Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,861]

2 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Funnily enough most Zionists 72% dont believe in God -yet in the next breath they say they are Gods Chosen people.....

like Trump does as well

Trump "I am the chosen one"

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,862]

3 minutes ago, Vesper said:

like Trump does as well

Trump "I am the chosen one"

 

Heard him called 'Chesney' the other day 😅

[Fulham Broadway 16,862]

... as in Chesney Hawks 'I am the one and only'

[robsblubot 3,508]

7 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Funnily enough most Zionists 72% dont believe in God -yet in the next breath they say they are Gods Chosen people.....

Glad I don't qualify then. 😅
I guess my sample is biased given that it came mostly from Israelis who left Israel, but they were true atheist; as in they'd never utter the word "chosen."

All believers believe they are the chosen ones... it's a key part of the sales pitch. It's also surprisingly effective when justifying the murder of "infidels."

"god give me strength, so that I don't turn to religion when facing death."

[robsblubot 3,508]

9 minutes ago, Vesper said:

like Trump does as well

Trump "I am the chosen one"

 

I'd be forced to entertain the possibility that he is indeed "the chosen one" for about 300 microseconds if he gets elected again; I mean I'd have to rationalize how this person had that much support somehow...

[Fernando 6,465]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

snip

On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.^[29] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt's military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy. Simultaneously, the Israeli military launched a ground offensive into Egypt's Sinai Peninsula as well as the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip. After some initial resistance, Nasser ordered an evacuation of the Sinai Peninsula; by the sixth day of the conflict, Israel had occupied the entire Sinai Peninsula.^[38] Jordan, which had entered into a defense pact with Egypt just a week before the war began, did not take on an all-out offensive role against Israel. However, the Jordanians did launch attacks against Israeli forces to slow Israel's advance.^[39] On the fifth day, Syria joined the war by shelling Israeli positions in the north.^[40]

Egypt and Jordan agreed to a ceasefire on 8 June, and Syria on 9 June, and it was signed with Israel on 11 June. The Six-Day War resulted in more than 15,000 Arab fatalities, while Israel suffered fewer than 1,000. Alongside the combatant casualties were the deaths of 20 Israeli civilians killed in Arab forces air strikes on Jerusalem, 15 UN peacekeepers killed by Israeli strikes in the Sinai at the outset of the war, and 34 US personnel killed in the USS Liberty incident in which Israeli air forces struck a United States Navy technical research ship.

At the time of the cessation of hostilities, Israel had occupied the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank including East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. The displacement of civilian populations as a result of the Six-Day War would have long-term consequences, as around 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians fled or were expelled from the West Bank^[41] and the Golan Heights, respectively.^[42] Nasser resigned in shame following Israel's victory, but was later reinstated following a series of protests across Egypt. In the aftermath of the conflict, Egypt closed the Suez Canal until 1975.

Thanks for the info. 

So from that article, Egypt lost a war with Israel. Gaza belong to Egypt from what I can see?

And Jordan was part of it and they lost land to Israel as well?

 

Edited September 25 by Fernando

[Fulham Broadway 16,862]

24 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

I guess my sample is biased given that it came mostly from Israelis who left Israel

Yes, I met some Israelis in the US, Palm Springs and Williams Az. Great people.

The tragedy is the right wingers in the Likud dont realise, or more likely dont care, the damage they are doing in the long term to their own entity. Shit comes around, and it will.

[Vesper 28,861]

The rising stakes in Europe’s welfare vs. weapons debate

Trump wants huge military spending hikes by most NATO countries -- far beyond the alliance’s target minimum. Cue a welfare vs. weapons debate for Europe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/25/europe-nato-trump-defense-spending/

PARIS — Many of Donald Trump’s pronouncements on foreign affairs are off-kilter, but he is right that Europe needs huge increases in military spending. And in calling out the continent’s anemic commitment to its own defense, he has also spotlighted, if inadvertently, a painful quandary facing Washington’s allies: how to undertake a shift from welfare to weapons systems without turbocharging already ascendant extremist parties.

It’s a mistake to focus on Trump’s obnoxious messaging — that he’d allow Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to Europe if NATO member states don’t meet the alliance’s defense spending targets.

His underlying point is that Washington’s allies must dramatically increase their annual defense spending — to 3 percent of total economic output, approaching the U.S. level. That’s a 50 percent jump beyond NATO’s target 2 percent minimum, a benchmark set a decade ago that nine of the alliance’s 32 member states still haven’t reached.

Trump’s motives are anyone’s guess; he might regard Europe’s anemic defense spending as a cudgel to use against NATO rather than as an authentic call to resist Moscow’s mortal threat.

Whatever its purpose, his demand should focus minds on the rational presumption that Vladimir Putin is motivated to break NATO by attacking its vulnerable member states, and will have the means to do so in this decade.

But the price of fortifying European defenses in line with Trump’s demands — and the analysis of NATO’s own defense experts — would entail major sacrifices, and a challenge to some of the continent’s most cherished values.

