of the situation.

During his Friday press briefing, Biden addressed concerns about the possibility of Israel retaliating by targeting Iranian oil fields. In response to reporters’ questions, he remarked, “The Israelis have not concluded what they are going to do in terms of a strike. If I were in their shoes, I’d be thinking about other alternatives than striking oil fields.”

Biden’s remarks came just a day after oil prices surged following his statement that the U.S. was in discussions with Israel about potential strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure. This news has fueled speculation about potential repercussions in global energy markets and the broader geopolitical landscape.

For now, the relationship between Biden and Netanyahu continues to face challenges as the situation in the Middle East remains unresolved. With the U.S. election just around the corner, the political and diplomatic stakes could not be higher for both leaders.

Indian-Origin Doctors Call for Immigration and Healthcare Reform Ahead of U.S. Presidential Election

October 7, 2024October 9, 2024 Staff ReporterImmigration 0

As the U.S. prepares to elect its next president in just a month, Indian-origin medical professionals are urging the incoming administration to prioritize immigration and healthcare reform. Dr. Satheesh Kathula, the president of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), emphasized the importance of addressing immigration issues, particularly for physicians from India. In an exclusive interview with PTI, Dr. Kathula outlined key concerns, including healthcare access, visa challenges, technological advancements in medicine, and anti-discrimination efforts.

Founded in 1982, AAPI is the largest ethnic medical organization in the United States, representing over 120,000 Indian-origin physicians. Dr. Kathula highlighted that many of these doctors, despite spending over 15 to 20 years in the U.S., are still on H-1B work visas. He stressed the need for fast-tracking green cards for these professionals to ensure they can continue serving without the constant worry of visa uncertainties. “We have to fast track their green cards to ensure they can live in the U.S. and continue their work without worrying about their visa status,” he said. Many of these physicians work in underserved areas, where local doctors are reluctant to practice.

He explained that the presence of Indian-origin doctors is crucial in such areas, warning that the departure of these professionals would severely disrupt the local healthcare systems. “If they really leave, then the whole healthcare system collapses in some towns. So that’s why we have to really fast-track green cards and prioritize this. Any government that takes over, this is very important,” Dr. Kathula emphasized.

One of his main concerns is that physicians are grouped with other H-1B visa holders, such as those in the tech industry. This categorization makes it harder for doctors to get prioritized in the immigration system. “That’s what makes it difficult. There should be some priority for people who are actually taking care of sick people,” he said, pointing out that one in seven patients in the U.S. is treated by a doctor of Indian origin. The H-1B visa, which allows U.S. companies to hire foreign workers in specialized fields, is heavily used by tech companies to recruit employees from countries like India and China. However, Dr. Kathula believes that physicians deserve distinct consideration because of their essential role in healthcare.

The physician shortage in the U.S. is another significant issue that Dr. Kathula believes should be tackled. He noted that while nurse practitioners and physician assistants are filling some gaps, the country still lacks enough doctors in certain areas. He estimates that by 2030, the U.S. will need approximately 125,000 more physicians. “That’s why we need to increase the residency positions, work on medical education, opening more medical schools,” Dr. Kathula added.

Additionally, international medical graduates, who often face hurdles in obtaining licenses and practicing in the U.S., should be given more support to help them integrate into the healthcare system. Dr. Kathula also pointed out that anti-discrimination measures and diversity initiatives should be on the next administration’s agenda. These issues, alongside healthcare reforms and immigration policies, need immediate attention.

With the U.S. Presidential elections set for November 5, the nation will choose between Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump, and Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris. According to Dr. Kathula, the next president should also focus on technological advancements in medicine. This would involve ensuring proper funding for research and supporting innovative care models. “All these things should be given priority by the next government. That’s what AAPI is looking at, and AAPI members are looking at,” he said.

Dr. Kathula expressed that broader healthcare reforms should aim for affordable healthcare, improving the public health infrastructure, economic growth, job creation, and rebuilding vital systems. He stressed that ensuring affordable education and promoting racial and social justice must also be priorities. Alongside these, immigration reform is essential, with a focus on creating a fair system that welcomes skilled workers, particularly those in critical fields like healthcare. “Fair human immigration system should be given priority. Bring people who are skilled workers and it’s important that we fast track their immigration,” he reiterated.

Dr. Kathula, a board-certified hematologist and oncologist based in Ohio, assumed the role of AAPI President in July 2024. Reflecting on the contributions of the Indian diaspora in the U.S., he described their influence across various sectors as “just mind-boggling.” He observed that over the past 30 years, people of Indian origin have made significant contributions to the U.S. economy and society.

He praised AAPI for its role in supporting both the U.S. and India, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization raised over five million dollars and sent thousands of ventilators, oxygen concentrators, and other critical medical supplies to India during the height of the crisis. This demonstrated the strong bonds between the Indian diaspora and their home country, as well as their commitment to global health.

Dr. Kathula also noted the strategic importance of the relationship between India and the U.S. He believes that both countries will continue to strengthen ties, especially in response to shared concerns over China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S., he said, will continue to support India’s role in maintaining security and stability in the area. He also highlighted the role of the Indian diaspora in diplomacy, remarking that their influence will further bolster the partnership between Washington and New Delhi.

“Overall, the trajectory of the India and U.S. relationship under the next administration [in the U.S.] is expected to remain positive, with a continued focus on defence, trade, climate change, technology and shared democratic values,” Dr. Kathula stated. He acknowledged that there could be challenges, particularly around trade disputes or human rights concerns, but he emphasized that the strategic importance of the relationship would ensure ongoing cooperation and growth.

Dr. Kathula urged the next administration to recognize the pivotal role that Indian-origin physicians play in the U.S. healthcare system and to take immediate steps to address the immigration and visa challenges they face. He remains hopeful that the next government will prioritize these reforms to ensure that both countries continue to benefit from the valuable contributions of Indian professionals.

Jobs Report and End of Port Strike Offer Relief to Harris Campaign

October 5, 2024October 7, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

A better-than-expected jobs report, coupled with the swift resolution of a longshoremen’s strike, has provided a significant boost to Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign. The strike, which had the potential to severely disrupt the U.S. economy, was the most politically dangerous of several challenges Harris and the White House faced recently.

The White House moved swiftly to end the strike, applying pressure on both the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) to reach a deal. The strike, which began after the two sides failed to agree on a contract by Monday, shut down key ports along the East and Gulf Coasts. It threatened to bottleneck the economy just a month before the election, posing a major risk to Harris and the administration.

Fortunately for Harris, the strike was resolved Thursday night, with the longshoremen’s union and port operators reaching a tentative agreement after two days of stoppage. This resolution was further bolstered by Friday’s jobs report, which showed a stronger labor market than anticipated.

In September, the U.S. added 254,000 jobs, far surpassing the 140,000 jobs forecasted by economists. Additionally, revisions for July and August showed an extra 72,000 jobs were created during those months, suggesting that earlier concerns about a weakening labor market were overstated. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 4.1%, further easing fears of rising joblessness.

This encouraging jobs report came as inflation moved closer to the Federal Reserve’s target. After peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, the highest in 40 years, inflation has since dropped to 2.5% as of August. Meanwhile, wage growth continues to outpace inflation, with average hourly earnings rising 4% over the past year.

The Federal Reserve, which had previously raised interest rates to combat inflation, indicated it was winding down its inflation-fighting efforts by lowering rates for the first time in September, with a 50-basis-point cut.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, praised the latest economic data, stating, “The jobs report for September cements my view that the economy is about as good as it gets.” He added, “The economy is creating lots of jobs across many industries, consistent with robust labor force growth, and thus low and stable unemployment.”

Zandi went on to emphasize that the U.S. economy is currently at full employment. “Wage growth is strong, and given big productivity gains, it is consistent with low and stable inflation. One couldn’t paint a prettier picture of the job market and broader economy,” he said.

President Joe Biden appeared at the White House press briefing to highlight both the resolution of the port strike and the positive jobs report. “The past two days, we’ve gotten some very good news about the American economy,” Biden said on Friday.

“Just yesterday, shipping carriers, after some discussion with the International Longshoremen’s union, came to an agreement to keep the ports of the East Coast and the Gulf ports open,” Biden noted. He emphasized the importance of this agreement, stating, “We averted what could have become a major crisis for the country.”

He also expressed excitement about the jobs numbers, saying, “Today, I got more incredible news.” Biden attributed the quick resolution of the port strike and the positive jobs report as signs that the economy was on solid footing.

According to Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the good economic news was a boost for Harris’s campaign. “Harris is not literally running for reelection, but she is coming out of an incumbent administration, so she is being judged on the state of the current economy,” Tedeschi said. “Anything that is good about the current economy probably helps her, whether fairly or unfairly.”

Although Harris has lagged behind former President Donald Trump in terms of handling the economy since joining the race in late July, recent polls suggest she has been making gains. A Marist poll conducted in September showed Harris trailing Trump by just four points on the economy, a notable improvement from the nine-point gap Biden had in June. Likewise, in a Fox News poll last month, Harris was only five points behind Trump, compared to Biden’s 15-point deficit in March.

Despite these improvements, Harris still trails Trump on economic issues in what is shaping up to be a close election. The Hill-Decision Desk HQ polling average shows Harris leading Trump by a slim 3.4%.

Had the port strike dragged on, it could have severely hurt Harris’s campaign. Experts estimated that the strike could have cost the economy as much as $5 billion a day, with consumers beginning to feel its effects if the strike had lasted several weeks.

Tedeschi warned that a prolonged strike could have reignited inflation, particularly short-term inflation similar to what was seen during the pandemic when supply chain disruptions caused prices to spike. “A port strike carried with it a lot of risk of inflation going forward, especially short-run inflation,” Tedeschi said, recalling the “supply chain bottleneck inflation” of the pandemic era.

The tentative deal between the longshoremen and port operators includes a 62% wage increase for dockworkers over a six-year contract. Additionally, both sides agreed to extend the current contract until January 15 to continue negotiations on other unresolved issues.

Had there been any weakening in the labor market, it could have also posed problems for Harris. The weaker-than-expected jobs report in July had led to concerns that the Federal Reserve had waited too long to lower interest rates, raising the risk of a recession.

Although the Fed opted for a more aggressive rate cut in September, Fed Chair Jerome Powell defended the bank’s earlier decision to hold rates steady, a move now seen as justified by the recent economic data.

However, the Trump campaign was quick to attack Harris following the release of Friday’s jobs report, criticizing her on manufacturing, immigration, and the lingering effects of inflation.

“Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have built back broke, losing 34,000 manufacturing jobs in just the past two months as foreign countries benefit from Harris’s weak economic policies,” said Karoline Leavitt, national press secretary for the Trump campaign.

Leavitt also argued that the administration’s “open border policies” had “destroyed” 825,000 jobs for native-born Americans in the past year, while creating 1.2 million jobs for foreign-born workers during the same period.

However, this trend is largely attributed to the retirement of baby boomers, as many U.S.-born workers have exited the workforce. Tedeschi and other economists have pointed out that the percentage of native-born Americans with jobs is at its highest level since the federal government began tracking this data.

Tentative Deal Reached Between Dockworkers and US Maritime Alliance, Workers to Return to Ports

October 5, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Striking members of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) are set to resume work on Friday following a tentative agreement with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), the management group representing shipping lines, terminal operators, and port authorities. The deal was announced by the union on Thursday evening, marking a breakthrough in the ongoing negotiations.

The tentative contract includes a $4-per-hour raise each year for the next six years, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. This raise translates to a more than 10% wage increase in the first year, based on the current top hourly wage of $39. Over the span of the contract, the cumulative wage hike will amount to a 62% increase.

In light of the agreement, the union has agreed to extend its contract with USMX, which had expired on Monday, until January 15. This extension allows workers to return to their posts while the final details of the agreement are negotiated. The deal will still need to be ratified by the union’s rank-and-file members before it becomes official.

President Joe Biden applauded the tentative agreement in a statement, praising both the dockworkers and the port operators for their efforts. He said, “Today’s tentative agreement on a record wage and an extension of the collective bargaining process represents critical progress towards a strong contract. I congratulate the dockworkers from the ILA, who deserve a strong contract after sacrificing so much to keep our ports open during the pandemic. And I applaud the port operators and carriers who are members of the US Maritime Alliance for working hard and putting a strong offer on the table.”

Vice President Kamala Harris also commented on the significance of the agreement, noting the importance of fair compensation for dockworkers. “This is about fairness — and our economy works best when workers share in record profits. Dockworkers deserve a fair share for their hard work getting essential goods out to communities across America,” Harris said in her statement.

Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su was present during the final stages of the negotiations in North Bergen, New Jersey, according to a source close to the matter. Su had previously played a key role in helping to resolve a similar labor dispute between West Coast port workers, represented by the International Longshore & Warehouse Union, and the Pacific Maritime Association. That 2023 deal resulted in a 32% wage increase for those workers over the duration of a five-year contract.

Approximately 50,000 members of the ILA, who work at ports from Maine to Texas, had been on strike since early Tuesday morning. This strike significantly impacted the movement of containerized goods in and out of the U.S., disrupting imports and exports alike. Businesses relying on the flow of goods, particularly American companies that depend on overseas markets, had already begun feeling the economic effects of the strike.

While a tentative deal has been reached, it must still be approved by the ILA members. If they reject the proposal, the strike could resume. Such rejections are not unprecedented. Just last month, union members from the International Association of Machinists (IAM) voted to reject a tentative agreement with Boeing, despite their leadership recommending approval. Since then, IAM members have remained on strike.

Though the port strike was relatively short-lived, the potential economic impact loomed large, especially as it coincided with the peak holiday season. A prolonged strike would have disrupted the flow of goods crucial to retail markets and could have had significant repercussions on the broader economy.

In fact, the Biden administration was particularly concerned about the strike’s potential to affect the economy just weeks before the upcoming presidential election. White House officials, including Biden’s chief of staff, the director of the National Economic Council (NEC), the Transportation secretary, and Su, all worked to apply pressure on the shipping industry to reach an agreement and prevent further disruption. A prolonged strike could have had a substantial impact on key economic metrics, such as October’s jobs data and fourth-quarter growth, which in turn could influence voters’ perception of the economy as they head to the polls.

The White House was acutely aware of the consequences of the strike on supply chains. On Thursday, top officials met via Zoom with shipping industry leaders to push for a resolution. During this meeting, NEC Director Lael Brainard urged USMX to make a better offer to the dockworkers. Su suggested that she could convince the ILA to extend their contract if the new offer met certain expectations. Biden’s chief of staff, Jeff Zients, also briefed the president on the latest developments.

