Pelosi’s political future uncertain after midterms, attack on husband - PBS NewsHour

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The morning after the midterm election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped on a sterling silver whistle given to her by her husband, who was attacked last month by an intruder at their San Francisco home.

WATCH: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her husband’s assault and how Democrats view their chances

The whistle was similar to those worn by coaches or drill sergeants, and she wore it at her office after a long night of watching election returns. Staff members were assembled for a pizza party lunch in the same conference room where she has led her party through some of the most tumultuous times at the U.S. Capitol.

She blew the whistle as she entered, and the staff cheered. With the races close and many votes still being counted, it was time for the waiting to begin. The final results will determine which party controls the House — and Pelosi’s own future.

The Democratic leader, whose plans are uncertain, has arrived at a crossroads: The nation’s first, and only, female speaker could be forced to relinquish the gavel if Republicans win majority control, a potential defeat coming just weeks after the chilling assault that fractured her husband’s skull.

This could be the end of Pelosi’s long tenure in Congress. Or not.

Many expect her to retire rather than lead Democrats in a shrunken minority. The attack on her husband, Paul, made her exit seem even more likely. He was assaulted less than two weeks before the election, when a man invaded their home searching for his wife.

And yet after rising to become perhaps the most consequential House speaker in decades, Pelosi is not one to simply step aside. When asked ahead of the election if she had decided to stay or go, she said only that the attack on her spouse of nearly 60 years would be a factor.

“I have to say my decision will be affected about what happened,” Pelosi said on CNN.

The response became something of a Rorschach test on Capitol Hill: Some believe Pelosi will retire to spend time with her family — she and her husband are both 82. Others sensed her driven determination to stay on the job.

A cohort of younger Democratic lawmakers, some who have spent years in Congress, are waiting for Pelosi and other top House leaders to pass the baton. She had once said this would be her last term in leadership, but that was four years ago, and she no longer mentions it.

“That’s a conversation for another day,” Pelosi said on election night on the PBS “NewsHour.”

Pelosi’s rise instantly established her place in history — not only as the first female speaker, but as the only speaker in 70 years to have won the office twice, in 2007 and again in 2019.

But it’s what Pelosi did with the gavel — steering the Affordable Care Act into law with Barack Obama and twice impeaching Donald Trump — that seals her legacy as one of the strongest political figures in America.

The day after the election, she arrived in Egypt for the international COP-27 climate change conference as she works to project U.S. influence abroad. One of her first pieces of legislation as a new lawmaker 35 years ago was climate-related.

For years, Pelosi has been ridiculed by Republicans, her image lampooned more than any other in endless GOP campaign ads.

Top Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, downplayed the attack on her husband and spread misinformation about it. A vulgar fringe theory quickly made its way into the mainstream at a time of rising threats against elected officials.

“A lot of people would wither under the pressure that she’s under,” said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University.

Brinkley said it would be sad if Pelosi’s career ended after “such a grotesque moment.” But he compared her to other powerful figures, including Coretta Scott King, who continued in public service after the assassination of her husband, Martin Luther King Jr.

WATCH: Republican Michael Lawler ousts Democratic House leader in blue New York district

“I see that spirit in her, that no-quit — the grit,” Brinkley added, saying it reminded him of Theodore Roosevelt.

“She takes slings and arrows by the second, from all different corners, but she constantly keeps a kind of political courage, personal integrity, and no-nonsense demeanor about her,” he said. “She’s legendary.”

It’s possible that Pelosi will relinquish the gavel but stay in office for some time. After easily winning another two-year term representing her California district, she is eligible to be sworn in with the rest of the new Congress on Jan. 3.

She has called serving as the representative from San Francisco her “greatest honor” since first being elected to public office in 1987.

Paul Pelosi was struck in the head with a hammer, suffering the skull fracture and other injuries, authorities said. He was released after nearly a week in the hospital following successful surgery. His wife has said that his recovery will be “a long haul.”

