#it’s made even more interesting by the fact that Ted has previously been established as a markedly flawed character | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

allisondraste · 5 years

Text

Asexuality and Romance

And Solavellan

Hi, hello, it’s Allison again and this week on “Things I would Very Much Like to See Less Of,” I will be addressing the notion that asexual relationships are less meaningful and/or important, than sexual relationships. I recently took to twitter with my thoughts on how relationships do not require sex to be considered a romance, citing Solavellan as a specific example. I was pleased with the supportive responses I received; however, there was a pattern of responses that did bother me just a little.

“It is impossible to imagine Solavellan as asexual because it is too [intimate/ passionate/ deep//romantic/ etcetera} to be asexual.”

“Solas is too flirty and suggestive to be asexual or exist within an asexual relationship”

These comments were well-meaning, and in completely good faith, however, they are ultimately acephobic, as they suggest that people who identify as asexual or who exist somewhere on the asexual spectrum cannot have intimate, passionate, deep, romantic relationships with others, or that they must be prudish saints to be considered ace. This is not only hurtful. It’s just wrong. For several reasons! I’m gonna just slip those reasons behind a read more to be mindful of others’ feeds.

1.) “It is impossible to imagine Solavellan as asexual because it is too [whatever] to be asexual.”

Alarming as it is for some folks, particularly in highly sexualized places such as fandom: Sex is not required for romance. It simply isn’t. It is, of course, a related feature that some people enjoy (an enjoyable side benefit, if you will *snerk*). Relationships without sex can be just as deep and meaningful, just as passionate, just as closely bonded, and just as important as those in which sex is involved. I understand that it is difficult for allosexual people to comprehend this notion since many conflate sex and romance as one and the same. I do not refute that sex is a beautiful expression of love, but it is not the only way to do so. To address this point, I would like to refer to a popular theory about love developed by Psychologist Robert Sternberg. This theory is called the Triarchic Theory of Love, and it explains how intimacy, passion, and commitment interact within an interpersonal relationship to then define that relationship.

Intimacy is a feeling of closeness or bondedness (notably not sexual). Intimacy is established through sharing experiences and personal knowledge. It is about trust and connectedness. Intimacy can be shared between family, friends, and lovers and it manifests across physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental, domains.

Passion is often called attraction or chemistry. Passion is most in line with what most would consider “sex” and “sexuality,” however, attraction can also take the form of physical, romantic, spiritual, emotional, and any other ways one person may be attracted to another.

Commitment is a choice, or decision of one person to love another person.

According to Sternberg, relationships experience fluidity of each of these three components depending on the type of relationship between individuals as well as across time and situations. He developed a triangle to illustrate how these components interact (below).

While all of the different facets are incredibly interesting, and would be a great topic for discussion in another post, I am particularly interested in two types of “love” here to help me prove my point: Romantic and Consummate.

Romantic love, as I previously discussed, is one that is often misconstrued and thought to be unattainable to those who do not have sex. Yet, according to Sternberg’s theory, the fundamental components of romance are passion (which may or may not be sexual) and intimacy (which is distinctly not sexual). Therefore depending upon the members of a relationship, and how they experience attraction and closeness, romantic love does not inherently require sex .

Consummate love is considered the highest form of love, as it is the combination of all three components. Essentially, it is an enduring romantic relationship. Adding the commitment piece changes nothing about the lack of need for sex to establish the relationship as romantic. I enjoy the word “consummate” because the most well known definition is a verb, meaning to solidify a marriage by having sex. However, in this case it simply means “supreme” or “highest order.” Sex is optional.

I think that anyone who is incapable imagining just how Solavellan might be romantic through the progression of deep intimate conversation and understanding, intellectual and emotional attraction, trust, and closeness must not have a very strong imagination.

2.) “Solas is too flirty and suggestive to be asexual or exist within an asexual relationship”

I suppose the hill I will die on will be the one where I just shout from atop it with my megaphone that people who identify as asexual, ace spectrum, demi, and greysexual are not, by default, prudish. I know… shocking. If I had a penny for every time someone made a virginal ace joke I would be wealthy. Asexual, by definition, simply means that one does not experience sexual attraction. To be on the ace spectrum means that one does not experience sexual attraction in a common fashion. While some people on the ace spectrum are sex averse or sex repulsed, this is not true for everyone. Some ace folks are simply indifferent to sex. Others still are even positive about sex, but do not experience a desire for it like allosexual people do.

Some ace folks love to consume media about the sexual relationships of others, yet want no part of it themselves. Many ace folks love dirty jokes and vulgar humor. In fact, sometimes, you may not even be able to tell that we are, in fact asexual by the way that we interact with others. The fact that Solas has some suggestive humor, enjoys the power, intrigue, and sex permeating the events at Halamshiral, and the fact that he so passionately kisses his love are no indication that he is allo by default. Even if there was a sex scene, that still does not mean that he is not on the ace spectrum. (Although I’m really glad that there was not a sex scene because it is very nice for those who are sex averse to not have to see it).

Sometimes, asexual people end up in love with allosexual people. Those who aren’t averse, may choose to have sex with their partners because they care about them and know that it is important to them. Allosexual partners of an ace spec person may learn other ways of developing intimacy with their loved one because, you know, they love them. It’s all very intricate and very specific to each individual relationship and not something that can be swept over with a broad brush.

Perhaps you headcanon Solas as allosexual, and that is totally within your right to do so. However, to say that he “can’t” be ace spectrum is… a limited perspective. In my own personal headcanon, I imagine him to be demi, and so he would experience sexual attraction, but only to someone he felt a deep emotional connection with. I know others still who think he is completely ace, and all of these headcanons are completely possible for Solas (and a lot of other characters actually), considering the heterogeneity of the asexual spectrum.

TL;DR

- Love and romance comprise many complicated facets that are developed in different ways, at different times depending on the people and context.

- Sex is not required for romance to exist, though some romance does involve sex.

- Broad generalizations about the sexuality of a character based upon very limited information are never a good idea.

- It is narrow-minded to believe that a relationship cannot have as much weight without sex.

- It is incorrect to equate asexuality with prudishness, chastity, etc.

- It is totally okay for everyone to conceptualize Solavellan as they wish, whether it be asexual or otherwise.

- It is NOT okay to tell ace people that the relationship is not capable of being viewed as asexual or that Solas could not possibly be viewed as asexual. (Surprise, this shred of possible representation is very important to some people)

- This does not just apply to Solavellan. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, and/or would like any tips about writing asexual relationships/ characters, please feel free to hmu. My asks are always open and anons are always available. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk, you all have been great.

#dragon age #dragon age inquisition #solavellan #asexuality #romance #fandom critical #tw: sex mention #how many nasty comments will i get for this #the world will know in several hours

655 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-republicans-do-in-the-primaries/

How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

Allegations Of Inciting Violence

Inside Texas Politics: What did Texas Republicans, Democrats do right this election cycle?

Research suggests Trump’s rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Since then, some defendants prosecuted for hate crimes or violent acts cited Trump’s rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive a lighter sentence. In May 2020, a nationwide review by ABC News identified at least 54 criminal cases from August 2015 to April 2020 in which Trump was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence by mostly white men against mostly members of minority groups. On January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection for his actions prior to the storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob of his supporters who acted in his name.

Who Can Vote In A Primary

Only Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary.

Only Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary.

The last day to register to vote before the Primary is the 4th Saturday before the Primary.

The deadline to change party affiliation before the Primary is the last Friday in May.

You can register to vote and change your party affiliation after the Primary.

Results Of The 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries

Donald Trump

This article contains the results of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses, the processes by which the Republican Party selected delegates to attend the 2016 Republican National Convention from July 1821. The series of primaries, caucuses, and state conventions culminated in the national convention, where the delegates cast their votes to formally select a candidate. A simple majority of the total delegate votes was required to become the party’s nominee and was achieved by the nominee, businessman Donald Trump of New York.

The process began on March 23, 2015, when Texas SenatorTed Cruz became the first presidential candidate to announce his intentions to seek the office of United StatesPresident. That summer, 17 major candidates were recognized by national and state polls, making it the largest presidential candidate field for any single political party in American history. The large field made possible the fact that the 2016 primaries were the first since 1968 in which more than three candidates won at least one state.

Recommended Reading: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

May 2016: Trump As Presumptive Nominee

142 delegates were awarded between the Indiana primary and the final primaries in June; however, with Trump the only candidate remaining, Washington, Oregon, West Virginia and Nebraska became essentially uncontested, although Cruz and Kasich remained on the ballot. Trump won handily in West Virginia, Nebraska and Oregon, although Kasich received one delegate from West Virginia and five in Oregon, while Cruz took five in Oregon as well. The next week, Trump won decisively in Washington State, taking 76% of the vote and 41 of 44 delegates, with the other three uncommitted.

May 1024 results 11%

After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump said regarding the Republican primaries: “You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system, but now I don’t say it anymore because I won. It’s true. Now I don’t care.”

On May 26, 2016, the Associated Press announced that Trump had passed the threshold of 1,237 delegates required to guarantee his nomination, thanks to unbound delegates from North Dakota who declared their support for Trump.

Professional Input Checks The Power Of Billionaires And The Media

The conventional assumption that primaries are less elite than party selection overlooks the way todays primaries actually work. Thanks to court decisions such as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, there is today no limit on the size of contributions to independent groups; the groups, in turn, are free to support and oppose candidates provided that they not coordinate their activities with the candidates and parties. In other words, todays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

odays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

That said, even if small donors were a perfectly representative group, they would still provide a pathway around gatekeepers, and that is a mixed blessing. True, candidates who rely on small donors are less beholden to big donors and special interests, which may make them more independent-minded; also true, they are less beholden to their political peers, party leaders, and important constituencies, which may make them more reckless and demagogic.