Business groups had been advocating for government intervention, asking the administration to order striking workers back on the job. The strike threatened the supply of various goods, including fruits, liquor, and luxury items, all at a time when retailers were preparing for the holiday shopping season. Additionally, shortages of certain items could have driven prices up.

Despite these pressures, Biden refrained from using the powers available to him under the Taft-Hartley Act, which allows the president to intervene in strikes that affect national security or the economy. Instead, Biden emphasized the importance of respecting the collective bargaining process, urging both sides to reach a fair deal that reflected the industry’s recent financial success. Both Biden and Vice President Harris highlighted the record profits of the shipping industry in the aftermath of the pandemic and stressed that workers should share in the benefits of this boom.

Shipping rates skyrocketed during and after the pandemic, as supply chain issues and a surge in demand for goods increased prices. Industry expert John McCown reported that the shipping industry earned more than $400 billion in profits between 2020 and 2023 — a figure surpassing the total earnings of the industry since the beginning of containerized shipping in 1957.

Initially, USMX had offered workers a nearly 50% wage increase over the six-year contract, amounting to an average raise of $3 per hour each year. The ILA, led by President Harold Daggett, demanded a higher raise of $5 per hour annually, which would have increased wages by roughly 77% over the contract’s duration. While the Biden administration suggested a compromise of $4 per hour, the union rejected the initial $3-per-hour offer, returning to its demand of $5.

As negotiations continued, the union and the shipping companies eventually agreed to the $4-per-hour wage increase, leading to the current tentative deal. However, the strike’s future still depends on the upcoming vote by ILA members.

Special Counsel Jack Smith Lays Out Case Against Trump’s Alleged Election Scheme Amid Political Tensions

October 4, 2024October 6, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Special counsel Jack Smith has presented a detailed strategy outlining how prosecutors intend to build their case against former President Donald Trump, who is charged with orchestrating an illegal plan to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. This filing, made public on Wednesday, sheds new light on Trump’s “increasingly desperate” attempts to retain power, despite numerous efforts by those around him to convince him he had lost the presidency. The case, which is central to Trump’s ongoing legal battles, could play a significant role in the upcoming presidential election, scheduled for just over a month away.

The Republican presidential nominee has consistently labeled the case against him as politically motivated. In an interview with NewsNation, Trump referred to the filing as “pure election interference” and accused the government of “weaponization” against him.

The Prosecutors’ Claims

At the heart of the legal maneuver is an attempt to persuade U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the charges against Trump should move forward, despite a Supreme Court ruling in July that granted former presidents broad immunity from prosecution. The ruling established that former presidents have a presumptive immunity for actions taken in their official capacity. However, the court clarified that this protection does not extend to actions performed in a private capacity.

Smith’s team is building a case around the argument that Trump acted not as a president but as a private candidate for office when he attempted to overturn the election results. This distinction is crucial because it strips Trump of the immunity usually afforded to a sitting or former president. As the prosecution put it, Trump “must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.”

Prosecutors assert that while Trump was still the sitting president during the events in question, his actions were rooted in his role as a candidate, not a commander-in-chief. “Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one,” they wrote in the filing. Working alongside private co-conspirators, Trump allegedly engaged in a fraudulent scheme to disrupt the lawful process of vote collection and counting. As prosecutors emphasize, this was a process in which Trump, as president, had no official role.

The Path Leading to This Point

The road to this latest legal development has been long and complex. The trial was originally scheduled for March in Washington’s federal court. However, proceedings were delayed in December last year when Trump’s legal team filed appeals claiming broad presidential immunity. Trump’s team argued that prosecuting a former president for official acts would erode the vital independence of the presidency.

While the Supreme Court declined to dismiss the case outright, it did remove some of the charges relating to Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department. The court sent the case back to Judge Chutkan to determine which of the remaining allegations pertain to Trump’s official duties and which could be categorized as actions taken in a private capacity, potentially subject to prosecution.

In August, Smith’s team adjusted the indictment to align with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Although the criminal charges remained unchanged, the scope of the allegations was narrowed.

What’s Next?

As the legal battle continues, Trump’s defense team has criticized the prosecution’s recent filing, accusing them of trying to influence public opinion and damage Trump’s campaign in the critical weeks before the election. Trump’s legal team will soon have the opportunity to respond to Smith’s arguments. While Trump’s response was originally due later in October, the defense was granted an extension by Judge Chutkan, moving the deadline to November 7.

Trump’s lawyers are also actively working to have the case dismissed. On Thursday, the defense filed additional legal documents, arguing that prosecutors have overextended the law by suggesting that Trump is responsible for the events of January 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

The defense insists that Trump’s discussions with his vice president and efforts to influence state election officials were integral to his responsibilities as president, not actions outside the scope of his role. John Lauro, Trump’s attorney, argued in a recent hearing that the Supreme Court’s ruling necessitates the case’s dismissal. However, Judge Chutkan has made it clear that she does not share this view.

Even if the judge ultimately sides with the prosecution, the trial will not proceed in the near future. Any rulings by Judge Chutkan are expected to be appealed, potentially sending the case back to the Supreme Court.

There is also the question of what happens if Trump wins the 2024 election. Should he prevail over Vice President Kamala Harris, he would have the power to appoint an attorney general who could seek to dismiss the case, along with other federal charges Trump faces. Additionally, Trump could attempt to pardon himself if convicted.

Political Ramifications

The latest filing has provided fresh material for Democrats as they campaign against Trump. It serves as a reminder to voters of the serious allegations surrounding the former president, even as ballots have already been cast in some states ahead of Election Day.

Trump, however, has been quick to capitalize on the filing, portraying it as yet another politically motivated attempt by his adversaries to weaken his campaign. This strategy has resonated strongly with his base and has significantly boosted his fundraising efforts.

Despite the new details in the filing, it is unclear how much it will affect voters’ decisions. Much of the information about Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election has been in the public domain for some time. Additionally, Trump is facing multiple indictments, which may lessen the impact of this particular case on public opinion.

Polling data suggests that voters are more concerned with economic issues than with the defense of democratic institutions. For instance, a recent CNN poll revealed that 4 in 10 likely voters cited the economy as their top issue when deciding how to vote, compared to 2 in 10 who identified protecting democracy as their primary concern.

Protecting democracy seems to resonate more with Democratic voters, particularly those already backing Harris. Approximately 4 in 10 Harris supporters identified it as their top priority. In contrast, among Republicans and Trump supporters, the economy remains the dominant issue, with 6 in 10 naming it as their top concern. Immigration follows as the second most important issue. Only 5% of Trump supporters view protecting democracy as their main concern.

As the 2024 election approaches, the legal and political ramifications of this case will continue to unfold. Whether or not Trump’s legal battles ultimately sway voters remains to be seen.

Vance and Walz Face Off in Heated, But Predictable, Vice Presidential Debate

October 3, 2024October 6, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz took the stage for a highly anticipated vice presidential debate, one of the final opportunities to sway voters before Election Day. However, according to operatives from both parties, neither candidate did much to sway undecided voters, a group that has remainedlargely unmoved by vice presidential debates historically.

Both political strategists and analysts believe that vice presidential debates rarely play a decisive role in elections, a trend that seems likely to hold true this year. With one of the presidential candidates being former President Donald Trump, who enjoys universal name recognition, the debate was seen more as a formality than a significant factor in voter decision-making.

“Nobody in history has voted for a presidential candidate based on a VP debate,” stated Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way and a former campaign aide during Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential run. Reflecting on his past experiences, he added, “I watched the 1988 VP debate in a Dukakis campaign office, and when [former Sen. Lloyd] Bentsen dropped his ‘you’re no Jack Kennedy’ line, we high-fived in glee. Then we went on to lose 40 states.”

As expected, both candidates stuck to familiar talking points during Tuesday night’s debate, held in New York City. While the city prides itself as a cultural hub, its influence on the rest of the country is often debated. Both Vance and Walz used their opening statements to highlight their backgrounds and appeal to their respective bases.

Vance emphasized his working-class roots and military service, portraying himself as a champion of the common man. He credited Trump with bringing “stability in the world” by fostering “deterrence” and called into question Walz’s stance on abortion. Vance’s narrative focused on presenting Trump as a decisive leader who kept America safe and stable.

Walz, in turn, highlighted his upbringing in a small Nebraska town and his own service in the National Guard. He praised Vice President Kamala Harris for her “steady leadership” in international affairs and emphasized the importance of alliances. Walz also criticized Vance for scapegoating migrants, arguing that blaming them for various problems was unfair and misleading.

Despite the candidates’ differing views, there were a few moments of tension during the debate. In one heated exchange over the legal status of migrants in Springfield, Ohio, the candidates’ microphones had to be muted. Toward the end of the debate, Walz put Vance on the spot, pressing him to clarify his stance on Trump’s 2020 election loss and the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Vance avoided directly answering the question, deflecting the topic.

While the debate had its share of fiery exchanges, it was also notable for the contrasting styles of the candidates. Walz initially appeared shaky but found his footing as the debate progressed. Vance, on the other hand, maintained a more polished demeanor throughout the night, a reflection of his media experience.

Both campaigns were quick to declare victory after the debate, with the Trump campaign releasing a statement that read: “Senator Vance unequivocally won tonight’s debate in dominating fashion. It was the best debate performance from any Vice-Presidential candidate in history,” according to top aides Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

Meanwhile, Harris’ campaign chair, Jen O’Malley Dillon, countered with her own statement, proclaiming, “On every single issue — the economy, health care, foreign policy, reproductive freedom, gun violence — Governor Walz won.”

Despite these claims of success, most of the attacks made during the debate were directed at the presidential candidates rather than at Vance or Walz themselves. The debate felt more like a clash of their running mates’ policies than a personal confrontation between the two vice presidential hopefuls. Both candidates even acknowledged their opponents’ genuine attempts to address critical issues, contributing to an overall tone of civility, unusual for such political events.

“Zero movement. Something for each side to like,” commented Democratic strategist Pete Giangreco. This sentiment was echoed by a national GOP strategist, who texted ABC News an image of a Venn diagram illustrating the overlap of “people interested enough in politics to watch the VP debate” and “Undecided voters.” The circles, unsurprisingly, did not intersect.

“Both did what they had to do. No major mistakes,” the GOP source observed. “Neither will break anything.”

In a lighthearted moment near the end of the debate, Walz referenced popular TV programs competing for viewers’ attention that evening, including “Dancing with the Stars.” This comment underscored the challenge of garnering attention for vice presidential debates, which traditionally attract smaller audiences.

Though both campaigns will likely race to highlight key moments from the debate in hopes of swaying voters, history suggests that vice presidential debates rarely shift the political landscape. It’s often said that the primary goal of a running mate in a debate is to “do no harm,” and while a strong performance may not significantly boost a ticket, a poor showing can be damaging.

According to a former senior Trump administration official, some voters tuned in to the debate to get a sense of Harris’ potential administration due to her limited media presence. They praised Vance, stating he “was in a different class tonight.” However, this official also acknowledged that many undecided voters were likely watching other events, such as the MLB playoffs or reruns of popular sitcoms like “Seinfeld,” rather than tuning into the debate.

In the end, both Vance and Walz managed to avoid any major blunders, maintaining the status quo. While they may have given their respective parties reasons to cheer, it is unlikely that their performances will have a lasting impact on the election. The debate left undecided voters largely where they started – still undecided – and with more interest in upcoming presidential debates or, perhaps, entirely different distractions.

Harris Declines Al Smith Dinner: Impact of Abortion Politics and Party Divide

October 2, 2024October 3, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Since September 21, when Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris declined an invitation to the Archdiocese of New York’s annual Al Smith Dinner, a fundraising event for children in need, Catholic media and commentators have been buzzing with analysis. The decision has raised eyebrows, particularly because the event is a major platform for political figures during election years.

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan expressed surprise at the decision, noting, “We’re not used to this. We don’t know how to handle it.” He further added that such a situation hadn’t occurred in 40 years, recalling the last time when Walter Mondale declined in 1984, joking, “He lost 49 out of 50 states.”

However, it’s important to note that Harris’ decision, though rare, isn’t unprecedented. Since 1984, three of nine Al Smith Dinners held during presidential election years have taken place without either candidate in attendance. In the 1990s and again in 2004, Cardinals John O’Connor and Edward Egan chose to exclude candidates, citing the divisiveness of the campaigns. In fact, abortion has often been at the center of the drama. In 1980, Jimmy Carter was booed by attendees over his stance on abortion, and many speculated that John Kerry’s position on the issue influenced his exclusion in 2004.

Many believe that the tension around the Democratic Party’s abortion stance played a significant role in Harris’ decision. Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, suggested that Cardinal Dolan’s perceived friendliness with Donald Trump may have also contributed. Millies pointed out, “There’s just discomfort there that Cardinal Dolan has not gone to the lengths to seem nonpartisan” as his predecessors had done.

The Archdiocese of New York did not comment on efforts to persuade the Harris campaign to attend the dinner.

Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a professor of religious studies at Manhattan University, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that Harris’ caution may also be linked to the broader political climate. “The Al Smith dinner may have been a ‘lighthearted fundraising event’ in the past, but now, with the increasing influence of Catholic bishops in U.S. politics, particularly in support of conservative causes, it may be perceived differently,” she said. She pointed to how some bishops have been vocally critical of President Joe Biden, particularly over his stance on abortion rights, with some even threatening to withhold Communion from him.

“If that’s the way they treated the Catholic president, why would she go?” Imperatori-Lee added, referencing Harris’ support for abortion rights, which has been a key part of her campaign.

Millies also speculated that Harris may be calculating that leaving Trump as the sole speaker could give him more opportunities to make controversial statements. “There’s a better than 50-50 chance that Trump will put his foot in his mouth at the Al Smith dinner anyway, and I wouldn’t want to get in his way if I were Kamala Harris when he does that,” Millies said.

Trump has a history of turning religious events into political battlegrounds. In 2016, during his appearance at the Al Smith Dinner, which traditionally features humorous remarks, Trump used the opportunity to launch personal attacks on his then-opponent, Hillary Clinton. He accused her of being “corrupt” and anti-Catholic, drawing boos from the audience. “Here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics,” Trump remarked about Clinton.

Clinton, for her part, responded by raising concerns about Trump’s allegations of a “rigged” election, adding, “I didn’t think he’d be OK with a peaceful transition of power.” Her comments foreshadowed Trump’s later controversies regarding the 2020 election results.