The intruder, 42-year-old David DePape, broke into the couple’s home demanding “Where is Nancy?” She was in Washington at the time. DePape has been charged with attempted murder.

DePape told police he wanted to talk to the speaker and would “break her kneecaps” if she didn’t satisfactorily answer his questions. His idea was for Pelosi to be wheeled into Congress to show other Democrats there were “consequences” to their actions. He is being held without bail.

The attack carried echoes of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol when Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” for his presidency on false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.

A mob loyal to Trump stormed the Capitol trying to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory. Some called “Where’s Nancy?” as they roamed the halls.

Asked on CNN about those who made light of the attack on her husband, Pelosi said: “It’s really sad for the country that people of that high visibility would separate themselves from the facts and the truth in such a blatant way.”

But she also said that this is a time for healing — for her, the Congress and the country.

“This institution is a great institution,” Pelosi said, recalling her father, a former congressman and mayor, teaching her about the Capitol as a young girl.

A portrait of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, hangs on the wall of the conference room of her Capitol office.

“To see the assault on Jan. 6 on this Capitol was something that was so devastating and traumatic for many of us,” she said, noting the echoes in the attack on her husband. “So I think it’s really important for us to find a way to restore unity in the Congress of the United States.”

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
November 12, 2022 at 01:19AM
https://ift.tt/ds3Ybng

Pelosi’s political future uncertain after midterms, attack on husband - PBS NewsHour
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/m2fjqdw
https://ift.tt/W8pYbK5

Bodies Politic - National Review

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Bodies Politic  National Review

"politic" - Google News
November 11, 2022 at 03:19AM
https://ift.tt/EAmvTM7

Bodies Politic - National Review
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/m2fjqdw
https://ift.tt/W8pYbK5

Donald Trump's emperor-has-no-clothes moment - CNN

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

CNN  — 

Donald Trump is all about winning.

“We’re going to win so much,” he said on the campaign trail in 2016. “You’re going to get tired of winning. You’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don’t win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I’m going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You’re gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We’re gonna keep winning.’”

Trump’s entire persona is wrapped up in this notion that – with apologies to DJ Khaled – all he does is win. In his view, he is the ultimate winner in life – He’s rich! He’s successful! He’s famous! – and the only people who don’t acknowledge that are the haters and the losers.

Except that, in politics at least, Trump has lost a whole lot more than he has won.

Trump won the 2016 presidential race, yes. But since then the following things have happened:

* Republicans lost control of the House in 2018.

* Trump lost the White House in 2020.

* Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2021.

* Republicans dramatically underperformed despite high expectations in the 2022 midterm elections.

It’s that decidedly spotty record that a new op-ed from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board zeroes in on as it makes the case that it’s time for the Republican Party to move on from the former president.

“Mr. Trump has botched the 2022 elections, and it could hand Democrats the Senate for two more years,” reads the op-ed. “Mr. Trump had policy successes as President, including tax cuts and deregulation, but he has led Republicans into one political fiasco after another.”

Yes, exactly that!

One of the more confounding things about Trump’s continued appeal to the Republican Party – at least to me – is his ability to maintain his position of power despite demonstrably poor results. Just 39% of the midterm electorate viewed him favorably, according to national exit polling.

There’s really no doubt about Trump’s record as the leader of the Republican Party. He has overseen considerable setbacks and disappointing performances time and again. He has pushed candidates with limited appeal outside of the most extreme parts of the Republican base who have failed to come close to victory in winnable seats. He has alienated moderates, independents and even a decent chunk of Republicans as well.

If ANY other politician had the sort of electoral record that Trump boasts, it’s hard for me to imagine politicians would continue paying obeisance to them. In fact, there would likely be some effort to push that politician to the side – and get rid of the whiff of defeat.

Why hasn’t that happened with Trump? Well, it’s at least in part because Trump has never conceded defeat – whether in the 2020 election or in any of the other contests I mentioned above.

“While in certain ways yesterday’s election was somewhat disappointing, from my personal standpoint it was a very big victory – 219 WINS and 16 losses in the General – Who has ever done better than that,” Trump said on his Truth Social website on Wednesday.

