#topic: ted cruz

[xx-pr0p5-n-m4ur1c0n-xx]

This whole time I thought my white patients were just non verbal or something. But no they just dont talk to people of color. And when they do talk to me it's along the lines of "I don't like these foreigners blah blah blah" "these trans people this gay people that" like dude I'm wiping your ass, making sure you're comfortable, and making sure your meals are warm. Why tf won't you answer when I have basic questions like "do your wounds still hurt? What would you like to eat? If I pick you up like this, will you be in pain?" I don't even talk quiet either ik their asses are hard if hearing. But god forbid fuckin bid I talk to the janitor lady about how it's okay that she comes in and cleans the room in Spanish and we're speaking quietly, suddenly the patient has a whole speech to say.

[justmeinadaze]

Come hither children. Listen to mama!

I usually dont like to talk about politics not because of said topic but because of my PTSD I struggle to convey what I want to say properly. Add in that people get VERY passionate about the topic and start yelling and getting defensive which is triggering for me.

I just wanted to come here and say

Guys the numbers are SO close and that's scary. I know you may think "Ah it's ok. Kamala has this in the bag. Who would vote for crazy Trump?!" But youd be surprised!

I come from a state who continously puts Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott into office even after all the bullshit.

Please...vote! Your vote matters!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alanna Vagianos at HuffPost:

Many Republicans want you to believe that women are getting abortions in the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy simply because they can. The right-wing rhetoric has been used to criticize abortion rights supporters and Democrats for years. Even Donald Trump — who up until recently consistently dodged the topic of abortion — has started repeating the myth.

Democrats “support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month,” the GOP presidential nominee said last month. Democrats can “have [an abortion] in the seventh, eighth, ninth month, and they can kill the baby,” he said in another interview, adding that in some states “they can kill the baby after the baby is born.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said this week that “there are late-term abortions and every single Democrat supported it.” (“Late-term abortion” is a popular right-wing talking point, but HuffPost is not using it because it’s medically inaccurate.) The belief that pregnant people use abortion like birth control is a well-worn boogeyman that the anti-choice movement has peddled for decades. Though rife with misinformation, the political strategy has been extremely successful, creating cultural stigma so deep around abortions later in pregnancy that many Democrats, including President Joe Biden, and even some pro-choice advocates, are uncomfortable discussing it.

But people do get abortions later in pregnancy — a phrase that generally reflects abortions at or after 21 weeks. Some are women with wanted pregnancies who get a fatal fetal diagnosis. Others are young people who don’t realize they’re pregnant or don’t have a safe way to get an abortion right away. Still, others experience something catastrophic and life-changing later in pregnancy — a partner becoming violent, their home burning down, a job loss — that will make it nearly impossible to safely raise a child. There’s also an increasing number of people pushed further into pregnancy because they experience barriers to care early on: their home state banned abortion forcing them to travel, or their immigration status makes it dangerous for them to seek health care, or they need to save up for the procedure because it’s not covered by insurance.

No one is getting an abortion in the second or third trimester because they woke up one day, months into being pregnant, and decided they didn’t want to be pregnant anymore. But the politically manufactured shame around later abortion care runs so deep that many Democrats believe it too, in part because of the power of these lies. Biden has centered his reelection campaign around restoring Roe v. Wade, and advocates are building policy around it too, protecting abortion care until viability or around 24 weeks — effectively ignoring those who will need care later in pregnancy.

“One of the mistakes we’ve made as a movement is to not talk about later care,” said Dr. Diane Horvath, an OB-GYN and abortion provider at Partners In Abortion Care, an abortion clinic in Maryland where 90% of her patients receive care in the second and third trimesters. “I think we thought we were protecting ourselves by being quiet about it,” she said. “But when you leave gaps in the narrative … anti-abortion folks have always been very happy to fill them in with things that are scary and incorrect, and really debase people who have abortions and debase people who provide them.” Most abortions do happen in the first trimester: Almost 93% of abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2020 were done before the 13th week. Nearly 99% took place by the end of the 20th week. Somewhere around 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later, and the subset of abortions in the third trimester (around 26 weeks) is even smaller.

[...]

Even under the best of circumstances, with a lot of privilege and resources, getting an abortion in the third trimester when Roe was still intact was extremely difficult. “The whole time we’re asking ourselves, ‘What would we have done if any of these pieces were not in place? What if we couldn’t have accessed that money quickly? What if we didn’t have IDs that allowed us to get on a plane? What if we didn’t read and speak English?’” recalled Christensen, who along with her husband founded the abortion strategy and advocacy group Patient Forward.