Trump’s pattern of mixing politics with religious events didn’t stop there. Four years later, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump, fresh from his first impeachment trial, used the platform to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Mitt Romney. He accused Pelosi of lying when she said she prayed for him and attacked Romney for “using” his faith as justification when he voted to convict Trump. “I don’t like people who use faith for justification for doing what they know is wrong,” Trump said at the time.

The fallout from these appearances has had a lasting impact. The National Prayer Breakfast has since been scaled back, moving from a large gathering to a smaller, more intimate event held at the U.S. Capitol.

Imperatori-Lee suggested that Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner might also be due to the compressed nature of her campaign. Harris officially launched her presidential bid only two months ago, leaving little time to participate in non-essential events. “Vice President Harris is probably being very cautious about where she spends her time,” Imperatori-Lee said.

She further questioned whether the Al Smith Dinner holds much importance for the average Catholic voter. “Maybe Catholics in New York care about the Al Smith dinner,” she said. “But are Catholics in New York really a demographic that is going to move the needle for Vice President Harris or for any down-ballot people that she might be interested in helping? No.”

More significantly, Millies suggested that Harris’ decision signals a broader shift in the political landscape, with Catholic voters increasingly aligning with the Republican Party. He explained, “Catholics are now settling into being a niche constituency of one party rather than a national constituency that’s available to both parties.”

Given this political reality, skipping the dinner might be a wise move for Harris, especially with the election expected to be extremely close. “The Catholic vote, to all appearances, isn’t going to do her any good,” Millies concluded.

Despite the absence of both Harris and Trump, the Al Smith Dinner is still expected to be a significant fundraising success. Cardinal Dolan told New York’s archdiocesan media that this year’s event is projected to raise around $9 million. He added that the dinner typically raises more money during presidential election years.

Reflecting on the importance of the event, Dolan said, “When we speak about the culture of life, the dignity and sacredness of human life from the moment of conception to natural death, we need to put our money where our mouth is. The dinner exists for these causes, not the other way around.”

In the end, Harris’ decision to decline the Al Smith Dinner invitation highlights the growing polarization around issues like abortion within U.S. politics, particularly as they intersect with religious communities. With the 2024 election drawing near, the event once again serves as a flashpoint for the ongoing debate about faith, politics, and public life.

Harris vs. Trump: A Historic Election on the Horizon

September 30, 2024October 1, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

On November 5, U.S. voters will head to the polls to elect their next president. What was initially expected to be a rematch of the 2020 election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump took an unexpected turn in July when Biden ended his campaign and threw his support behind Vice-President Kamala Harris. This surprising move has left the nation asking one key question: Will America elect its first female president, or will Donald Trump win a second term in office?

As election day nears, the focus has shifted to how the candidates are performing in the polls. It remains to be seen whether the dynamics of the race will change before November.

Who is Leading the National Polls?

Since entering the race in late July, Harris has consistently led Trump in national polling averages. The margin has remained small but steady. In a highly anticipated debate between the two candidates held in Pennsylvania on September 10, over 67 million viewers tuned in to see how they would fare.

Harris’ performance in the debate seems to have given her a slight boost. Polls conducted in the week following the debate indicated that her lead over Trump increased slightly, rising from 2.5 percentage points to 3.3 percentage points. While this gain is marginal, it reflects a shift in momentum.

The slight increase in Harris’ lead appears to be more a result of a drop in Trump’s numbers than a significant surge in her own. Trump’s polling average had been climbing before the debate but saw a decrease of half a percentage point afterward. These small movements in the polls are tracked in national polling averages, which illustrate how each candidate is trending over time.

However, national polls, while informative, do not provide a comprehensive picture of how the election will play out. The U.S. presidential election is not determined by the national popular vote but rather by the electoral college system.

The Role of Battleground States

The outcome of the election will be decided in a handful of battleground states. While there are 50 states in the U.S., most of them consistently vote for the same party in every election. This leaves a small number of key states where the outcome remains uncertain and where both candidates have a real chance of winning. These states are critical in determining the final outcome and are known as battleground states.

At present, the race in these battleground states is extremely close, with only a one or two percentage point difference separating Harris and Trump in most of them. Pennsylvania, in particular, is a crucial battleground because it has the largest number of electoral votes among these key states. Winning Pennsylvania could be the key to securing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Before Harris became the Democratic nominee, Biden had been trailing Trump by nearly five percentage points in the seven battleground states. However, Harris’ entry into the race has shifted the dynamics. She is now performing better in several of these states than Biden had been before he exited the race.

Although there are fewer state-level polls than national polls, making it more difficult to draw conclusions, the available data shows that Harris has been gaining ground in certain battleground states. The margin of error in state polls also complicates the picture, as the actual numbers could be slightly higher or lower than reported.

Nonetheless, the trends since Harris entered the race suggest that she is in a stronger position in some key states. Polling averages show that Harris has been leading in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin since the beginning of August. These states, once considered Democratic strongholds, flipped to Trump in 2016, contributing to his victory. Biden won them back in 2020, and if Harris can do the same, she will be well on her way to winning the election.

How Polling Averages Are Created

The polling data used to track the race comes from various sources, including the well-known polling analysis website 538, which is affiliated with ABC News. 538 compiles data from numerous individual polls conducted both nationally and in battleground states. The polls come from a variety of polling companies, and 538 applies strict quality control measures to ensure that only polls meeting specific criteria are included in their averages. These criteria include transparency regarding the number of people polled, the time frame in which the poll was conducted, and the methodology used (e.g., phone calls, text messages, or online surveys).

By aggregating data from multiple polls, 538 creates an average that offers a more reliable indicator of where the race stands than any individual poll could provide. The methodology ensures that only credible polls are considered, reducing the likelihood of inaccurate results.

Can We Trust the Polls?

Although polls provide valuable insights, their accuracy in predicting the final outcome remains uncertain. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections, polls underestimated support for Trump, leading to unexpected results. Polling companies are working to address these past mistakes, adjusting their models to better reflect the composition of the voting population.

However, even with these adjustments, there are still challenges. One of the biggest unknowns is voter turnout. Pollsters must make educated guesses about who is most likely to vote on November 5. Voter turnout is notoriously difficult to predict, and it can have a significant impact on the election’s outcome.

At the moment, polls suggest that Harris and Trump are neck and neck in battleground states, with only a few percentage points separating them. When the race is this close, it becomes nearly impossible to predict the winner with certainty.

While Harris has the advantage in national polls, the electoral college system means that the results in a few key states will ultimately decide the election. As election day approaches, both candidates will likely focus their efforts on winning over voters in these battleground states, knowing that even a small shift in the polls could determine the next president of the United States.

While the current polling suggests that Harris has a slight edge, the election remains too close to call. With both candidates vying for victory in a handful of battleground states, the outcome will likely hinge on voter turnout and the final days of campaigning. As the country watches and waits, one thing is clear: this election has the potential to make history.

Israeli Airstrike Kills Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah Amid Rising Tensions

September 29, 2024October 1, 2024 Staff ReporterWorld 0

The death of Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli airstrike marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between Israel and militant groups in the Middle East. President Joe Biden addressed the killing on Saturday, framing it as a “measure of justice” for the numerous victims of Nasrallah’s long-standing “reign of terror.” Nasrallah’s death, Biden emphasized, follows more than 40 years of violence attributed to the Hezbollah leader and his organization, known for targeting Americans, Israelis, and Lebanese civilians alike.

The airstrike that killed Nasrallah occurred in Beirut, a day after Israeli forces executed the attack. Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese militant group, confirmed the loss of their leader on Saturday, sparking widespread reactions across the region. Biden contextualized Nasrallah’s demise within the broader framework of the conflict ignited by Hamas’ massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. In a public statement, Biden said, “Nasrallah, the next day, made the fateful decision to join hands with Hamas and open what he called a ‘northern front’ against Israel.”

Hezbollah, under Nasrallah’s leadership, has been involved in various high-profile attacks on U.S. interests. These include the infamous 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, which resulted in significant American casualties. The group was also responsible for the kidnapping and eventual death of a CIA station chief in the Lebanese capital. Additionally, Hezbollah has armed and trained militias responsible for attacks on U.S. forces during the Iraq War. Nasrallah’s death is seen as a crippling blow to Hezbollah, though the U.S. administration is cautiously navigating the situation to prevent a broader regional conflict.

The Biden administration quickly moved to distance itself from direct involvement in the Israeli operation, clarifying that it had not been informed of the airstrike beforehand. This careful approach reflects the U.S. strategy of managing the volatile Middle East situation, particularly the delicate balance between supporting Israel’s right to defend itself and avoiding a wider war that could engulf the region. Vice President Kamala Harris, in her own statement on Saturday, echoed Biden’s sentiment that Nasrallah’s death was “a measure of justice.” She emphasized the importance of diplomacy, stating, “Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.”

Nasrallah’s death comes amid heightened tensions, with Biden’s top security advisors recently pushing for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. They hoped that such a truce could also revive stalled efforts to negotiate a cease-fire in Gaza, where fighting between Israel and Hamas continues. The Biden administration’s efforts at diplomacy are further complicated by Hezbollah’s close ties to Iran, which also backs Hamas. Following Nasrallah’s death, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a forceful speech to the United Nations, pledging that Israel’s military campaign would continue until all displaced Israeli citizens could return home. Shortly after Netanyahu’s speech, Israeli forces launched the fatal airstrike against Nasrallah.

In response to the killing, Biden reiterated his call for cease-fires in both Gaza and between Israel and Hezbollah. “It is time for these deals to close, for the threats to Israel to be removed, and for the broader Middle East region to gain greater stability,” he said on Saturday. This vision of peace, however, was immediately challenged by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who condemned the United States for its alleged complicity in Nasrallah’s death. Pezeshkian accused the U.S. of aiding Israel in executing the airstrike and declared that the international community would not forget that the “order of the terrorist strike was issued from New York.”

As a precautionary measure, the U.S. State Department has ordered the families of non-essential U.S. diplomats to leave Beirut due to the “volatile and unpredictable security situation” following the airstrike. Additionally, the U.S. embassy in Beirut has provided Americans in the country with information about potential assistance for leaving Lebanon. While no formal evacuations have been organized, the embassy’s advisory hinted at the possibility of such operations if the situation worsens. The State Department had previously warned Americans against all travel to Lebanon, citing the escalating instability throughout the region.

The evacuation measures, which allow for the voluntary departure of non-essential diplomatic staff and their families at government expense, underscore the severity of the security concerns in Lebanon. The State Department regularly issues such directives in regions where the safety of American personnel is at risk. While an “ordered departure” requires those affected to leave the country, an “authorized departure” provides them the option to do so at their discretion.

Meanwhile, President Biden and Vice President Harris have been closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East from their respective locations. Biden, spending the weekend at his Delaware vacation home, and Harris, who is campaigning in California, held a call with their national security advisors on Saturday to discuss the rapidly evolving conflict. Biden remained firm in his stance on a cease-fire, responding to reporters’ questions by saying, “It’s time for a cease-fire.” However, concerns about the conflict escalating further persist, particularly as U.S. military officials continue to evaluate troop deployments and strategic posture in the region.

On Friday, Biden directed the Pentagon to reassess and potentially adjust U.S. force posture in the Middle East in response to the mounting tensions. The Pentagon had already announced earlier in the week that additional U.S. troops would be deployed to the region to address growing security concerns. The exact number of troops remains unspecified, but the move signals the administration’s efforts to bolster deterrence and ensure the safety of American personnel and assets in the area.

With Hezbollah’s Nasrallah now dead, the situation in the Middle East remains precarious. The death of one of the region’s most notorious figures is a major development, yet it also risks escalating an already volatile conflict. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments are hoping for cease-fires to take root in Gaza and along Israel’s northern border with Hezbollah. However, with ongoing military operations and diplomatic efforts hampered by deep-rooted hostilities, achieving lasting peace remains an uphill battle.

Kamala Harris Leads Trump by 38 Points Among Asian American Voters, Survey Reveals

September 28, 2024September 30, 2024 Staff ReporterCommunity 0

Vice President Kamala Harris holds a commanding 38-point lead over former President Donald Trump in a recent survey targeting Asian American voters. This survey, conducted by the Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote) and AAPI Data, shows Harris’s dominance in this key demographic as she continues her campaign for the 2024 presidential election.

The poll, carried out by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, indicates a significant surge in support for Harris and the Democratic ticket. Since President Biden’s decision to step out of the race, Harris’s support among Asian American voters has grown by 23 points. The data places Harris in a strong position, with 66 percent of Asian American voters backing her, compared to just 28 percent supporting Trump. The remaining six percent are either undecided or favor other candidates.

Christine Chen, co-founder and executive director of APIAVote, spoke to the significance of these results: “These results reinforce what we’ve been hearing and seeing from the Asian American community since July: they are re-energized and poised to once again play a decisive role in the election.” The growing enthusiasm among Asian American voters suggests that this demographic could indeed be a major factor in determining the outcome of the 2024 election.

The survey further highlights Harris’s increasing favorability among Asian American voters. Sixty-two percent now view her positively, reflecting an 18-point rise in approval since the April-May period of 2024. Meanwhile, Trump’s favorability among the same group remains far lower, with only 28 percent of respondents holding a positive opinion of the former president. A significant 70 percent of respondents view Trump unfavorably, underscoring the challenges his campaign faces in winning over this growing demographic.

The popularity of the Democratic ticket extends beyond Harris, as the poll also indicates that Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, is far more popular among Asian American voters than his Republican counterpart, JD Vance. Walz enjoys a 56 percent favorability rating, while only 21 percent of respondents view Vance positively. This disparity in favorability between the two vice-presidential candidates further strengthens the Democratic Party’s appeal among Asian American voters.

Karthick Ramakrishnan, executive director of AAPI Data, emphasized the importance of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) electorate in the upcoming election. “Asian American and Pacific Islander voters are poised to play a pivotal role in this election. Instead of speculating about how AAPI voters are reacting to the Harris, Walz, and Vance candidacies, we have nationally representative survey data to inform news coverage and public understanding,” Ramakrishnan said. His remarks underscore the growing influence of AAPI voters, whose voting patterns have often been overlooked in previous elections.

In addition to favorability ratings, the survey also reveals a notable rise in voter engagement within the Asian American community. Seventy-seven percent of Asian American voters expressed certainty that they would vote in the upcoming election, a significant increase from 68 percent earlier in the year. This heightened level of voter commitment suggests that outreach efforts by both political parties are having an impact.

