Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, plans to push forward this week with a second vote on a bipartisan border enforcement bill that Senate Republicans killed earlier this year at the urging of former President Donald J. Trump.
The measure is almost certain to be blocked again, but Democrats hope to use the failed vote to sharpen an election-year contrast with the G.O.P. on a critical issue that polls show is a major potential liability for President Biden and their candidates.
Democrats will aim to neutralize the issue by showing voters that they and Mr. Biden have tried to get migration at the U.S. border with Mexico under control, but have been thwarted repeatedly by Republicans following the lead of Mr. Trump.
“The former president made clear he would rather preserve the issue for his campaign than solve the issue in a bipartisan fashion,” Mr. Schumer wrote in a letter to colleagues that heralded the bill’s provisions and outlined his plans. “On cue, many of our Republican colleagues abruptly reversed course on their prior support, announcing their newfound opposition to the bipartisan proposal.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


After months of negotiation, Republicans and Democrats reached an improbable immigration compromise in February — one that G.O.P. lawmakers had insisted was a prerequisite for providing additional aid to Ukraine — that appeared to have a chance at passage. But Mr. Trump called it too weak and instructed his allies in Congress to vote it down. The measure failed when it fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate, with all but four Republicans voting to block it. (In the 50-to-49 vote, three Democrats and one independent also voted “no,” denying the measure even a simple majority.)
Mr. Biden, whose team helped hammer out the deal, urged support for it on Monday in a statement from Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, that said, “We strongly support this legislation and call on every senator to put partisan politics aside and vote to secure the border.”

Among other changes to immigration law, the measure would make it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States and increase detentions and deportations of those crossing into the country without authorization. It would also effectively close the border altogether if the average number of migrants encountered by immigration officials exceeded a certain threshold — an average of 5,000 over the course of a week or 8,500 on any given day. The bill also would give the president power to close the border unilaterally if migrant encounters reach an average of 4,000 per day over a week.
While crossings have fallen substantially in recent months, the average number per day over the month of March far exceeded those thresholds, at just over 6,000, according to Customs and Border Protection. Polls show Americans are deeply concerned about the state of the southern border.
The compromise measure was negotiated by Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma; Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut; and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, independent of Arizona. Mr. Murphy joined Mr. Schumer at a news conference last week to announce he was reintroducing the bill.

​

“If Republicans think this situation at the border is an emergency, then let’s give them another chance to do the right thing,” Mr. Murphy said.
Republicans quickly signaled that they planned to block the bill again.
“This ‘border security bill’ doesn’t secure the border. In the hands of Biden, it’d make the border far LESS secure,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, wrote on social media. “I’ll be voting ‘heck no!’”
“Should it reach the House, the bill would be dead on arrival,” Speaker Mike Johnson and the rest of the House Republican leadership team wrote in a joint statement.
Mr. Lankford spoke out last week on the Senate floor against Mr. Schumer’s plan to again bring up the bill he had helped negotiate, calling the move political.
“Why are we doing this?” Mr. Lankford said. “All the American people see it. Everybody sees this is political.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Mr. Lankford pointed to a memo written by his Democratic colleagues that credited the death of the border bill with helping Representative Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, flip a seat in New York.
“The bill that I worked with Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema on — we’re not going to be able to pass,” Mr. Lankford said. “So let’s find the sections of it that we can pass. The worst-case scenario is doing nothing. That’s what we’re currently doing.”

Just got my statement yesterday and went up $336 this year. That's the third year in a row it's jumped up. Live in Linn County. It's just none stop the last 3 years. Anyhow.. csb/

Or is my math wrong. Come on folks. Let’s discuss without the crazies I the football forum. What are we looking at for 2 deeps and newcomers or personal surprises.

Cael Vanderbush has entered the portal, per Schott Dochterman.
Login to view embedded media

Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump’s terrifying plans to assume dictatorial powers (and try for a third term), deploy the military against civil protesters, create a massive police state to carry out mass deportations and use federal power to exact revenge on his opponents should be enough to convince voters that his election would be a disaster for the United States domestically. However, returning him to the position of commander in chief and “leader of the free world” is just as scary on a global front. Don’t take it from me; just listen to two former senior Republican national security experts.


Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politics

Former national security adviser John Bolton recently told Jordan Klepper of “The Daily Show” that his former boss “doesn’t understand alliances.” Bolton opined that Ronald Reagan would be “appalled” by the MAGA Republican Party, and added that Trump has a “fascination with authoritarian leaders.” Bolton also concurred with former secretary of state Rex Tillerson’s description of Trump as a “f---ing moron,” though Bolton refrained from using the expletive. (Klepper taunted Bolton for, after all that, saying he would vote for neither President Biden or Trump. “Great. So, in the race between a current president and a former president, it looks like the winner will be the Russian president.”)
Bolton has previously said of Trump: “He’s fundamentally ignorant, and he really doesn’t care about the facts. He thinks international relations are about personal relations, which is a line and approach that I can tell you, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are eagerly looking forward to.” Trump’s ignorance and overweening narcissism make him easy pickings for manipulative dictators. (Trump came to regard North Korea’s Kim Jong Un as a friend because he sent “love letters.” He turned over foreign signals intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office.) He is, in other words, a patsy for strongmen whose object is to weaken the United States.



Trump declared that he would invite Putin to invade NATO countries that didn’t contribute sufficiently to the alliance’s collective defense. (He continues to misunderstand how NATO forces are funded.) His well-known hostility toward European allies and threats to ditch NATO should indicate to any voter concerned about national security that Trump’s return to office would spell disaster for international peace and stability.


Bolton is not the only conservative foreign policy veteran sounding the alarm about Trump’s strange brew of isolationism and dictator-worship. Former chief of staff and retired Marine general John F. Kelly has warned about Trump’s unfitness and fond thoughts about Adolf Hitler. Most recently, Republican Robert M. Gates, former CIA director and defense secretary who served in the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, had this exchange with Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation”:

Brennan: You did write an essay in Foreign Affairs a few months ago ... “[Trump’s] disdain for allies, fondness for authoritarian leaders, erratic behavior undermined his credibility.” You were also critical of President Biden, and his withdrawal from Afghanistan, which you said “further damaged the world’s confidence in America.” Do you think Mr. Biden has been able to repair that damage?
Gates: I think that he gained a lot of credibility with the speed with which he assembled the coalition of partner countries, allies and friends before, during, and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Gates went on to praise Biden for “putting together that three dozen countries willing to help Ukraine with money, with military assistance” and “being able to warn the allies before the Russians actually invaded so that when they did, we had enormous credibility with others, that we knew what we were talking about, and we knew the nature of Putin’s threat.”



But if Republicans share Gates’s measured criticisms of the Biden team’s delays in sending arms to Ukraine, they should find the notion that we would hand over an ally to Putin utterly disgraceful. One cannot care about Ukraine, the Western alliance and the United States’ standing in the world and then turn around to vote for the candidate certain to undermine all three.
Biden has had to walk a fine line between supporting Israel and deterring the Netanyahu government’s excessive and counterproductive prosecution of the war. Gates suggested the president has gotten the balance just about right. He weighed in on Biden’s handling of the Middle East, specifically his decision to withhold one shipment of arms, saying, “I think it sends an important message that we, like them, want to see Hamas weakened, if not destroyed. But we don’t think the way to do that is to flatten two-thirds of the buildings in Gaza.”
Gates also shared the Biden administration’s frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s obstinate refusal to consider how this ends and what comes next: “The United States government has been asking Prime Minister Netanyahu for months, what’s your plan?” He continued, “What happens after the shooting stops? Where are you going with this? What’s the solution politically? ... And [the Biden team is] not getting any answers.”



Compare that with Trump’s Middle East track record, including his reckless decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal with no viable alternative, his contempt for any legitimate Palestinian aspirations and his desire to expand his Muslim travel ban to Gaza residents.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_17

“Everything we know about the former president, from his extensive policy record on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to his top advisers’ statements on the war, suggests he would have no qualms about aligning himself completely with Israel’s far-right government,” Zach Beauchamp writes for Vox. “While Biden has pushed Israel behind the scenes on issues like food and medical aid to civilians — with some limited success — it’s hard to imagine Trump even lifting a finger in defense of Gazan civilians whom he wants to ban from entering the United States.” As Beauchamp points out, this is why right-wing National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir “pines” for Trump.
The bottom line from two Republican voices with decades of experience in national security: One might have legitimate complaints with aspects of Biden’s foreign policy, but anyone who cares about democracy, NATO, Middle East peace and the United States’ role as the “indispensable” nation should consider the prospect of a second (and third!) Trump term an unmitigated disaster.