In 2020, 9% of people who accessed abortions had to travel out of their home state to receive care, according to The Guttmacher Institute. Three years later, after the Dobbs decision that repealed Roe, that number has doubled with around 20% of patients seeking care across state lines. (That number does not account for the increase in medication abortion by mail, a common access point for pregnant people in the first trimester post-Roe.) Horvath and Morgan Nuzzo, a certified nurse midwife, opened Partners in Abortion Care shortly after the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2022. The two met working at a Planned Parenthood clinic, but didn’t become close until Nuzzo was pregnant with her first child, and Horvath offered some hand-me-down baby clothes from her kids. Partners in Abortion Care in College Park, Maryland, is one of a small handful in the country that offer all-trimester abortion care. During the first year the clinic was opened, they saw patients from 40 different states and three countries.

Their clinic sees about 10 to 15 patients a week ― nearly all of whom are getting abortions after 20 weeks. The clinic caps the number of patients they see weekly because later care takes more time. Unlike early care, which can often be done using abortion pills, abortions in the second and third trimester are more complex. An abortion between 20 and 26 weeks is typically a two-day procedure, and past 26 weeks is a three-day procedure.

HuffPost explores the stigma of those who get an abortion post-fetal viability and how anti-abortion propaganda (such as falsely calling post-fetal viability abortions "late term abortions") plays a role in creating such stigmas.

Those who choose abortion in the later half of the 2nd or the 3rd trimester do so because of extenuating circumstances.

Post-fetal viability = anywhere after 21-25 weeks in gestational age.

[mariacallous]

In a Senate confirmation hearing that often turned to discussion of Israel, Marco Rubio voiced his view that the United States should revoke the visas of any “supporter of Hamas” in the country.

The Florida GOP senator, who is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state, also used his Wednesday hearing to back an expansion of the Trump-era Abraham Accords and vowed to repeal Biden-era sanctions against some West Bank settlers, in a signal of how the hawkish foreign policy specialist would implement Trump’s priorities in the Middle East. 

On the question of visas, which Rubio would have jurisdiction over as secretary of state, he said revoking them for Hamas supporters was “common sense.” 

“If you apply for a visa to come into the United States and in the process of being looked at, it comes to light you’re a supporter of Hamas, we wouldn’t let you in,” he said. “Now that you got the visa and [are] inside the U.S. and we realize you’re a supporter, we should remove your visa. If you could not come in because you’re a supporter of Hamas, you should not be able to stay. That’s how I view it.” He added that he intends to be “very forceful” on the issue.

The issue has been a hot topic since the explosion of pro-Palestinian activism, particularly on U.S. college campuses, since Oct. 7, which in a handful of high-profile instances has included open shows of support for Hamas. Trump has vowed to deport students engaged in such activities, a controversial measure that opponents say infringes on the right to freely protest. 

Rubio himself had previously called for similar measures in a joint op-ed with Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who teed him up to make the declaration about losing visas during the hearing. McCormick made a reference to “pro-terrorist violence on our college campuses” during his questioning, though Rubio himself did not define what he meant by the description “a supporter of Hamas.”

In addition to being notably friendlier than Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, Rubio’s hearing was also overshadowed by news of the ceasefire and hostage return agreement reached between Israel and Hamas, which was announced midway through his questioning. 

Rubio said he was “hopeful” about the agreement, while noting he didn’t have more complete details about it. He praised both the Biden administration and Trump transition team for working “side by side” on the deal. 

When discussing the agreement and other matters, he defended Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which has drawn fierce global criticism, and insisted that the Israeli army does not deliberately target civilians, a charge its critics advance that Israel denies. 

Rubio also vowed to quickly appoint a State Department special envoy for antisemitism to the position currently held by Deborah Lipstadt, though he did not indicate who that person would be. In his first term, Trump did not immediately fill the position, drawing criticism.

Rubio further signalled a willingness to walk back restrictions Biden’s administration had placed on violent Israeli settler groups. In response to a question from Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, asking whether he would commit to “ending discriminatory sanctions against Jews living in Judea and Samaria,” a reference to settlers in the West Bank whom the Biden administration has penalized for stoking violence against Palestinians, Rubio assented, adding that he was “confident” that Trump’s second term “will continue to be perhaps the most pro-Israel administration in American history.”

Rubio also declared that “the term ‘genocide’ has been appropriated to almost global or international slander,” an apparent allusion to progressive claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and blasted the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC, he asserted, “has done tremendous damage to its global credibility,” and also claimed the court may be preparing a “test run” for going after the United States (which, like Israel, is not party to the ICC).

Himself a Cuban-American with a longstanding antipathy toward Cuba’s Communist government, Rubio also declared at one point that Cuba has been “openly friendly toward Hamas and Hezbollah” and trashed Biden’s just-announced move to delist the country as a state sponsor of terrorism (Cuba’s president has led pro-Palestinian demonstrations, including one that had been scheduled for the anniversary of Oct. 7). He also repeatedly attacked Iran.