The Democratic Party appears to be making more significant inroads with Asian American voters, as 62 percent of respondents reported having been contacted by the Democratic Party. In comparison, 46 percent said they had been contacted by the Republican Party. This difference in voter outreach may further explain Harris’s strong lead among Asian American voters, as consistent communication often plays a crucial role in securing voter loyalty.

Harris’s appeal to Asian American voters is multifaceted. While her identity as an Asian Indian or South Asian is significant to some, her identity as a woman resonates more strongly within this demographic. Thirty-eight percent of Asian American voters in the survey emphasized the importance of her gender, while 27 percent highlighted her ethnic background. This demonstrates that voters are responding to both Harris’s gender and heritage, though her role as a woman appears to carry more weight with a larger portion of the electorate.

The findings of the 2024 AAPI Voter Survey provide valuable insights into the voting trends of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. The survey, conducted between September 3 and 9, 2024, reflects the growing importance of these communities in the national political landscape.

As the fastest-growing electorate in the United States, Asian American voters are increasingly viewed as a crucial bloc in the race for the presidency. The support Harris has garnered within this group further solidifies her position as a formidable candidate. Given the increasing voter engagement, as evidenced by the survey results, Asian American voters may very well play a decisive role in shaping the outcome of the 2024 election.

This shift in favor of the Democratic ticket among Asian American voters is a significant development as both parties compete for key demographic groups in battleground states. Harris’s ability to connect with Asian American voters, particularly as a woman and a representative of their community, is proving to be a vital asset for the Democratic campaign.

In contrast, Trump’s inability to improve his favorability among this demographic suggests that his campaign faces an uphill battle in trying to win over Asian American voters. With 70 percent of respondents viewing him unfavorably, it remains unclear how the former president plans to reverse these trends before Election Day.

The rise in voter engagement among Asian Americans also reflects broader efforts to increase participation within historically underrepresented communities. With voter turnout among Asian Americans rising, both political parties will likely continue to invest in outreach efforts to win over this crucial voting bloc.

The 2024 AAPI Voter Survey underscores the pivotal role that Asian American voters are expected to play in the upcoming election. With Harris holding a significant lead over Trump and the Democratic ticket receiving strong support from this demographic, the results suggest that Asian American voters will be instrumental in shaping the outcome of the 2024 presidential race. As voter outreach efforts intensify and engagement continues to rise, Asian American voters are poised to make their voices heard in a significant way this election season.

Modi Wraps Up US Visit Without Meeting Trump, Despite Earlier Claims

September 25, 2024September 27, 2024 Staff ReporterIndia 0

Prime Minister Narendra Modi concluded his three-day official visit to the United States, notably avoiding a meeting with former President Donald Trump, despite the latter’s public announcement of such a meeting. Trump had claimed at a rally in Flint, Michigan, that Modi would join him, but this encounter did not materialize.

According to Fox News, Modi was expected to attend Trump’s rally on Long Island on Sunday, yet despite Trump’s comments, Indian officials had dismissed the possibility of such a meeting even before Modi left for the U.S. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri confirmed that there was no “specific meeting at present” planned with the former President.

Throughout his U.S. visit, Modi participated in several high-profile events. He attended the Quad Leaders’ Summit in Wilmington, addressed a large gathering of Indian-Americans on Long Island, met with U.S. technology leaders, and spoke at the United Nations’ Summit of the Future on Monday. Additionally, Modi held bilateral meetings with world leaders on each of the three days of his visit. However, despite the political significance of this trip, Modi chose not to meet either of the U.S. presidential candidates—Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

The decision not to meet Trump raised eyebrows, particularly after Trump claimed at a rally that Modi, his “fantastic friend,” would be coming to the U.S. specifically to see him. “He’s fantastic. I mean, fantastic, man. A lot of these leaders are fantastic,” Trump told supporters during the town hall event in Flint, Michigan, just days before Modi’s visit.

Modi Declines to Reignite ‘Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar’

This recent decision stands in stark contrast to Modi’s previous engagements with Trump, where he had, in subtle ways, endorsed Trump’s re-election. During Trump’s presidency, Modi demonstrated a strong camaraderie with him, and the two leaders were often portrayed as having a solid personal bond, underscored by shared political ideologies. Both had been vocal about policies aimed at bolstering their respective countries’ self-reliance, with Modi’s “Make in India” campaign drawing parallels to Trump’s “America First” approach.

The friendship between the two became a focal point in global media, particularly during the 2019 “Howdy, Modi” rally in Houston. At the time, Trump was seeking a second term as president, and Modi, as a foreign leader, shared the stage with him at an event attended by 50,000 Indian-Americans, a crucial voter demographic for Trump. It was at this event that Modi famously said, “Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar,” which loosely translates to “This time, it’s Trump’s government,” a statement seen by many as an endorsement of Trump’s re-election campaign.

Modi’s enthusiastic participation in the “Howdy, Modi” rally had a significant impact, particularly among Indian-American voters, many of whom tend to lean Republican. Trump capitalized on this moment, portraying himself as a strong ally of the Indian community in the U.S.

In February 2020, Modi hosted Trump for the “Namaste Trump” event in Ahmedabad, India, where over 100,000 people gathered to welcome the American president. This grand reception further reinforced the idea that the two leaders shared a close bond, and it was widely seen as a strategic move to boost Trump’s appeal among Indian-American voters during his re-election campaign.

However, this year, there was a noticeable absence of similar support or endorsement from Modi. While Trump had publicly expressed expectations of a meeting, Modi’s decision to avoid such an encounter suggests a deliberate move to distance himself from the former president, particularly as the U.S. political landscape shifts ahead of the 2024 election.

Despite the close rapport they had shared in the past, Modi’s decision not to meet Trump or endorse him this time could reflect a shift in India’s foreign policy approach. As the U.S. gears up for another highly charged election, Modi may be seeking to maintain neutrality or avoid appearing to favor one candidate over another. This could also signal India’s broader strategy of focusing on strengthening ties with the current U.S. administration and other global leaders, rather than becoming entangled in American electoral politics.

By refraining from repeating the “Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar” slogan or attending a rally with Trump, Modi has shown a more cautious approach, likely aimed at preserving India’s diplomatic flexibility. While the earlier endorsements helped to solidify India’s ties with Trump during his presidency, the political climate has since changed, and Modi may be recalibrating his approach accordingly.

In contrast to the past, where personal rapport between leaders took center stage, this visit demonstrated Modi’s emphasis on formal bilateral relations and multilateral engagements. His meetings with U.S. tech leaders, participation in the Quad Leaders’ Summit, and address at the U.N. Summit of the Future highlight India’s growing global role. By choosing to focus on these aspects of the visit, rather than rekindling a personal alliance with Trump, Modi underscored India’s priorities in a rapidly changing international order.

The lack of a meeting with Trump, despite the latter’s anticipation, sends a clear signal that India is focused on its broader foreign policy agenda, rather than being swayed by the dynamics of U.S. domestic politics. It also reflects a shift in the nature of diplomacy, where leaders may prefer to focus on long-term strategic partnerships rather than short-term political alignments.

Ultimately, Modi’s visit to the U.S. highlighted India’s increasing influence on the world stage, while his decision to skip a meeting with Trump marked a significant departure from the past. Whether this decision will have any impact on Trump’s re-election efforts remains to be seen, but it certainly underscores India’s cautious and calculated approach to international relations in an era of global uncertainty.

Doctors Rally Behind Kamala Harris, Citing Health Concerns for a Second Trump Term

September 23, 2024 Staff ReporterHealth 0

Doctors across the U.S. are increasingly aligning with Democrats, with many backing Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign and using social media to warn of the potential dangers of another Trump administration. This shift is part of a broader trend that has seen a political reorientation among medical professionals over the past two decades. While some doctors fear this trend could undermine trust in public health, Harris’ supporters see their involvement in politics as a moral obligation.

“Elections do matter for your health,” said Dr. Suhas Gondi, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who is actively involved in organizing for Harris. He explained to POLITICO, “It’s hard for me to not be engaged in politics.”

Historically, doctors favored Republican candidates in every election cycle since the 1990s, except for 2008. However, growing concerns about patients’ rights, healthcare policies, and the rise of Donald Trump in 2016 spurred many educated professionals, including doctors, to support the Democratic Party.

Some doctors worry that their colleagues’ growing partisanship might affect patient trust. Conservative patients, in particular, may lose faith in their doctors if they see them as politically biased. This could have serious consequences for public health, leading to lower vaccination rates and missed cancer screenings.

Dr. John Mandrola, a cardiologist from Kentucky, is among those who believe doctors should avoid overt political activism. “What matters in the clinic is that I build a rapport with the patient, learn their problem and preferences, and find a therapy that fits with their preferences,” he wrote on his Substack site. “You can’t do that if they don’t trust you. Or if they view you as a biased partisan.”

Mandrola’s call for doctors to remain apolitical sparked backlash on social media, with many physicians arguing that the stakes are too high to stay silent. They believe advocating for science-based policies and ensuring the freedom to practice medicine is more critical than trying to appease all political factions.

Harris has encouraged physicians to use their trusted status to spread her message. Nearly 1,600 people attended a recent virtual event for Health Care Providers for Harris, where over $100,000 was raised for her campaign.

However, the trust that Harris is counting on has been declining. A July survey showed that trust in doctors and hospitals dropped from over 70 percent at the start of the pandemic to just above 40 percent, with declines across all demographic groups.

Despite this, many doctors who have long advocated for progressive policies appreciate the increased support for their cause. “American medicine has changed profoundly,” said Dr. Ed Weisbart, national board secretary of Physicians for a National Health Program. He believes that doctors are beginning to realize that their responsibility to advocate for their patients extends beyond the exam room and into the political sphere.

Democrats have seized on this shift, appealing to doctors’ sense of responsibility to their patients. California Rep. Raul Ruiz, a physician and Democrat, emphasized this on the Health Care Providers for Harris call. “You put that love for your patient into action by advocating for them day-in and day-out,” Ruiz said. “That is the type of dedication and effort that Kamala Harris will have for the American people.”

The COVID-19 pandemic was a turning point for many doctors, as the Trump administration’s response left many feeling that public health was being sidelined in favor of political priorities. This sentiment translated into a record amount of individual campaign contributions from doctors in the 2020 election cycle, with nearly $129 million donated to Democrats and $62 million to Republicans, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks political donations.

In 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade further galvanized doctors into political action. The ruling allowed states to limit or ban abortions, causing many healthcare providers to advocate more vocally for Democrats, whom they see as defenders of reproductive rights.

“We need to ensure that Democrats are elected up and down the ballot,” said Dr. Anna Igler, an obstetrician-gynecologist from Wisconsin, during the Harris campaign event. “Our message should be clear: Reproductive rights and access are all on the line. The stakes in this election could not be higher.”

The political battle over gender-affirming care has had a similar effect, with many doctors pushing back against Republican-led states that have restricted such treatments, despite endorsements from major medical organizations.

However, Republicans still have considerable support among physicians, particularly those opposed to abortion and gender-affirming care. Several GOP doctors serve in Congress, including Rep. Greg Murphy, a urologist and co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus. He has warned his colleagues about the dangers of politicizing medicine, saying that doctors “must be careful not to undermine the integrity of our profession by infusing politics into the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship.”

The Trump campaign has also hit back at doctors supporting Harris, accusing her of being the real threat to public health. Karoline Leavitt, the campaign’s national press secretary, cited Harris’ support for abortion rights and her economic policies, which she claims have driven up healthcare costs for Americans.

Despite the political divide, there is evidence that doctors, like other highly educated professionals, are increasingly aligning with the Democratic Party. A Pew Research Center report from April found that 61 percent of voters with a postgraduate degree now lean Democratic.

Most doctors interviewed by POLITICO agreed that political views should be kept out of the exam room. However, many also feel a responsibility to publicly oppose policies they believe harm their patients.

“Trust is something that creates an enormous responsibility but also lends some political power and power that I’m pleased we’re trying to start using,” said Gondi, the Boston-based resident.

Nevertheless, some doctors caution that engaging in political activism could erode trust in the medical profession. Dr. Mary Braun Bates, an internist from New Hampshire, believes it is better for doctors to keep their political views private. “It’s better for patients if doctors keep their political views to themselves,” she said, adding that her stance on policies such as abortion legislation is “irrelevant for whether or not I can treat heart failure.”

Bates has seen firsthand how patients’ political sensitivities can affect the doctor-patient relationship. After casually mentioning a conversation with the governor of New Hampshire, one patient remarked, “That’s not my governor.” The patient never returned.

Other doctors, like Dr. Adam Cifu, an internist from Chicago, believe there is a middle ground. He thinks it’s reasonable for doctors to speak out on issues where they have specialized knowledge or that directly affect their practices. However, he warns that even these comments could strain the doctor-patient relationship, which he considers his “greatest responsibility.”

Cifu also highlighted how precarious trust in the medical profession has become, saying, “Physicians take for granted, a little bit, the respect that we’re still held in. That’s on shakier and shakier ground.”

This internal debate within the medical community reflects the broader polarization of American society. Even the American Medical Association (AMA), once a conservative bastion, has shifted leftward, calling for peace in Palestine and Israel, decriminalizing drug use, and ending the death penalty.

As the political divide within the medical community grows, doctors must navigate the tension between advocating for their patients and maintaining trust in an increasingly polarized country. As Dr. Luis Seija, chair of the AMA’s Minority Affairs Section, put it: “We are committed to doing what’s right. You’re either with us or you’re not.”

Biden Hosts Quad Leaders in Hometown, Showcasing Legacy in Indo-Pacific Partnership

September 22, 2024September 23, 2024 Staff ReporterNews 0

President Joe Biden is emphasizing his Indo-Pacific legacy as he hosts the leaders of Australia, Japan, and India in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware. This gathering, held on Saturday, marks the culmination of his efforts to nurture and elevate the so-called Quad partnership during his presidency. With this summit potentially being the final Quad meeting under his leadership, Biden is looking to cement his influence on U.S. foreign policy and his focus on the Indo-Pacific.

When Biden took office, he aimed to revitalize the Quad, a coalition of the United States, Australia, Japan, and India. The group previously held meetings only at the foreign minister level. Biden sought to elevate this to leader-level meetings, aligning with his vision to pivot U.S. foreign policy away from the Middle East and toward addressing both the challenges and opportunities in the Indo-Pacific region. Since 2021, the Quad leaders have met in person four times, with Saturday’s summit being the sixth overall gathering of the group.