Voters should dispense with the notion they can only vote for a perfect candidate. You think Biden has been insufficiently attentive to Palestinians’ aspirations? Trump has supported the most extreme aspects of the Netanyahu government’s policies. You think Biden pulled out precipitously from Afghanistan? He never considered inviting the Taliban to Camp David or set the date for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Biden likes to say, “Don’t compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative.” In the case of foreign policy, according to hawkish Republican foreign policy gurus, the alternative to Biden is the candidate who wants to hobble NATO, sacrifice European allies to Putin, betray Ukraine, encourage the worst aspects of both the Saudi and Israeli governments, and do PR for North Korea, Hungary and every tinpot dictator who can flatter Trump. If you find these outcomes abhorrent, you cannot be indifferent to the outcome of the election.

The 17 Fever games available on local TV are:

Thurs., May 16 vs. Liberty, 7 p.m. ET
Wed., May 22 @ Storm, 10 p.m. ET
Sat., May 25 @ Aces, 9 p.m. ET
Thurs., May 30 vs. Storm, 7 p.m. ET
*Sat., June 1 vs. Sky, 1 p.m. ET (subject to change)
Sun., June 2 @ Liberty, 7 p.m. ET
Mon., June 10 @ Sun, 7 p.m. ET
Thurs., June 13 vs. Dream, 7 p.m. ET
Sun., June 23 @ Sky, 6 p.m. ET
Thurs., June 27 @ Storm, 10 p.m. ET
Wed., July 10 vs. Mystics, 12 p.m. ET
Mon., August 26 @ Dream, 7:30 p.m. ET
Wed., September 4 vs. Sparks, 7 p.m. ET
Sun., September 8 vs. Dream, 4 p.m. ET
Wed., September 11 vs. Aces, 7 p.m. ET
Sun., September 15 vs. Wings, 3 p.m. ET
Thurs., September 19 @ Mystics, 7 p.m. ET

TV Stations airing the games (subject to change) include:

Davenport, Iowa: WQAD 8.1, 8.3 (TEGNA)
Des Moines, Iowa: WOI 5.1 & KCWI 23.1 (TEGNA)

Indianapolis, Ind.: WTHR 13.1, 13.3 & WALV 46.1 (TEGNA)
Evansville, Ind.: WFIE 14.2 (Gray Television)
Fort Wayne, Ind.: WPTA 21.3 (Gray Television)
Lafayette, Ind.: WPBY 35.1, 35.2 (Coastal Television Broadcasting Group)
South Bend, Ind.: WCWW 25.1 & WMYS 69.1 (Weigel); WNDU 16.2 (Gray Television)

Champaign-Springfield, Ill.: WCIX 49.1 & WCIA 3.1 (Nexstar)

Cincinnati, Ohio: WXIX 19.3 (Gray Television)
Dayton, Ohio: WKEF 22.3 (Sinclair)

Lexington, Ky.: WKYT 27.2 (Gray Television)
Louisville, Ky.: WHAS 11.1, 11.2 (TEGNA)



ORIGINAL POST:


The first of 17 games to be broadcast for free on local TV is May 16 vs the NY Liberty.

TEGNA owned TV stations in the 5 states that will be broadcasting 17 Fever games for FREE:

Indiana:
WTHR (NBC), Indianapolis

Illinois:
WQAD (ABC), Moline

IOWA:
WOI (ABC), Des Moines
KCWI (The CW), Des Moines

Ohio:
WBNS (CBS), Columbus
WKYC (NBC), Cleveland
WTOL (CBS), Toledo

Kentucky:
WHAS (ABC), Louisville


Login to view embedded media

That was some BS

Opinion by Greg Sargent
Columnist
Today at 11:20 a.m. EDT



The sunny reading of the threat posed by Donald Trump goes like this: Yes, Trump hatched multiple schemes to overturn the 2020 election, but their implausibility, his incompetence and the unwillingness of Republicans to play along suggest there’s little to fear from a rerun in 2024.