Absent dramatically higher growth rates — something Europe has struggled with for years — its post-Cold War dividend of generous social programs would need to be sharply curtailed.

Take the crucial example of Germany. Patching years of military underinvestment and hitting NATO’s minimum spending levels would cost Berlin $115 billion in unplanned, additional defense spending by 2030, according to defense expert Christian Molling of the Bertelsmann Foundation, a German think tank.

That bump, roughly $23 billion annually, is fantasy at the moment — and wouldn’t even boost German defense spending close to 3 percent of gross domestic product.

It faces the obstacle of Germany’s constitutionally enshrined limit on debt, and the hurdle of political opposition to slashing social spending. After bitter debate this year, Germany’s $58 billion defense budget is set to rise just $1.3 billion, barely covering scheduled salary hikes for soldiers and officers.

Across Europe, sharply higher military outlays would require commensurate cuts in non-defense spending or painful tax increases in already heavily taxed countries. It would entail a psychological as well as political recalibration, challenging many Europeans’ fundamental idea of their societies as humane, generous and forward-looking.

Put another way, it would probably involve sapping programs that make much of Europe a more pleasant place to live in than the United States. Those include affordable and universal health care; subsidies for families with children; modern and well-maintained infrastructure; and a robust social safety net for the jobless and other struggling citizens.

The tightrope that Europe is walking is on display in Germany, France and other key alliance members, where gutting social spending to buy more weapons would deepen social grievances, a likely gift to extremist political parties.

They include far-right and far-left blocs in Germany that are sympathetic to Moscow, and together won more than 40 percent of the vote in three state elections this month, most recently in Brandenburg on Sunday. Part of their strategy has been to weaponize growing resentment of German aid for Ukraine’s military and Ukrainian refugees.

The welfare vs. weapons tension is likely to intensify. Even as NATO has affirmed its 2-percent-of-GDP defense spending minimum, top alliance officials acknowledge privately that the guideline is obsolete. NATO’s own blueprint for defending Europe — detailed war plans devised by U.S. Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, supreme allied commander in Europe — would entail that member states spend in the range of 3 percent of GDP on defense, they say.

Yet almost none of the alliance’s member states are near that level of military spending, with the notable exceptions of the United States — which accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s total defense outlays — and the most vulnerable countries closest to Russia, notably Poland and the Baltic republics.

And many states that have recently met NATO’s spending threshold remain ill prepared for war, including the alliance’s newest member, Sweden, long a neutral nation. “There’s a Swedish expression for this attitude: fredsskadad, ‘peace damaged’ — the idea that Sweden’s two centuries of peace have left its citizenry ill-prepared for a crueler reality,” Martin Gelin, a Swedish American journalist, wrote this year in the Guardian.

The point isn’t that Trump is right. A better reference is Albert Einstein, who was among the 20th century’s foremost pacifists. He affirmed a simple truth: that only organized force can oppose organized force. What Europe badly needs, and currently lacks, are major leaders who can make that case credibly, before it’s too late.

Edited September 25 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,861]

Does Harris or Trump Hold the Advantage in the Home Stretch?

Zeroing in on the factors that could decide the winner.

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/does-harris-or-trump-hold-the-advantage

With just over a month to go until Election Day, the 2024 presidential campaign remains as close as ever. So far this cycle, both state and national polls show a tight race for president, and it’s a good bet that the final margins will once again be very close. In light of all this, it’s worth examining the developments in the race that could portend a good night for Harris or Trump come November 5.

Factors That Could Favor Harris

A more favorable polling picture

As of today, Harris enjoys a lead over Trump in the national polls of roughly two to three points. More importantly: she also leads in enough swing states to put her over 270 electoral votes. According to New York Times polling averages, if the election were held today, Harris would carry all states in which she is favored as well as the three “Blue Wall” states, Nevada, and North Carolina. Though she would lose Arizona and Georgia—both of which Biden carried last time—this map would still deliver her 291 electoral votes (or 292 if she also wins Nebraska’s Second District) and, thus, the presidency.

Moreover, since replacing Biden as the Democrats’ standard-bearer, Harris’s favorability has risen rapidly, hitting net-positive territory for the first time in more than three years just last week. Meanwhile, Trump’s net favorable rating remains underwater by nine points, with a favorability mired in the low 40s.1 Trump’s success in 2016 hinged on voters disliking Clinton as much as they disliked him, but the same was not true for Biden in 2020, which was likely a big factor in his win. A similar likeability gap could work in Harris’s favor this time as well.

A possible ceiling for Trump’s support

An under-covered storyline from each of the past two presidential elections has been the fact that Trump’s levels of support were remarkably low nationally (and even in key swing states that he won). In 2016, he earned just 46.2 percent of the popular vote, and four years later, he only improved to 46.9 percent.