Repeatedly throughout the hearing, Rubio highlighted what he called “opportunities” in the Middle East, including the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the weakening of Lebanon and Iran, and noting that such developments could benefit Israel. When asked at one point about the Abraham Accords, Trump’s historic normalization agreements between Israel and some of its neighbors, the senator said he hoped to push Saudi Arabia to soon join them.

As members of Trump’s extended family have benefitted from business deals during his first presidency, including in the Middle East, Rubio also downplayed the idea that they should refrain from doing so. Trump’s Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, recently doubled his financial stake in a major Israeli firm.

Rubio, who is generally well liked in the Senate, is not expected to face any difficulty in his appointment to the position.

[m--rtyr]

You mention being interested in politics a few times so here's another boutique of "Jesus Christ, American Politics is awful"

So as we get closer and closer to the election, there have been more and more political ads but this year is a bit special given the stakes and the candidates. That being said, let me talk about the political ads. I am in Texas, so this will involve both American and Texas politics specifically.

I have not been able to go a week without seeing a NEW transphobic political ad from the right. I am seriously not kidding. Both Trump and Ted Cruz (current Texas senator) put up a new one every other week and made them specifically air during (american) football. It has gotten to the point that my house will only keep the TV unused if it's a new one, because they air all of the ads throughout the day and there are several games running a day as well. So every Monday, Thursday, and Sunday is nothing but transphobic ads.

You may now be thinking "How is this interesting, this is actually super depressing?" Well, the ads aren't working because there's too many of them and even a good portion of Republicans find them too mean spirited. Especially since a few ads have been found to just have non-conventionally attractive cis people in them!

Ted "Didn't understand what motherfucker meant and then thought it was about fucking your own mom and proceeded to ask if there were daughter fuckers" Cruz and Trump have overinflated transphobia. Not kidding.

I’m actually studying politics at the moment! Next year we have a segment on American politics, but our teachers keep saying how lucky we are to be studying the whole topic now because we’ve just had a British election, and now we’re going to see an American one too. We get back to classes when the election results come in, and we’re suspending two (back-to-back) lessons to watch and study it. Just because our teachers find it interesting, it’s not a curriculum thing. So thank you for the additional information.

But again on what I was saying a little while ago about ‘disliking Trump in the UK isn’t even a political stance’. A lot of people here are transphobic I won’t act like that’s not true, and I’m sure a lot of people Agee with a lot of things the republicans stand for. But their attitude is so off-putting that I’ve seen Tories (English right party) be vehemently anti-trump. I don’t think I’ve seen any brits (in my personal experiences) be pro-trump except for one guy who looked like this;

And bro was BULLIED for that. by our English teacher. Relentlessly.

Republicans attitudes towards everyone, including trans people, have been turning people off for YEARS. Trump has even accused the current British Government of interfering with the Election in favour of democrats and the government has gone ‘yeah so fucking what???’. And sure he has Nigel backing him, but Nigel is a cunt.

[casually-salad]

(tw s*icide but as in I'm reminding ppl of reasons to keep living! Still, if the topic is triggering don't feel the need to read or respond) Idk if you live in the US but if you do I hope you're okay! Normally I wouldn't get political @ you but shit is scary rn and I wanna make sure as many people as I can are okay. I'm scared shitless myself but all we can do is keep going. I just wanted to remind you and everyone that all other reasons to live are failing us, there's always one last resort: pure, unadulterated SPITE. Like hell am I dying before Mitch McConnell or Trump if I can help it! Ableists and queerphobes want us dead? As if we're gonna give them the fucking satisfaction! Basically, if all else fails, if nothing else, remember this one song that has got me through my toughest times: https://youtu.be/186FmQ4QZeY

I hope this provides any help at all to you and any followers!

thats really sweet, i wish i would've seen this sooner, not going to lie ive been on my breaking point constantly for the past couple months and i completely broke last night and did some things i shouldnt have... now im just trying to go day by day. i really really appreciate you reachin out cuz im a texan so weve got it doubly bad T-T can someone please kill ted cruz already i hate that guy. but yeah im gonna try to stay alive and hopefully the 20 million ballets that didnt get counted because of fake bomb threats, and the mail in ballets that got thrown away get recounted but in the mean time i hope we can all be here for eachother. <3

for anyone on here, please dont forget you can call the trevor project with this number: ( 1-866-488-7386 ) at any time, and if you want to chat online you can quickly exit from the site by hitting esc 3 times. on the website you can also text if youre scared to call like how i usually am haha: here

[shotofchinaco]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) veered off topic at a gun violence hearing on Tuesday to ask why the Senate committee was not investigating liberal billionaire George Soros.

At a Judiciary Committee hearing, Cruz used the majority of his time to grandstand and attack Democrats.

[...]

"You know what?" he asked. "We're not having a hearing on the impact of Soros prosecutors releasing violent criminals from jail. We're not having a hearing on carjacking in Washington, D.C., because the Democrat city council lowered the penalty for carjacking, lowered the penalty for murder."