Then there are the media, whose power in influencing candidate choice has grown enormously since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. Writing as long ago as 1978, Jeanne Kirkpatrick tartly observed:

Things have only gotten worse in the transition from Walter Cronkite to Sean Hannity and todays bevy of extremist internet sites.

Also Check: What Major Cities Are Run By Republicans

Sen Josh Hawley Of Missouri

Though controversial, Hawley, 41, is a fundraising machine and hes quickly made a name for himself. The blowback Hawley faced for objecting to Bidens Electoral College win included a lost book deal and calls for him to resign from students at the law school where he previously taught. His mentor, former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, said that supporting Hawley was the biggest mistake Ive ever made in my life.

Still, he brought in more than $1.5 million between Jan. 1 and March 5, according to Axios, and fundraising appeals in his name from the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought in more cash than any other Republican except NRSC Chair Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. Just because youre toxic in Washington doesnt mean you cant build a meaningful base of support nationally.

One Republican strategist compared the possibility of Hawley 2024 to Cruz in 2016. Hes not especially well-liked by his colleagues , but hes built a national profile for himself and become a leading Republican voice opposed to big technology companies.

Hawley and his wife, Erin, have three children. He got his start in politics as Missouri attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2018. Hawley graduated from Stanford and Yale Law.

Statehood And Indian Removal

Defense of Florida’s northern border with the United States was minor during the second Spanish period. The region became a haven for escaped slaves and a base for Indian attacks against U.S. territories, and the U.S. pressed Spain for reform.

Americans of and began moving into northern Florida from the backwoods of and . Though technically not allowed by the Spanish authorities and the Floridan government, they were never able to effectively police the border region and the backwoods settlers from the United States would continue to immigrate into Florida unchecked. These migrants, mixing with the already present British settlers who had remained in Florida since the British period, would be the progenitors of the population known as .

These American settlers established a permanent foothold in the area and ignored Spanish authorities. The British settlers who had remained also resented Spanish rule, leading to a rebellion in 1810 and the establishment for ninety days of the so-called Free and Independent Republic of on September 23. After meetings beginning in June, rebels overcame the garrison at , and unfurled the flag of the new republic: a single white star on a blue field. This flag would later become known as the “”.

Some Seminoles remained, and the U.S. Army arrived in Florida, leading to the . Following the war, approximately 3,000 Seminole and 800 Black Seminole were removed to . A few hundred Seminole remained in Florida in the .

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

Anger At Past Outside Interference

The discontent over unaffiliated voter participation in partisan primaries stems from the 2016 approval of two ballot measures allowing unaffiliated voters to select one of the two partys primary elections to cast a ballot in. Before the change, unaffiliated voters had to sit on the sidelines for primaries.

From 2010 through 2016, Republican primary voter turnout outpaced that of Democrats. But in 2018 and 2020, the first two years unaffiliated voters could participate in primaries without affiliating with one of the two major parties, participation in the Democratic primaries soared.

Meanwhile, more Coloradans are becoming unaffiliated voters, reaching 43% at the end of July, while the Republican Partys share of voters is decreasing at a faster pace than the Democratic Party.

Colorado candidates can get on the primary ballot by one of two paths. They can be nominated and go through the state caucus and assembly process, where they must get 30% of the vote, or they can gather signatures from voters.

Some GOP candidates have had trouble making the ballot in the past. In 2016 and 2018, scandals over petition signatures foiled one U.S. Senate candidate and led a gubernatorial candidate, Walker Stapleton, to go the assembly route at the 11th hour after initially gathering petition signatures.

In 2020, allegations of fraud arose out of caucuses in Weld and El Paso counties. The state GOP, however, ultimately determined nothing illegal took place in either instance.

Convention And Vp Selection

Midterm elections: Do Republicans have a chance of keeping the House?

The delegates at the Republican National Convention formally nominated Dole on August 15, 1996, as the GOP presidential candidate for the general election. Dole was the oldest first-time presidential nominee at the age of 73 years, 1 month .

Former Congressman and Cabinet secretary Jack Kemp was nominated by acclamation as Dole’s running mate the following day. Republican Party of Texas convention delegates informally nominated Alan Keyes as their preference for Vice President.

Other politicians mentioned as possible GOP V.P. nominees before Kemp was selected included:

Don’t Miss: How Many Seats Do The Republicans Control In The Senate

Just How Bad Was The 2018 Election For House Republicans

On Thursday, Democrat Jared Golden beat Maine Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin, marking the 33rd seat pickup for Democrats in the 2018 election.

There are seven races in the House left uncalled all are Republican-held seats; Democrats lead in five of the seven. If they win all the races where their candidates are winning at the moment, Democrats will net 38 seats. If they lose them all which is very unlikely they will hold at a 33-seat gain.

In an interview Wednesday with the conservative Daily Caller website, President Donald Trump insisted that by his aggressive last-minute campaigning across the country he had saved House Republicans from seat losses that could have numbered into the 70s. I think I did very well, he concluded.

So did he? As compared to history?

Not really, is the answer.

Theres no question that Trump did not suffer the massive seat loss that his immediate predecessor Barack Obama did in his first midterm election in 2010. In that election, Republicans netted an astounding 63-seat gain, the largest since Democrats lost 72 House seats in the 1938 midterms.

But more broadly, the 33 seat loss by Republicans in 2018 places this election firmly in the upper echelon of House-seat losses by a presidents party in modern midterms.

Read Thursdays full edition of The Point newsletter, and to get future editions delivered to your inbox.

What Do Party Preferences Mean When Listed With Candidates’ Names On The Ballot What Are The Qualified Political Parties And Abbreviations Of Those Party Names

The term “party preference” is now used in place of the term “party affiliation.” A candidate must indicate his or her preference or lack of preference for a qualified political party. If the candidate has a qualified political party preference that qualified political party will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot. If a candidate does not have a qualified political party preference, “Party Preference: None” will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot.

Similarly, voters who were previously known as “decline-to-state” voters are now known as having “no party preference” or known as “NPP” voters.

Abbreviations for the qualified political parties are:

DEM = Democratic Party

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

Civil War And Reconstruction

American settlers began to establish cotton in north Florida, which required numerous laborers, which they supplied by buying slaves in the domestic market. By 1860, Florida had only 140,424 people, of whom 44% were enslaved. There were fewer than 1,000 free before the American Civil War.

On January 10, 1861, nearly all delegates in the Florida Legislature approved an ordinance of secession, declaring Florida to be “a sovereign and independent nation”an apparent reassertion to the preamble in Florida’s Constitution of 1838, in which Florida agreed with Congress to be a “Free and Independent State.” The ordinance declared Florida’s secession from the , allowing it to become one of the founding members of the .

The Confederacy received little military help from Florida; the 15,000 troops it offered were generally sent elsewhere. Instead of troops and manufactured goods, Florida did provide salt and, more importantly, beef to feed the Confederate armies. This was particularly important after 1864, when the Confederacy lost control of the Mississippi River, thereby losing access to Texas beef. The largest engagements in the state were the , on February 20, 1864, and the , on March 6, 1865. Both were Confederate victories. The war ended in 1865.

It Was An Election For A Mini

There was some talk that Democrats may have pulled their punches in the 25th district because, after all, the special election was for the remainder of Hills term and the two candidates will meet again in a more consequential rematch where conditions may favor Smith. Over-confidence probably wasnt a problem since signs of a Garcia win were abundant going into the election.

Republicans, of course, busily spun the win into a sign of a Republican resurgence in California and possibly an omen that the GOP will retake the House even as Trump cake-walks to a second term on the strength of a rapidly rebounding economy that he championed even as Democrats pursued perpetual shutdowns. While the results may legitimately indicate that theres no continuing wave from 2018 that will crash with renewed force in favor of Democrats in November, its more likely that we are seeing a reversion to the mean rather than some new pro-Republican wave. There are enough special circumstances surrounding Garcias win to make its recurrence questionable when he appears on the ballot on Election Day with Donald Trump, who remains as unpopular as ever in California.

There is one wrinkle in Garcias special election victory worth a closer look. In 2018 a number of Republican incumbents famously led early on until later-arriving mail ballots swept Democrats into office. There were signs on Election Day that Garcias early lead might be durable, as California political observer Miriam Pawel noted:

Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Republicans In California

What Makes The 2024 Presidential Election Unique

The lead up to the 2024 presidential election is different from past years because of former President Donald Trump. Hes eligible to run for a second term, and has publicly toyed with the idea while also weighing in on other Republicans he thinks could be the future of the party. If Trump does run in 2024, hed start out with unparalleled name ID and massive support, but if he doesnt, the field could be wide open for other Republicans hoping to win over his supporters. President Joe Biden said recently he expects to run for reelection in 2024.

Golden Trump statue at CPAC 2021 was no graven image, according to the artist

This early on, wannabe candidates must raise their profiles, show their commitment to the party, and raise money, one Republican strategist said, to get on peoples radars even when your candidacy is in a holding pattern.

Some of the most visible 2024 presidential candidates will surely flame out long before the Iowa caucus, and theres always the chance that the next Republican nominee isnt yet considered a serious player . Theres a million and one things that will happen between now and then that will shape the race in ways we cant now predict, but the invisible primary that comes before any votes are cast has started.

Heres your very early guide to some of 2024s Republican presidential candidates, based on early polling, interviews with Republican donors and strategists and results from online political betting markets.