This cycle, we’re seeing more of the same. According to national poll averages, even as Trump led Biden for much of this year, Trump’s share of support only hovered around 42–44 percent—and it stayed there even after Harris joined the race and steadily built on Biden’s levels of support. Since RFK, Jr., dropped out of the race, Trump’s support has climbed to 45.8 percent, but this still leaves him shy of his past performance. If he can’t outperform his last two showings, it makes his path to victory in the Electoral College more uncertain.

Democrats’ early voting edge

In the 2020 election, Democrats worked to build a robust early-vote program across the country to help their voters cast a ballot during the Covid pandemic. Not only did developing this infrastructure likely help Biden win, but it also instilled in their voters the muscle memory of filling out their ballot before Election Day. Meanwhile, Trump famously excoriated early voting—specifically, vote-by-mail—putting his party at a significant disadvantage.

Republicans are now trying to course-correct and encourage their voters to cast ballots early, but it remains to be seen whether Trump’s previous attacks on the process may have damaged his supporters’ faith in the process. If so, it means Democrats can run up the score early while Republicans will have to rely on turning out their voters mostly on Election Day.

Image as the “change” candidate

Many voters don’t appear to be fully connecting Harris to their dissatisfaction with the Biden administration. In a recent NBC News poll, a plurality (47 percent) said they view Harris as the candidate representing change over Trump (38 percent). The same share of voters said they believed Harris would get the country moving in the right direction compared to 43 percent who said the same about Trump—a smaller margin for Harris but still an advantage. At a time when nearly two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, it’s no doubt better to be seen as the agent of change.

“Good enough” for many

Before Biden dropped out, polling regularly showed that voters were open to supporting just about anyone other than him or Trump. Both men underperformed “generic” opponents, and the share of “double haters”—those who disliked both candidates—hit a historic high. After Harris entered the race, that level of double haters began to decline, and today, she appears to be performing as well as a “generic Democrat” might have hoped.

A new CNN poll found that a majority of voters say that Harris is either “exactly” or “close enough” to what they want across several attributes while few say the same about Trump. For instance, 58 percent say Harris has the right temperament to be president compared to just 38 percent who say the same about Trump. Another 52 percent say she has the “ability to understand people like you” while 46 percent agree regarding Trump. In all, this indicates that voters may view Harris as a more ideal candidate overall than they do Trump.

Trump’s baggage

Yes, we’ve heard this one before—and yes, it’s proven to have been an overblown factor in each of the last two elections. But a lot has happened since Trump was last on the ballot. He sought to overturn the results of the previous election, culminating in his supporters’ attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. He has been indicted on multiple criminal charges, convicted in one case, and found liable of sexual assault in another. A Supreme Court majority that included three of his justices overturned Roe v. Wade, which turned out to be highly unpopular. More recently, Trump has spread baseless conspiracy theories in front of a national audience and simultaneously invited conspiracy theorists into his circle.

Though much of his base is likely locked in to the end, if his behavior over the last four years sways even a fraction of those who voted for him last time (or who voted third party or stayed home) to back Harris, he could be in big trouble.

Factors That Could Favor Trump

The fundamentals

Across a host of electoral factors commonly thought of as the “fundamentals,” the news is pretty favorable for Trump and the Republican Party. For starters, the incumbent president, Joe Biden, remains highly unpopular, with an approval rating hovering around 40 percent. This does not historically bode well for the president’s party come election time. Similarly, more voters today think the nation is on the wrong track than at any time since at least 1989—again, not usually a good sign for the party in power. Consumer sentiment is also at its second-lowest level since 1980, an index that typically correlates strongly with election results favoring the out party.

Harris’s ties to Biden

As noted in the new NBC poll above, many voters see Harris as the candidate of change compared to Trump. However, the poll also gauged how they felt about Harris’s role in the Biden administration, and on this point, she may have some vulnerabilities. Fully 40 percent said they worry that Harris will continue the same approach as Biden, a sign that in the eyes of at least some voters, she may not be able to fully outrun her ties to her unpopular boss.

Greater trust on top issues

Though voters like Harris more on select issues, they also remain convinced that Trump and the GOP are better on the big ones. For instance, Gallup polling shows that Americans trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the country’s “most important” problems and “keep America prosperous.” The aforementioned NBC poll also found that voters by a wide margin think Trump is better on issues relating to immigration and border security. They also favor him on handling the economy and crime, though his advantages on those over Harris are narrower. But notably: the same poll found that the economy remained by far the top issue for most voters, and immigration was not far behind. If Harris loses, this may be a primary culprit.

Apparent gains with key groups since 2020

Another factor that might be of concern to Harris is Trump’s inroads with core groups since the last election—specifically, with traditionally Democratic groups. According to crosstab averages for this cycle, several of them have shifted rightward relative to 2020, including black voters (+17.8 points), Hispanics (+6.9), college degree-holders (+5.2), and voters living in urban areas (+17.7). We’ve seen similar movement with other pivotal groups as well like independents (+6.6), moderates (+9.7), and non-college voters (+5.7), the last of whom has made up a full 63 percent of the vote share in each of the last two elections.