The facts, however, are the facts. Trump has lost at every turn since his stunning 2016 win. The question now is whether Republican voters wake up to that fact.

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
November 10, 2022 at 11:37PM
https://ift.tt/LUhM178

Donald Trump's emperor-has-no-clothes moment - CNN
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/m2fjqdw
https://ift.tt/W8pYbK5

Elon Musk Urges Followers to Vote Republican in Midterm Elections - The New York Times

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

The new owner of Twitter has urged his followers to vote Republican.

Elon Musk put himself and his politics center stage on Twitter on Election Day.

The world’s richest man began Tuesday by tweeting to his 115 million followers on the platform that they should vote Republican in the midterm elections. He said he was not motivated by criticism that he had faced from Democrats over his $44 billion purchase of Twitter, which he completed last month, and his other business dealings.

“While it’s true that I’ve been under unfair & misleading attack for some time by leading Democrats, my motivation here is for centrist governance, which matches the interests of most Americans,” Mr. Musk said.

While it’s true that I’ve been under unfair & misleading attack for some time by leading Democrats, my motivation here is for centrist governance, which matches the interests of most Americans

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 8, 2022

His posts about politics and the midterms followed several tweets on Monday, when Mr. Musk urged his followers to vote Republican because “shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties.” His remarks were immediately cheered by those on the right and criticized by the left. Mr. Musk later added that he was an independent and was open to voting for Democrats in the future.

Mr. Musk has defied corporate convention throughout his career, but rarely has an executive with such a powerful role over political speech so overtly outlined his views heading into an election. Many mainstream internet companies have typically tried projecting apolitical stances.

Jack Dorsey, a former Twitter chief executive, and Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, previously discussed preferences for candidates or gave millions of dollars to political initiatives. But they did not push people to vote a certain way like Mr. Musk, who pinned one of his messages supporting Republicans to the top of his Twitter feed. It is impossible to tell how many of Mr. Musk’s followers will take his advice.

“With a recommendation of how Twitter users should vote, the billionaire owner of a social media platform placing his thumbs on the scales of a major election creates its own risks,” Edward P. Perez, a board member with the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan election security organization, tweeted on Tuesday. Mr. Perez previously helped oversee work at Twitter on civic processes.

Mr. Musk’s behavior raises more questions about how Twitter will balance his desire for the platform to be a hub for unfettered free speech versus the need to counter misinformation and hate. The social media service is under heavy scrutiny for how it will fare in combating falsehoods about voting, election results and more in the midterms. That is especially the case since Mr. Musk laid off roughly half of Twitter’s employees, about 3,700 people, on Friday, leading critics to wonder how the site could function effectively.

Mr. Musk, who tweeted a link to a baseless story about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband last month before deleting it, did not respond to a request for comment. Twitter, which laid off most of its communications department, also did not respond to a request for comment.

In a report on Monday, researchers at the Fletcher School at Tufts University said that “the quality of the conversation has decayed” on Twitter since Mr. Musk’s takeover, as more extremists and misinformation peddlers have tested the platform’s boundaries.

And in a report released on Saturday by the Election Integrity Partnership, which includes the Stanford Internet Observatory and the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, researchers found the presence and influence of misinformation on Twitter to be pervasive.

Researchers looked at 34 major accounts that spread misleading claims about the 2020 election in the past and discovered “hundreds of false, misleading or unsubstantiated stories that sowed doubt in election procedures or results.” While seven of the accounts were permanently suspended from Twitter, they have largely been able to continue posting on other platforms, with their posts often re-emerging on Twitter via screenshots, the researchers said.

Common Cause, a pro-democracy advocacy group, said this week that it had flagged several tweets pushing false narratives, such as that election results not announced on Tuesday night are a sign of fraud. The group said that “it has taken Twitter much longer than normal to adjudicate” whether the posts violated its policies, a process that usually takes less than three hours but was unresolved after more than three days.