The Louisiana Primary System

The Louisiana system, sometimes called the “Cajun Primary,” eliminates the primary election altogether. Instead, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, run on the same ballot in November. If a candidate receives more than half of the votes, that candidate is elected. If no candidate wins with a majority, the top two vote-getters face off in a December runoff election. Qualified absentee voters receive a ballot for the November election and a ranked ballot for the December runoff, so that they can vote as normal in the general election and then have their ranked ballot count for whichever runoff candidate they ranked highest in the runoff election.

Although Louisiana law refers to the election in November as the “primary” and the December runoff as the “general” election, the November election takes place on the federally mandated Election Day and most candidates win office by receiving a majority vote in that election, so it is best understood as a general election, with the December election as a contingent runoff.

The Louisiana system is sometimes mistakenly equated with the Top Two system, but holding the first election in November and electing any candidate with more than 50% of the vote in that election makes it sufficiently distinct that it should not be understood as a mere variant of Top Two.

Read Also: How Many Republicans Caucused In Iowa

Trump Election Lawsuits Have Mostly Failed Here’s What They Tried

In the Senate, Democrats have so far gained one seat, but they need three with a Biden win to take over the chamber. Democrats still have a chance of doing that with two runoff elections in Georgia. That’s seen as possible, but not likely.

It wasn’t expected to be this way. Democrats had put lots of Senate races in play, ones not expected to go their way at the beginning of the 2020 cycle, places like Kansas and Montana.

To be sure, many of the Senate races were expected to be close, perhaps with razor-thin margins, and a Democrat-controlled Senate was never an assured outcome. But when you look at the average of the polls in the last week of the election versus the ultimate result, it’s clear that Republicans were underrepresented all across the country.

Loading…

All of these races, except Colorado and Alabama, were within single digits in the polls. Colorado, a state Biden won handily, wound up pretty close to the average. Alabama, a state Trump won by a lot, was an even bigger blowout than expected.

Many of the supposedly tightest races didn’t wind up tight at all. Maine is perhaps the most stunning one. Biden won the state by 9 percentage points, but Republican incumbent Susan Collins won reelection by 9 points.

Not only was Collins down by 4 points heading into Election Day in an average of the polls in the week before the election, but she led in just one poll in all of 2020. And that was back in July. That’s one poll out of almost three dozen.

Relationship With The Press

Did The 2014 Primaries Do The GOP Any Good? | Drinking And Talking

Throughout his career, Trump has sought media attention, with a ��lovehate” relationship with the press. Trump began promoting himself in the press in the 1970s. Fox News anchor and former House speaker have characterized Trump as a “” who makes controversial statements to see people’s “heads explode.”

In the 2016 campaign, Trump benefited from a record amount of free media coverage, elevating his standing in the Republican primaries.New York Times writer wrote in 2018 that Trump’s media dominance, which enthralls the public and creates “can’t miss” reality television-type coverage, was politically beneficial for him.

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the “fake news media” and “the .” In 2018, journalist recounted Trump’s saying he intentionally demeaned and discredited the media “so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”

As president, Trump deployed the legal system to intimidate the press. In early 2020, the Trump campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for alleged defamation in opinion pieces about Russian election interference. Legal experts said that the lawsuits lacked merit and were not likely to succeed. By March 2021, the lawsuits against The New York Times and CNN had been dismissed.

Don’t Miss: Will Any Republicans Vote To Remove Trump

Garcia Was An Unusually Good Candidate

Republicans lucked into an unusually strong candidate in Garcia, a former Navy pilot running in a district with a significant defense presence, and a Latino in a district whose electorate has become one-third Latino. He managed to beat the previous Republican holder of the seat, Steve Knight, in the February primary in order to win a Top Two position opposite Smith, which was welcomed by Republican strategists. His campaign was well-financed.

Republican Party Primaries 2020

2020 Republican Party primary elections Battleground primaries Primaries by state Submit

Ballotpedia covered every Republican Party state and federal primary in 2020 to highlight the intraparty conflicts that shaped the party and the general election. This page is an overview of those primaries, with links to Ballotpedia’s coverage of all Republican U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state-level primaries.

to read about Democratic Party primaries in 2020.

You May Like: What Are The Views Of Republicans

Former Us Ambassador To The United Nations Nikki Haley

Haley, 49, stands out in the potential pool of 2024 Republican candidates by her resume. She has experience as an executive as the former governor of South Carolina and foreign policy experience from her time as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Haley was a member of the Republican Partys 2010 tea party class. A former South Carolina state representative, her long shot gubernatorial campaign saw its fortunes improve after she was endorsed by Sarah Palin. Haley rocketed from fourth to first just days after the endorsement, and she went on to clinch the nomination and become her states first female and first Indian-American governor.

As governor, she signed a bill removing the Confederate flag from the state Capitol following the white supremacist attack at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston. She left office in 2017 to join the Trump administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Quinnipiac poll found she was at one point the most popular member of Trumps foreign policy team.

I think that shes done a pretty masterful job in filling out her resume, said Robert Oldendick, a professor and director of graduate studies at the University of South Carolinas department of political science.

Haley criticized Trump following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, saying she was disgusted by his conduct. Oldendick said he thought her pretty pointed criticism of the president will potentially cause some problems.

‘im Going To Be In Your Backyard’: Trump Sons Threaten Primaries For Gop Lawmakers

Fox News, which had been carrying the remarks live, dropped its feed of the rally after the expletives uttered by the president’s son aired uncensored.

Donald Trump Jr. speaks Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, at a rally in support of President Donald Trump called the “Save America Rally.” | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

01/06/2021 11:48 AM EST

Link Copied

President Donald Trumps eldest sons threatened Republican lawmakers at a large rally outside the White House on Wednesday, pledging that their family would continue to dispute the results of the 2020 election just hours before Congress was set to certify President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory.

To those Republicans, many of which may be voting on things in the coming hours: You have an opportunity today, Donald Trump Jr. told the crowd gathered for the Save America March on the White House Ellipse. You can be a hero, or you can be a zero. And the choice is yours. But we are all watching. The whole world is watching, folks. Choose wisely.

Several House Republicans and roughly a dozen senators have announced plans to object to individual states electoral vote counts when Congress meets for a joint session this afternoon. And though their effort to reverse the elections outcome has virtually no chance of succeeding, the president had applied increasing public pressure on Vice President Mike Pence who will preside over the proceedings to attempt to thwart Bidens win.

Recommended Reading: Are There Any Republicans For Impeachment

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years

Text

How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

Allegations Of Inciting Violence

Inside Texas Politics: What did Texas Republicans, Democrats do right this election cycle?

Who Can Vote In A Primary

Only Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary.

Only Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary.

The last day to register to vote before the Primary is the 4th Saturday before the Primary.

The deadline to change party affiliation before the Primary is the last Friday in May.

You can register to vote and change your party affiliation after the Primary.

Results Of The 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries

Donald Trump

Recommended Reading: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

May 2016: Trump As Presumptive Nominee

11%

Professional Input Checks The Power Of Billionaires And The Media

odays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

Then there are the media, whose power in influencing candidate choice has grown enormously since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. Writing as long ago as 1978, Jeanne Kirkpatrick tartly observed:

Things have only gotten worse in the transition from Walter Cronkite to Sean Hannity and todays bevy of extremist internet sites.

Also Check: What Major Cities Are Run By Republicans

Sen Josh Hawley Of Missouri

Hawley and his wife, Erin, have three children. He got his start in politics as Missouri attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2018. Hawley graduated from Stanford and Yale Law.

Statehood And Indian Removal

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

Anger At Past Outside Interference

Meanwhile, more Coloradans are becoming unaffiliated voters, reaching 43% at the end of July, while the Republican Partys share of voters is decreasing at a faster pace than the Democratic Party.

In 2020, allegations of fraud arose out of caucuses in Weld and El Paso counties. The state GOP, however, ultimately determined nothing illegal took place in either instance.

Convention And Vp Selection

Midterm elections: Do Republicans have a chance of keeping the House?

Other politicians mentioned as possible GOP V.P. nominees before Kemp was selected included:

Don’t Miss: How Many Seats Do The Republicans Control In The Senate

Just How Bad Was The 2018 Election For House Republicans

On Thursday, Democrat Jared Golden beat Maine Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin, marking the 33rd seat pickup for Democrats in the 2018 election.

So did he? As compared to history?

Not really, is the answer.

But more broadly, the 33 seat loss by Republicans in 2018 places this election firmly in the upper echelon of House-seat losses by a presidents party in modern midterms.

Read Thursdays full edition of The Point newsletter, and to get future editions delivered to your inbox.

What Do Party Preferences Mean When Listed With Candidates’ Names On The Ballot What Are The Qualified Political Parties And Abbreviations Of Those Party Names

Similarly, voters who were previously known as “decline-to-state” voters are now known as having “no party preference” or known as “NPP” voters.

Abbreviations for the qualified political parties are:

DEM = Democratic Party

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

Civil War And Reconstruction

It Was An Election For A Mini

Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Republicans In California

What Makes The 2024 Presidential Election Unique

Golden Trump statue at CPAC 2021 was no graven image, according to the artist

The Louisiana Primary System

Read Also: How Many Republicans Caucused In Iowa

Trump Election Lawsuits Have Mostly Failed Here’s What They Tried

It wasn’t expected to be this way. Democrats had put lots of Senate races in play, ones not expected to go their way at the beginning of the 2020 cycle, places like Kansas and Montana.

Loading…

Relationship With The Press

Did The 2014 Primaries Do The GOP Any Good? | Drinking And Talking

Throughout his career, Trump has sought media attention, with a “lovehate” relationship with the press. Trump began promoting himself in the press in the 1970s. Fox News anchor and former House speaker have characterized Trump as a “” who makes controversial statements to see people’s “heads explode.”

