Who won the presidential debate: Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?

 The United States second presidential debate, aired live on television on September 10th, was watched by over 65 million people across the country. In an election that is likely going to be won by a tiny percentage of undecided voters, the debate was a turning point in the presidential election. Now that we know that former president Trump has refused to participate in another presidential debate, the stakes were all that much higher.

Preceding this debate, the Democratic Party was met with a nightmare performance from current President Joe Biden during the first presidential debate. Biden started stumbling from the get-go, and appeared weak and hoarse, an image that one never wants to portray during a presidential debate. Since then, current Vice President Kamala Harris replaced Biden as the current Democratic Party nominee, gained massive traction in the polls, and faced off against her opponent, former president Donald Trump for the first time in Philadelphia. 

The Harris/Trump debate, hosted by ABC News, set the stage for both presidential candidates to present themselves to the nation. From the opening moments, where Harris strode across the stage and basically forced Trump to shake her hand, she controlled the debate, and had her opponent on his back foot the entire time. Throughout the debate, the Vice President talked about her plans for the future and how she doesn’t want to go back to the irresponsible Trump administration. Comparatively, the former President wailed about how America is a failing nation, and how under his control, we will go back to being the international superpower we once were. Their two messages couldn’t be more polar, with Harris bringing us into the future, and Trump dragging us back to the past.

Viewers also tuned in to hear what each candidate thought about key issues surrounding the election, namely the economy, immigration, and abortion. These topics were especially important for Harris to address, as she is a new candidate, relatively speaking, and many undecided voters were interested in getting to know her and what she stands for. Indeed, the Vice President made a passionate speech about the effect of Roe v. Wade being overturned, leading to many states banning abortion entirely, some with no exceptions for rape or incest. “A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next,” Harris said, going on to declare the immorality of the issue, and her promise that if Congress were to pass a bill reinstating Roe v. Wade, she will “proudly” sign it. In contrast, Trump disowned the results in the states that banned abortion, and went on the attack falsely claiming, “[the democrats] have abortion in the ninth month. [The Governor of West Virginia] said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby.” One of the moderators, Linsey Davis, responded to Trump's outlandish claim with “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born”, one of several fact checks in the debate.

The contrast between the arguments from the two candidates were starkly obvious. Harris talked about her economic plans for the country, including a 50,000 dollar tax credit for small businesses while, when pressed, Trump allowed that he had “a concept of a plan” to rid the United States of Medicare. Not only did Harris sound more confident, she also appeared more confident, willing to look Trump in the face and smile at what he said, while the entire debate Trump was scowling down at his podium. The way one presents themselves in a presidential debate is very important, and it can lead to a loss or gain of thousands of votes as people look for a strong and confident leader. Vice President Harris presented herself as that leader, and according to an article from CNN, her campaign felt that she improved her chances among 200,000 voters in several key swing states. Although official polling from after the debate still has not been released yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post of likely swing state voters found that 23 people thought that Harris performed better in the debate, compared to just 2 who thought Trump performed better.

While polls like these aren’t truly accurate of the population at large, similar polls administered by many different media outlets have seen similar results, indicating that Harris is in fact gaining supporters in key states from her debate performance, a likely indicator that she is the true victor of the debate.

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-harris-debate-abc-ratings-2024/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/11/presidential-debate-takeaways/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/11/politics/harris-trump-debate-analysis/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/politics/speaking-times-harris-trump-debate-dg/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/g-s1-6953/presidential-debate-analysis-trump-biden

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/presidential-debate-voter-poll/

Economic worries boost Trump’s Hispanic voter support in Nevada

    Although the Republican party was dominant in Nevada in the late 1960s-80s, the population has nearly tripled since 1980, bringing in a new demographic of voters. George W. Bush and the Republican party won Nevada's vote in 2000 by just barely 5% over Democrat Al Gore. Similarly, in 2004, Nevada voted red, this time winning by only 2.6%. In both elections, all of Nevada's electoral votes went to the Republican party. However, things began to change when Nevada voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and continued its trend of voting blue to the 2020 election. In 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by a difference of 2%, and similarly in 2020, Joe Biden beat Trump by about 2.5%. Nevada is currently a swing state and is among 7 states that could decide the fate of the election.