Biden added a personal touch to this event, hosting the leaders in his hometown and organizing a joint meeting and formal dinner at Archmere Academy, the high school he attended. The gathering comes ahead of the leaders’ appearances at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“You’ve heard the president say many times that all politics is personal, all diplomacy is personal,” stated Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser. He noted that Biden’s personal engagement with foreign leaders has been central to his approach to foreign policy. “Developing personal relationships has been core to his approach as president,” Sullivan continued, emphasizing that hosting the leaders of India, Japan, and Australia at his home demonstrates the value Biden places on these relationships.

Biden started the weekend by welcoming Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to his home, situated on a pond in a wooded area near downtown Wilmington. On Saturday, Biden hosted the Prime Ministers of Japan and India, Fumio Kishida and Narendra Modi, for talks before bringing all the leaders together at Archmere Academy.

Describing Biden’s meeting with Albanese, Sullivan said the two leaders spent time reflecting on their political careers and discussing broader global issues in an informal setting. He remarked that the meeting felt like “two guys — one at the other guy’s home — talking in broad strokes about where they see the state of the world.”

Although Biden has placed a significant emphasis on personal diplomacy, the meetings remained private. Reporters were not allowed to cover his individual conversations with the leaders, and unlike traditional international summits, Biden chose not to hold a press conference. This decision marked a departure from the usual practice of question-and-answer sessions at such events.

The summit was not just a symbolic gesture but also resulted in tangible outcomes. The leaders announced initiatives aimed at improving maritime security, focusing on increased coast guard cooperation across the Pacific and Indian oceans. These initiatives are intended to counterbalance China’s growing assertiveness in the region. Additionally, plans to improve cooperation on humanitarian response missions were outlined.

Discussions between Biden and Modi were expected to touch upon a range of topics, including Modi’s recent visits to Russia and Ukraine, as well as shared concerns regarding China. Modi stands out as a prominent leader of a nation that has maintained a neutral stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Sullivan noted that Biden planned to emphasize the importance of upholding “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and to encourage countries like India to take a stronger stance against supporting Russia’s war efforts. “Every country, everywhere, should refrain from supplying inputs to Russia’s war machine,” Sullivan asserted.

The meeting also presented an opportunity for Biden and Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida to reflect on their shared accomplishments before stepping away from office. Both leaders are nearing the end of their terms, with Biden’s tenure concluding in January 2025, and Kishida facing dwindling public support at home. One of the key achievements for both leaders has been the strengthening of security and economic ties between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, especially as North Korea continues to advance its nuclear program, and China becomes more assertive in the Pacific.

Biden praised Kishida for his efforts in improving relations with South Korea, a country with a long and complicated history with Japan. The improved cooperation between the two nations has been particularly significant given the escalating tensions in the Pacific. Biden commended Kishida’s “courage and conviction in strengthening ties” with South Korea, a key move in the current geopolitical landscape. During their conversation, they also addressed China’s “coercive and destabilizing activities” and discussed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and technological advancements.

Despite the strong relationship between the U.S. and Japan, the two countries are navigating a rare moment of tension. A proposed $15 billion bid by Japan’s Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel, an American company, has faced opposition from Biden, as well as from U.S. political figures like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. The deal has not yet received a formal assessment from the U.S. government, and the review may be delayed until after the upcoming November election.

Sullivan refuted speculation that the timing of the report could signal Biden’s wavering opposition to the deal. “There’s no change in the president’s position,” he said, stressing that the review process would move forward without political interference.

The summit leaders agreed to issue a joint statement that would contain the strongest language to date on China and North Korea, reaffirming their commitment to regional stability and security. This statement was anticipated to send a clear signal of unity among the Quad nations in response to the growing challenges posed by these two countries.

As the leaders gathered to discuss geopolitical issues, they also turned their attention to a cause close to Biden’s heart: cancer prevention. The summit featured a significant announcement related to Biden’s Cancer Moonshot Initiative, a long-standing project aimed at reducing cancer mortality rates. Biden’s personal connection to this cause stems from the death of his son, Beau, who passed away from brain cancer in 2015 at the age of 46.

In a related announcement, the leaders unveiled a new collaboration focused on reducing cervical cancer in the Indo-Pacific region. This initiative is part of Biden’s broader efforts to promote health and well-being across the globe.

As Biden’s presidency nears its end, the White House is also celebrating the creation of a bipartisan “Quad Caucus” in Congress. This group is designed to ensure that the Quad partnership remains strong, regardless of the outcome of the November election.

Biden’s efforts to solidify ties among the Quad nations have been central to his foreign policy vision, and the Wilmington summit underscores the importance of these relationships as the Indo-Pacific region continues to play a critical role in global security and economic stability.

Star-Studded Virtual Event Supports Kamala Harris Campaign with Celebrity Endorsements and Emotional Appeals

September 21, 2024September 27, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

A virtual event hosted by Oprah Winfrey on the evening of September 19 aimed at energizing Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign saw emotional moments and celebrity appearances, attracting a massive audience across social media platforms. Titled “Unite for America,” the event was organized in collaboration with the activist group Win with Black Women. It focused on voter registration and rallying support for Harris in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan, all of which are expected to play a decisive role in the November 5 election.

One of the event’s most poignant moments came when Shanette Williams, the mother of Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28-year-old Georgia woman who passed away in August 2022 due to a delayed hospital treatment under the state’s restrictive abortion laws, addressed the virtual audience. Fighting back tears, Williams shared her grief: “You’re looking at a mother that is broken, the worst pain ever that a mother, that a parent can ever feel.” Harris responded empathetically: “I’m just so sad. And the courage that you all have shown is extraordinary.” The response drew tears from many in the studio audience of about 400 people.

Another emotional moment occurred when 15-year-old Natalie Griffith, a student at Apalachee High School in Georgia, sat in the front row alongside her parents. Natalie had recently survived a shooting in her math class just two weeks earlier, during which she was shot twice. Her mother, Marilda Griffith, expressed her frustration and sorrow: “What are we doing? We have a job, that job is to protect our children. We have to stop it.” Her plea moved many in both the virtual and in-person audience to tears.

Kamala Harris, along with the Democratic Party, has made significant promises regarding two key issues that were highlighted during the event. First, they have committed to restoring national abortion rights, which were severely impacted by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling. Second, Harris has vowed to push for a ban on assault weapons, which are frequently used in mass shootings like the one that affected Natalie Griffith.

The event also featured a host of celebrity appearances, lending their voices in support of Harris’ campaign. Among them were comedians Chris Rock and Ben Stiller, along with actors Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, and Bryan Cranston. The celebrities offered their endorsements for Harris or posed questions to her during the event. Chris Rock, who was particularly enthusiastic about Harris’ candidacy, remarked, “I want to bring my daughters to the White House to meet this Black woman president.”

Oprah Winfrey, acting as the evening’s host, acknowledged Harris’ remarkable rise after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race in late July. Winfrey praised Harris for “stepping into her power” and taking command of her campaign. Harris reflected on the significance of this moment, saying, “You know we each have those moments in our lives when it’s time to step up.”

Harris’ strength as a presidential candidate had been questioned earlier in the campaign, even by some Democrats, including Biden himself. However, since Biden’s departure, Harris has managed to revitalize the Democratic Party’s prospects. Her campaign has brought in renewed enthusiasm and a surge in fundraising, boosting the party’s momentum going into the final stretch of the election.

One candid moment during the event occurred when Winfrey revealed that she had been unaware of Harris’ ownership of a firearm until the candidate’s debate with Republican rival Donald Trump. Harris responded with humor and honesty: “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot.” Realizing the weight of her statement, Harris quickly added, “Probably should not have said that.”

Harris’ campaign advisors reported that close to 200,000 people had signed up to watch the event live, and by the end of the night, the YouTube stream alone had nearly 100,000 viewers. The event was also broadcast on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitch via the accounts of both Winfrey and Harris, further expanding its reach.

The virtual event brought together a number of grassroots organizations in a show of unity and support for Harris. Groups such as Latinas for Harris, White Dudes for Harris, and Win With Black Men had each been organizing and fundraising independently since Harris became the Democratic nominee. Thursday night’s event marked the first time they had all joined forces in a single, collective effort.

Polling data released ahead of the event provided a glimpse into the state of the race. According to a Reuters poll, Harris held a narrow lead over her opponent Donald Trump, with 47% of the vote to Trump’s 42%. In key battleground states, Harris had a slight advantage. She led in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and North Carolina, while Trump was ahead in Georgia. The candidates were tied in Arizona, another crucial state in the upcoming election.

Despite Harris’ growing support, her campaign team remained cautious. “And while we have this extraordinary growing enthusiasm that the Vice President and Governor Walz are seeing everywhere, we are still in a margin of error race. It’s tied. It’s tied right here in Michigan. It’s tied in all the battleground states,” campaign chief Jen O’Malley Dillon warned the audience.

Earlier on September 18, the Uncommitted National Movement, a pro-Palestinian grassroots organization with a significant presence in Michigan, announced that it would not be endorsing Harris in the election. While the group expressed opposition to both Harris and Trump, it stopped short of encouraging its supporters to vote for third-party candidates.

As Harris continues to make her case to voters, her campaign has garnered increased attention and support from a wide range of Americans, including celebrities, activists, and everyday citizens. The emotional appeals and high-profile endorsements from the event hosted by Oprah Winfrey are expected to play a pivotal role in energizing voters as the November 5 election approaches.

Trump to Meet Modi During Upcoming US Visit Amid Trade Criticisms

September 20, 2024September 22, 2024 Staff ReporterIndia, USA 0

Former US President Donald Trump has announced that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet with him next week during Modi’s scheduled three-day visit to the United States. Despite his past criticisms of India as an “abuser” in terms of import tariffs, Trump praised Modi as a “fantastic man.”

Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US is planned from September 21 to 23. Trump made this announcement during his first public appearance since an apparent assassination attempt. On Tuesday, Trump said, “He (Modi) happens to be coming to meet me next week, and Modi, he’s fantastic. I mean, fantastic man. A lot of these leaders are fantastic.” He reiterated his criticism of India’s high tariffs on imports, which has been a point of contention in the past.

Trump revealed this information during a town hall in Flint, Michigan, while addressing issues related to trade and tariffs. He highlighted, “So when India, which is a very big abuser… These people are the sharpest people. They’re not a little bit backwards… You know the expression, they’re at the top of their game, and they use it against us.” Trump added, “But India is very tough. Brazil is very tough…. China is the toughest of all, but we were taking care of China with the tariffs.” This reflects Trump’s broader critique of international trade practices and his stance on tariffs.

In his remarks, Trump outlined his approach to reciprocal trade policies. He stated, “If anybody charges us 10 cents, if they charge us USD 2, if they charge us a hundred per cent, 250, we charge them the same thing. And what’s going to happen? Everything’s going to disappear, and we’re going to end up having free trade again. And if it doesn’t disappear, we’re going to take in a lot of money.” This approach underscores his belief in a tough stance on trade imbalances to foster fairer global trading practices.

Trump is currently engaged in a competitive race for the White House against Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. However, he did not provide additional details regarding the specifics of his upcoming meeting with Modi.

The Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi has yet to respond to Trump’s comments or provide any additional insights regarding the visit.

Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US will commence with the Quad Leaders’ Summit, hosted by President Joe Biden in Wilmington, Delaware. The summit will also include Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. Additionally, Modi is scheduled to address a community event in Long Island on September 22, followed by a speech at the Summit of the Fu.

Modi’s trip is timed just under two months before the US presidential election, with Trump and Kamala Harris as the leading candidates. The general election is set to take place on November 5.

Trump and Harris Neck-and-Neck as Election Nears, Catholics Show Divided Support

September 20, 2024 Staff ReporterReligion 0

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election nears its final stretch, a new Pew Research Center poll reveals a close race between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The poll highlights a sharp divide among U.S. religious groups, especially Catholics, whose loyalties appear to be split between the two candidates. While Trump has garnered a slim majority of support from Catholic voters, Harris has maintained strong backing from key minority groups within the Catholic community.

The Pew survey, released on Monday, indicates that 52% of Catholics plan to vote for Trump, while 47% favor Harris. The slim lead for Trump is mainly attributed to his strong support among white Catholics. According to the poll, Trump commands the backing of 61% of white Catholic voters, while Harris is favored by 65% of Hispanic Catholics. These findings underscore a significant racial divide within the Catholic community, as both candidates vie for this crucial voting bloc.

The religious breakdown in the Pew survey aligns with longstanding trends in U.S. politics. “U.S. religious groups that traditionally have leaned Republican are backing former president Donald Trump by wide margins,” the poll reported, while “groups that have historically backed Democrats are mostly supporting Vice President Kamala Harris.”

Among Protestants, white evangelical Christians, a traditionally conservative group, continue to rally behind Trump. The Pew survey showed that Trump has the overwhelming support of white Protestants, another group that has leaned heavily toward Republican candidates in recent elections. Meanwhile, Harris enjoys the backing of large majorities of atheists, agnostics, and Black Protestants, with 86% of Black Protestants indicating they plan to vote for her.

This religious divide reflects the broader national picture, where Trump and Harris are locked in a tight race. According to Pew, both candidates are supported by 49% of the electorate, suggesting that the race could come down to key demographic groups, such as religious minorities and swing voters, as the election approaches.

In February, Pew conducted an earlier survey that highlighted a more unfavorable view of Trump among Catholics. At that time, 42% of Catholics held a favorable opinion of Trump, while 57% viewed him unfavorably. The shift in support for Trump among Catholics, as shown in the latest poll, suggests a potential realignment within this religious group, particularly among white Catholics.

However, not all surveys reflect the same level of Catholic support for Trump. A separate poll conducted by EWTN News and RealClear Opinion Research, released just a week prior, painted a different picture of Catholic voter preferences. In that survey, 50% of Catholics backed Harris, while only 42% supported Trump. The EWTN/RealClear poll surveyed 1,000 Catholic voters between August 28 and 30, and had a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

The EWTN/RealClear poll also revealed significant variations in support among different racial groups within the Catholic community. Harris held a substantial lead among African American Catholics, with 82% backing her compared to just 12% supporting Trump. Similarly, Harris had the support of 58% of Catholic Asian voters, while 35% favored Trump. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic white Catholics showed a preference for Trump, with 52% supporting the former president and 42% backing Harris.

The contrasting findings between the Pew and EWTN/RealClear polls underscore the fluidity of the race and the importance of religious and racial identity in shaping voter preferences. The Pew survey, which was conducted between August 26 and September 2, had a significantly larger sample size, polling 9,720 voters, and recorded a margin of error of about 1.5 percentage points. This broader sample size provides a more comprehensive view of voter trends, though the differences between the two surveys highlight the challenges in predicting the final outcome.