Don’t Miss: Will Any Republicans Vote To Remove Trump

Garcia Was An Unusually Good Candidate

Republican Party Primaries 2020

2020 Republican Party primary elections Battleground primaries Primaries by state Submit

to read about Democratic Party primaries in 2020.

You May Like: What Are The Views Of Republicans

Former Us Ambassador To The United Nations Nikki Haley

‘im Going To Be In Your Backyard’: Trump Sons Threaten Primaries For Gop Lawmakers

Fox News, which had been carrying the remarks live, dropped its feed of the rally after the expletives uttered by the president’s son aired uncensored.

Donald Trump Jr. speaks Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, at a rally in support of President Donald Trump called the “Save America Rally.” | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

01/06/2021 11:48 AM EST

Link Copied

Recommended Reading: Are There Any Republicans For Impeachment

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-republicans-do-in-the-primaries/

0 notes

fredenglish · 5 years

Photo

It's Friday yet again, faithful #FeatureFriday fans! And today we're sitting down with Isabel Paris, a senior Business major/English minor, to talk about teachers who inspire her, her time as a non-profit intern, and the differences between personal and business writing!

1. What is the most rewarding class that you’ve taken at SUNY Fredonia?

Probably either Organizational Behavior or Writing for the Professions. They’ve really helped my be more confident in myself and write more professionally, and just have a more professional attitude.

Organizational Behavior, with Dr. McNamara, is learning is how to interact in an organization, working with others. Basically, how any business or organization is run. You start with a group of people in the class, you start a fake business and go through the process of running [that] business — there’s firing and hiring, marketing, there’s all these different aspects to it — and it’s a step into a professional atmosphere. Everybody’s going to work in an organization in some form or another, so getting that experience is [necessary] because that’s always going to happen in every group you’re in, ever.

Writing for the Professions [with Dr. Gerber] is a really broad overview [of professional writing]. You start with writing emails to professionals; then it goes to writing a whole report, which is very in-depth — I love writing reports now, it’s one of my favorite things to do [Laugh] — and it ends with where you want to go professionally with your career. It’s learning, really, how to be

professional in your writing and the best way to look at things.

2. What advice would you would give to students coming into SUNY Fredonia?

It’s okay to take a while to figure it out! I came in as an English major, and I switched to Business immediately. It was in a panic, because I didn’t know what I wanted to do, I just knew that Business was a better path for me. I kept English as a minor, because I couldn’t let it go, and I’m very happy that I didn’t. And I’m still figuring it out, because I’m not sure what I want to do, but... it’s okay not to know, it’s okay to figure it out as you go along. You’re going to get more confident as you go along. In the past year itself… I wouldn’t have said yes to this [interview] last year! So, it’s okay to take your time. You’ll figure it out.

3. Who’s a professor that has had a powerful impact on you as a student?

There’s… I’m trying to think if there’s three, or four. It’s definitely Dr. McNamara and Dr. Lisa Walters in the Business setting, because Dr. McNamara has been my advisor ever since I switched to business, and she’s really given me a helping and guiding hand in figuring out what I want to do, and giving me more confidence. And Dr. Walters has really pushed in the operations aspect of business. I find it really interesting! It’s very math-heavy... which I’m very bad at. And in the writing since, Dr. Gerber was very big on [the mechanical aspects] too, and she really helped me with my professional writing too.

4. You came in as an English major. How do you think that skills in English and skills in Business can work together?

A lot of it is language. Language is really important in business, and obviously in English, but one of the big things — a good reason to hold onto English, even if it wasn’t my initial reason — is that a lot of people in the business world don’t know how to write, whether it be grammatically or in an emotional sense. So having an English minor, I have this aspect in humanities where a lot of people don’t. It’s very analytical and technical, which is great, but you can lose humanities. So, a lot of companies are pushing for more humanities in business, or even humanities over business, because you need that personal side. Especially with language, word choice is huge.

Writing for business is very different, in that there’s still a voice there, but it’s very fact-based. I succeed a lot better in writing for business and writing reports, because I’m a lot better when I can just say: “These are the facts, this is when it’s due, these are our recommendations based on the facts.” It’s very straightforward, whereas writing personally or in fiction, there’s a lot more analytic thought that goes into it. Like, I know what I want to say, but I have trouble getting it out, because it’s a lot more abstract.

5. You’ve worked in multiple professional internships. What’s something about working as an intern that students might not think about? And how was your experience in that position?

It was interesting. So my last internship was a lot of creating documents; I created 14 documents, overall. They varied in size. I made an emergency escape packet for apartments, I made actor bio sheets, I made background check sheets, applications for lease or rent for apartments. I made a lot of things of varying length. We met twice a week for that — once with my supervisor Ted Sheeran, who’s on campus — and we met once a week as a group to go over what we were doing that week. So that was interesting, because I kind of got a first glance at a very small business.

The internship I’m doing this semester is non-profit. I’m doing it for Business and Leadership [my second minor], and currently it’s seeing how a non-profit that has been established for twenty years at this point is run. And it’s really interesting, because [the non-profit] is a music and art center, with instructors who do one-on-one lessons for painting, or piano, singing, dance, all sorts of things. So, I get to see how the operations go overall day-to-day, and I do behind the scenes things. Like helping to set up for their art market and auction two weekends ago. I helped set up tables for that, I helped put up the student artwork for that. It’s a lot more hands-on than previously, but I’m still doing some document work. Like, I wrote out collection letters, I’ve been organizing files — or closets. I’m organizing a lot of closets! But it’s a lot of hands-on, and what I’m learning from this one is: specifically in leadership for non-profit, you kind of have to do everything. You have to be ready to do anything and everything, and be where you need to be.

[I was surprised by the amount of] organization, I think. Like, I enjoy organization, but I’ve organized a lot more than I thought I was going to. Which is fine! I thought I was going to do a lot more writing, because that’s something that I can always go in and say, “I’ve done this.”

6. Finally: what’s the biggest lesson that you think writing can teach us?

I think… thinking. Like, a lot of thought goes into it, and you really have to do a lot of analyzing. Not just of how you’re writing, but within yourself, and what you believe. So, I think that it can really teach us about how we, ourselves, think. And not even just fiction! But professional writing, how you choose words to go into anything, it really helps you figure out how you structure things and how you process things.

[Content has been edited and condensed for concision]

#featurefriday #business #english #internship #writing

0 notes

makaylarose6-blog1 · 4 years

Text

Creating Meaning for Ourselves and Others

Research

Throughout my adolescence and childhood, I have had a passion for the piano. While my connection to the piano originally started because my mom constantly compelled me to take lessons even though I was really interested in it, my love for the instrument continues to grow. Not only that, but my interest in the piano expanded my enthusiasm for all forms of music. I have found that music is incredibly powerful and can be so impactful. Furthermore, I decided to research this idea to understand the extent in which music has transformed the lives of others.

In an attempt to find various stories about music, millions of results came up. The fact that so many people felt the need or desire to tell their story in regard to music was heartwarming and uplifting to see.

In a Ted Talk titled “Music is Medicine, Music is Sanity,” violinist Robert Gupta speaks about the illuminating capability of music to act as a medicinal remedy, specifically in regard to schizophrenia. Gupta narrates a story in which he worked with a schizophrenic man (Nathaniel Ayers), explaining the incredible growth that Ayers demonstrated as a result of their shared love and passion for music and the violin.

Witnessing first-hand how music sharpened the blurred mental state that Nathaniel’s schizophrenia had caused, Gupta was fascinated. Gupta describes the first time he noticed this change in Ayes, stating, “As I played, I understood that there was a profound change occurring in Nathaniel’s eyes. It was as if he was in the grip of some invisible pharmaceutical-- a chemical reaction for which my playing was its catalyst.” A notable and inspiring example, it becomes clear that music is more than just notes on a page, it is a medium that grants people the capacity to feel freed and boundless. Before finishing his presentation, Gupta leaves the audience for a profound and heavy sentence, “for Nathaniel, music is sanity. An escape from his tormented state.”

Goal Setting

In regard to some goals that I hope to achieve within the realm of music, one short term goal that I have had for a while has been the ambition of writing a song. A medium-term goal that I have has been expanding my instrumental skills to learn how to play alto saxophone and guitar. More long term, I would love to help find a company that has a warm environment and allows people who share a love of music to come together. More specifically, this company would probably be a unique type of café where people could casually play/listen to music.

Desired Impact

Personally, my goal is to impact the realm of music in the aspect of connecting with others that share my love and passion. Furthermore, I want to be able to bounce or rebound off of each other’s creativity in regard to music. In doing so, I believe I will not only intensify my happiness, but intensify the happiness of others. With that said, I hope that with this type of impact, both myself and those within the musical realm would benefit. This impact would be meaningful because of the profound gravity of building relationships. Being able to connect with someone, especially someone that shares a passion of yours, is an intimate and incredible feeling.

Creating this intimate environment for musicians coordinates with my overall core area of music because it allows music to be made or listened to in a unique and truly personal way in a somewhat collaborative way. I am driven to make this type of impact because of my past experience with this close and intimate environment that I have described. More specifically, during my senior year of high school, one of my teachers held an “open mic” event, in which students were able to present their own pieces of poetry/spoken or sing. While the environment was already very raw and intimate because of my teacher’s genuine and sweet personality, she created a physically intimate environment as well— setting up sofas with pillows and blankets based in a semi-circle around the speaker. This was a night I will truly never forget because of the pureness and genuineness that was shown by everyone as people shared such personal works.