Trump rally in Nevada on Sept. 13, 2024

    Nevada has a notably large non-white population, with about 40% of the state’s eligible voters being Latino, Black, or Asian American Pacific Islanders. With these groups in mind, Harris draws a bit more support than Trump in Nevada. However, concerns about costs of living, inflation and immigration could give former president Trump a boost from these worried voters. According to a new poll released by Latino advocacy nonprofit, UnidosUS, Nevada Latinos significantly trust Democrats on issues such as the economy and health care over Republicans. However, rent prices are on the rise creating concerns about the economy. The wealthy have the money to purchase a house in today's economy (or build it) so working-class families are facing housing distress. This is why some Hispanic and Latino voters are deciding to vote for Trump, they believe that his economic views will help them in this time of need.

Harris rally in Nevada Aug. 10, 2024

    The prices of single-family homes in Nevada are almost back to the record high set during the pandemic (about $480,000). Because of this, many lean towards Trump's policy, which says: "To help new home buyers, Republicans will reduce mortgage rates by slashing inflation, open limited portions of federal lands to allow for new home construction, promote home ownership through tax incentives and support for first-time buyers, and cut unnecessary regulations that raise housing costs". Harris has a different approach to the topic, stating that "as more new homes are built and affordable housing supply increases, Vice President Harris will provide first-time homebuyers with up to $25,000 to help with their down payments, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners. This will help more Americans experience the pride of homeownership and the financial security that it represents and brings — offering more Americans a path to the middle class and economic opportunity". While the idea is appealing, many question where the money will come from and why interest rates won't be brought down (a more impactful solution for all, not just first-generation homebuyers). As of September 19, each candidate has 48% of the vote with 2% of voters undecided or supporting another candidate.

Sources:

https://www.270towin.com/states/Nevada

https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-2000

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/politics/nevada-hispanic-voters-trump-harris/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/g-s1-22212/election-harris-trump-swing-states#nevada

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/poll-nevada-latinos-backing-harris-but-margin-with-trump-closer-than-in-2020

https://unidosus.org/press-releases/unidosus-voter-poll-pocketbook-issues-still-top-nevada-latino-priorities/

https://images.axios.com/gcBioqYkR51SPvUHhNxMSHbbkxE=/0x826:7932x5288/1920x1080/2024/09/18/1726676117449.jpg

https://cdnph.upi.com/svc/sv/upi/8921723309392/2024/1/d67b6a07c6ddc92d2e70b3167db7c1f9/Harris-and-Walz-set-to-wrap-up-battleground-state-tour-in-Nevada.jpg

https://www.ktnv.com/news/looking-into-how-housing-policies-from-each-presidential-candidate-would-affect-southern-nevada

Right to IVF Act Blocked, Again

 On Wednesday, September 17th, the Right to IVF Act - a legislation providing citizens with the right to IVF or in vitro fertilization medical procedures - hit the senate floor for a second time after it failed to pass 3 months prior and once again failed to agin the necessary votes to be passed. 

The legislation gained 54 votes out of the 60 needed, 44 voting against the legislation. Votes were notably split mainly along party lines, all democrats and two republican senators - Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - voting in favor, and most republicans voting against the legislation. 

Taking a step back, what exactly is IVF? IVF or in vitro fertilization is a medical procedure in which eggs are removed from an AFAB - assigned female at birth - person's ovaries and combined with male sperm outside of the human body to create an embryo to incubate in a lab for several days, to later be placed in a uterus or frozen and stored for later. IVF is a key medical procedure, providing alternative opportunities for those who may have issues with fertility or have damaged reproductive organs, to build a family. 

Recently however, IVF has received some political backlash due to a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision, in which they ruled embryos are considered children. Since IVF routinely disposes of embryos, all IVF operations have since halted in Alabama, and a larger question has been proposed, is IVF and ethical procedure? 

Republicans and conservatives certainly don't think so, as they have been the main opposition, blocking the Right to IVF Act twice, despite former President Donald Trump and the republican party recently back-pedaling, expressing support for IVF. In an interview with NBC, Trump says he "was always for IVF. Right from the beginning as soon as [he] heard about it". 

Since republicans typically follow Trump's stances, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an original sponsor of the Right to IVF Act, intended to challenge the validity of Trump and republican's claims to support IVF on Wednesday saying, "if Donald Trump and republicans want to protect peoples right to access  IVF, they would votes yes". 

Republican Vice President candidate, JD Vance comments on the legislation being blocked in an interview with WEAU saying, "the senate did not block an IVF bill, the senate blocked a ridiculous show vote bill that had no chance of surviving". 