[screechingsandwichhologram]

do other countries have filibusters. like how in America a senator can just stand up there and talk about whatever the fuck they want (not even related to the topic) just to delay the vote. like when ted cruz read green eggs and ham

[nancydrewwouldnever]

Ok it's me again: The person who has never thought more than a second about Chris Evans. And I have a question.

What exactly do you mean by political engagement? And what happend about in regards to his image that caused this reaction from all of you.

Like I'm missing the biggest parts in this story and yet I'm entertained 💀

LOL, okay. First, thanks for coming back! Second, get ready for a wild ride.

So, back after the 2016 election of Trump, Chris Evans suddenly got very politically opinionated on Twitter. Some thought it was the effect of dating Jenny Slate, some thought he was just really pissed off about Trump. Either way, his new politically engaged tweets and snarky takes on Trump earned him a lot of new fans.

For some reason around 2017 he got the brainwave to start a political website that would help people be better informed voters. This website is called A Starting Point - ASP for short. The gist of the website is that politicians from both sides of the aisle give short insights into their takes on different topics/issues. So, he spent time originating this website with two partners between 2017-2020, and doing in person interviews with politicians between 2019-2020 for the website. It started getting him in hot water with fans, because he started being seen in photo ops with all kinds of people, including the likes of Ted Cruz and other icky Republicans.

In the interim, he also started reining in the political opinions on Twitter that people enjoyed. He became more cautious because of ASP, because of wanting engagement with both political parties. People started missing Political Chris.

Now, he's totally absent from Twitter, both politically and non-politically. Many people are unfollowing him there because they specifically now question his "woke" bonafides. They question if it was all just another PR rebrand that he's now tired of.

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday is considering for the first time on the topical question of whether tech companies are always immune from legal liability in disputes arising from problematic content posted by users.

The justices are hearing oral arguments in a case alleging that by recommending videos that spread violent Islamist ideology, YouTube bears some responsibility for the killing of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student, in the 2015 Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State terrorist group.

At issue is whether there are limits to the liability shield for internet companies that Congress enacted in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue before, even as the power and influence of the internet have exploded.

The case, which tech companies warn could upend the internet as it currently operates, concerns whether Section 230 can be applied to situations in which platforms actively recommend content to users using algorithms.

The novel legal issue has given rise to some unusual cross-ideological alliances, with the Biden administration and some high-profile Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, having filed briefs backing at least some of the Gonzalez family’s legal arguments.

Liberal and conservative justices on Tuesday expressed skepticism and some confusion about the arguments being put forth by Gonzalez’s attorney, Eric Schnapper. Schnapper contended that some of what YouTube publishes in its recommendations, including thumbnails it creates, doesn't amount to third-party content protected under Section 230.

“I don’t understand how a neutral suggestion about something that you’ve expressed an interest in is aiding and abetting,” said Justice Clarence Thomas, who has criticized the statute's protections. "I just don't, I don't understand it. And I'm trying to get you to explain to us how something that is standard on YouTube for virtually anything that you have an interest in suddenly amounts to aiding and abetting because you're in the ISIS category."

Fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito also expressed doubt about Schnapper's argument. "I'm afraid I'm completely confused by whatever argument you're making at the present time," he said.

Potential reform of Section 230 is one area in which President Joe Biden and some of his most ardent critics are in agreement, although they disagree on why and how it should be done.

Conservatives generally claim that companies are inappropriately censoring content, while liberals say social media companies are spreading dangerous right-wing rhetoric and not doing enough to stop it. Although the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, it is not clear how it will approach the issue.

Gonzalez, 23, was studying in France when she was killed while dining at a restaurant during the wave of terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS.

Her family alleges that Google-owned YouTube helped ISIS spread its message. The lawsuit targets YouTube’s use of algorithms to suggest videos for users based on content they have previously viewed. YouTube’s active role goes beyond the kind of conduct Congress intended to protect with Section 230, the family’s lawyers allege. 

The family filed the lawsuit in 2016 in federal court in Northern California and hopes to pursue claims that YouTube violated the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows people to sue individuals or entities who “aid and abet” terrorist acts.

Citing Section 230, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. That decision was upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a June 2021 decision that also resolved similar cases families of other terrorist attack victims had brought against tech companies.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling could have broad ramifications because recommendations are now the norm for online services, not just YouTube. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and Twitter long ago began to rely on recommendation engines or algorithms to decide what people see most of the time, rather than emphasize chronological feeds.

Tuesday's argument is the first part of a social media company double-header at the high court. On Wednesday, the justices will hear a related appeal brought by Twitter about whether the company can be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The same appeals court that handled the Gonzalez case revived claims brought by relatives of Nawras Alassaf, a Jordanian citizen killed in a terrorist attack in Istanbul in 2017. The family accused Twitter, Google and Facebook of aiding and abetting the spread of militant Islamist ideology, which the companies deny. The question of Section 230 immunity has not yet been addressed in that case.