Project Plan

My project plan would be in regard to my long term goal. More specifically, my long term goal relates to my love for music and how powerful and impactful it can be on the lives of others. Based off of this, my long term would be to establish a unique sort of café where anyone and everyone can play music, sing, etc—creating an atmosphere of an “open mic” café. Furthermore, people would have the opportunity to listen or perform an art form in the manifestation of music. This café would also hopefully create an atmosphere of a “family”, where people can feel accepted and be intimate about their work or what they’re listening to.

In order to accomplish this goal, many resources would be needed. Financially, I would most likely need a couple thousand to get the café rolling. To account for the rent of a small building, utilities, advertising, stocking merchandise, furniture for the cafe, and appliances such as a stove, coffee maker, etc, an amount of about $10,000 should be more than sufficient. In regard to the merchandise, the cafe’s menu could potentially sell the following: coffee (cold brew, cappuccinos, frappucinos, lattes, etc), tea, soda, and breakfast/brunch items such as pancakes, breakfast burritos, sandwiches, etc.

As previously mentioned, the goal of creating this establishment is to create a space where people feel like they belong, where they can genuinely be their raw selves and expressing this intimate feeling through a shared love of music. In doing so, this could create an environment of happiness that can be spread outside the walls of the cafe. In offering a place where people can express themselves musically, have a good time, and make new friends, I hope that a great sense of happiness is created throughout my customers. Hopefully, this happiness can spread from person to person within the cafe-- as well as the lives of those outside the cafe that the customers touch. Furthermore, this would advance my overall goal of creating more happiness throughout the world.

The audience that I would target for this project would be anyone and everyone. More specifically, I hope to draw in people that have yet to feel a sense of belonging in their life. I hope that I can reach out and connect to these people in ways that others could not, providing them with that sense of happiness through a bipartisan relationship of acceptance and inclusion with me, as well as others within the cafe.

In regard to organizations that I could work in connection to the cafe, I could potentially work with groups that emphasize inclusion. I could also potentially work with organizations such as shelters, adoption homes, etc where kids could build off of the positive atmosphere that the cafe would potentially bring.

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

THE SENATE CAN STOP PRETENDING NOW

Lamar Alexander and the end of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

By Susan B. Glasser | Published January 31, 2020 | New Yorker Magazine | Posted February 2, 2020 |

JUST LIKE THAT, at precisely 11 p.m. on Thursday, minutes after the end of the ninth day of the Senate trial of Donald John Trump, Senator Lamar Alexander ended it. In a statement tweeted out by his office, the Tennessee Republican said that the President was guilty of “inappropriate” pressure on Ukraine in the service of his own reëlection. The House Democrats managing the case had “proven” it, but that was not enough to impeach and remove Trump from office. Nor was it enough to continue the trial, Alexander said. He would not support calling witnesses. He would not support any effort to obtain further evidence. He did not want to hear even from John Bolton, the former Trump national-security adviser who is prepared to testify that the President directly admitted to the central allegation in the impeachment case. Without Alexander’s support, the trial almost certainly cannot continue. Democrats do not have the fifty-one votes they need to call witnesses, and so, sometime in the coming days, the third Presidential-impeachment trial in American history is virtually certain to reach its preordained conclusion: a partisan acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate, following a partisan impeachment by the Democrat-controlled House.

In the end, it’s no small irony that Trump was saved from embarrassing public testimony against him by one of the last representatives of the Republican establishment that so recently scorned him—and for which the President himself has nothing but scorn. Alexander declined to endorse Trump in 2016, and had previously bucked the President on trade, health care, and his much vaunted border wall. But as Alexander retires, later this year, after decades of service once characterized by bipartisanship, his most decisive final act will have been to do Trump an enormous favor. Alexander’s mentor in politics, Senator Howard Baker, is remembered as the Republican leader who pursued the facts about Richard Nixon during Watergate and demanded answers to the key question of what Nixon knew and when he knew it. Lamar Alexander will not have such an honor. He will go down in history as the Republican senator whose choice at a pivotal moment confirmed the complete and final capitulation of the G.O.P. to the crass New York interloper in the White House.

Alexander’s late-night statement was no real surprise. The “closest friend” to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—as McConnell made sure to point out to the Times, earlier this week—Alexander ended up where most Senate Republicans were always expected to end up. He criticized Trump but refused to vote to remove him from office. After making that decision, Alexander went a step further and said that there was no real need to hear any of the evidence that Trump has so far successfully ordered his Administration not to provide. Even the last-minute revelation, on Sunday night, in the Times, of Bolton’s unpublished manuscript, could not sway Alexander; he knew enough.

Right up until that oh-so-predictable end, though, Alexander played it coy. Perhaps he was loving his final moment in the spotlight. Perhaps he really was undecided. As Thursday’s proceedings began, virtually all of the other senators had declared their positions, and only four Republicans appeared to be genuinely considering voting for witnesses. Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins were likely to vote yes, which left Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander. Even if Murkowski, who pronounced herself Bolton-“curious” earlier in the week, would vote yes, Democrats needed both Murkowski and Alexander to get to fifty-one; three Republican yeses would only yield a 50–50 tie. And, as night fell on the capital, pretty much no one believed that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the trial, would be willing to cast the deciding vote.

By the dinner break on Thursday’s long session of questions from the senators to the duelling legal teams, it was clear that it would all come down to Alexander. Until this point, Alexander had been a complete “cipher,” as Chris Coons, the Delaware senator who talks with his Republican colleagues more than most Democrats, told me. But just before dinner Alexander began to tip his hand, as he submitted his first question of the trial alongside two staunch defenders of Trump: Ted Cruz, of Texas, and Steve Daines, of Montana. The group asked the House managers to address the partisanship of Trump’s impeachment and contrast it with that of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes. Alexander and Cruz together? You didn’t have to be a Senate veteran to have a sense of where things were headed.

During the recess that followed, Alexander spoke to reporters and promised that he would announce his vote in a few hours, when the question time was over. Then he met privately with Murkowski. Speculation grew feverish. Not long after the Senate reconvened, a reporter tweeted that Alexander had sent a Senate page to McConnell’s desk with a note, which McConnell then read and put in the pocket of his suit jacket—without ever looking at Alexander. Soon after that, Murkowski sent a question to Chief Justice Roberts to read. It seemed to reveal where she was leaning, at least: “This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge. Why should this body not call Ambassador Bolton?”

The spotlight returned to Alexander, who probably had not received this much national media attention since 1996, when his brief Presidential candidacy gained notice largely because of his distinctive flannel shirts and a campaign logo that consisted only of his first name and an exclamation point. Reporters up in the Senate press gallery trained their eyes on Alexander and reported that he chatted amiably at various points with the Ohio Republican Rob Portman, the Washington State Democrat Maria Cantwell, and the President’s lawyers. Alexander was observed reading a book, “Impeachment: An American History,” an account of the three previous Presidential impeachment proceedings in U.S. history. (My husband, Peter Baker, wrote the chapter on the Clinton impeachment and trial; I agree with Alexander’s endorsement that it is “a very good book.”) After reading for a while, Alexander then turned to his seatmate, Mike Lee, of Utah, and shared a passage with him. What did it all mean?

Around 10 p.m., Alexander and Murkowski joined with another fervent Trump critic turned defender in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, to pose a question to Trump’s defense team. “Isn’t it true,” they asked, that, even if Bolton testified and everything he said was accurate, it “still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that therefore his testimony would add nothing to the case?” Sensing where this was going, Trump’s lawyer Patrick Philbin hastened to agree.

“It’s over,” one Democratic senator said to another, according to a reporter in the gallery. And, indeed, it was. The question offered a preview of the Alexander statement to follow. A few minutes later, Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, gave a truncated closing statement that suggested that he, too, knew what was about to happen. “They are afraid of the witnesses,” Nadler said. “They know Mr. Bolton and others will only strengthen the case.” On that note, the trial adjourned at 10:41 p.m. Nineteen minutes later, Alexander’s office tweeted out his statement. Murkowski did not join in, at least not yet. “I am going to reflect on what I’ve heard, reread my notes, and decide whether I need to hear more,” she told reporters; her office said she would announce her decision on Friday morning. Her colleague Susan Collins, meanwhile, announced that she would vote yes for the witnesses. Mitt Romney followed suit first thing Friday morning. But how much did it matter?

All fifteen previous impeachment trials in the U.S. Senate, including the two previous Presidential-impeachment trials, had witnesses. But Lamar Alexander has spoken. Donald Trump’s stonewalling will succeed where Nixon’s failed. Perhaps Alexander has done us all a favor: the trial that wasn’t really a trial will be over, and we will no longer have to listen to it. The Senate can stop pretending.

*********

TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT AND THE DEGRADING OF PRESIDENTIAL Accountability.... The President will see an acquittal—which was preordained by the highly partisan Senate—as license for further abuse.

By Amy Davidson Sorkin | Published

February 1, 2020 | The New Yorker | Posted February 2, 2020 |

The sordid truth of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is that it will end with the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, doing him a favor: delivering the votes, with little regard for the facts. That is sadly appropriate, because Trump’s favors—the ones he covets, the ones he demands—and the terms on which he extracts them, remain the trial’s most contested issue. The House managers cited Trump’s statement to President Volodymyr Zelensky, of Ukraine, in their phone call on July 25, 2019—“I would like you to do us a favor though”—as the crux of a corrupt scheme. Trump’s lawyers countered that he was talking not about his “personal interests” but about America’s. In their trial brief, they argued that Trump “frequently uses variations of the phrase ‘do us a favor,’ ” and cited examples. “Do me a favor,” he said he’d asked Europe. “Would you buy a lot of soybeans, right now?” “Do me a favor,” he said he’d asked North Korea. “You’ve got this missile engine testing site. . . . Can you close it up?” The lawyers could have added Trump’s claim that, before choosing Alexander Acosta to be his Secretary of Labor, he’d worried that he was related to the CNN reporter Jim Acosta, so he told his staff, “Do me a favor—go back and check the family tree.”