Above all, the pressing issue at hand is IVF - an ethical and human procedure routinely done and normalized, that extends the gift of fertility to those who may have their own respective issues - is under attack and not a viable alternative to fertility trouble in all states anymore. This decision begs into question, under a conservative or Trump Presidency, will other fertility or sexual health resources fall under attack as well? Could these attacks possibly extend to other modern medical treatments to treat people or give people opportunities? 

IVF's recent controversy leaves voters alike with one burning question, what could be attacked next? 

Republicans Push to Change Nebraska's Electoral System to Help Trump

 With the 2024 presidential election between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump shaping up to be a tight contest, Republicans are strategizing ways to gain an advantage in the crucial weeks leading up to November. In order to win the presidency, a candidate must secure a majority of electoral votes—270 to be exact—rather than winning the national popular vote. While most states are predictable in their party loyalty, a handful of swing states are expected to be the battlegrounds that decide the election.

Breakdown of Nebraska's electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election

If Harris can secure the states where she is projected to win, including the key swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—where she currently leads in polling—she will likely reach the 270 electoral votes required for victory. This outlook has shaken Republicans, who are scrambling to find ways to alter the election dynamics in their favor.

Nebraska, a predominantly Republican state, has a unique electoral system. Unlike most states, which award all electoral votes to the statewide winner, Nebraska divides its votes by districts. Two of its five electoral votes go to the statewide winner, while the remaining three are allocated based on the outcomes in each of the state’s three congressional districts. In 2020, although Trump won Nebraska by 19 points overall, Biden carried the state’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, by 6.5 points. With the race expected to be so close, even a single electoral vote, like the one from Nebraska’s 2nd District, could be pivotal.

If Republicans succeed in changing Nebraska's system to a statewide winner-takes-all model, Harris could be left with just 269 electoral votes, forcing her to seek additional support in other swing states such as Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Although Republicans hold a majority in Nebraska's legislature and Governor Jim Pillen supports the proposed change to the electoral system, they are currently short of the 33-vote supermajority required to pass the law. Several legislators, especially those representing the 2nd District, are wary of the potential backlash from their constituents, who would lose influence under the proposed changes. One of the key holdouts is Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat who switched parties and now serves as a Republican. McDonnell has publicly committed to preserving Nebraska's current system, though his administration has hinted he could still be persuaded to reconsider.

Top Republican figures, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and former President Donald Trump, have been personally lobbying Nebraska legislators. McConnell recently visited the governor’s mansion, stating, "I want the law changed. I’ve made no qualms about it." Trump, too, has reached out by phone to stress the importance of the proposed changes. While it remains unclear how successful these efforts will be, Democrats are bracing for the possibility that the Republicans could pull off a last-minute electoral shift.

Republicans are trying to take advantage of the US's representative democracy system, outlined by the founding fathers in the Constitution. Since US elections aren't representative of the people's opinions, but rather of the electoral votes, adjusting the electoral college can change the outcome of the election. Republicans are trying to change policies surrounding election processes to gain more political power. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-trump-electoral-college-nebraska-tweak-2024-9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/20/nebraska-electoral-college-trump-omaha/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/20/trump-nebraska-legislature-electoral-vote/75312622007/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/21/republicans-nebraska-trump-electoral-college

Wildfires Create a Worsening Insurance Crisis in California: What can be done?

Wildfires have long been a part of life in California, but in recent years, their severity has increased dramatically, and the wildfire season has grown longer. In July, the Park Fire ravaged 429,259 acres across Butte and Tehama counties. By early September, three more fires erupted in Southern California, destroying 200 structures as of this writing. Wildfires have become so frequent and intense that Cal Fire reports this year alone, 992,000 acres have burned, and 1,229 structures have been lost. As wildfires worsen, both state and national leaders are proposing solutions.

A Firefighter battles the Airport Fire in El Cariso (11 Sep. 2024)

In 2020, President Donald Trump commented on the issue, suggesting, "You gotta clean your floors, you gotta clean your forests — there are many, many years of leaves and broken trees, and they’re so flammable, you touch them and it goes up.” Solutions like forest management, as Trump mentioned, or addressing climate change are being debated, but the reality remains that wildfires are growing in intensity, leaving Californians to bear the consequences.

Many insurance companies have responded to the wildfire crisis by withdrawing from California's high-risk areas. Major providers, such as StateFarm and Allstate, have stopped issuing new policies in fire-prone parts of the state, leading to an insurance crisis. Homeowners in these regions are left with either overpriced policies or no insurance at all. StateFarm cited "rapidly growing catastrophe exposure" as the reason for its decision, while Allstate noted that "the cost to insure new home customers in California is far higher than the price they would pay for policies due to wildfires."