Beyond the candidates themselves, the Pew poll also shed light on the key issues driving voters’ decisions in the 2024 election. According to the survey, there was widespread agreement across religious groups on the most pressing concerns. At least six in 10 registered voters from every religious group surveyed said that the economy would be a very important factor in their voting decision. Other prominent issues included health care, appointments to the Supreme Court, and foreign policy, all of which ranked as significant concerns for voters across the religious spectrum.

Despite the religious divisions, the Pew poll revealed common ground among voters on certain policy priorities. “Half or more in almost every religious group say the same about health care, Supreme Court appointments, and foreign policy,” the survey reported, suggesting that while religious identity may influence candidate preference, voters are largely united on the core issues that will shape the country’s future.

For Trump, winning over Catholic voters, particularly white Catholics, will be crucial in the final weeks of the campaign. His campaign has historically relied on the support of religious conservatives, and the Pew poll indicates that this base remains strong, particularly among white evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics. Trump’s ability to maintain and grow this support could be a decisive factor in what is shaping up to be a razor-thin election.

On the other hand, Harris’s strong performance among Hispanic and African American Catholics, as well as her overwhelming support among secular voters and Black Protestants, provides her with a solid foundation as she seeks to mobilize these key demographic groups. With both candidates polling evenly among the electorate, the outcome may ultimately depend on voter turnout and the ability of each campaign to energize its base.

As the election draws near, the battle for Catholic voters and other religious groups will likely intensify. Both Trump and Harris are seeking to secure every possible vote in what promises to be one of the most competitive and closely watched presidential elections in recent history. With the electorate so evenly divided, the Pew poll suggests that the final outcome may hinge on the preferences of religious voters, making them a critical battleground in the race for the White House.

Prime Minister Modi’s U.S. Visit: A Crucial Opportunity to Address Discriminatory Quotas in Immigration System

September 19, 2024 Staff ReporterImmigration 0

As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares for his imminent visit to the United States, a pressing question emerges: Will he confront the systemic discrimination experienced by millions of Indian workers within the U.S. immigration system? Will he call on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to enforce U.S. civil rights laws and rectify the inequitable treatment faced by Indians solely due to their country of origin?

For decades, the U.S. immigration system has systematically discriminated against millions of Indian nationals living and working legally in the country, confining them within a bureaucratic maze due to antiquated, country-of-birth quotas. This form of discrimination stands in violation of the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and U.S. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Highly skilled Indian professionals, who significantly contribute to the U.S. economy, find themselves entangled in endless USCIS red tape. This has hampered their ability to advance, change jobs, or establish their own businesses, curtailing their career growth and personal freedom. Despite their legal status and years of dedicated service, their progress is hindered by the current system.

Prime Minister Modi’s visit represents a critical chance to address this issue with President Biden and Vice President Harris, advocating for immediate and impactful changes to end this discriminatory practice.

The Discrimination: Country-of-Birth Quotas

Central to this issue is the U.S. employment-based green card system, which imposes arbitrary limits on the number of green cards issued to immigrants based on their country of birth. These country-of-birth quotas disproportionately affect Indian nationals, who constitute a significant segment of the U.S. high-skilled workforce, particularly in technology, healthcare, and engineering sectors.

Indian professionals, despite their substantial contributions to the U.S. economy, are subjected to waiting periods that can extend over decades due to these quotas. Even though they fulfill all legal requirements for permanent residency, their path to a green card is obstructed merely because of their birthplace. This system not only restricts their career opportunities but also limits the freedom of their families, placing spouses in restrictive visa situations and creating legal uncertainties for children as they age out of dependent status.

The Human Toll: Living in Limbo

For countless Indian workers, this policy has transformed the American Dream into an American nightmare. Many entered the U.S. legally, often on H-1B visas, and have dedicated years to contributing to America’s growth and innovation. However, they remain trapped in legal limbo, unable to advance in their careers or pursue the freedom and opportunities they sought when they first arrived.

Indian nationals face severe consequences, including:

– Job stagnation: Their visa status prevents them from changing employers or seeking promotions without jeopardizing their path to permanent residency.

– Restricted mobility: Indian immigrants encounter travel limitations and cannot work freely in the U.S. like their counterparts from other countries.

– Family hardships: Spouses, many of whom are skilled professionals, are often barred from working, and children face the threat of deportation upon turning 21.

This country-of-birth discrimination creates a dual-tier system, treating workers from countries like India as second-class, despite their crucial contributions to the U.S. economy.

Will Prime Minister Modi Take a Stand?

Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the U.S. presents an opportunity to advocate for these millions of Indian nationals. As the leader of the world’s largest democracy, it is his responsibility to defend the rights and dignity of Indian citizens globally. By addressing this issue with President Biden and Vice President Harris, Prime Minister Modi can push for necessary reforms that have been long overdue.

Several potential solutions are available:

– Executive Action: The Biden administration could take executive action to amend or abolish the country-of-birth quotas for employment-based green cards, allowing highly skilled Indian workers to apply based on merit rather than nationality.

– Legislative Reform: Congress could enact immigration reform legislation to eliminate the discriminatory quota system, ensuring a fairer system for all workers, regardless of their country of origin.

– Temporary Relief Measures: Short-term solutions, such as expanding work permits for spouses and dependents or allowing greater job mobility for H-1B visa holders, could improve the living conditions of Indian workers in the U.S.

The Role of Vice President Kamala Harris

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has Indian heritage through her mother, could play a pivotal role in this dialogue. As someone familiar with the challenges faced by immigrants and who has publicly supported immigration reform, Vice President Harris could be a strong advocate for ending this discrimination. Her involvement, alongside Prime Minister Modi’s, could elevate this issue within U.S.-India relations and encourage the Biden administration to take concrete actions to address the injustices faced by Indian workers.

The Stakes for U.S.-India Relations

The U.S. and India enjoy a robust partnership grounded in shared interests in trade, security, and technological progress. However, for this relationship to reach its full potential, both nations must also focus on the fair treatment of their citizens. Indian immigrants have been integral to the U.S. economy, yet outdated laws continue to hinder their advancement. By championing these individuals, Prime Minister Modi can reinforce the U.S.-India bond, ensuring that both countries adhere to their shared values of equality, opportunity, and justice.

This issue transcends immigration policy; it concerns human rights, fairness, and the dignity of workers who have fulfilled their obligations and more. It is a test of both nations’ commitment to equality and non-discrimination.

A Historic Opportunity for Change

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a historic chance to advocate for the millions of Indian nationals during his U.S. visit. By addressing the discriminatory country-of-birth quotas with President Biden and Vice President Harris, he can initiate long-awaited reforms that will provide relief to diligent Indian professionals and their families.

Will Prime Minister Modi seize this moment and push for the end of this unjust system? Millions of Indian workers in the U.S. are counting on his leadership. The world is watching, and the time for change is now.

Secret Service Responds to Elon Musk’s Deleted Comment About Biden and Harris

September 17, 2024September 20, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

The U.S. Secret Service confirmed on Monday that it was aware of a social media post by billionaire Elon Musk, in which he commented on the absence of assassination attempts against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Musk, the owner of the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, made the remark after a man suspected of plotting to kill former Republican President Donald Trump was arrested at Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach on Sunday.

In his post, Musk, a supporter of Trump and the CEO of Tesla, reflected on the situation and wrote: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” concluding his post with an eyebrow-raising emoji. The statement quickly drew backlash from both sides of the political spectrum, with users of X expressing concern that Musk’s words could potentially incite violence against the current president and vice president, who are key figures in the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.

Musk’s post, which was visible to his nearly 200 million followers, was soon deleted. However, the Secret Service, whose primary responsibility is the protection of current and former U.S. leaders and other high-profile officials, had already taken note of the comment.

A spokesperson for the Secret Service stated in an email to Reuters, “The Secret Service is aware of the social media post made by Elon Musk and as a matter of practice, we do not comment on matters involving protective intelligence.” The agency emphasized, “We can say, however, that the Secret Service investigates all threats related to our protectees.”

Although the agency did not reveal whether they had directly contacted Musk regarding the matter, the billionaire responded to the criticism in subsequent posts on X. He appeared to dismiss the seriousness of the original comment, describing it as a joke. “Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on X,” Musk wrote. He acknowledged that humor often does not translate well in text, adding, “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text.”

Musk’s initial remark followed an incident in which a man allegedly planned to kill Trump. While no harm came to the former president, the situation drew widespread attention, particularly given the political atmosphere as the 2024 presidential election nears. Trump, who has already announced his bid for a second term in the White House, is expected to face Biden in the election. Vice President Harris, also a key figure in the campaign, is set to run for re-election alongside Biden.

In response to the news of the attempted assassination plot against Trump, both Biden and Harris expressed their relief that the former president had not been injured. Harris, a Democrat, issued a statement on Sunday night, while Biden also publicly condemned any form of political violence. The vice president’s office reiterated the importance of ensuring the safety of all political figures, regardless of party affiliation.

As expected, Musk’s post did not sit well with the White House. On Monday, Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the White House, addressed the situation directly, condemning the tone of Musk’s remarks. “Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about. This rhetoric is irresponsible,” Bates said, emphasizing that political discourse, particularly in a tense election cycle, should not include comments that could potentially fuel harmful behavior.

The backlash Musk received for his post is not surprising, given his large and diverse following on X. With nearly 200 million people subscribed to his updates, his statements carry significant weight, and as the owner of the platform, his influence has grown even further. Despite this, Musk’s response to the controversy focused on the misunderstanding of his intended humor, rather than addressing the broader concerns about the potential impact of his words.

While it remains unclear whether the Secret Service will take any further action regarding Musk’s post, the agency’s statement highlights its ongoing responsibility to investigate any perceived threats to its protectees. Given the heightened security concerns surrounding both Biden and Harris as the 2024 election approaches, any comments, whether intended as jokes or otherwise, are likely to be taken seriously by law enforcement and government agencies.

This incident adds to the growing tension in the political landscape as the United States moves closer to another presidential election. The rise of social media and its role in shaping political discourse has been a key issue, with platforms like X serving as a battleground for public opinion, political strategy, and, in some cases, controversy.

Musk’s ownership of X has brought additional scrutiny to the platform, particularly as he often uses it to voice his opinions on various matters, including politics. Since acquiring the platform, Musk has made a number of changes, both to its structure and its policies, drawing both praise and criticism. His approach to free speech on the platform has been lauded by some as a defense of open dialogue, while others have criticized it for allowing misinformation and harmful rhetoric to spread more easily.

As the 2024 election season continues to unfold, public figures like Musk, who hold significant influence through social media, will likely face increased scrutiny for their statements. The debate over the responsibilities of social media platforms in moderating content, particularly when it comes to political discourse, is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

In this case, Musk’s deleted post serves as a reminder of the fine line between free speech and the potential consequences of public remarks, especially when made by individuals with vast platforms and influence. As the Secret Service continues to monitor threats against the president, vice president, and other officials, the role of social media in shaping political narratives and possibly inciting violence remains a critical issue for both law enforcement and the public at large.

Trump Safe After Apparent Assassination Attempt on Florida Golf Course

September 16, 2024September 20, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

On Sunday, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, was unharmed after what the FBI has described as an attempted assassination. The incident occurred while Trump was golfing at his West Palm Beach, Florida course. According to law enforcement officials, Secret Service agents opened fire on a gunman who had positioned himself in bushes near the property line. The assailant was several hundred yards away from where Trump was playing.

The gunman left behind an AK-47-style assault rifle along with other belongings before fleeing the scene in a vehicle. He was arrested later. This event occurred two months after Trump had been shot at during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, suffering a minor injury to his ear. Both incidents are clear examples of the difficulties involved in protecting presidential candidates during an intense and polarized election campaign, with just over seven weeks remaining until the November 5 election.

In a post on social media, Trump addressed the situation: “I would like to thank everyone for your concern and well wishes – It was certainly an interesting day!” He also expressed gratitude to the Secret Service and local police for ensuring his safety.

Multiple media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, and The New York Times, identified the suspect as 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh from Hawaii, based on information from anonymous law enforcement sources. That same evening, agents from the Secret Service and Homeland Security searched a home in Greensboro, North Carolina, which neighbors confirmed had previously been owned by Routh.

The attack raises concerns about the adequacy of Trump’s security detail, particularly since he is no longer in office. In response to inquiries from reporters, officials acknowledged that because Trump is a private citizen, the entire golf course was not sealed off. “If he was, we would have had the entire golf course surrounded,” stated Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw during a briefing on Sunday. “Because he’s not, security is limited to the areas that the Secret Service deems possible.”

Following the incident, Trump sent an email to his supporters, declaring: “Nothing will slow me down. I will NEVER SURRENDER!”

President Joe Biden later issued a statement confirming that he had directed his team to ensure that the Secret Service had all necessary resources to maintain Trump’s safety.

Suspect’s Background and Support for Ukraine

Routh had reportedly traveled to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in 2022, expressing his desire to assist in recruiting foreign fighters for the Ukrainian cause after he had been deemed too old to serve. In an interview with Newsweek Romania, Routh stated, “A lot of the other conflicts are grey, but this conflict is definitely black and white. This is about good versus evil.”

He further elaborated on his views, saying, “If the governments will not send their official military, then we, civilians, have to pick up the torch and make this thing happen. We have gotten some wonderful people here, but it is a small fraction of the number that should be here.” Routh was visibly emotional during the interview, urging people from around the globe to take a stand “for humanity, for human rights, for everything that is good with the world” by supporting Ukraine.

Profiles on social media platforms such as X, Facebook, and LinkedIn that appeared to belong to Routh also expressed support for Ukraine. However, Reuters was unable to confirm whether these accounts belonged to the suspect. Law enforcement officials declined to comment on the matter, and public access to the Facebook and X profiles was removed just hours after the shooting.

When contacted by Reuters, Routh’s son Adam, who works at a hardware store in Hawaii, said he was unaware of the assassination attempt and had no information. “It’s not something I would expect my father to do,” Adam remarked. Shortly after the initial conversation, Adam left work due to an emergency.

The Incident and Response

According to Sheriff Bradshaw, the gunman was first detected by a Secret Service agent who spotted the barrel of a rifle poking out from the bushes around 400 to 500 yards away from where Trump was playing. This occurred as agents were securing the course, ensuring there were no threats present before Trump advanced to the next hole.