But, of course, what Trump was asking from Ukraine wasn’t about soybean farmers’ livelihoods, or arms control, or even genealogical information. He wanted dirt on a political opponent and was willing to hold up military aid for an ally in order to get it. Trump’s core belief seems to have been that Ukraine, by receiving aid from America, incurred a debt that should be paid to him personally. That equation works only if, as Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, put it on Wednesday, “you view your interests as synonymous with the nation’s interests.” And Trump does. He has no conception of where he ends and the country begins.

Nor, apparently, do his lawyers, most notably Alan Dershowitz. “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest—and mostly you’re right!” Dershowitz told the senators. And so, “if a President did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” With that, Dershowitz provided a pseudo-intellectual scaffold for Trump’s self-delusion.

Somewhere in there is the distorted echo of a real argument. A President should at least consider the electoral effect of what he does, not because his continued tenure is so important but because the opinions of citizens are. They are the ones who have to fight the wars and bear the burdens. Voters can be wrong, but even then they can still be helpful in discerning the public interest. That is the basis of democratic accountability. But Dershowitz was talking about manipulating the election process itself. In response, Senator Angus King, Independent of Maine, asked if a President could extort an Israeli Prime Minister into charging the President’s opponent with anti-Semitism. In fact, by Dershowitz’s logic, a President could not only seek foreign assistance in a campaign; he could unleash any number of investigations into his political opponents, declare spurious emergencies to prevent their parties’ political gatherings, engage in surveillance, or take measures to limit access to polling stations—suppressing, rather than amplifying, voters’ voices.

Dershowitz was arguing that, as Schiff said on Thursday, if the President believes that a deal is in his political interest, “then it doesn’t matter how corrupt that quid pro quo is.” Schiff was not exaggerating when he called this argument “a descent into constitutional madness.” It may even prove more pernicious than the simple fact of Trump’s acquittal—which was preordained, given the Republican majority’s fealty to him—because the standard it sets for Presidential accountability is so degraded. It’s easy to imagine defense teams playing a video of Dershowitz’s presentation at a future impeachment trial, in an effort to exonerate another rogue President—perhaps one who has hung a portrait of Trump in the Oval Office. One thing that Republican senators might do, as they so flagrantly fail their country, is to clearly say that Dershowitz’s reasons for acquittal are not theirs.

The first article of impeachment charged Trump with abuse of power in his dealings with Ukraine, and even a few Republicans, such as Senator Lamar Alexander, conceded that the managers had proved that case. (Alexander added that, nonetheless, the President’s actions didn’t warrant impeachment.) The case for the second article, charging Trump with obstruction of Congress for denying it witnesses and documents, was more complicated. Here, the Trump team’s arguments were at least in the realm of constitutional reality, however hypocritically they were offered. The House managers couldn’t quite shake the opinion held by many that they should have fought the President’s defiance of their subpoenas in court, even if it took time. (Indeed, because Trump’s arguments are so extreme and untenable, the House Democrats had been on a winning path in the lower courts.)

At the same time, the managers hammered home the point that the senators had the power to expose the full story by calling witnesses—which they chose, in a vote on Friday, to toss aside. In doing so, they may have set a precedent that will further limit future Senates in constraining Presidents. The managers also made it abundantly clear that this President has played petty games with momentous matters of war and peace.

Unable to exonerate Trump, his lawyers resorted to making an appeal to blind triumphalism. Eric Herschmann, one of the members of Trump’s team most prone to go off on political tangents—he used up a lot of time attacking President Obama—reeled off a series of economic statistics and approval ratings and told the senators, “If all that is solely, solely, in their words, for his personal and political gain, and not in the best interest of the American people, then I say, God bless him. Keep doing it!” It was as if those figures added up to a paid-in-full purchase of impunity. Trump, for his part, will undoubtedly see an acquittal as further license for abuse.

Earlier in the week, Trump had held a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, expressly to thank the now Republican congressman Jeff Van Drew for having left the Democratic Party over what Trump called the “impeachment hoax.” He exhorted the crowd to reëlect Van Drew—“really a brave man, what he did was incredible”—and to throw out the Democratic “clowns.” Perhaps the Republican senators, as they trudged toward casting their vote, were making a calculation about how Trump might return the favor with one for them, or their party, or their country. Or maybe they, too, can no longer tell the difference. ♦

*********

JOHN BOLTON’S BOOK IS MAKING FOOLS OF TRUMP’S REPUBLICAN ENABLERS

By John Cassidy | Published January 29, 2020 | The New Yorker | Posted February 2, 2020 |

Speaking to reporters after Donald Trump’s lawyers completed their opening arguments in his impeachment trial on Tuesday, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, could barely conceal a smile. “I hope we have just four Republicans. All we need is four,” he said. At another press conference, Adam Schiff, the leader of the House managers, said it was clear that the President’s lawyers were “still reeling from the revelations of John Bolton’s book.” John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, said on Monday that he believed Bolton’s claim, first reported in the Times, that Trump told his former national-security adviser that he wouldn’t release military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian government pursued an investigation of the Bidens. Schiff called this “extraordinary.”

That term also describes the pickle in which Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and the rest of Trump’s Republican enablers now find themselves. “Mortifying” is another word that could be used. Rarely, if ever, has a political blood oath—in this case, a pledge to acquit a crooked President regardless of the evidence against him, and without even bothering to call any witnesses—rebounded so horribly, publicly, and spectacularly. Like Trump, when the whistle-blower’s complaint originally emerged, McConnell and his colleagues have been caught in the act. And it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch.

Schiff’s description was off in one respect. Trump’s lawyers aren’t the only ones who are reeling from the news about Bolton’s book; the entire G.O.P. ecosystem is frazzled. On his show on Monday night, the Fox Business channel’s Lou Dobbs, whose on-air encomiums to Trump have earned him special treatment from the White House, was reduced to putting up a picture of Bolton, a veteran Republican hawk who has served in the Administrations of four G.O.P. Presidents, with the label “A TOOL FOR THE LEFT.” Next, Dobbs will be telling us that John Kelly is a member of the Fourth International and Mitt Romney, who has called on Bolton to testify, is a closet Bernie Sanders supporter.

Even Sean Hannity, the primus inter pares of Trump’s media outriders, seemed a bit discombobulated by the Bolton news. On his radio show on Monday, the best Hannity could manage was to fire at the messenger. “The problem is it’s a Times story,” he told his listeners. “How often did this New York Times get things wrong?” In this case, it seems, the Times got it exactly right. When Bolton, his literary agency, and his publisher released a joint statement on Monday denying that they had anything to do with leaking the contents of the book, they didn’t deny a word of the newspaper’s original report.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Pat Cipollone, the lead member of Trump’s legal team, learned about the Times scoop. Rather than arguing that their client’s misdeeds didn’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses, he and his colleagues have, with straight faces, echoed the President’s claim that he didn’t demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine and, indeed, did nothing wrong at all. They’ve also argued that there is no firsthand evidence to show that he did. On Monday night, in closing the defense’s arguments for the day, Cipollone seemed to hint at a shift in strategy when he said, “This choice belongs to the people. They will make it months from now.”

But it was Trump’s loyalists in the Senate who were left most exposed. (Trump lawyers and Fox News anchors are paid to twist the truth, after all.) The initial reaction, typified by John Cornyn, the second-ranking G.O.P. senator, was to say that there was nothing new in the Bolton story. Late Tuesday afternoon, Senate Republicans emerged from a meeting at which McConnell had reportedly told them that he no longer had enough votes to block witnesses, including Bolton. Once again, they tried to stonewall. “I don’t know what we could learn” from witnesses, Rand Paul said to CNN. “We’ve heard all we could possibly hear.”

To be sure, there isn’t much more to be said about Trump’s perfidy, and, in the grand scheme of things, even the spectacle of Bolton providing a firsthand account of the President’s lying and venality may not do him much further damage. We all recall his quote about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. Many of his supporters revel in his status as a Washington pariah. But the former national-security adviser showing up on Capitol Hill and telling his damaging tale (evidently, the Ukraine material isn’t the only revelation in Bolton’s book) would certainly reflect badly on the Republicans who tried to prevent him from appearing. These senators already look like patsies and enablers. If Bolton repeated what is reportedly in the book for all the world to see and hear, it would make them look like blithering idiots as well. Who else would have agreed to countenance Trump’s preposterous defense—that his real concern was corruption inside Ukraine?

Regardless of what happens next, the Republicans are still likely to acquit the President—there has never been much doubt about that. But if McConnell somehow succeeds in preventing Bolton from testifying after all this, there can no longer be even any pretense that the trial is on the level, or that an acquittal along party lines is anything other than an abject display of political cowardice and self-abasement by the current generation of Republican senators. For the timely clarification, we are in debt to whoever told the Times about what’s in Bolton’s book.

*********

TRUMP’S INEVITABLE ACQUITTAL AND THE THREAT TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

By John Cassidy | Published February 1, 2020 | The New Yorker | Posted February 2, 2020 |

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, was as good as his word. “I’m not an impartial juror,” he said in December, weeks before the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump was under way. “This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it.” At about the same time, McConnell explained his preparations for the trial to Fox News: “Everything I do during this I’m coördinating with the White House counsel,” he said. “There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can.”