Existing policyholders are also being affected. A homeowner in San Ramon received a letter from Liberty Mutual stating that his coverage was being dropped due to the "condition of property," specifically citing issues with "Roof-Algae/mildew/mold/moss." Despite his efforts to challenge the decision, the homeowner received no response. Similar cases are occurring across the state, as insurers seek to limit their exposure to high-risk properties, further exacerbating the insurance crisis.

In response, California's state leaders are exploring solutions. One effort involves the creation of a public catastrophe model designed to predict wildfire risks and impacts on properties. Officials argue that this state-led model will offer a more balanced approach than private models, which often overestimate damages and drive up insurance costs. California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has also proposed a series of regulatory reforms aimed at stabilizing the insurance market. His plan includes expediting the insurance review process and expanding the state’s FAIR Plan, a last-resort insurance program that provides basic wildfire coverage. Critics, however, are concerned that these changes favor insurers and leave too many loopholes. Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, argued that the proposed reforms fail to address key consumer concerns.

As the wildfire-driven insurance crisis continues, the question remains: what more can be done to protect Californians from these escalating risks?

Sources:
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/20/trump-blames-california-for-wildfires-tells-state-you-gotta-clean-your-floors-1311059
https://ktla.com/news/california/wildfires/southern-california-wildfires-are-being-contained-but-there-is-still-lots-of-work-to-be-done/
https://www.fire.ca.gov/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/10/home-insurance-park-wildfire-california-butte-county
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/how-to-weigh-in-on-californias-plans-to-reform-the-insurance-market/3653448/
https://apnews.com/article/california-wildfire-insurance-e31bef0ed7eeddcde096a5b8f2c1768f
https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/09/california-insurance-crisis-lara-interview/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/home-insurance-wildfire-model-19768876.php

Trump Brings a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to the 9/11 Memorial: A Slap in the Face

Written by Thomas Williams, posted by Mr. Silton

Yes. The title is correct. This 9/11, former President Trump brought Laura Loomer, a woman famous for spreading the myth that 9/11 was an inside job, to the 9/11 memorial on its anniversary. The one question I have is, what was he thinking?

Trump has met with Loomer before, in 2023. He met her at a golf course in which upon seeing her called his assistant to immediately pay for all of her purchases, along with bringing her to his private suite for a day. This action was criticized even in 2023, because while Loomer received a whole day with Trump, Iowa voters received just one hour.

Laura Loomer has repeatedly spread racist comments about muslims and made appaling remarks about others who aren’t white. She has used her platform to spread racist myths about a tragedy that has killed 100s. She has taken refuge in a racist circle that has tried to overthrow the very government itself, and yet gets free golf trips and a private suite. Loomer, by all accounts, is not a good person.

Now, why 9/11 of all days to bring a conspiracy theorist to the very memorial she conspiracizes? Trump’s advisor of course only stated that this memorial wasn’t about Loomer, and instead only about those who died in the tragedy, but Trump himself said nothing. Well personally? I don’t think the why matters. It’s just a slap in the face, and an action that should be condemned. 

His action is ridiculous, and represents a very important thing to take notice of - what news is not covering it. CNN, the progressive media giant, of course took this chance to cover a politician their viewers don’t like. Fox, on the other hand, had no reporting at all. Narrowcasting, polarization, poison in our society. How so? When our very media is covering for the insults their idol is acting on, it only further divides the country. Now, only left-wing viewers even know that this happened. If a left viewer gets into a discussion with a right viewer about this situation, the right isn’t even going to know about it! How can we, as a democracy built off of educated and civil commentary to discuss issues, discuss an issue half of us don’t even know about?