The Supreme Court has previously declined to take up cases about Section 230. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has criticized it, citing tech giants’ market power and influence.

[readingsquotes]

...But in the wake of deaths related to abortion access in the United States, leaders who support restricting the right have not called for any reforms.

..Leaders in Texas, which has the nation’s oldest abortion ban, have witnessed the consequences of such restrictions longer than those in any other state.

In lawsuits, court petitions and news stories, dozens of women have said they faced dangers when they were denied abortions starting in 2021. One suffered sepsis like Barnica, but survived after three days in intensive care. She lost part of her fallopian tube. Lawmakers have made small concessions to clarify two exceptions for medical emergencies, but even in those cases, doctors risk up to 99 years in prison and fines of $100,000; they can argue in court that their actions were not a crime, much like defendants can claim self-defense after being charged with murder.

Amid the deluge of evidence of the harm, including research suggesting Texas’ legislation has increased infant and maternal deaths, some of the ban’s most prominent supporters have muted their public enthusiasm for it. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who once championed the fall of Roe v. Wade and said, “Pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness,” is now avoiding the topic amid a battle to keep his seat. And Gov. Greg Abbott, who said early last year that “we promised we would protect the life of every child with a heartbeat, and we did,” has not made similar statements since.

Both declined to comment to ProPublica, as did state Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose commitment to the ban remains steadfast as he fights for access to the out-of-state medical records of women who travel for abortions. Earlier this month, as the nation grappled with the first reported, preventable deaths related to abortion access, Paxton celebrated a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed Texas to ignore federal guidance requiring doctors to provide abortions that are needed to stabilize emergency patients.

“This is a major victory,” Paxton said.

...Abortion bans put doctors in an impossible position, she said, forcing them to decide whether to risk malpractice or a felony charge.

...

Texas has been on the forefront of fighting abortion access.

At the time of Barnica’s miscarriage in 2021, the Supreme Court had not yet overturned the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. But Texas lawmakers, intent on being the first to enact a ban with teeth, had already passed a harsh civil law using a novel legal strategy that circumvented Roe v. Wade: It prohibited doctors from performing an abortion after six weeks by giving members of the public incentives to sue doctors for $10,000 judgments. The bounty also applied to anyone who “aided and abetted” an abortion.

A year later, after the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling was handed down, an even stricter criminal law went into effect, threatening doctors with up to 99 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.

[whereareroo]

LET’S FOCUS ON THE REAL ISSUES

WF THOUGHTS (10/19/24).

Stop reading right now and make a list. What are the top ten issues that you want addressed by the federal government, your state government, or your local government?

I bet you a donut that none of your lists included banning transgender athletes from sports competition.

There’s a reason that your lists wouldn’t include a sports ban for transgender athletes. It’s not a big deal. The issue has no impact on the lives of 99.9% of Americans.

Due to privacy issues, it’s difficult to estimate the number of transgender athletes in America. An expert who focuses on NCAA college sports estimates that, out of the total sum of 550,000 NCAA athletes, there are fewer than 100 transgender NCAA college athletes in America. Out of the millions and millions of kids that play school sports from grades K through 12, a transgender expert conducted a national survey and could only locate 5 transgender athletes. Let’s summarize the math. From kindergarten through college, there are probably fewer than 200 transgender athletes in all of America.

Despite the math, conservative Republican candidates for office are always harping about banning transgender athletes from sports. They act as if it’s the biggest public policy issue in America. Trump talks about it at almost every rally. In the very tight U. S. Senate race in Texas, Ted Cruz talks about it at every single rally. When Fox News interviewed Kamala Harris, it was the second question that they asked. All across America, the transgender ban is a talking point for Republicans seeking federal, state, and local offices.

Instead of focusing on a topic that involves fewer than 200 athletes, let me give you some other random statistics to think about:

** 38,000,000 Americans (11.5% of the population) live in poverty.

** 6,700,000 American families (5.25% of all families) live in substandard housing.

** 13,000,000 American kids (20% of the total) are malnourished.

** 2,200,000 American high school seniors (13% of the total) don’t graduate from high school every year.

** 11,200,000 American adults (44% of all adults) struggle to pay for health care.

** 18,000,000 American adults over the age of 75 (85% of that population) cannot afford the combined costs of housing and necessary medial care.

** 595,000 small businesses close each year, and 50% of all small businesses don’t last longer than 5 years.

** Don’t even get me started on the numbers related to gun violence. Based on the last four years, we now average 600 mass shootings every year. More than 50,000 Americans are killed by guns every year. Another 120,000 are injured.

Why are the Republicans talking about 200 athletes instead of talking about the big issues that impact millions and millions of Americans? That’s easy. It’s because they’re not interested in solving problems. They’re interested in creating problems and causing division. They’re interested in inflaming people.