What is unclear, though, is whether Trump’s gains with non-college and non-white voters are coming from lower-propensity voters who are less likely to cast a ballot without a bit of a push—something that may be a problem due to Trump’s lackluster ground game. If so, Harris’s final margins with these groups could end up closer to Biden’s in 2020 than they are right now.

Nostalgia for parts of the Trump era

Recent polling has shown Harris closing the gap with Trump on the issue of which candidate voters trust more to run the economy. However, even in light of this, Trump still enjoys important advantages. An August Financial Times poll found that 42 percent of voters think Trump would “leave them better off financially” compared to just 33 percent who said the same about Harris. Several other polls have shown similar results, including some in which even Democratic voters are unsure that Harris will be better for their pocketbooks.

Similarly, a CBS News poll found that the public thinks by an overwhelming 72–21 percent margin that Trump will get a better handle on border security than Harris would, with fully half saying they worried Harris’s policies might actually increase crossings. Both of these findings are likely welcome news to Trump and of great concern for Harris, as these issues may influence voters’ final choices.

---

There are surely other factors that could be taken into account as well, but overall, this offers a good picture of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses as we enter the final month of the campaign. On the whole, I give Harris an ever-so-slight edge—her proximity to Biden doesn’t seem to be weighing her down as some thought it might, and the differential in candidate likeability is hard to overlook. But Trump has obvious advantages as well, including voters’ trust in him on the top issues and the gains he appears to be making with core Democratic groups.

All this reinforces what many already know: we should be prepared for a very close election.

[Vesper 28,861]

VP Harris extended sitdown interview starts in 5 minutes

free streams

https://www.livenewsmag.com/msnbc-live-tv/

https://livenewschat.eu/politics/

[Vesper 28,861]

 

[Vesper 28,861]

NYC Mayor Eric Adams Is Indicted in New York

The indictment makes Mr. Adams the first sitting New York City mayor to face criminal charges. The mayor vowed to fight the charges.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/25/nyregion/eric-adams-indicted-corruption#eric-adams-indicted

 

Mayor Eric L. Adams has been indicted on federal criminal charges, according to people with knowledge of the matter, and will be the first mayor in New York City history to be charged while in office.

The indictment is sealed, and it is unclear what charge or charges Mr. Adams will face.

A retired police captain, Mr. Adams was elected as the city’s 110th mayor nearly three years ago on a campaign pledge of reducing crime and bringing professionalism and “swagger” to the largest municipal government in the country.

But the mayor staffed top positions with friends and loyalists, and his inner circle has been engulfed by numerous federal investigations that have increasingly targeted the highest ranks of city government. Earlier this month, federal agents seized phones from numerous top city officials, including a top aide to Mr. Adams, the schools chancellor and the police commissioner. The commissioner, Edward A. Caban, and the schools chancellor, David C. Banks, later resigned.

Federal authorities seized Mr. Adams’s electronic devices last November, just days after they searched the Brooklyn home of his chief fund-raiser. His aides have claimed he has been cooperating with the authorities, while Mr. Adams has maintained that he did nothing wrong.

• The indictment raised immediate questions about Mr. Adams’s ability to serve as mayor, adding to the growing pressure for him to step down. Gov. Kathy Hochul has the power to remove him from office.

• Several federal corruption investigations have reached top people around Mr. Adams, with some of the highest-ranking officials in his administration coming under scrutiny. Read more about the investigations here.

• The swarm of federal inquiries in the lead-up to the indictment of Mr. Adams plunged his administration into a free fall, further diminishing his political stature. It raised doubts about his re-election chances next year and his ability to engage with other political leaders. Read more about the challenges in City Hall here.

• Mayor Eric Adams has lost his police commissioner, his schools chancellor and his health commissioner over the last two weeks. Now other top officials in his administration will have to decide whether to stay after the mayor’s indictment.

  Mayor Eric Adams once called himself the “the future of the Democratic Party” and the “Biden of Brooklyn.” Now the mayor’s prospects of winning a second term — and serving out the remainder of his term — are in jeopardy.

   

  The expected surge of calls for the mayor’s resignation appears to have begun. Councilman Shekar Krishnan, from Queens, on Wednesday night added his name to that list of electeds, saying, “City Hall is in free fall.”

   

  The charges against Mayor Eric Adams stem from a broad public corruption investigation that began in 2021 and examined whether the mayor and his campaign conspired with the Turkish government that year to receive illegal foreign donations.

  Additionally, the federal inquiry examined whether Mr. Adams pressured New York Fire Department officials to sign off on a new high-rise building for the Turkish consulate despite safety concerns. Agents also investigated valuable flight upgrades they believe the mayor received from Turkish Airlines.

  It’s one of several federal corruption investigations that have ensnared Mr. Adams’s administration. Here are some key events that led up to the indictment of the mayor:

  Nov. 2, 2023: The F.B.I. raids the home of the chief fund-raiser to Mayor Eric Adams.