We need to hear from both sides, because people should not be able to do things like this without criticism.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/politics/laura-loomer-donald-trump-influence/index.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lindsey-graham-warns-trump-to-stop-palling-around-with-toxic-laura-loomer

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-fawns-very-special-laura-loomer-new-video

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-laura-loomer-republicans-wh-warn-trump-against-closeness-with-conspiracy-theorist-who-spreads-racist-poison-101726203917096.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-laura-loomer-loomered/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/far-right-activist-laura-loomer-access-trump-crisis-campaign-rcna170915

Written by Thomas Williams, posted by Mr. Silton

Taylor Swift endorses Kamala harris after historic debate; Trump responds aggressively

    The debate was watched by millions of people last Tuesday. Of those people, was international superstar Taylor Swift. Minutes after the debate, Swift took to her instagram to throw her support under current Vice President, and Democratic Nominee, Kamala Harris. Having not publicly disclosed her support for any presidential candidate since endorsing Biden in the 2020 election. Her hidden opinions were the cause of criticism as well as speculation as to which party she was planning to vote for due to her ongoing political silence. Ms. Swift discredited any rumors with this formal endorsement; ending the discussion by confidently expressing “I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice”, before urging eligible voters to register and participate in the upcoming election. Swift posted this message alongside an image of her holding her Cat and comically signing off as “Childless Cat Lady”, a riff-off of JD Vance’s comment that the country is run by a “bunch of childless cat ladies” who are completely “miserable”. With this final jab mocking an integral member of Trump’s campaign, Swift further distanced herself from the false reports of her supporting Trump and his running mate. 

                                

Unsurprisingly, this endorsement, wringing in mounds of attention and comments from the star’s two hundred eighty four million followers on Instagram, was met with a negative response by the Trump campaign. Following her post, the former president’s administration released new shirt designs, in a copy-cat style to the main shirt sold on Taylor Swift’s billion dollar grossing “Eras” tour. Only now, Swift’s iconic design was replaced with Trump’s name, and face which is currently on sale for thirty six dollars on his official website. The timing between Swift's announcement of her support for the democratic party, and the release of the T-shirts, appear too close to be coincidence; as it is obvious a celebrity endorsement of her caliber to the opposite party, would create tension nationally, and harm his campaign at a high-stakes point of the election process.

Although Swift has not responded publicly yet to Trump’s promotional marketing that has attempted and has for the moment succeeded at stealing her image at his benefit; ironically this behavior is what caused her to report the endorsement in the first place. At the moment Taylor Swift is regarded to be one of the most influential celebrities in the world, with her fan-base having a cult-like following to the brands, trends, and ideas she supports. Her voice, and her messages are amplified by a hundredfold due to her enormous fan-base; which although is dispersed globally, majority of her fans, like herself, are Americans. Due to this concentrated influence in the U.S. as the election has neared, more and more fake-news, sensationalized media, and deep fake AI videos which together have collectively spread misinformation about Swift’s voting intentions. In her initial message, she voiced her concerns about these falsehoods which misrepresent her values, and only worsen the media age and political tactics of disinformation.

The last that has been heard from Trump on this matter, has been his recent lash out on Truth social, in which in all caps, he posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT”. Although the message lacked surrounding context, this newfound aggression is without a doubt tied to last week's endorsement; revealing the weight of Swift’s message, the effectiveness of her controlled means of communicating with the public, and the impact transparency of public figures has on the political landscape.

Sources: https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/taylor-swift-trump-shirt-eras-tour-rcna171149

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/15/trump-i-hate-taylor-swift-harris-endorsement/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2024/09/16/donald-trump-posted-i-hate-taylor-swift-what-did-he-expect/

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/jd-vances-childless-cat-ladies-remark-was-a-reliable-punchline-at-emmys-2024

Melania Trump instigates conspiracy theories in a series of published videos

Despite only making a handful of public appearances throughout Trump’s presidency, and regardless of her backseat approaches towards and throughout her husband’s presidential campaigns; former first lady Melania Trump has appeared in the limelight, in a misleading effort to promote her new memoir,“Melania”. 

The Trump family is no stranger to intentionally spreading and distributing first-hand lies, misinformation, and conspiracies to the media and the public. With the thirty-four felony count, and twice impeached president himself hiding under the guise of “fake news” countless times in pivotal points of his political career. Recently, in a crucial time preceding and following the presidential debate, and upcoming election cycle, Melania has mimicked this outlined approach. Releasing a series of cryptic and concerning messages all at politically convenient times for her husband's campaign.

Mrs. Trump has been incrementally posting video clips, which her husband, and his supporters have been recirculating rapidly. The first of the videos, is a thirty four second clip depicting a stone-faced Melania, dressed in all black, with a dark backdrop, opening with a statement on  her “horrible and distressing” emotions around the attempt on her husband’s life. Although this grief is valid in abstraction, Melania quickly loses credibility and sincerity, by using such statements to allude to conspiracy theories surrounding her husband's assassination attempt; raising vague questions regarding law enforcements “failures” on arrests before ominously stating there is “definitely more to the story”. After this publicly important information is discussed, a pre-order link to her new memoir is flashed on screen, revealing the driving force behind such emotional statements to be strictly promotional, and for publicity reasons only.