I urge you to listen to the speeches given by Republican candidates for federal, state, and local offices. If they talk about transgender stuff, you have to have a tough talk with yourself. Is this candidate a serious leader, or are they just a flamethrower seeking to create division, anger, and hostility? There are so many serious issues facing America. Be very skeptical of candidates who harp about sports and transgender athletes. The flamethrower candidates think that voters are suckers, and they can persuade voters with inflammatory issues even if those issues have no impact on 99.9% of Americans. Don’t fall for it. Don’t be a sucker.

We should use our votes to remove flamethrower politicians from political life in America. We deserve so much better. We have the power to change politics and bring seriousness back to political campaigns. Do your part.

[bllsbailey]

Ted Cruz Leaves Colin Allred's Campaign in Shambles With Masterful Debate Performance

In a race too close for comfort, with everything on the line, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) delivered a masterful debate performance on Wednesday night. Facing off against Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), the current senator pummelled his opponent on issue after issue. Allred wasn't ready for primetime, contradicting himself at multiple points and walking right into numerous receipt-laden traps set by Cruz. 

Cruz came into the debate planning to expose Allred for the radical he is, not the moderate he claims to be. I think it's safe to say he succeeded.

CRUZ: He's said not a word about his own record. I have to admit that at the beginning of it, it reminded me of Kamala Harris in the debates answering everything, "Look, I was born in the middle class." It's some lines that sound nice that ignore his record. Let's just talk about his voting record. Again, you can go to allredfacts.com, you can see the actual votes. Four times, he has come out for men playing in women's sports and boys playing in girl's sports. He is a co-sponsor and he voted for a law called the Equality Act. The Equality Act mandated that boys be able to go into girl's bathrooms, locker rooms, and their changing rooms.  ALLRED: (mumbling) That's not true, that's not true CRUZ: He voted for it. That is his record. Number two, there was a bill, it was a very simple bill, it was narrowly defined. It was protecting women and girl's sports. He voted no. The only issue on that bill was whether biological boys should compete against our daughters. Congressman Allred was an NFL linebacker. It is not fair for a man to compete against women. The third time, he signed onto something called the Transgender Bill of Rights. The Transgender Bill of Rights explicitly, and he cosponsored it, mandated that boys compete against girls in sports. And just two weeks ago, Congressman Allred joined a hundred radical Democrats in demanding that our military allow drag shows on military bases, pay for soldiers to have sex changes using taxpayer money, and pay for children to be sterilized and have sex changes on military bases. Again, that's extreme. That's not Texas, but that's his voting record. 

While Allred has been bombarding the airwaves with ads claiming he's tough on the border and a social moderate, the truth is far different. As Cruz laid out with such precision, the congressman went to Washington and did what Democrats in Washington always do. He sponsored and voted for a variety of radical, far-left policies that make most people in Texas wince. 

Over and over, on the issue of transgenderism, Allred enthusiastically voted with his party and against protecting children. Far from the rebel he claims to be, the congressman has been a rubber stamp for the most extreme facets of the left-wing agenda. He can try to run from that record, but he can't hide from it. 

The pummelling just continued from there. On abortion, Cruz drew a sharp contrast, pointing out that Allred voted for federal legislation that would have legalized abortion until birth in every state. 

When the topic of antisemitism came up, Cruz again brought the receipts, pointing out that Allred has toed the Democrat line on Gaza and Hamas. The congressman, much like vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, also has a history of befriending and working with radical Islamists.

SEE: Tim Walz Caught in Scandal Involving a Muslim Cleric and Adolf Hitler

CRUZ: Congressman Allred invited a radical Imam in Dallas who called Zionists monsters and has compared them to Nazis. Congressman Allred calls them the best of North Texas. I don't support those who engage in antisemitic actions, and I will tell you, the funders of the antisemitic protests on college campuses are among Congressman Allred's biggest supporters. We need clarity, we need to draw a line, and as for me and my home, we will stand with Israel.

CRUZ: Right now, Kamala Harris & Colin Allred both want the votes of the anti-Semites on college campuses. I don't want their votes, and if they threaten Jewish students, they should be arrested, they should be prosecuted, they should be expelled, and if they are from another country, they should be deported.

Of course, the biggest liability for Allred is his opposition to Donald Trump's border policies. While the congressman has repeatedly claimed to be tough on the border, his comments and voting record when he wasn't running for the U.S. Senate paint a very different picture. 