On Tuesday, several major conservative accounts on Twitter continued to amplify the misconception that tallying delays were evidence of malfeasance, while also fueling other rumors about technical difficulties around the vote in Arizona and elsewhere.

Some Twitter executives tried to assuage concerns about the platform in the midterms. Yoel Roth, the company’s head of trust and safety, who helps oversee content moderation, tweeted last week that about 15 percent of his organization had been laid off, versus about 50 percent companywide.

“Our efforts on election integrity — including harmful misinformation that can suppress the vote and combating state-backed information operations — remain a top priority,” Mr. Roth wrote.

Mr. Musk has said he plans to form a council that will make content moderation decisions. He has also said several times that Twitter has not changed its content rules, though he said on Sunday that he would permanently suspend any account “engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’” after several people changed their display names and profile photos to match his.

---

How we get live results on election night. We report vote totals provided by The Associated Press, which collects results from states, counties and townships through a network of websites and more than 4,000 on-the-ground correspondents. To estimate how many votes remain to be counted, our team of data journalists and software engineers gathers vote tallies directly from the websites of election officials and compares these with our turnout expectations.

Here’s more on how that works.

Concerns that falsehoods and hate speech could proliferate on Twitter under Mr. Musk have spooked advertisers. A spokesman for the German insurance company Allianz said on Monday that it would halt its advertising on Twitter for now, joining General Mills, Volkswagen Group and others that have pulled back from the social network.

Mr. Musk has been vocal about his politics in the past. A onetime supporter of President Barack Obama, he more recently has clashed with and mocked President Biden and his administration. Last year, after Mr. Musk’s SpaceX rocket company launched four civilians into space on a historic private mission, one Twitter user asked why the president had not acknowledged the accomplishment.

“He’s still sleeping,” Mr. Musk wrote, an apparent riff off a common Republican insult of Mr. Biden.

Onstage at a tech conference in September 2021, Mr. Musk also called Mr. Biden’s White House “not the friendliest administration” after Tesla, his electric automaker, was not invited to a meeting among car executives to discuss the production of electric vehicles. Mr. Musk later said in the interview that the Biden administration was “controlled by the unions.” (Tesla’s workers are not unionized, and the company has resisted organizing efforts.)

Mr. Musk has also posted that he believes that the Democratic Party is controlled by “the far left” and has clashed on Twitter with progressive lawmakers like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

In a tweet in May, Mr. Musk said he had previously voted for Democrats “because they were (mostly) the kindness party.” But since then, he added, “they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.”

His political messages on Monday and Tuesday drew a firestorm. Democrats, including David Axelrod, who was chief strategist to Mr. Obama, criticized the billionaire for his voting approach to “shared power” among the branches of government. On the other side, Republicans, including candidates for House seats in the midterms, used it as a rallying cry.

On Tuesday, Mr. Musk oscillated between posts about politics and the social network itself.

“Twitter is the worst!” he tweeted. “But also the best.”

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
November 09, 2022 at 04:02AM
https://ift.tt/kX1GPhT

Elon Musk Urges Followers to Vote Republican in Midterm Elections - The New York Times
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/5DuFZco
https://ift.tt/4Rit2yk

Crypto’s Biggest Political Donors to Democrats, Republicans Hit by FTX Turmoil - Bloomberg

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Crypto’s Biggest Political Donors to Democrats, Republicans Hit by FTX Turmoil  Bloomberg

"politic" - Google News
November 09, 2022 at 01:11AM
https://ift.tt/XCGzn5F

Crypto’s Biggest Political Donors to Democrats, Republicans Hit by FTX Turmoil - Bloomberg
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/5DuFZco
https://ift.tt/4Rit2yk

This Democratic leader just broke the first rule of politics - CNN

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

CNN  — 

Rule No. 1 of politics goes like this: Don’t compare anything to Nazi Germany. Just don’t.

South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, broke that rule over the weekend in an interview with Fox News.

In the interview, Clyburn was pressed on comments he made last week that the US “is on track to repeat what happened in Germany.”