  Federal agents raided the Brooklyn home of Brianna Suggs, a recent college graduate who had been in charge of Mr. Adams’s fund-raising operation when he ran for mayor in 2021. Mr. Suggs was 23 years old when the mayor picked her for the job, and many Democratic officials who worked in fund-raising were shocked that he had chosen someone for the role with so little professional experience.

  The agents seized three iPhones and two laptop computers from Ms. Suggs’s home; they also took papers and other evidence, including something agents identified as a “manila folder labeled Eric Adams,” as well as seven “contribution card binders” and other materials, according to the search warrant documents.

  Nov. 2, 2023: The F.B.I. raids the homes of an aide in the mayor’s international affairs office and a former Turkish Airlines executive who served on his transition team.

  Investigators also searched the New Jersey homes of Rana Abbasova, an aide in Mr. Adams’s international affairs office, and Cenk Öcal, a former Turkish Airlines executive who served on his transition team, according to people familiar with the matter.

  Ms. Abbasova was the mayor’s longtime liaison to the Turkish community when Mr. Adams was Brooklyn borough president. Mr. Öcal was the general manager of the New York office of Turkish Airlines until early 2022.

  Nov. 6, 2023: The F.B.I. seizes the mayor’s phones and iPad.

  In early November, F.B.I. agents approached Mr. Adams and his security detail after he had attended an event in Manhattan. The agents asked the security team to step aside before climbing into the mayor’s S.U.V. with him and taking his devices, pursuant to a court-authorized warrant. The devices were returned to the mayor within a matter of days, according to two people familiar with the situation. Law enforcement investigators can make copies of data on seized devices.

  A lawyer for the mayor, Boyd Johnson, said at the time that Mr. Adams had not been accused of wrongdoing and had “immediately complied with the F.B.I.’s request and provided them with electronic devices.”

  Mr. Johnson also said that Mr. Adams had already “proactively reported” at least one instance of improper behavior.

  Nov. 28, 2023: Adams announces that his chief fund-raiser is out.

  Weeks after agents searched Ms. Suggs’s home, Mayor Adams said during a weekly press briefing that she was no longer managing his political fund-raising. He declined to say why he had removed her from the position. Ms. Abbasova was also placed on leave after City Hall learned she had “acted improperly,” according to a spokesman for the mayor.

  Feb. 5, 2024: A retired police inspector pleads guilty to funneling illegal funds to the mayor’s campaign.

  Dwayne Montgomery, a former police inspector, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor conspiracy, admitting to directing straw donors — people who make campaign contributions using someone else’s money — to contribute to the mayor’s campaign. Mr. Montgomery was indicted in July 2023, along with five others, including four construction executives and a bookkeeper. Mr. Montgomery agreed in his plea not to organize or host any fund-raisers or to solicit contributions for a campaign, for one year.

  The mayor was not implicated in the indictment nor accused of any wrongdoing.

  Feb. 29, 2024: The F.B.I. searches the homes of the mayor’s Asian affairs adviser, who was a prominent fund-raiser for his campaign.

  Agents searched two houses that belonged to Winnie Greco, an aide who was a prominent fund-raiser and who had close ties to the Chinese community in New York City. She became the mayor’s director of Asian affairs when he took office in 2022. The searches were part of an investigation conducted by prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn and it was unclear what the investigation was focused on and whether it was related to the mayor.

  Agents also executed a search warrant at the New World Mall in Flushing, Queens, where Mr. Adams had made regular appearances, including to deliver remarks at a Lunar New Year gala.

  July 2024: Federal prosecutors serve a new round of subpoenas to the mayor, his election committee and City Hall.

  The subpoenas sought information in a number of areas, including travel by the mayor, his aides and others, and fund-raising. It was unclear what prompted the new subpoenas.

  Sept. 4, 2024: Federal agents seize the phones of the police commissioner, the first deputy mayor, the schools chancellor and others.

  Top city officials who had their phones seized included the police commissioner, Edward A. Caban; the first deputy mayor, Sheena Wright; her partner, David C. Banks, the schools chancellor; the deputy mayor for public safety, Philip Banks III; and a senior adviser to the mayor, Timothy Pearson.

  The seizures appeared to be separate from the corruption investigation focused on the mayor and his campaign fund-raising, but the actions further destabilized his administration.

  Terence Banks, a consultant who is the brother of both the schools chancellor and the deputy mayor of public safety, had his home searched and his phone seized. Agents seized the phones of his brothers because they believed they might find evidence of bribery and other crimes, including fraud and violations of the Travel Act, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

  Sept. 12, 2024: The police commissioner resigns.

  Mr. Caban, the New York police commissioner, resigned at the request of City Hall, which asked him to step aside after federal investigators seized his phone. Media coverage about the investigations had “created a distraction for the department,” Mr. Caban said in an email to members of the Police Department.

  Lawyers for Mr. Caban said in a statement that federal prosecutors had told them that he was not a target of the investigation and that he intended to fully cooperate with the government.

  Sept. 15, 2024: The mayor’s chief counsel resigns.