CRUZ: In his entire answer, Congressman Allred makes zero reference to anything he's actually done in office. As Gromer Jeffers rightly noted in his question, Congressman Allred has said publicly that if you believe border security matters, he thinks you're a racist. He calls the border wall quote, "That racist border wall," and he has pledged to tear down that "racist border wall" personally, and he said quote, "We will not have that wall in this country."  And by the way, that's been his consistent voting record. He's voted against that wall not once, not twice, but three times. Every single time there's a serious measure to secure the border, Colin Allred votes no. Look, it's a pattern we've seen at the presidential level because it's what Kamala Harris does as well, and understand at home, Colin Allred is Kamala Harris. Their records are the same. I've served with both of them. They've voted in favor of open borders over and over and over again, and now they are desperately trying to hide that from the voters.  Now at the end, Congressman Allred said, "Well gosh, Cruz hasn't done anything on that," but let's talk about my record. When Donald Trump was president, I worked hand-in-hand with President Trump to secure the border and we achieved incredible success. We produced the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 40 years. That's what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris inherited. It's what Colin Allred inherited, and they deliberately broke it and opened the border, and Texas is paying the price.

Allred didn't go to Washington and buck his party to help solve the border crisis. Instead, all he mustered was a vote for a meaningless resolution. When it came to actual policy, the congressman was a rubber stamp for the Biden administration, whether that be his voting record or his rhetoric. 

In the end, Cruz took his opponent apart. Anyone who watched that debate should no longer be confused about who would be heading to the Senate if Allred were to win. At best, he'd become just another "yes man" for Chuck Schumer. At worst, if Kamala Harris were to win the presidency, he'd likely represent the decisive vote to enact her agenda. Texans need to choose wisely. This isn't the time to play around with yet another faux "moderate" Democrat who will be anything but once on the job.

[igettalk]

Video: Colin Allred Attacks Ted Cruz On Issues Of Texas Abortion Laws During Tuesday's Senate Debate

A lot of big issues that are important to Texas voters were raised during Tuesday's heated debate between Democratic Congressman Colin Allred and Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Allred didn't hold back when criticizing Cruz's record as they battled for the Texas Senate seat. Besides making headlines with some very sharp comments like calling Cruz's podcast "angertainment," Allred pointed out his opponent's support for the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion rights for nearly 50 years. He questioned why Republicans like Cruz supported laws that made it harder for women to get abortions, even in difficult situations. Colin Allred stated, "You should look into the camera and speak to Kate Cox," a Texas woman who faced severe challenges because of strict abortion laws. He also mentioned Amanda Zurawski, who had complications during her pregnancy but was denied care. The Congressman urged Cruz to explain to Texas women, whom he wishes to represent at the U.S. Senate, why they sometimes have to leave the state for medical care. Ted Cruz didn't stand a chance in winning viewers on this topic and was mostly evasive about Texas's abortion ban, which does not allow exceptions for rape or incest. When the debate touched on the contentious issue of transgender rights, the Republican candidate, who has made this topic a central theme in his reelection campaign, accused Allred of supporting policies that allow boys to compete in girls' sports. He went further to claim that the Democratic candidate sought to use taxpayer funds for soldiers to have sex change operations and for children to get sterilized. https://twitter.com/OcrazioCornPop/status/1846355216897110124 In response, Allred firmly stated, "I don't support boys playing girls' sports..what I think is that folks should not be discriminated against." He argued that Cruz is using anti-transgender rhetoric to distract voters from more pressing issues, particularly those affecting women's health and rights. During last night's debate, which lasted nearly an hour, viewers were unhappy to hear about Cruz's controversial trip to Cancún, Mexico, in 2021, when many Texans were left without power due to a severe winter storm. Colin Allred seized on this vulnerability, repeatedly mentioning the incident as evidence of Ted Cruz's indifference toward his constituents at a time of crisis. Generally, both candidates displayed their debating skills well, with Cruz leveraging his extensive experience as a former solicitor general and senator. Allred, while less experienced in such formats, managed to keep pace with the former. Read the full article

[documenting-apartheid]

2021- Historians Emanuel Beška and Zachary Foster published 22 pages of research documenting the origins of the term “Palestinian” (“Filasṭīnī”) in Late Ottoman Palestine from 1898–1914.

"When did Arabs start to use the word Palestinian, or “Filasṭīnī” to refer to the people of Palestine? The question has attracted a great deal of interest among the general public. Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich have all expressed their opinions about the historical usage of the word, “Palestinian.” Media brands like Arutz Sheva, Haaretz, Fox News, AJ+, the Guardian and the Washington Post have chimed in as well, while social media platforms abound with misinformation on the topic. Thus, in this paper, we explain when and in what contexts the word “Palestinian” spread in the 20th century."