“The facts are very clear,” Clyburn said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I’ve studied history all of my life. I’ve taught history. And I’m telling you, what I see here are parallels to what the history was in this world back in the 1930s in Germany, in Italy.”

Clyburn went on to note that voting for “election deniers” and “lairs” amounts to supporting the same sort of structures that led to the rise of fascist states in Germany and Italy.

Clyburn was also asked another recent comment in which he said that “losing this democracy very well could be the end of the world.”

“Nobody’s saying the world is ending. Democracy will be ended,” added Clyburn of an election where those who denied the 2020 results wind up winning. “The world would continue to exist. The world was here before Hitler, the world was here after Hitler.”

Which is really saying something.

Pressed again on his “end of the world” remark, Clyburn said he “misspoke.”

Before we go any further, it’s worth noting here that comparing anything to the Nazi regime, which led to the systemic murder of more than 6 million Jews, is a mistake. It just is. There is nothing in our current moment that suggests we are anywhere close to that.

That doesn’t mean, however, that democracy is not under real threat. It is. There are people who deny that the 2020 election was free and fair running for top positions in states from Arizona to Michigan to Pennsylvania.

Not all of them will win. But some likely will. And it’s hard to imagine that the same people who denied the fairness of the 2020 election, without any proof, might not do the same if the 2024 election doesn’t go their way.

That represents a serious threat to our way of life. After all, if we can’t accept that our leaders were fairly elected and have faith in the system, it’s very hard to imagine how we can expect anyone to effectively govern.

Which is bad! Very bad! But it’s also worth remembering that democracy held in 2020 – even while it was under active assault from Donald Trump and his minions.

We absolutely should be vigilant about the potential rise of authoritarian politicians who would wipe out things like the rule of law to further their own political ambitions.

But let’s stop making the Nazi Germany comparison. For all of our sakes.

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
November 08, 2022 at 12:29AM
https://ift.tt/02MbG64

This Democratic leader just broke the first rule of politics - CNN
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/1pOqAIC
https://ift.tt/4Ne5BmO

The Rise of Political Violence - The New Yorker

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

Comment

November 14, 2022 Issue

The Rise of Political Violence

It would be irresponsible to draw too direct a line between the rhetorical climate and any individual’s actions. But, obviously, none of it bodes well.

By Andrew Marantz

November 6, 2022

Illustration by João Fazenda

As a rule, political candidates are not reliable historians of the present. In 2012, while in Minnesota campaigning for reëlection, President Barack Obama recounted his “tussles” with obstructionist Republicans in Congress before indulging in a bit of wishful thinking. “I believe that if we’re successful in this election,” he said, “the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.” Not to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t been following along at home, but the fever did not break. Still, Joe Biden struck the same note in 2019, while campaigning in New Hampshire. “With Donald Trump out of the White House—not a joke—you will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends,” he said. But, as President, Biden started to see the light—or the dying of it. In September, he gave a speech, in Philadelphia, asserting that “equality and democracy are under assault.” Last Wednesday, he spoke again, a few blocks from the Capitol. “As I stand here today, there are candidates running for every level of office in America—for governor, Congress, attorney general, secretary of state—who won’t commit, they will not commit, to accepting the results of elections that they are running in,” he said. “This is a path to chaos in America.”

The sitting President’s party has lost congressional seats in nearly every midterm election of the past century. When it first happened to Obama, in 2010, he referred to it as a “shellacking.” This shellacking season, the Republicans have no shortage of issues to run on (inflation, Biden’s abject approval ratings), and an expanding array of systemic advantages (the anti-democratic structure of the Senate, the widening asymmetry of gerrymandering, the suppressive spirit of several states’ post-2020 voting laws). But there’s at least a chance that, with enough Democratic turnout, all of this can be overcome. So some Trumpist Republicans have been flirting with another anti-democratic tactic: tacitly exploiting, or even encouraging, an atmosphere of political violence.