  Lisa Zornberg resigned from her post as the mayor’s counsel and chief legal adviser. She had been one of the mayor’s fiercest defenders, encouraging New Yorkers not to rush to judgment. She formerly worked as a senior Manhattan federal prosecutor in the office that is currently conducting three separate corruption investigations into the mayor and some of his senior aides.

  Sept. 16, 2024: Two former Fire Department chiefs are arrested on bribery charges.

  Brian E. Cordasco, 49, and Anthony M. Saccavino, 59, ran the Department’s Bureau of Fire Prevention until earlier this year. They were arrested and accused of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to speed up the fire-safety approval process for building projects across the city.

  There was no indication that the case is related to any of the federal corruption investigations swirling around the mayor, his campaign and some of his most senior aides.

  Sept. 21, 2024: Federal agents search the home of the interim police commissioner.

  Thomas G. Donlon, who took the interim role after Mr. Caban resigned, said federal agents searched his home and seized materials that were unrelated to the Police Department. According to two federal officials with knowledge of the matter, the materials were classified documents that had been in Mr. Donlon’s possession for years.

  Sept. 23, 2024: The city’s health commissioner says he will resign.

  Dr. Ashwin Vasan, who led New York City out of the coronavirus pandemic, became the third top administration official to resign in September amid the investigations. His decision will go into effect early next year. Dr. Vasan said he decided to step down because he wanted to spend more time with his family. A City Hall spokesman said the departure was unrelated to the federal inquiries, and the commissioner affirmed that in a brief interview with The Times.

  Sept. 23, 2024: It is reported for the first time that federal prosecutors are looking into the mayor’s dealings with five countries besides Turkey.

  The other countries are Israel, China, Qatar, South Korea and Uzbekistan and the demand for information was made in expansive grand jury subpoenas issued in July to City Hall, the mayor and his campaign. This information had not been previously reported.

  Sept. 24, 2024: The schools chancellor says he will resign.

  David C. Banks, the chancellor of the New York City public schools system, said that he would resign from his role at the end of December. The announcement came weeks after federal agents seized his phone.

  Sept. 25, 2024: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes the most prominent elected official to call for Adams’s resignation.

  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, said in a statement to The New York Times that she could “not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City.”

  “The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening government function,” she said. “Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration.”

  “For the good of the city,” she added, “he should resign.”

  The call from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a national leader of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, came after a handful of other New York lawmakers urged Mr. Adams to step down.

  Sept. 25, 2024: News of Mayor Eric Adams’s indictment is made public.

  Eric Adams will be the first sitting New York City mayor to face criminal charges.

[KEVINAA 98]

 

 

 

Edited September 26 by KEVINAA

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

Brutal take down of a man so spineless he doesnt really even warrant being taken down.

Imagine being a yale graduate and deciding to procreate with a man with absolutely no values or loyalty. You just know an Indian man would have had to be 6 feet, a doctor, and packing 6 inches to have even got a look from her back in the day.....and when the kids are elliot rodgers in 20 years we'll act surprised🥲

 

[Vesper 28,861]

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/how-trump-wins

 

I don’t know who’s going to win this election. And neither do you. It’s too damn close to call it either way. But it is possible by looking at available data to get an idea of how, say, Trump may win if he does—that is, the pattern of voter support consistent with trend that would yield a victory for him. It’s not saying, of course, he will win but rather if he does, this is what it would look like.

Start with what appears to be an inescapable fact about this election: we will see a lot more education polarization and a lot less racial polarization among the voting electorate. That was also true in 2020 and it looks like we’ll see more of the same in 2024.

The easiest way to think about education polarization is the difference in candidate margins between working-class (noncollege) and college-educated voters. In 2020, according to gold standard Catalist data, Trump carried working-class voters overall by four points but lost college voters by 18 points. That makes for an “education gap” of 22 points. By comparison, the education gap in 2012 was a mere three points (Obama carried college voters by six and working-class voters by only slightly less, three points).

Looking at one end of the burgeoning education gap, Democrats’ emerging deficit among working-class voters, a key development here is declining support among nonwhite working-class voters. Democrats were formerly able to carry the working class as a whole, despite their large deficits among white working-class voters, because their margins among nonwhite working-class voters were so big. This is now changing; nonwhite working-class margins for the Democrats, though still large, have been declining steadily which reduces their overall working class margin.

For example, consider these New York Times/Siena data on nonwhite working-class voters (the NYT poll is unusual in providing a crosstab for this group in their polls). Since Harris entered the race Democrats are doing somewhat better, but not that much better, among this group. In their June poll, just prior to Biden leaving the race, Biden had a mere 16-point lead among these voters, far below what Democrats are used to. In their new September poll, Harris has improved that margin to 24 points. However, that is still 25 points behind Biden’s 2020 margin of 49 points among the nonwhite working class. And Biden’s 2020 support was way less than Obama enjoyed in 2012 (a 67-point advantage) or even Clinton in 2016 (60-point advantage).