At approximately 1:30 p.m. on Sunday, agents engaged the suspect, firing at least four shots. The gunman abandoned his rifle, leaving behind two backpacks and other items, before fleeing in a black Nissan. Fortunately, a witness was able to capture photos of the suspect’s vehicle and license plate, aiding in his capture.

The suspect was apprehended by deputies from Martin County while traveling on Interstate 95, about 40 miles from the golf course.

In a statement, the White House said both President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were briefed on the situation and were relieved that Trump was unharmed. Trump is currently in a tight race against Harris, who has gained momentum in the polls since being named the Democratic Party’s candidate, replacing Biden in July. Harris shared her thoughts on the matter in a post on X, stating, “Violence has no place in America.”

Democracy and the Election

Earlier this year, Routh had warned in a post on X that the U.S. democracy was at risk in the upcoming election. This sentiment has been echoed by Harris, who has consistently argued that another term under Trump would endanger the nation’s democratic institutions. She has also maintained strong support for Ukraine as it continues to fight against Russian aggression.

In contrast, Trump has taken a more ambiguous stance on the Ukraine conflict. When asked during a recent debate whether he wanted Ukraine to emerge victorious, Trump replied that he wanted the war to end.

This latest attack brings renewed attention to the July 13 shooting during Trump’s campaign rally in Pennsylvania, where the former president was grazed on the right ear, and one person in attendance was killed. That event marked the first time in over four decades that a U.S. president or major party presidential candidate had been the target of gunfire. The security failure led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, following significant pressure from Congress.

Trump Targeted in Second Apparent Assassination Attempt While Golfing

September 16, 2024 Staff ReporterNews 0

Former President Donald Trump faced another apparent assassination attempt on Sunday while playing golf in Florida, marking the second such attempt on his life in less than three months. This latest incident comes just nine weeks after Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania. The timing adds another layer of tension as the 2024 election approaches, with Trump expected to face off against Vice President Kamala Harris in a closely contested race.

Secret Service Fires on Armed Suspect

On Sunday, Trump was golfing at his West Palm Beach course when Secret Service agents spotted a man armed with a rifle at a distance between 300 and 500 yards. The suspect, identified by authorities, had pushed the muzzle of the weapon through the perimeter bushes. Secret Service agents quickly reacted by firing at the man, who fled the scene in a car after dropping his AK-47-style rifle.

The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office was immediately contacted by the Secret Service at around 1:30 p.m. The area was sealed off, and authorities tracked the suspect down on Interstate 95, apprehending him in Martin County. Sheriff Ric Bradshaw confirmed that the suspect had left behind an AK-47 rifle with a scope, along with two backpacks and a GoPro camera. Around an hour after the confrontation, Trump’s campaign reassured the public with a statement saying the former president was “safe.”

Suspect Identified as Ryan Wesley Routh

Authorities identified the suspect as 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh, a white male. NewsNation, citing a law enforcement source, reported that Routh had been convicted in 2002 of possessing a weapon of mass destruction. Despite this history, Routh had not been on law enforcement’s radar prior to the Sunday incident, according to Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg.

Investigators have not yet established a motive for the assassination attempt, but Routh’s social media activity suggested he had a vocal stance on the war in Ukraine. The New York Times reported that Routh had been featured in an article about pro-Ukrainian foreign fighters last year. Originally from Greensboro, North Carolina, Routh traveled to Ukraine in 2022, where he recruited former Afghan soldiers to fight against the Russian invasion. He had also lived in Hawaii before the incident, where he ran a shed-building company with his son.

Authorities believe Routh may face charges related to terrorism and weapons offenses, although these charges are still pending further investigation.

Fears of Political Rhetoric Leading to Violence

The assassination attempt comes at a time of heightened political tension and increasingly aggressive rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. After Sunday’s incident, Republican figures were quick to blame the Democrats for what they perceived as inflammatory political language. Representative Roger Williams (R-Texas) took to social media, writing, “Enough is enough! The left continues to push their hateful and dangerous rhetoric.”

Hung Cao, a Republican Senate candidate in Virginia, also voiced concerns about the political atmosphere, stating that Trump’s opponents used “extreme rhetoric” to label him as a “dictator” and a “threat to democracy.” Democrats, including Trump’s electoral rival, Vice President Harris, expressed their relief that Trump was unharmed and condemned the violence. Harris tweeted, “Violence has no place in America,” while Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) emphasized the need for prosecution, adding, “There is no place in this country for political violence of any kind.”

This incident comes in the wake of a similar assassination attempt in July at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. That shooting raised concerns about whether Trump’s political rhetoric had contributed to the growing violence, a point that Democrats have often highlighted, citing the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack as another example.

Secret Service Response and Scrutiny Over Security

The shooting in July put a spotlight on the Secret Service’s preparedness, and many lawmakers criticized the agency’s handling of that incident. Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle came under heavy scrutiny for failing to address the public after the Pennsylvania shooting, leading to her resignation shortly after a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing in which she was questioned about the agency’s inadequate response.

In contrast to the July incident, Sunday’s events saw a much quicker response from authorities. The Secret Service, FBI, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, and state officials held a joint briefing around 5 p.m. on the same day, providing updates on the situation. However, some lawmakers continue to voice concerns about the level of protection offered to political figures during an election cycle, with many still wary of how the agency handled the previous attack on Trump.

The assassination attempt in July also led to increased security for presidential candidates. For example, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was granted a Secret Service detail just two days after the attack on Trump.

Election Campaign Amid Tight Race

As the election draws nearer, the assassination attempts against Trump are taking place during one of the most contentious presidential races in recent memory. Despite both Republicans and Democrats calling for more tempered political rhetoric following the July attack, the heat of the campaign has largely drowned out those appeals.

It remains to be seen how these attempts on Trump’s life will impact the way both candidates move forward with their campaigns. Trump’s team has already scaled back outdoor rallies due to safety concerns following the July incident.

In response to Sunday’s attempt, Trump’s campaign wasted no time addressing supporters through fundraising emails. One such email read, “Nothing will slow me down. I will never surrender.” His campaign managers also urged staffers to stay vigilant and maintain a heightened awareness of their surroundings in the aftermath of the attack.

With just over seven weeks until Election Day, tensions continue to escalate. Political violence and security concerns remain at the forefront of the election narrative, and both sides of the aisle are grappling with how to ensure safety without derailing their respective campaigns. As the events of this weekend show, the election season is already marked by unprecedented levels of intensity and unpredictability.

Kamala Harris Takes Five-Point Lead Over Trump After Debate

September 15, 2024September 20, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Vice President Kamala Harris has gained a notable five-point lead over former President Donald Trump in two major national polls conducted shortly after their recent debate. Many political analysts have declared Harris the clear winner of the debate, with her strong performance boosting her standing among voters.

Key Poll Findings

In a poll conducted by Morning Consult on Wednesday, Harris is ahead of Trump by a margin of 50% to 45%, marking her largest lead so far in this survey group. This is a slight improvement from her previous four-point lead in a poll taken on the day of the debate, and it builds on her earlier three-point lead in surveys conducted before the event. The survey sampled 3,317 likely voters.

Similarly, a two-day Reuters/Ipsos poll concluded on Thursday shows Harris maintaining a five-point lead, with 47% of respondents supporting her compared to 42% for Trump. This is a one-point increase from a previous poll conducted by the same group between August 21 and August 28.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also revealed that 53% of voters who had followed the debate believed Harris emerged victorious, compared to only 24% who thought Trump had won. A significant portion of the respondents did not provide an answer on this matter. The poll further showed that 91% of Democrats considered Harris the winner, while only 53% of Republicans felt the same about Trump.

Additionally, 52% of the respondents familiar with the debate said Trump did not appear as sharp as they expected, while only 21% said the same about Harris.

Pundits Weigh In

Several political analysts and commentators widely praised Harris for her debate performance. Former Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss were among those who noted that Harris managed to put Trump on the defensive multiple times throughout the night. She questioned him about his ongoing legal troubles, criticized the size of his rally crowds, and referenced his loss in the 2020 election. Harris even brought up how U.S. military leaders allegedly view Trump as a “disgrace.”

Harris’ ability to rattle Trump and shift the narrative worked in her favor, according to many experts. By addressing key issues and managing to corner Trump on various points, she significantly strengthened her position in the race.

Poll Numbers Before and After Debate

Before the debate, Harris had been leading Trump by 2.7 points, according to polling averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight. While her lead has grown since then, polling trends suggest that her momentum may be leveling off. In one of the first major polls taken after the debate, conducted by The New York Times and Siena College from September 3 to September 6, Trump actually managed to edge out Harris by one point, securing 48% to her 47%.

Significance of the Debate

The debate, held last Tuesday, was the first and only scheduled face-off between Trump and Harris and was regarded as one of the most critical events of the 2024 presidential campaign. It marked the first time the two candidates met in person and was especially significant for Harris. Given that she entered the race later than most candidates, she is less well-known to voters from both a personal and policy standpoint.

Despite the high stakes, Harris did not introduce any new policy initiatives during the debate. Instead, the discussion largely centered around familiar topics, with the two candidates exchanging sharp criticisms over issues such as the economy, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, border policies, and abortion rights.

Harris’ performance in the debate came just over two months after President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump, which many believe ended his bid for the Democratic nomination. With Biden effectively out of the race, Harris has been able to secure her position as the Democratic frontrunner.

Debate Moderation Controversy

While Harris was widely considered the debate’s winner, some of Trump’s supporters criticized the moderators. ABC’s Linsey Davis and David Muir, who hosted the debate, were accused of showing bias by fact-checking Trump on multiple occasions but not doing the same with Harris.

Many news outlets that analyzed the candidates’ statements during the debate found that Trump made more false or misleading claims than Harris. For example, Trump inaccurately claimed that inflation was the worst it had ever been, which was widely debunked by fact-checkers. Although Harris also stretched the truth in a few instances, such as when she claimed that her stance on fracking was clear during the 2020 election, she was not corrected by the moderators.

Trump’s Reaction to the Debate

Following the debate, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to declare that he would not participate in another debate with Harris. He criticized her performance and suggested she had failed in her role as Vice President over the last four years, writing, “THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” Trump further accused Harris of calling for a second debate only because she lost the first one, comparing her to a “fallen UFC fighter” who wants a rematch.

As the 2024 presidential race heats up, Kamala Harris’ recent debate performance has given her a boost in national polls, leading Donald Trump by five points. While there are still months to go before the election, Harris’ ability to take control during the debate and effectively challenge Trump on key issues has strengthened her position as a strong contender for the presidency. However, with Trump’s continued presence and his refusal to debate Harris again, the dynamics of the race remain fluid. Political observers and voters alike will be closely watching how both candidates move forward in the coming weeks.

Trump’s Growing Alliance with Far-Right Activist Laura Loomer Raises Concerns Among GOP

September 15, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Former president Donald Trump has been making headlines this week as he tours the country with far-right activist Laura Loomer. Her presence has left some of Trump’s Republican allies uneasy, given Loomer’s history of spreading conspiracy theories and making inflammatory remarks.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) expressed his discomfort with Loomer’s association with Trump, stating, “The history of statements by Ms. Loomer are beyond disturbing. I hope this problem gets resolved. I think we should be talking about things that people are concerned about, and this issue, I think, doesn’t help the cause.”

Loomer accompanied Trump during his stops on Wednesday to commemorate the 23rd anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, standing close by as Trump, alongside Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), met with firefighters in New York City. Her involvement in these events is particularly controversial, as Loomer had previously posted a video on X claiming the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job.”

Adding to the tension, Loomer recently made a racially charged comment about Trump’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is of Indian descent. Loomer wrote that if Harris were to win, the White House “will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center.” She has also made the baseless claim that Harris is a “drug using prostitute.”

In addition to accompanying Trump in New York, Loomer was seen arriving in Philadelphia before Trump’s debate with Harris. Following their time in New York, she also joined him on a trip to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, for further 9/11 commemorations.

While Loomer insists she doesn’t officially work for Trump, the campaign has been evasive about why she has been traveling with him. This has led to increased scrutiny from both Democrats and some Republicans. Trump’s history of promoting conspiracy theories, such as the false claim that former president Barack Obama was not born in the United States, adds another layer of concern. Loomer, in turn, has been a frequent proponent of her own conspiracy theories, including claiming that the 2018 school shootings in Parkland, Florida, and Santa Fe, Texas, were staged.

Despite the criticism, Loomer has doubled down, saying, “I stand by everything I have said.” Loomer, who has run for Congress twice, gained attention with her anti-Muslim rhetoric and even called herself a “proud Islamophobe.” She has faced backlash from various social media platforms and payment services, including Facebook, Instagram, Lyft, Uber, Venmo, PayPal, GoFundMe, and Cash App, which have all banned her due to her inflammatory comments.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a staunch Trump ally but also a long-time critic of Loomer, voiced her concerns this week, saying that Loomer’s “rhetoric and hateful tone” pose a significant problem for the Republican Party. Greene explained that Loomer’s behavior does not reflect the values of the MAGA movement or the Republican Party as a whole. “I don’t think she has the experience or the right mentality to advise a very important presidential election,” Greene said.

In response to the criticism from Graham and Greene, Loomer quickly took to social media to lash out at both of them. Meanwhile, the Harris campaign did not comment on Loomer’s connection to Trump. However, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemned the association, saying, “No leader should ever associate with someone who spreads this kind of ugliness, this kind of racist poison.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) also weighed in, criticizing Loomer’s presence at Trump’s 9/11 memorial events. He said her attendance should “shock the conscience of all decent Americans,” describing it as “shocking and irresponsible,” especially given the solemn nature of the occasion and the sacrifices made by first responders and others who died during the attacks.

Despite the backlash, Trump’s campaign has not addressed Loomer’s involvement directly. Instead, they sought to focus on the significance of the 9/11 anniversary. Campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt remarked, “The day wasn’t about anyone other than the souls who are no longer with us, their families, and the heroes who courageously stepped up to save their fellow Americans on that fateful day.”

Graham, still unsure about Loomer’s exact role in Trump’s campaign, voiced his concerns about her past statements, calling some of them “cruel,” especially in reference to her personal attacks on Claudia Conway, daughter of former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

Loomer initially gained notoriety as part of the undercover investigative group Project Veritas during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She later left the group and began staging her own provocative stunts, such as chaining herself to Twitter’s New York headquarters in protest and leading undocumented immigrants to trespass on a property owned by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Loomer has also unsuccessfully run for Congress twice, both times in Florida. Her provocative views, including her anti-Muslim rhetoric, have led to her being banned from multiple platforms. Recently, Loomer has positioned herself as a vocal supporter of Trump during the 2024 Republican primary, using her platform to attack one of Trump’s main rivals, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. She accused DeSantis and his wife of using Mrs. DeSantis’s breast cancer diagnosis to garner voter sympathy.