In another stylized video released after Trump’s disappointing performance in the presidential debate, Melania shares a dramatic excerpt of the Fourth Amendment, bringing to attention the claimed invasion of “privacy”, that happened through a search on her husband's home. In actuality, this apparent transgression by the government, was due to the families unlawful possession of classified documents which Trump was found liable for in court. This dubious interpretation of the constitution, like the other claims made in these obscure videos, are ultimately harmful to the flow of truthful information, trust in government, and public interest.  

It is vital to note that Melania Trump isn’t just anyone, she is a former first lady, her statements  and status hold weight and significance to the public. Whether it be by illuminating subterfuges, or attempting to reduce clauses in the constitution, this vague and deceitful wish to “uncover the truth” implies that there is a form of secrecy and corruption within the government. This false idea, especially when expressed by individuals such as Ms. Trump with high authority, only harbors more mistrust within the broken political scene; thus, worsening the era of misinformation and disinformation. Moreover, the fact that each of these videos ends with a redirection to her website and image of her book shows there is a clear, and traceable monetary motive behind these strategic announcements. 

Whatever the “memoir” itself contains, is up to interpretation and speculation; however, the means of promotion have been criticized by public figures, and media outlets as misleading. Furthermore, it is expected that videos of a similar fear-mongering style, and content will be continuously delivered up until the book release. 

Sources: 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/10/melania-trump-memoir-assassination-attempt

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/trump-shooting-shows-conspiracy-theories-not-confined-to-right-wing

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/politics/melania-trump-memoir-video/index.html

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K-BOurX5L28

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/melania-trump-book-promo-videos-rating.ht

Boeing Workers Strike for Greater Pay: How will this affect Boeing?

Over the last year Boeing has faced a number of issues with it's production and economic status. On January 6th, 2024, they were forced to ground all of their best selling commercial planes due to quality and safety concerns. This grounding was due to an Alaska Airlines flight, flown by a Boeing 787 Max, had a fuselage panel ripped off mid flight leading to an emergency landing. With other recent safety concerns over plane quality control the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) have launched an investigation to ensure quality control of future planes. Following these issues there was whistleblowers and other allegations that have not been fully resolved involving the engineering ethics of  and quality control of Boeing airlines. 

Boeing 737-9 Max (Alaska Airlines)

    On September 13th, the union factory workers that operate one parts and two airplane assembly factories owned by Boeing are set to vote on a new union contract. In light of these events: "two fatal crashes that killed 346 people, a 20-month grounding of its best-selling jet," and the Alaska Airlines flight according to CNN the Union has a large amount of bargaining power thanks to the large decrease in stock price and overall price loss for the company. The union is asking for a 25% wage increase, improved healthcare, and better retirement benefits. If the deal is passed it will cost "$900 million" annually according to Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg. For the union workers the deal is crucial as they previously accepted deals that reduced retirement benefits and healthcare costs, leading to general worker upset. 

    The workers are threatening a strike if an acceptable detail is not reached. According to IAM District 751 President Jon Holden, "We have achieved everything we could in bargaining, short of a strike," Regardless, he doesn't recommend a strike as they may not be able to further the deal. However, if a strike is enacted the company would be forced to either shutdown the plants or pivot and accept more of the demands from the Union. From Kelly Ortberg the strike could cost the company "$1.5 billion," a huge hit to their bottom line and profits. Additionally, the impact of a strike not only affects the union plants but suppliers and receivers of Boeing planes, causing a ripple effect damaging the profits of multiple companies.  It would upset supply chains to other factories, companies, and within the internals of the company itself.

Boeing Stock Price (1 year)

    With the onset of this looming deadline and the economic downsides to both agreeing and disagreeing with the deal Boeing has been placed into a difficult position. If they accept, they will keep the factories open and continue production but the raise in pay will cost more and reduce their falling profits even further. If they decline, the Union may strike leading to closure of production and massive losses for the company. In combination with their recent commercial and safety failures as a company Boeing faces serious threat to its long-term survival as the dominant US producer of airplanes. If the company falls further they may be forced to perform mass-closure or layoffs, some of which are domestic American workers.