This trend helps to illuminate the overall working class trend against the Democrats, which is not just the result of poor performance among white working-class voters. Biden’s working-class deficit in the June NYT poll was 17 points. Harris’s working-class deficit to Trump in their new September poll was a nearly identical 18 points. This represents a sharp 14-point drop from Biden’s performance in 2020 when he lost these voters by a much more modest four points. Biden’s performance in turn about matched Clinton’s deficit in 2016 and both were seven points worse than Obama did among working-class voters in 2012, when he carried the overall working class by three points.

It would appear that Harris is on course for continuing the trend of declining overall working-class support for Democrats.

Now consider the other end of education polarization: trends in the college-educated vote. Here things are going in the opposite direction. Prior to Biden dropping out, he had been underperforming among college-educated voters. The June NYT poll had him 15 points ahead of Trump among these voters, less than the 18-point margin he had attained in 2020. Their new September poll has Harris’s margin at a stronger 26 points, significantly better than Biden’s 2020 margin. If Harris does improve on Biden’s 2020 margin this election, it would be a continuation of a remarkable positive trend among these voters for Democrats. Obama’s margin among college grads was six points in 2012, which increased to 13 points for Clinton in 2016 and to Biden’s 18 points in 2020.

Put these trends together and it’s a recipe for an ever-widening education gap. For example, in that September NYT poll, Harris was, as noted, carrying college voters by 26 points but losing working-class voters by 18 points. That translates into a 44 point education gap—exactly twice the 22-point gap in the 2020 election. Similarly, in the new CNN poll Harris leads among the college-educated by 24 points, but trails among the working class by 16 points, an education gap of 40 points.  

In the NYT poll, Harris and Trump are tied, while in the CNN poll Harris is ahead by one point. Either of these popular vote results would probably mean a Trump victory, given the bias in the Electoral College (even if that bias may be declining). So, the pattern of results in these polls represents a plausible path to a Trump victory: bigger margins for Democrats among the college-educated counter-balanced and then some by widening margins for the GOP among the working class. The latter is assisted by the fact that the larger weight of the working class in the electorate means that every one-point increase in the GOP margin among the working class is worth 50 percent more than a corresponding one-point increase in the Democratic margin among the college-educated.

This is a good time to recall some stylized facts about the American electorate. Working-class voters will be the overwhelming majority of eligible voters (around two-thirds) and, even allowing for turnout patterns, only slightly less dominant among actual voters (around three-fifths). Moreover, in all seven key swing states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—the working-class share of the electorate, both as eligible voters and as projected 2024 voters, will be higher than the national average.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at some swing states where, of course, the election will be decided. NYT/Siena recently dropped polls in the three swing states where Trump is strongest: Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. In Arizona, according to States of Change data, the education gap in 2020 was 13 points; in the NYT poll it’s now 23 points; in Georgia, the gap in 2020 was 16 points, now it’s 27 points; and in North Carolina, the gap in 2020 was 23 points, now it’s 38 points. In each of these cases, increases in the education gap were primarily driven by increases in GOP margins among working-class voters, outpacing countervailing increases in Democrats’ margin among college voters. That’s a formula for Trump success in each of these states.

Now, if Trump carries both Georgia and North Carolina, he could famously win the election by carrying only Pennsylvania in addition, this election’s key swing state. Reflecting this, there has recently been a lot of polling in this swing state. The last four polls in the state that provide college/noncollege breakdowns are NYT, Washington Post, Marist, and Muhlenberg. They average out to a 39-point education gap, significantly larger than the 27-point gap in the state in 2020. However, in this case the growing gap is driven more by an increase in the Democrats’ advantage among college voters than an increase in the GOP’s working-class advantage. That’s a less felicitous formula for Trump. Not coincidentally, these four polls average out to a one-point Harris advantage, essentially the same as Biden’s margin in 2020.

It follows that Trump’s success will likely depend on his ability to nudge his working-class advantages upward, particularly in the all-important state of Pennsylvania. The trend among college-educated voters is not in his favor and, given that Harris has the inside track with these voters and has been aiming her campaign at them, there may be little upside there for him. As Politico recently noted:

Those shifts [toward Harris] may suggest that most of the folks who are feeling better about Harris’s economic platform are not the working-class voters who helped deliver Democrats the Midwestern “Blue Wall” states in 2020 and 2022. Instead, they are likely professional class voters, many of them in suburbs, who have college educations but were uneasy about Biden—the fabled “Nikki Haley voter” that Democrats have been trying so hard to woo.

And that shift makes sense when you consider Harris’ economic message since she ascended to the top of the ticket, which has been squarely aimed at professional-class concerns. Whereas Biden made manufacturing and industrial policy the centerpiece of his campaign speeches—and still does as a lame duck—Harris barely mentions those policies on the campaign trail. Instead she is focusing much more on elements of the so-called “care economy,” like a child tax credit, as well as helping new homeowners and small businesses.