Loomer describes herself as an investigative journalist working on behalf of Trump’s reelection. “I’m happy to dedicate all my time to helping Trump because if Trump doesn’t get back in, I don’t have anything,” she told The Washington Post in March. Loomer revealed that she had been in talks with Trump’s team about working on his reelection campaign earlier in 2023.

Although Trump reportedly considered hiring Loomer, a fierce backlash from his loyalists, including Greene, ultimately prevented it. Still, Trump has maintained a close relationship with Loomer, even inviting her to his private balcony at his Bedminster golf course and allowing her to travel on his plane during the Republican primary. At a rally in Iowa, Trump called Loomer a “very important person, politically,” and at a fundraiser in March, he praised her as a “woman with courage.”

Trump continues to share Loomer’s content on his Truth Social platform. She was also the first person to introduce Trump to the idea of questioning Harris’s racial identity, circulating a graphic comparing headlines about Harris’s Indian-American and African-American heritage. This narrative was later echoed by Trump at a National Association of Black Journalists conference.

Loomer has also spread the unfounded conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets, a claim Trump repeated during his debate with Harris. Loomer’s attacks on Harris over her Indian heritage come at a time when other Indian Americans, such as Vance’s wife, Usha Vance, are also playing prominent roles in the presidential race.

The controversial remarks have drawn condemnation from various Republicans, including Greene, who labeled Loomer’s post about Harris “appalling and extremely racist.” Graham also condemned Loomer’s comments, expressing concerns about their political impact, particularly in states like Georgia, which has a significant Indian American population.

In Tied Presidential Race, Harris and Trump Have Contrasting Strengths, Weaknesses

September 15, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

What if they win? Harris and Trump supporters differ over the acceptability of presidential actions by their own candidate.

Ahead of the scheduled Sept. 10 presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, the presidential race is deadlocked. About half of registered voters (49%) say if the election were held today, they would vote for Harris, while an identical share say they would back Trump.

With less than two months before the November election, the candidates bring contrasting strengths and weaknesses to the presidential contest.

Trump’s key advantage is on the economy, which voters regard as the most important issue this year. A 55% majority of voters say they are very or somewhat confident in Trump to make good decisions about economic policy, compared with 45% who say that about Harris.

Harris’ lead over Trump on abortion is a near mirror image of Trump’s on the economy: 55% of voters have at least some confidence in Harris, while 44% express confidence in Trump.

And Harris holds sizable leads over Trump on several personal traits and characteristics, including being a good role model (a 19 percentage point advantage), down-to-earth (13 points) and honest (8 points).

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted among 9,720 adults (including 8,044 registered voters) from Aug. 26 to Sept. 2, 2024, highlights how much has changed in the campaign – and what hasn’t – since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Harris became the Democratic nominee.

Trump’s advantage on “mental sharpness” has disappeared. Currently, 61% of voters say the phrase “mentally sharp” describes Harris very or fairly well, compared with 52% who describe Trump this way. Two months ago, more than twice as many voters viewed Trump as mentally sharp (58%) than said that about Biden (24%). (Read more about perceptions of the candidates in Chapter 3.)

Democratic satisfaction with the candidates has increased. The share of Harris supporters who are very or fairly satisfied with the presidential candidates is nearly triple the share of Biden supporters who were satisfied in July (52% now vs. 18% then). As a result, Harris backers now are more likely than Trump backers to say they are satisfied with the candidates, a clear reversal from just two months ago. (Read more about voter engagement and views of the candidates in Chapter 5.)

Chart shows Less than 2 months until Election Day, a deadlocked presidential race

The state of the race. The overall patterns of support for each candidate have changed little since last month. For instance, Trump holds a lead among White voters (56% to 42%), while Harris maintains large advantages with Black voters (84% to 13%) and Asian voters (61% to 37%). Latino voters, whose support was evenly divided between Biden and Trump in July, now favor Harris, 57% to 39%. (Read more voter preferences in Chapter 1 and explore demographic breaks on voter preferences in the detailed tables.)

Americans’ views of the economy continue to be largely negative. Americans’ views of the national economy are about as negative today as they were at the start of this year. Only 25% rate national economic conditions excellent or good. Prices for food and consumer goods continue to be a major concern for most Americans, and increasing shares express concerns about housing costs and jobs. (Read more about economic attitudes in Chapter 7.)

In a historic election, how voters view the impact of candidates’ races and ethnicities, genders and ages

If she wins in November, Harris will make history by becoming the first woman president. She would also be the first Asian American and first Black woman president. If Trump wins, he will become the oldest person to take office, at 78. (Read more about voters’ views of the candidates’ demographic characteristics in Chapter 4.)

Chart shows How voters view the impact of Harris’ and Trump’s race, age and gender

Voters overall have mixed views of the impact of Harris’ gender and race and ethnicity on her candidacy. More say the fact that Harris is a woman and that she is Black and Asian will help her than hurt her with voters this fall. Somewhat more voters see Harris’ gender as a potential negative (30%) than see her race and ethnicity this way (19%).

Harris supporters are far more likely than Trump supporters to say the vice president’s gender and race will be a liability. More than twice as many Harris supporters (42%) as Trump supporters (16%) say the fact that Harris is a woman will hurt her with voters. Fewer Harris supporters think her race and ethnicity will be a hindrance (31%), but just 8% of Trump supporters say the same.

Nearly half of voters say Trump’s age will hurt his candidacy. Far more voters say Trump’s age will hurt him (49%) than help him (3%) in the election; the remainder say it will not make much difference. The reverse is true for how voters see the effect of Harris’ age: 46% say the fact that she is 59 will help her with voters, while just 3% say it will hurt her.

Harris, Trump supporters weigh in: What actions are acceptable for a president?

Chart shows Harris, Trump supporters differ widely on acceptability of several presidential actions if their candidate wins

Looking ahead, Harris and Trump supporters have very different ideas about the kinds of presidential actions that would be acceptable if their preferred candidate takes office (read more about these views in Chapter 6):

Investigating political opponents

More than half of Trump supporters (54%) say it would definitely or probably be acceptable for Trump to order federal law enforcement officials to investigate Democratic opponents. Half as many Harris supporters (27%) say it would be acceptable for Harris to order investigations into GOP opponents.

Pardoning family, friends and supporters; firing disloyal federal workers

Trump supporters also are far more likely than Harris supporters to say it would be acceptable for their candidate to pardon friends, family or political supporters who have been convicted of crimes and to fire federal workers at any level who are not personally loyal to them.

Executive orders

Majorities of both Trump supporters (58%) and Harris supporters (55%) say it would be acceptable for their candidate, if they win, to use executive orders to make policies when they can’t get their priorities through Congress.

Other findings: An uncertain election outcome, the more critical candidate, Trump and the 2020 election

Trump is widely viewed as too personally critical of Harris. About two-thirds of voters (66%) say Trump has been too personally critical of Harris. By comparison, fewer (45%) say Harris has been too personally critical of Trump. About four-in-ten Trump supporters (41%) say Trump has been too critical of his opponent, compared with just 12% of Harris supporters who say the same of Harris.

Most say it’s not yet clear who will win. Only 20% of voters say it is already clear which candidate will win the election, while 80% say it is not yet clear. Voters who say it is clear who will win overwhelmingly say their preferred candidate will prevail. When those who say it is not yet clear are asked for their “best guess,” they also opt for their candidate.

Chart shows Voters divided over criminal allegations that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election

Trump’s role in the 2020 election remains divisive. More than four-in-ten voters (46%) say Trump broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election, while another 14% say he did something wrong but did not break the law. Another 27% say Trump did nothing wrong. These views are largely unchanged since April. While Harris supporters overwhelmingly say Trump broke the law (88% say this), Trump backers are divided: 54% say he did nothing wrong while 27% say either he did something wrong or broke the law. Trump supporters (18%) are more likely than Harris supporters (7%) to say they are not sure.

Voters also divided on Trump’s New York fraud case. The survey was completed before a New York judge delayed sentencing in the criminal case against Trump in which he was found guilty of falsifying business records and other charges related to “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels. Among all voters, 39% say Trump should serve time in jail, while 45% say he should not. About seven-in-ten Harris supporters (72%) think Trump should have to serve jail time, while an even larger share of Trump supporters (81%) say he should not.

Source Credit: Pew Research Center

Pope Francis Criticizes U.S. Candidates on Abortion and Migration, Urges Voters to Choose Lesser Evil

September 14, 2024September 17, 2024 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Pope Francis expressed strong criticism toward both U.S. presidential candidates, focusing on their stances regarding abortion and migration. He urged American Catholics to vote in the upcoming election by determining who represents the “lesser evil” between the two. The Pope condemned both candidates for promoting what he labeled “anti-life” policies, highlighting the moral dilemmas faced by voters.

“Both are against life, be it the one who kicks out migrants, or be it the one who kills babies,” Pope Francis remarked during a news conference held aboard a plane as he returned to Rome following his four-nation visit to Asia.

Although Pope Francis did not directly name the Republican candidate Donald Trump or the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, his remarks addressed two major issues central to the U.S. election. His strong criticism reflected his deep concerns about the stance of each candidate on abortion and migration, topics that are significant to the Catholic Church.

Abortion and Migration as Moral Concerns

Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis has prioritized advocating for the rights of migrants, speaking out passionately on the topic. He also upholds the Catholic Church’s long-standing position against abortion but has not placed the same level of emphasis on this doctrine as his predecessors. In his recent comments, the pontiff made his position on abortion clear, calling it a form of killing.

“To have an abortion is to kill a human being. You may like the word or not, but it’s killing,” Pope Francis stated. He added, “We have to see this clearly.”

His comments reflect the church’s unwavering stance on the sanctity of life from conception, a key belief upheld by Catholics worldwide. However, he also took the opportunity to emphasize that denying migrants entry and disregarding their human rights is equally concerning.

Voting and Moral Responsibility

When asked how American Catholics should approach their decision at the polls, Pope Francis emphasized the importance of exercising one’s civic duty to vote. He acknowledged that neither candidate may represent an ideal choice, but stressed that it is still necessary to participate in the electoral process.

“One should vote, and choose the lesser evil,” Pope Francis said. He explained that voters need to examine their conscience to determine which candidate aligns more closely with their values. “Who is the lesser evil, the woman or man? I don’t know,” he added, acknowledging the difficulty of the decision.

While neither Trump nor Harris was directly named in the Pope’s remarks, his comments were clearly directed toward their policies on abortion and immigration. Both campaigns, however, did not immediately respond to these statements when asked by The Associated Press.

Biden and the Catholic Church

U.S. President Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, supports abortion rights, aligning with his running mate Kamala Harris on the issue. This stance has led to some controversy within the Catholic community, with conservative bishops and others calling for Biden to be denied Communion. Despite this, Biden has maintained a positive relationship with Pope Francis, particularly following a 2021 meeting in which the Pope reportedly assured Biden that he remained a “good Catholic.”

This issue of abortion has created divisions within the church, with some U.S. bishops taking a hardline stance. However, Pope Francis has urged bishops to focus on their pastoral duties, advising them to avoid becoming overly political. He has previously stated that bishops should not act like politicians when dealing with such sensitive issues.

Previous U.S. Election Commentary

This is not the first time that Pope Francis has commented on a U.S. presidential election. During the 2016 election, he criticized Trump’s plan to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, stating that anyone who seeks to build barriers to prevent migrants from entering “is not Christian.” At that time, Francis condemned the exclusionary policies that he saw as being contrary to Christian values.

In his remarks on Friday, Francis recalled a past Mass he celebrated at the U.S.-Mexico border, during which he was struck by the suffering endured by migrants. “There were so many shoes of the migrants who ended up badly there,” the Pope recounted, once again highlighting the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border.

Migration and Its Role in the Election

Migration continues to be a significant issue in U.S. politics, and Trump has reiterated his stance on the matter, promising large-scale deportations if re-elected. During his first campaign, Trump’s immigration policies faced significant legal, financial, and political challenges, but he has remained committed to similar proposals in his current bid for the presidency.

On the other hand, the U.S. bishops’ conference has identified abortion as the “preeminent priority” for American Catholics when considering their vote. Harris has consistently defended abortion rights and advocated for the restoration of federal protections for abortion access.

Pope Francis reiterated the church’s position on abortion during the news conference, referencing scientific findings about the development of a fetus. “On abortion, science says that a month from conception, all the organs of a human being are already there, all of them. Performing an abortion is killing a human being,” he stated. He continued, “You can’t say the church is closed because it does not allow abortion. The church does not allow abortion because it’s killing. It is murder.”

Despite the Pope’s strong stance, scientific understanding of fetal development differs slightly. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clarifies that organs begin forming early in pregnancy, but full organ development does not occur until later in the first trimester, around 13 weeks.

Other Remarks from the Pope

In addition to discussing the U.S. election, Pope Francis touched on several other topics during the news conference. He firmly denied a report from French media claiming he would attend the inauguration of the restored Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris this December. He confirmed that he has no plans to visit Paris at that time but expressed a desire to travel to the Canary Islands to draw attention to the plight of migrants in that region.

Speculation has also continued to swirl around the possibility of the Pope returning to his homeland of Argentina later this year. Francis has not visited Argentina since he was elected pope in 2013, but on Friday, he stated that while he hopes to return, no decision has been made. “There are various things to resolve first,” he added, without providing further details.

In a more hopeful tone, Pope Francis described China as “a promise and a hope” for the Catholic Church and reiterated his desire to visit the country one day. He has long expressed optimism about the future of Catholicism in China.

Finally, Francis addressed the issue of sexual abuse within the church, calling the recent revelations about French priest Abbe Pierre “demonic.” His strong words underscored the church’s ongoing efforts to confront and address instances of abuse.

Approval Ratings Breakdown

A Fractured Democratic Opposition

Sanders’ Focus on the Working Class

Voices from the Crowd

Sanders’ Future in the Fight

In a historic election, how voters view the impact of candidates’ races and ethnicities, genders and ages

Harris, Trump supporters weigh in: What actions are acceptable for a president?

Investigating political opponents

Pardoning family, friends and supporters; firing disloyal federal workers

Executive orders

Other findings: An uncertain election outcome, the more critical candidate, Trump and the 2020 election

TheUNN Corporation

CONTACT US

Follow us

Subscribe to Newsletter