Visit Blog
Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.
politishaun · 2 days ago
Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy seems to pride himself on asking hard-hitting questions of White House press secretary Jen Psaki.
However, on Tuesday, Psaki was the one who asked a question that left Doocy momentarily speechless.
It happened when Doocy asked about the possibility of “tons” of police officers and members of the military quitting to avoid COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
Psaki interrupted by asking where, specifically, this is happening.
“Where are tons of police and military walking off the job?” she asked. (A police union in Massachusetts has made unconfirmed claims about large numbers of officers resigning over vaccine requirements there. Many other police departments have reported staffing shortages, but that issue predates vaccine mandates.)
In response, Doocy quoted Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who has speculated that 5% to 10% of his employees might leave the job if they are forced to get vaccinated against the coronavirus.
“I mean, is there any concern about that?” Doocy asked.
Psaki replied with a question of her own. “What was the number one cause of death among police officers last year?” she asked. “Do you know?”
Doocy didn’t immediately respond, so Psaki answered her own question.
“COVID-19,” she said. “So that’s something that we’re working to address, and police departments are working to address. If you look at Seattle as an example, which I know has been in some of the reporting, 92% of the police force is vaccinated, as are 93% of firefighters.”
Doocy then claimed his question was about safety.
“All these other problems: terror, murder, robberies, kidnappings.” he said. “Is there any concern that if police forces shrink, or if the size of the ready military force shrinks, that the United States or localities may not be equipped properly?”
Psaki then reminded Doocy that more than 700,000 people have died of COVID in the U.S., and that “it was the number one cause of death among police departments and police officers.”
“It’s something that we should take seriously,” she added. “Departments are trying to save people in their departments, people who work for them. And we support that effort.”
You can see the exchange [here]...
84 notes · View notes
mysharona1987 · 2 days ago
Tumblr media
116 notes · View notes
jerseydeanne · 10 hours ago
Republican tells Royal Family to STRIP Meghan Markle of her royal title for interfering in US politics: GOP Reps. tell 'out-of-touch' Duchess to 'stick to acting' and calls her 'Sizzler salad bar' story 'laughable'
16 notes · View notes
truthdogg · a year ago
Tumblr media
1. Trump calls CNN "the enemy of the people."
Cesar Sayoc sends pipe bombs to CNN.
2. Trump tweets about "anarchists and agitators."
Kyle Rittenhouse kills two people in Kenosha.
3. Trump tweets "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."
Six men try to kidnap the Governor of Michigan.
But of course there’s more:
4. Trump says there is a caravan invasion coming.
Patrick Crusius grabs a gun, drives to El Paso and kills 23 people, quotes Trump in his manifesto.
Donald J. Trump is a stochastic terrorist. And here are FIFTY-FOUR (54!!) more examples:
24K notes · View notes
s-leary · 11 months ago
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
“For the project, researchers recruited more than 600 political scientists around the world to make annual assessments of political parties’ adherence to a number of key small-D democratic values.
Those assessments are combined into the main measure in the chart above, which tracks parties’ overall commitment to democracy. Lührmann points out that the Republican Party score started to edge downward during the Obama administration but fell off a cliff in 2016 with the ascent of Trump.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, hasn’t changed much. This is a prime example of what political scientists call asymmetric polarization — a growing partisan gap driven almost entirely by the actions of the Republican Party.”
16K notes · View notes
politishaun · 2 days ago
The White House on Tuesday pushed back against former President Trump’s effort to block the release of documents to the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, saying executive privilege should not be used to shield evidence of “a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.”
“Our view, and I think the view of the vast majority of Americans, is that former President Trump abused the office of the presidency and attempted to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, something that had happened between Democratic and Republican presidencies for decades and decades throughout history,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday when asked to respond to Trump’s lawsuit. “The former president’s actions represented a unique and existential threat to our democracy that we don’t feel can be swept under the rug.”
“The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself,” Psaki added.
Trump filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the panel from obtaining Trump-era White House documents from the National Archives. He argued that the select committee has not demonstrated a legitimate legislative purpose to override his claims of privilege and that the committee’s request is unconstitutional because of its breadth.