In all likelihood, it’s win the working class “bigly” or bust for Trump. Trump has some avenues to pursue this, the most obvious of which is around the economy. He’s still running an advantage on handling the economy and it continues to be by far the most important issue to voters, especially working-class voters. And somewhat under the radar, the latest consumer confidence ratings from both the University of Michigan and the Conference Board show very significant weakening since the beginning of the year. Indeed, the September Conference Board reading showed the largest one month decline in confidence in the last three years. This will make it harder for Harris to sell her economic program.

Another important indicator comes from Gallup. For 73 years, Gallup has been asking a question about which party can do a better job “keeping the country prosperous.” In the first part of this period, from 1951 to the election of Ronald Reagan, Democrats had a large and robust advantage on this measure, averaging a 17-point lead over the Republicans. But from the Reagan election on, that advantage has vanished. While there have been many ups and downs, Republicans have averaged a slight advantage (two points) on which party can keep the country prosperous. The last reading this September had Republicans preferred over the Democrats by 6 points, a margin that swelled to 16 points among the working class.

There’s a lot there for the notoriously undisciplined Trump to work with if he can stay anywhere near on message—something his opponent has no difficulty doing. We shall see how it all works out but count on this: we’ll see more education polarization in this election and, if Trump wins, it’ll likely be because the working-class side of that polarization dynamic dominates.

[Vesper 28,861]

free e-book

A New Global Deal

Reforming world governance

https://feps-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/A-New-Global-Deal.pdf

19/04/2024

This is our progressive contribution to the United Nations Summit of the Future, which will take place in September 20241 in New York and where FEPS and its partners will actively participate through the co-organisation and support of several official side events. It will also be the occasion to launch the book ‘A New Global Deal: Reforming World Governance’ in New York. This book includes proposals to reform world governance, address current global challenges and get the SDGs back on track.

The insights of the book have already been launched in Vienna and at the UN Civil Society Conference in Nairobi.

Pandemics, climate disasters, financial crises, food insecurity, poverty, digital transformation and wars are just a few of the complex global challenges that societies must face up to. And yet the world governance systems that are currently in place are not capable of dealing with such challenges.

Moreover, recent years have seen general backsliding and inequality when it comes to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 2015 under their 2030 Agenda.

World governance structures must be reformed if they are to cope with these global challenges and the complex interactions between them. 

Against this background, the book A New Global Deal: Reforming World Governance aims to contribute to open dialogue across all continents concerning the priorities of reforming world governance and policies to address current global challenges.

Based on contributions from renowned European progressive experts and policymakers, it makes proposals regarding the reform of the world governance system in crucial policy areas such as climate and environment, social issues, digital transformation, trade and supply chains and industrial policy.

It also tackles the questions of how to reform the global financial architecture and the UN’s institutions. Moreover, the book sketches the kind of new global deal that is necessary in order to enable all countries to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, to deliver new global public goods, and to ensure that all generations are able to improve their life chances.

This book was edited by the president of FEPS, Maria João Rodrigues. It includes contributions from Azita Berar Awad, Johannah Bernstein, Céline Charveriat, David Collste, Stefan Collignon, Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Enrico Giovannini, Arancha González Laya, Paolo Guerrieri, Francesco Lapenta, Jo Leinen, Pier Carlo Padoan, Christian Salm, Nathalie Spittler, Gerhard Stahl and Robert Sweeney. 

Chapters and authors:

• Introduction and conclusion | Maria João Rodrigues
• SDGs for all: strategic scenarios; Earth4All system dynamics modelling of SDG progress | Johannah Bernstein, David Collste, Sandrine Dixson-Declève and Nathalie Spittler 
• The New Global Deal: a key tool to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals | Enrico Giovannini
• A New Global Deal for Governing Planetary Boundaries | Céline Charveriat
• A New Social Contract through a New Global Deal | Azita Berar Awad
• An alternative model and vision for our tech-driven AI future | Francesco Lapenta
• Development of supply chains in a multipolar world  | Gerhard Stahl
• Industrial policy and sustainable development | Robert Sweeney
• Making trade work for prosperity, people and planet | Arancha González Laya
• Global economic governance in a polycrisis scenario | Paolo Guerrieri and Pier Carlo Padoan
• The global governance of global public goods | Stefan Collignon
• Global governance 2.0: a more democratic and efficient United Nations and a more coherent global governance system for the SDGs | Jo Leinen and Christian Salm

The list of authors of this book is composed of European policymakers and experts with a long and diverse body of experience and in dialogue with their counterparts across the world. They felt they should speak out at this historical juncture of European and world history marked by the UN Summit of the Future that will take place in New York in September 2024.

But this is just an initial contribution to a much-needed global debate. They want to go on listening to others and engaging with them in a long-term undertaking: reinventing global governance for the 21st century.

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

Sad ending for Eric Adams:

 

[Vesper 28,861]

11 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Sad ending for Eric Adams:

 

he was always a clown

and used to be a Republican

Maya Wiley should have been elected

hopefully she runs again