On Friday evening, after the Senate had ruled out calling witnesses by a vote of 51–49, McConnell could rest assured that the “political process” had played out as he planned. Despite the brouhaha over the Times’s scoop about John Bolton’s new book, only two Republicans—Susan Collins and Mitt Romney—had defected. So McConnell called Trump to finalize his plan for bringing the trial to an end on Wednesday, with a vote on acquittal. “They discussed the details and POTUS signed off, per source,” Phil Mattingly, of CNN, reported.

Think about that for a moment. The Republican Party is now so utterly cowed by Trump that it wasn’t enough for its representatives in the Senate—who swore an oath to administer “impartial justice”—to overlook the mountain of evidence against the President and to refuse to hear from witnesses who could offer firsthand testimony. The Senate Majority Leader also felt obliged to call the President and seek his approval for extending the trial, the outcome of which is now absolutely certain, for a paltry few days.

The pusillanimity of elected Republicans is terrible to behold. And with the trial now ending, it is important to be clear about where it leaves American democracy. When Trump was elected, some observers compared him to Mussolini or even Hitler, but he doesn’t represent a putschist threat so much as the threat of creeping authoritarianism. Discovering to his delight that federal ethics laws didn’t apply to him, Trump refused to divest his business holdings and invited his daughter and son-in-law, both of whom had extensive business interests of their own, to join him in the White House. Furious about the negative press coverage he was receiving, Trump dubbed the media “the enemy of the people.” Determined to outflank Congress, where his Republican allies didn’t quite have sixty votes in the Senate, Trump issued an executive order that targeted Muslims, banning many from entering the country.

Since those early days, Trump has won some battles and lost others. As the courts, the media, and—most important of all—the American voters in 2018 stood up to him, some of his worst instincts were frustrated. This time last year, after he agreed to end a government shutdown that he instigated in frustration over Congress’s refusal to fund his border wall, it looked like he might end his first term as a lame duck. During the past twelve months, however, there have been a number of alarming developments.

Having fired or prompted the resignations of the few independent voices he had around him, Trump now stands unchallenged within his own Administration. His Vice-President, Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary, and acting chief of staff are all toadies. His Attorney General seems to be an authoritarian fellow-traveller, who, in the words of Donald Ayer, a former deputy Attorney General, is “using the office he holds to advance his extraordinary lifetime project of assigning unchecked power to the President.”

With the Justice Department acting as Trump’s protector, which is what he wanted all along, it is more important than ever that the external checks operate effectively. First, the special counsel Robert Mueller and now the U.S. Senate have let the country down. In both cases, the investigation was carried out professionally, but then things went badly astray. Even though Mueller’s team accumulated evidence that clearly indicated that Trump tried to obstruct justice, the special counsel refused to say that the President had committed a crime. Now Senate Republicans have given Trump a pass on another wanton abuse of power. What message does this send to a President who has always pushed things as far as he can?

On Thursday night, Adam Schiff, the leader of the House managers prosecuting the impeachment trial, reminded the assembled senators that Trump’s famous statement to the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky—“I would like you to do us a favor”—came just twenty-four hours after Mueller appeared before Congress and refused to point an accusatory finger at the U.S. President. “He got on the phone with Zelensky asking for this favor the day after Bob Mueller testifies,” Schiff said. “What do you think he will be capable of doing the day after he is acquitted here, the day after he feels: I have dodged another bullet. I really am beyond the reach of the law?”

Trump is capable of almost anything, and many Republican senators are well aware of this. In the past forty-eight hours, two of them—Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, and Rob Portman, of Ohio—have described Trump’s actions toward Ukraine as “inappropriate,” and a third, Marco Rubio, has suggested that they may have met the standards for impeachment. But it is actions, not words, that count. All three of these senators voted against witnesses, and they will all vote to acquit Trump. A toy poodle may issue the odd spirited yelp. It is still a toy poodle.

The House managers did all that could have been expected, and more, to make their case. Sadly, it was never going to be enough. The only thing that will get Trump out of the Oval Office, and perhaps alter the trajectory of the Republican Party, is a comprehensive defeat in November. The Presidential campaign starts for real on Monday, in Iowa. In the two hundred and thirty-two years since the Founders ratified the Constitution of a new republic, there has seldom, if ever, been a more consequential election. The conduct of the impeachment trial has demonstrated what is at stake.

*********

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION RULE IS CRUEL AND RACIST—BUT IT’S NOTHING NEW

By Masha Gessen | Published January 29, 2020 | New Yorker Magazine | Posted February 2, 2020 |

In Monday, the Supreme Court lifted a lower-court stay on a Trump Administration rule that will deny permanent-resident status to legal immigrants who are deemed likely to become “public charges,” because they have in the past—or may in the future—receive public assistance, such as Medicaid or Social Security supplemental income. The rule has been called a humanitarian catastrophe, an act enabling racist and classist cruelty, and a throwback to the darker days of rejecting the neediest immigrants, be they Irish, Jewish, queer—or nonwhite. It is all of those things, but it is not, contrary to many comments, a drastic change in immigration policy. Like much that is Trumpian, the new rules, and the Supreme Court order allowing them to go forward, build logically on the last few decades of the American political conversation on immigration, race, and class.

In August of last year, Ken Cuccinelli, then the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, quipped in an NPR interview that the guiding principle of American immigration policy is “give me your tired, your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.” He was telling the truth. U.S. policy has always hewed closer to his rendering than to the original Emma Lazarus poem that adorns the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The “public charge” exclusion in immigration law goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century, and the underlying fear that newcomers will take what is rightly “ours” predates the policy by centuries.

The immediate precursor of the Trump Administration rule is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the welfare-reform law signed by Bill Clinton, in 1996. Clinton had run on the promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it,” and he did. On its way through Congress, the reform package acquired provisions that effectively threw most noncitizens, present and future, off most federally funded public-assistance programs. Clinton opposed these amendments. In his speech heralding the passage of welfare reform, he said:

I am deeply disappointed that the congressional leadership insisted on attaching to this extraordinarily important bill a provision that will hurt legal immigrants in America, people who work hard for their families, pay taxes, serve in our military. This provision has nothing to do with welfare reform. It is simply a budget-saving measure, and it is not right.

These immigrant families with children who fall on hard times through no fault of their own—for example, because they face the same risks the rest of us do from accidents, from criminal assaults, from serious illnesses—they should be eligible for medical and other help when they need it.

Then Clinton signed the bill into law. Of course he did: it was his signature legislative achievement, which had taken years to craft and pass. The fear of spending too much money on immigrants, meanwhile, had become a matter of bipartisan consensus. (In the years leading up to welfare reform, California residents voted for a bill that would strip noncitizens of public benefits.) In the end, most of the money that the Treasury actually saved on welfare reform came from cutting benefits to noncitizens.

The thinking that underpinned the anti-immigrant amendments was fundamentally indistinguishable from the thinking that drove welfare reform in general: that undeserving people would somehow take advantage of the system, getting something for nothing. The spectre of the “welfare queen” haunted America. Viewed through the prism of this fear, immigrants are the least deserving people of all, because they haven’t paid their imaginary dues.

One could point out that noncitizens pay taxes. (Notably, many noncitizens pay Social Security taxes even though they may never attain the status that would entitle them to benefits.) But arguing about taxes misses the point. The basic idea behind the welfare state is that it’s best for a society when all its members lead lives of dignity. Not only those who have paid taxes, not only those who have worked, want to work, or will work, not only those who were born here, but all people who inhabit this wealthy land ought to have a roof over their heads and food on the table, have basic medical care, and be free of fear that they will not have any of these things tomorrow. Precisely because this is the foundational principle of a welfare state, in most welfare states noncitizens are eligible for public assistance, and, indeed, public assistance is seen as an essential element of integrating immigrants into society.

After welfare reform became law, the number of noncitizens receiving public assistance decreased precipitously—more drastically than the law required, in fact. Many people who were still eligible, such as citizen children of noncitizens, stopped receiving benefits, not because they were thrown off the rolls but because they stopped seeking the help. Some of the provisions of the law, such as those stripping benefits from people who were already in the country and receiving aid, were never enforced, but people complied with them anyway. Scholars called this a chilling effect: immigrants, fearful of repercussions, went into the shadows.

Of course they did. Another of Clinton’s signature legislative achievements was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (I.I.R.I.R.A.), which created the framework for the mass deportations of immigrants who broke the law in the United States. The law was rooted in thinking that we have now normalized: that noncitizens and citizens should be punished differently for the same crimes—citizens by incarceration, fines, and community service, and noncitizens by removal, often in addition to the standard penalty a citizen would have received. It also reified the image of immigrants as criminals, and it laid the groundwork for mass deportations, for which the Obama Administration, which removed hundreds of thousands of people a year, still holds the record. In addition, the I.I.R.I.R.A. mandated the construction of a physical barrier on parts of the southern border, laying the literal foundation for Trump’s wall. The I.I.R.I.R.A. became law the same year as welfare reform, as did the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which created expedited procedures for deporting “alien terrorists.” This was five years before 9/11, and two decades before Trump conjured the image of immigrants as terrorists in his 2016 campaign.

Trump’s spin on these long-standing policies and fears takes them to an entirely new level of hatred and cruelty. But, to reverse them, we will have to do much more than return to the way things were before Trumpism.

*********

0 notes

fabiofernandes · 6 years

Text

Congress vs Facebook

This is not the first time he apologizes to the market and for its users. In fact, Zuckerberg long list of apologies you will see in my other post.