"The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration," the lawsuit reads. "Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors."
President Biden’s White House declined to exert executive privilege on the first tranche of documents requested by the select committee.
The committee vowed to fight the lawsuit, accusing Trump of attempting to obstruct the investigation into the attack on Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters earlier this year.
The suit is the opening salvo in what is likely to be a prolonged and contentious legal fight over executive privilege and the legislative branch’s investigative authority. It’s unclear how Trump’s lawsuit will fare. The Supreme Court previously ruled during the Nixon era that former presidents have some authority to assert executive privilege.
20 notes · View notes
mysharona1987 · 2 months ago
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
48K notes · View notes
Major corporations that have publicly touted their support for voting rights amid the nationwide Republican crackdown on ballot access are still funding many Republican state attorneys general who are working to scuttle federal voting rights legislation.
Leaders of companies like General Motors, Coca-Cola and Home Depot denounced the Republican onslaught of voting restrictions in states like Georgia earlier this year. But those companies and others have kept on funding Republican attorneys general who urged congressional leaders to block the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a proposed law that would restore a section of the Voting Rights Act — recently gutted by the Supreme Court — requiring states with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear new voting changes with the Justice Department.
18 notes · View notes
misteranthrope · a month ago
Tumblr media
2K notes · View notes
softservewidow · 7 months ago
4K notes · View notes
seymour-butz-stuff · 7 months ago
If there were so much "proof" of voter fraud, why haven't the GOP used it yet?
The Republican Party stands the most to gain from proving widespread voter fraud. In fact they'd gain...everything. If they could prove that the Democrats "stole" the 2020 election via fraud, then they could effectively end the Democratic Party. Full stop.
They could use their "proof" to paint every Democratic candidate for the next generation as a member of the "party of voter fraud." They'd become the majority party in a heartbeat, and Nancy Pelosi couldn't be elected dog catcher in San Francisco.
Yet they're not doing that. Weird, huh? It's almost like they know the claims of "widespread voter fraud" aren't true. Does anybody really think the GOP wouldn't jump at the chance to demolish the Dems once and for all?
2K notes · View notes
politishaun · 2 days ago
Arkansas is likely to be the first state to pass a bill similar to Texas’ six-week abortion ban ― the most extreme abortion restriction in U.S. history that has forced many to flee the state to receive care.
Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert (R) announced last week that he will introduce the Arkansas Heartbeat Protection Act on Oct. 25 during a special legislative session. Although Rapert has yet to formally release the bill, he said it will include “a civil cause of action ― just like Texas.” It’s very likely that the legislation will mirror S.B. 8, especially coming from Rapert who, when S.B. 8 became law in September, told news outlets: “What Texas has done is absolutely awesome.”
“Arkansas was recently named the most ProLife state in the nation,” Rapert said on Twitter earlier this week. “It should be easy to pass the Texas-style heartbeat bill in our upcoming Special Session.”
In addition to banning abortion after six weeks (a point at which many people don’t yet realize they’re pregnant), Texas’ S.B. 8 includes financial incentives for private citizens to seek out and sue anyone who “aids or abets” Texans trying to get an abortion. If someone successfully sues, they could receive a bounty of at least $10,000 and have all of their legal fees paid for by the opposing side.
“We are taking this very, very seriously,” said Emily Wales, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. “We know that we have a number of legislators here in Arkansas who are eager to be on the frontlines of ending abortion access entirely ― no matter the impact on the citizens they serve.”
Reproductive rights advocates warned the country when S.B. 8 passed that copycat legislation in other red states was likely. And, so far, the legislation is working as Republican lawmakers intended. The restriction has forced pregnant Texans seeking abortions to flee the state; it’s instilled fear in many who are confused by the intentionally vague legislation; and it’s chilled conversations on the ground for providers and organizers who are fearful of legal ramifications.
The same will likely happen in Arkansas if the state successfully passes Rapert’s copycat bill.
19 notes · View notes