Update: As of September 14th, the workes went on strike as the deal didn't fit there demands. They hope to achieve the deal they want, a 40% increase in wages over 4 years over Boeing's 25% offer. The outcome of the strike remains unknown but based on recent similar events, like the Auto Workers Union strike it may end in success especially with Boeing's constant losses over the last six years. This stems from post-covid economic damage including inflation and an increase in Union power. However, the outcome remains unknown and only time will tell if the unions will win again.If they do win Boeing will face even further losses and could indicate the final nail in the coffin for the Aviation super corporation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

CNN Boeing Strike Article

NBC Boeing Strike Article

NBC Boeing QC Issues

FAA Boeing 737-9 Max

ABC Boeing Strike Article

Workers Strike Information

Another Mass Shooting in Georgia: Inevitable with State’s policies

Written by Thomas Williams, posted by Mr. Silton

September 4th, Wednesday; Highschoolers walking to class, worrying about their next test, talking to friends, competing with each other over who has the better outfit. They laugh, and fight, and yell, but all of their sounds are drowned out by gunshots. 4 dead, 9 hospitalized. How could this happen?

In Appallace High School in Georgia, 14 year old Colt Gray fired his AR-15 rifle into 2 students and 2 teachers, killing them, hospitalizing 9, and injuring many more both physically and psychologically - many students following the event have had post-traumatic stress.

The Gun:

How could a 14 year old have access to a rifle “capable of shattering bone?”

Georgia law states that no minor shall be allowed to purchase a gun, but though there are regulations illegalizing the carry of handguns by a minor, there are no such regulations for rifles or shotguns. Even further, Georgian law has recently passed a law permitting the permitless carry of previously stated weapons. What does this lead to? A completely legal carry of the rifle into the school.

The Buildup:

Colt Grey was not secretive with his plans. According to the FBI, way back in May of 2023, Colt had sent online posts about plans to enact a school shooting. Upon investigation, investigators found that they didn’t have enough evidence to enact arrest, so they released him. We knew the danger posed by Colt, yet couldn’t/didn’t act on it. This is the issue with our current bureaucracy: When danger isn’t taken seriously, people die.

Following the shooting, a search of his home revealed a major interest in previous school shootings as well. This said, why would his father allow him to take the rifle? Police and investigators currently suspect that Colin had bought the gun for his son as a gift and as such was more lenient than he should have been - Just as the police had been

The Response:

Democrats:

Following the shooting, President Biden, Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris, and VP Candidate Tim Walz have all come forward.

Biden, upon acknowledging the tragedy, immediately called for a ban of assault weapons on a federal level as well as required universal background checks. This falls in line with a similar reaction of Biden’s after the Uvalde Elementary shooting in Texas, where again an AR-15 rifle was used to kill 19 children of ages 9 to 11, and 2 teachers. Following this, Biden also called for a ban of assault weapons, yet the warning was not heeded and the tragedy was repeated.

Harris remarks on how college students have widely had to practice school shooting drills. Stating “it does not have to be this way,” Harris goes off script asking that our schools should not be in a situation where shootings are so common that such drills are necessary. 

Walz, a coach and father, is outraged. On Twitter/X he stated that “This is pathetic. We can’t quit on our kids — they deserve better.”

Republicans:

Both Trump and JD Vance have also made responses to the tragedy soon after.

Trump in a Fox News Town Hall interview stated that the world is “sick and angry” and vows to “heal it” the best he can, bringing the incident to light in the otherwise politically focused news station

JD Vance however, in contrast to the others, claimed that shootings are just a “fact of life”, leading to public outrage as his view is essentially resigning himself to letting kids die even when he should be thinking of using his potential power to do something - in other words, if elected Vance doesn’t see it prevalent to try and stop school shootings, as it’s “inevitable” anyways.

The Public: And what can be done

It is important to understand that this is a new case, and as such likely to change greatly over time, however its existence is a reminder of our failure to adapt to the mental health landscape. 

According to Forbes, Georgian mental health care is the second worst in the nation, which when combined with easy access to firearms and a lacking permit system, has led to this tragedy. With current policies, this event will almost certainly continue and worsen, as it has noticeably done in the last 6 years. 

People are in danger, this issue is worsening, and states are only making it easier to get guns. What is happening? Well, partizan politics. The safety of citizens should come first, and making gun control a party splitting policy is a bad idea - people will now always feel like there are two equal sides, when one is clearly more important.

This is the issue with our country’s political divide: Issues get turned into slogans, until suddenly another school gets shot and more children die. Don’t vote for the party, vote for gun control.