Trump, of course, has long revelled in threats of brute force, both veiled and explicit. After each new incitement, G.O.P. leaders have gone through the familiar cycle: consternation, equivocation, whataboutism, and, finally, full capitulation. The result has been a normalization of political violence: “January 6th was a normal tourist visit” is the new Lost Cause dogma, and Republicans who dissent are reëducated or excommunicated. It’s impossible to predict how all this will end, and it would be irresponsible to draw too direct a line between the rhetorical climate and any individual’s actions. But, obviously, none of it bodes well.

Late last month, in the middle of the night, a forty-two-year-old man entered the San Francisco home of Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, by shattering a glass door with a hammer. She wasn’t there, but her eighty-two-year-old husband was; in the moments before the intruder was arrested, he used the hammer to bash Paul Pelosi’s skull. The next day, Hillary Clinton tweeted a link to a Los Angeles Times article reporting that the assailant had spread “far-right, bigoted conspiracies.” Elon Musk—the new owner of Twitter, the world’s richest man, and, these days, a folk hero of the far right—replied to Clinton’s tweet, linking to a piece from the Santa Monica Observer, a gossip site filled with salacious clickbait, which speculated that the assault was not a political attack but a hookup gone wrong. The Observer later took down the story; Musk deleted his tweet, but he didn’t apologize or issue a correction. “Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences,” he had tweeted on the day he took over the company, shortly before amplifying defamatory misinformation with no consequences. Trump, days later, mused that “the glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out, so it wasn’t a break-in, it was a breakout.” According to the police, this is flatly false, but what difference does that make?

The right doesn’t have a monopoly on political violence, of course. Perhaps the most analogous incident in recent memory is the 2017 shooting, by a disturbed gunman who identified with the left, of the Republican congressman Steve Scalise and several others. After that attack, prominent Democrats expressed unqualified condemnation, and sympathy for the victims. After the attack on Paul Pelosi, some Republican officials issued thoughts and prayers; others, such as Ronna McDaniel, the chair of the Republican National Committee, found a way to blame both sides (“This is what Democrat policies are bringing, but of course we wish Paul Pelosi a recovery”). Still others (Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas; Representative Clay Higgins, of Louisiana) treated the incident as fodder for fatuous conspiracy theories, or as a gruesome punch line.

It’s a journalistic cliché, but a useful exercise: imagine that all this were happening in another country. A political leader, the object of years of menacing rhetoric, is targeted; the opposition party vacillates between downplaying the incident and playing it for cheap laughs. This is also a country with more guns than people, and more than ten mass shootings in an average week. And one where, year after year, voting gets harder, especially for poor people and racial minorities. How would you rate that country’s long-term democratic prospects?

Last week, Brazil held a runoff Presidential election between Jair Bolsonaro, the proto-authoritarian incumbent, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the leftist former President. Gun ownership had spiked under Bolsonaro, and the months leading up to the election were extraordinarily tense. The journalism nonprofit Agência Pública recorded more than three hundred incidents of election-related violence, including at least fifteen murders and twenty-three assassination attempts. Lula won, by less than two percentage points, and supporters of Bolsonaro, who has insisted for years that the voting system is rigged, took to the streets, demanding that the military overturn the result. Bolsonaro stayed silent for two days, and even then did not formally concede; he distanced himself from “the destruction of property” and other forms of protest, but did not tell his supporters to stand down. Once he is stripped of Presidential immunity, he could face charges of mishandling public funds and recklessly endangering his citizens during the pandemic, accusations he dismisses. But he may be calculating that he can benefit from mass unrest, and from the perception that there is no way to hold him accountable without tearing the country apart.

If this sounds like the kind of thing that can happen only in a relatively young democracy, consider that nearly every move Bolsonaro has made is one first used by Trump. “This is a path to chaos in America,” Biden said. “It’s unprecedented, it’s unlawful, and it’s un-American.” Chaos? Absolutely. Un-American? Maybe. ♦

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
November 06, 2022 at 06:01PM
https://ift.tt/oOd6Ej3

The Rise of Political Violence - The New Yorker
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/1pOqAIC
https://ift.tt/4Ne5BmO