What's different now? At the age of 33, Zuckerberg finally realized that his company must submit to human laws and take the natural responsibilities of a monopoly that gathers countless information about the lives of 2 billion people, even if they do not register on the network?

Hard to believe. Just look at his evasive answers to find that his nearly five-hour statement was nothing more than a public relations initiative. The market applauded and Zuckerberg leaves the Capitol Hill 3 billion dollars richer.

But his answers did not convince the senators (at least not the digitally literate ones), nor the public. It is almost inevitable that Facebook will have to undergo tougher regulation of users' rights, perhaps in terms as rigid as the European Data Protection General Regulation (GDPR).

Sometimes Zuckerberg seems to live in another moral reality when he denies and lies about things that are already of public knowledge. Just this week, in front of the senators, he was forced to acknowledge that Facebook had known since 2015 that Cambridge Analytica collected data from users - did nothing at the time to prevent this and preferred not to warn those affected, believing that the issue "was resolved ".

Many senators have not prepared for the questioning and showed complete ignorance regarding Facebook business. Orrin Hatch, for example, came to the absurdity of asking Zuckerberg how Facebook made money if it did not charge its users. "We sell ads," he replied in disbelief.

Others were ruled by party interests. Ted Cruz, the first to rely on CA services (a pre-campaign application collected Facebook data since 2015), preferred to insist on the anti-conservative bias of the network and how only democrat publishers made to the most-read list on the social network.

Tom Tills and Chuck Grassley argued that Barack Obama's campaign used the same CA tactics. (It's true that Obama's marketers pioneered micro-segmented ads, but obtained data by legal means, with consent.)

A few have subjected Zuckerberg to issues of general interest. Richard Blumenthal said there was "strong evidence that the company shamelessly violated" the term of conduct signed with the FTC in 2011 and did not take the slightest care of the election propaganda, coming from Russian agents or anonymous groups. Lindsey Graham drew from Zuckerberg a tacit acknowledgment that his company is a monopoly with no relevant competitors.

To Senator Maria Cantwell, Zuck made an awkward statement about the involvement in data collection of Palantir, a provider of intelligence services founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, a member of the Facebook Board of Trump and Trump's Silicon Valley.

Zuckerberg coiled up to justify the presence of a Facebook employee in the Trump campaign. He was fortunate not to be asked about Joseph Chancellor, one of the creators of Cambridge Analytica's assessment tests for his "psychometric profiles," who worked to elect Trump, then was hired by Facebook.

He contradicted himself by admitting that he learned of the use of the social network by Russian agents in 2016 rather than in 2017, as he had previously argued. It was unfortunate to say that AI technologies have been successful in removing terrorist content (not true, according to the Counter Extremism Project).

He denied that he collects data without authorization from Internet users (which is a false statement since Facebook obtain data even from those who do not have an account, as Daniel Gillmor reports on the website of the American Civil Liberties Union). He hesitated to acknowledge even collecting the private text messages exchanged by users of Android smartphones.

He was evasive not to clarify what kind of control someone might have about the data itself. He did not mention that even when erased, users information do not disappear from Facebook servers - except by using a special feature available only to Zuckerberg and Facebook executives.

The most embarrassing moment was when he engaged the following dialogue with Senator Dick Durbin:

Pressured, Zuckerberg said he would accept legislation regulating data collection. It has also changed its position on the laws regarding election propaganda on the internet. It is inevitable that Congress will now try to legislate on the subject.

But it is doubtful that he will hit his hand. Most probably, the European GDPR example, is that they establish a series of rules with which the user has to consent for their data to be used. This would only help to root the monopoly of companies that already have such data, such as Facebook.

The correct thing would be to allow anyone to own their own data and could migrate them from one social network to another, with a guarantee that they would be erased from the first one. It would be a way of creating competition where there is a monopoly today. For this, however, Facebook would have to undergo changes greater than just Zuckerberg clothes on Capitol.

#Facebook #Hearing #Mark Zuckerberg #Congress #Senate #Senator #Ted Cruz #Dick Durbin #Privacy #Scandal

0 notes

viralhottopics · 7 years

Text

Sebastian Gorka, now a fierce defender of Trump, once said he had ‘no depth’ and was ‘full of bluster’

(CNN)Sebastian Gorka, a top counterterrorism adviser to President Donald Trump, frequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy during the 2016 presidential campaign, at one point saying Trump was “full of bluster” on the issues but had “no depth.”

In his current role as deputy assistant to the president, Gorka has become one of Trump’s most prominent cheerleaders, frequently hitting the radio airwaves to defend the president’s policies and public statements. Gorka’s work for Trump goes back as far as 2015, as federal election commission filings showed that Gorka was paid $8,000 that October to be a policy consultant for the Trump campaign.

But a CNN KFile review of Gorka’s public comments throughout the presidential campaign shows that even after his work for Trump, the former Breitbart national security editor offered stinging critiques of his future boss’ rhetoric on key foreign policy issues from terrorism to Russia and China.

Asked if he would like to comment on his past criticisms of Trump, Gorka said, “That’s fine, no need, thanks,” and hung up on a CNN KFile reporter.

In one appearance on the “The Georgene Rice Show” in April 2016, Gorka offered his assessments of the remaining presidential candidates’ positions on terrorism, calling Trump a “black hole.”

“On the right the Republican side, we have the New York real estate mogul who’s very full of bluster, full of sturm und drang, makes lots of statements about how we’re going to win and how the US army is going to be undefeatable, but there’s no depth,” he said. “There’s no plan. There’s no strategy. So I can’t judge him because he’s really a black hole, so the last one that’s really serious is Senator Cruz.”

At the time, Gorka’s wife, Katharine Gorka, a fellow national security analyst and his close professional collaborator, was serving as an adviser to Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign.

A few days earlier, Gorka made similar comments on another radio show, criticizing Trump’s stance on waterboarding.

“The real estate mogul from New York is a lot of bluster, a lot of loud things to do with waterboarding, etc.” he said on “Let’s Talk with Mark Elfstrand”. “But I just don’t see the detail, I don’t see the mature plan.”

Trump had previously come out in favor of waterboarding during the campaign, a technique that Gorka blasted in the interview as “fundamentally un-American.”

“It’s not what we stand for and the idea that we make it part of policy, when you do that, you really start down a slippery slope and you start to close the gap between us and the bad guys,” Gorka said, later adding that he considered waterboarding ineffective.

During the spring and summer of 2016, Gorka also opposed Trump’s stance on Russia and his praise for Russian president Vladimir Putin. In a May 1 appearance on Fox News, he praised both Trump and Cruz for “shaking the establishment to the core,” but added that “there were problems” with a foreign policy speech Trump had given days before.

“There were problems with that speech, Judge, especially when he spoke about China and Russia and our potential friendship and our shared interests,” he told Jeanine Pirro. “We don’t have shared interests. I’m sorry. [Vladimir Putin] is a KGB colonel. This is the kind of guy who tortured people during the Cold War and wants to destroy us.”

In another Fox News appearance on May 7, he further criticized Trump’s position that the US and Russia have shared interests.

“If you have a broad historical sense you will understand that even if Putin says he’s killing terrorists or even if China says they’re fighting the Uyghur nationalists that doesn’t mean they’re on our side,” Gorka said. “Putin is a former KGB colonel, he’s a thug, he’s a vicious man. He runs a country in which journalists get murdered if they disagree with the Kremlin. China is the world’s last communist dictatorship. It may be running around doing quasi-capitalist things but it is a one party state and to say that we have shared interests. No Mr. Trump, we don’t and we should really stick to the friends we already have.”

Gorka continued this line of criticism in a June 25 interview on “The Don Smith Show,” calling a recent speech Trump delivered “substantive to a degree we haven’t seen before,” but saying he was “really disturbed” by the then-presumptive GOP nominee’s rhetoric on Russia and China.

“It was tough. We know he’s tough because of the border issue and everything else, but yeah, it was internally inconsistent,” Gorka said. “When he talked about the attitude to our allies, to whether they should freeload or not, also when he talked about Russia and China, I was really disturbed. The things he said about how we can work with Russia and China, Russia is not on our side. The head of Russia is a former KGB colonel who wanted to destroy America. China is the world’s most powerful communist nation so the idea, if you think we can work with these guys in meaningful fashion, I think history would prove you wrong. So it’s an improvement. I have to be honest, it’s an improvement, but it’s still problematic and I need a more substantial development of his ideas in the next few weeks and months.”

But despite this previously pessimistic attitude about the potential for America to have a good working relationship with Russia, Gorka has defended Trump’s early outreach to Putin as his adviser and spokesman.

“You don’t get to be as successful a businessman as he is without being eminently pragmatic,” he said of Trump on Breitbart News Daily in February. “And his attitude to how we’re going to get along with Russia is, ‘Look, we’d like to, but if we can’t, that’s also a reality.’ We’ve been very clear about that from the beginning.”

As the campaign wore on, Gorka became more favorable to Trump, saying in August that though he had “a lot of issues with Mr. Trump”, they shared an opposition to political correctness.

“Look, I have a lot of issues with Mr. Trump but I commend him wholeheartedly on one issue,” Gorka said. “His whole message and the phenomenon of Donald Trump is based on the rejection of political correctness.”

On November 7, the day before the election, Gorka argued that while Trump had a “very steep learning curve” on foreign policy, he mitigated his lack of expertise by surrounding himself with “amazing people.”

“He wishes to win this war and he knows we are at war,” he said. “And although he was a businessman who had a very steep learning curve, he wasn’t an expert on national security, that is understood. The fact is he has surrounded himself with some amazing people in the last year.”