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-school-shooting-gun/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-shooting-georgia-apalachee-high-school/

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/uvalde-aj-martinez-survivor-robb-elementary/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c049yw352r1o

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-laws-georgia-after-apalachee-high-school-shooting/story?id=113417198#:~:text=Georgia%20Gov.%20Brian%20Kemp%20has,without%20first%20obtaining%20a%20license.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/04/13/kemp-signs-bill-allowing-permitless-carry-of-concealed-handgun-in-public

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-school-shooting-suspect-colt-gray-what-we-know/

https://nypost.com/2024/09/05/us-news/alleged-apalachee-school-shooter-colt-grays-family-issues-chilling-threat-to-go-full-throttle/

https://t.co/xwGMRmc0Hr

https://t.co/ozYdvpDJ4u

https://t.co/diHTv2p2gb

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/05/24/remarks-by-president-biden-marking-one-year-since-the-school-shooting-in-uvalde-texas/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-vows-heal-our-world-after-fatal-georgia-school-shooting-sick-angry

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/state/georgia/article288359665.html

Written by Thomas Williams

JD Vance spreads conspiracy, threatening violence on Haitian Immigrants

    Following recent discussion in Springfield, Ohio, a conspiracy was created promoting the idea that recent immigrants, primarily Haitians, were abducting and eating local pets. As the conspiracy spread over this past weekend, multiple Republicans caught wind of the story and began to share it online, with one of the most vocal being JD Vance, Donald Trump's running mate. 

    In a statement on Monday, September 9, Vance said on the platform formerly known as Twitter, "Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country." The "reports" he was referencing were the theories and racist claims made by Springfield residents following recent influx of immigrants, primarily from Haiti. The following day he walked back part of the statement claiming they were only killing the pets, not eating them. But, the damage has been done as National Security Council Spokesman, John Kirby, stated "the false claims about immigrants were a “dangerous” variety of conspiracy theory." With conspiracies that spread extremely negative misinformation it can lead to violence and acts of hate, regardless of the insanity of the claims. One local Haitian had even reported an uptick in harassment and racist comments in the aftermath of JD Vance's comments.

    Furthermore, JD Vance in the same statement walking back the eating of pets, doubled down on the conspiracy encouraging followers to "Keep the cat memes flowing," the cat memes being cat photos with edited text with racist ideology and slogans such as, "don't eat me immigrants". Adding further fuel to the fire, he referenced a crash from last year involving a Haitian man driving a minivan hitting a school bus killing one 11 year old boy and injuring 20 more. The man was later charged with involuntary manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter being sentenced to 13 years in prison. His statement on the story was that "a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant,” a statement that mischaracterized the crime, instead depicting it as an act of violence from an immigrant, not an accident.

    However, the spread of misinformation gets even worse. On September 10th, the debate between presidential candidates, former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris took place. During their debate the issue of immigration was posed to Donald Trump and he, on live TV in front of hundreds of thousands of Americans, with a straight face said that Haitian immigrants were eating and killing pets as if it was fact and used it as a reason to deport immigrants. The moderators quickly interjected with a statement that the story had been debunked as false, but he doubled down and ignored them. With both the backing of the former president and his running mate, JD Vance, the story can now cause even more damage than before.

    JD Vance's constant vocalization of anti-immigrant and hateful rhetoric is nothing new for Republican followers of Donald Trump. With the rise of misinformation and social media, Donald Trump and his supporters have utilized the technology to warp the perspective of the American public and "Red-pill" people bringing them further and further right. As we discussed in seminars regarding media the conservative right has a tendency to get news from select sources that heavily bias and skew towards conservative beliefs. Due to this fact JD Vance and others utilize it push their political agenda by spreading conspiracy, biased info, or general misinformation to promote beliefs in this case not dissimilar from Neo-Nazism.

    The dangers of these beliefs cannot be understated, with a history of racism and general bigotry, the promotion of racism ideology can spark renewed violence directed towards minorities. An example of this very principle was Donald Trump's social media and press statements regarding covid as the China Virus. Following those statements a rise in anti-Asian hate occurred increasing by 77% in America. With continued rhetoric towards Haitians, people of primarily African descent, a rise in anti-black hate could be on the horizon. Thus the danger of JD Vance's statements are clear, as altering people's perspectives and manipulating them into blaming immigrants for every problem can and has led to hate-crimes aimed at minorities. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

CNN Article

NBC JD Vance Article

JD Vance X

NPR Article

Department of Justice Hate Crime Stats

Trump's Debate Statement NBC