"The word “Palestinian” gained acceptance as a description of Palestine’s Arabic speakers during the first decade and a half of the 20th century. Khalīl Baydas first used the term in 1898, followed by Salīm Qub‘ayn and Najīb Naṣṣār in 1902. Then, after the 1908 Ottoman Constitutional Revolution eased press censorship laws, dozens of periodicals appeared in Palestine, and the term “Palestinian” exploded in usage as result. "

"The newspapers al-Quds (1908–14), al-Munādī (1912–1913), Filasṭīn (1911–1914), al-Karmal (1908–1914) and alNafīr (1908–1914) use the term “Filasṭīnī” (in the available issues) about 170 times in more than 110 articles from 1908–1914. The phrases “the people of Palestine” (“ahl/ahālī Filasṭīn”) and “sons of Palestine” (“abnā’ Filasṭīn”) appeared dozens of times as well. The “Palestinians” surfaced in articles about Zionism, migration and politics, the print media and the Orthodox Renaissance. The writers themselves came from a range of Muslims, Christians and Jews from Palestine, Palestinian expatriates, and Arabs from Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere. Moreover, these newspapers circulated around the region and played a key role in explaining the emergence of a modern Palestinian identity."

Additional reading:

Filasṭīn/Palestine and Filasṭīniyyīn/Palestinians in Early Modern Arabic Sources

The Emergence of a Palestinian National Identity: A Theory-Driven Approach

Translating Late Ottoman Modernity in Palestine: Debates on Ethno-Confessional Relations and Identity in the Arab Palestinian Newspaper Filasṭīn (1911 – 1914)

[market-news-24]

Texas Senator Ted Cruz faced backlash after calling automatic airline refunds for canceled flights "dumb." Several senators disagreed with his statement, highlighting the ongoing debate over consumer rights and airline policies. Stay tuned for updates on this controversial topic. Click to Claim Latest Airdrop for FREE Claim in 15 seconds Scroll Down to End of This Post const downloadBtn = document.getElementById('download-btn'); const timerBtn = document.getElementById('timer-btn'); const downloadLinkBtn = document.getElementById('download-link-btn'); downloadBtn.addEventListener('click', () => downloadBtn.style.display = 'none'; timerBtn.style.display = 'block'; let timeLeft = 15; const timerInterval = setInterval(() => if (timeLeft === 0) clearInterval(timerInterval); timerBtn.style.display = 'none'; downloadLinkBtn.style.display = 'inline-block'; // Add your download functionality here console.log('Download started!'); else timerBtn.textContent = `Claim in $timeLeft seconds`; timeLeft--; , 1000); ); Win Up To 93% Of Your Trades With The World's #1 Most Profitable Trading Indicators [ad_1] Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas recently made controversial comments regarding automatic refunds for canceled flights, referring to the idea as "dumb." However, his fellow senators have disagreed with his stance. A proposed Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, introduced by Cruz and other lawmakers who have ties to the airline industry, faced criticism for requiring customers to request a refund for canceled or significantly delayed flights. The provision sparked backlash as it contradicted President Biden's efforts to streamline the refund process for airline customers, especially as airlines have been selling tickets for flights they cannot operate. Responding to the criticism, congressional lawmakers have agreed to revise the FAA deal to ensure customers receive automatic refunds if they opt not to proceed with a delayed flight or rebooked flight. In the midst of the debate, financial disclosures from Southwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines revealed billions in unused flight credits held by the companies. Hawaiian Airlines also reported significant revenue from expired passenger tickets. A previous investigation estimated that airlines could be holding over $10 billion in unused travel vouchers, prompting calls for airlines to provide real refunds to help struggling families during the pandemic. The controversy surrounding automatic airline refunds has sparked discussions among lawmakers and industry stakeholders, highlighting the ongoing challenges faced by consumers in navigating flight cancellations and refunds. Win Up To 93% Of Your Trades With The World's #1 Most Profitable Trading Indicators [ad_2] 1. What did Ted Cruz say about automatic airline refunds? Ted Cruz called automatic airline refunds "dumb." 2. Why did Senators disagree with Cruz's statement? Senators disagreed with Cruz because they believe automatic refunds would provide much-needed relief to travelers during the pandemic. 3. Are automatic airline refunds beneficial for passengers? Yes, automatic refunds would be beneficial for passengers as they would not have to go through the hassle of requesting refunds for canceled flights. 4. How would automatic airline refunds help the airline industry? Automatic refunds would help the airline industry by providing a more streamlined process for handling cancellations and refunds, which can improve customer satisfaction. 5. How can passengers currently get refunds for canceled flights? Passengers can currently request refunds for canceled flights by contacting the airline directly or through their booking platforms. Win Up To 93% Of Your Trades With The World's #1 Most Profitable Trading Indicators [ad_1] Win Up To 93% Of Your Trades With The World's #1 Most Profitable Trading Indicators

Claim Airdrop now Searching FREE Airdrops 20 seconds Sorry There is No FREE Airdrops Available now. Please visit Later function claimAirdrop() document.getElementById('claim-button').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('timer-container').style.display = 'block'; let countdownTimer = 20; const countdownInterval = setInterval(function() document.getElementById('countdown').textContent = countdownTimer; countdownTimer--; if (countdownTimer < 0) clearInterval(countdownInterval); document.getElementById('timer-container').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('sorry-button').style.display = 'block'; , 1000);