We should hope that’s true. But it would be folly to count on this without taking active steps to prevent the contrary outcome — and three political races in the Midwest that you’re probably not following illustrate the point with new urgency.
We’re talking about the 2022 gubernatorial races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The New York Times reports that Democrats are quietly worried about these races, in part because GOP governors in those states will be able to dramatically ramp up the anti-democratic tactics.



In all three states there are GOP-controlled legislatures, and if any of the three Democratic governors in them — Tony Evers (Wis.), Tom Wolf (Pa.) and Gretchen Whitmer (Mich.) — are replaced with a Republican, it will mean unified GOP control.
Most obviously, that will mean ramped up voter suppression and other anti-majoritarian tactics. Indeed, as the Times notes, GOP lawmakers and candidates for governor in these places are pushing more such proposals, making these Democratic governors bulwarks against more deeply entrenched minority rule.
But perhaps more important is what this means for future election subversion. In these states, Republicans are pushing various efforts to “audit” or “recount” the 2020 voting, which should be seen as dry runs for manufacturing pretexts for subverting future outcomes.



GOP governors would make it easier for Republicans to do just that, by, say, overturning a 2024 presidential loss in their state. As the Times notes, a GOP governor could refuse to certify a slate of electors for a Democratic winner of the popular vote, or send rogue electors for the GOP candidate, in defiance of the popular vote, for Congress to count.
This would require cooperation with the state legislature, but unified GOP control makes that more likely. And while this might not survive court challenge, in theory it could. What then?
Well, a GOP-controlled House of Representatives could count the rogue electors. A Democratic Senate might refuse to count them, but the Electoral Count Act of 1887 stipulates that both chambers must invalidate them, or they do, in fact, count. A GOP-controlled House and Senate could both count the rogue electors, an even worse scenario.



“Although it would require many guardrails to fail,” Genevieve Nadeau, counsel at Protect Democracy, told me, “it is theoretically possible that a governor, with the support of a legislature of the same party, could certify a result contrary to the popular vote and that Congress would then count those electoral votes.”
All of which requires reform, at two levels. The first is the state certification process, which could address the above scenario: Democratic lawyer Marc Elias suggests Congress should remove control of certification of electors from officials such as governors and place it in the hands of less partisan actors, such as state justices.
The second level would be revisions to the Electoral Count Act. Richard L. Hasen’s blueprint recommends making it harder in various ways for Congress to invalidate the correct electors or count the wrong ones in situations where multiple slates are sent. Others call for clarifying the vice president’s role in counting electors as purely ceremonial.







These would close off other pathways, some of which Trump did try with plenty of GOP support. He tried to get states to send alternate rogue electors, pressured congressional Republicans to toss out the correct electors, and pushed his vice president to refuse to count them.
All this does in some ways seem far-fetched, and some observers continue to suggest that Trump’s incompetence and failed schemes are at least partial causes for reassurance. But such schemes might be attempted even if Trump himself isn’t the 2024 nominee.
What’s more, any discussion of this is incomplete without noting that other Republicans are running on versions of Trump’s “big lie” about 2020, or even on an open vow that future losses should be subject to overturning. More such Republicans will be in key positions in 2024.



Indeed, these gubernatorial contests will help test how worried we should be about the threat. The media should hound the living heck out of GOP candidates in those races until they unequivocally renounce any intention of certifying electors in defiance of the popular vote.
It may fall on Democrats to force this issue to the fore, to get the media focused on it. “Democratic candidates should — and will — keep this fight front and center,” Ben Wiker, the Democratic Party chair in Wisconsin, tells me.
Democratic voters in those states should focus on this as well. Wikler points to early positive signs, noting that the issue is “already galvanizing volunteers and activists in a way I wouldn’t have thought possible in a midterm.”

Here’s a prediction: If GOP gubernatorial candidates are pressed in this regard, some will fudge their answers. To keep the Trump rump happy, they will say something like: “If the 2024 election is conducted with integrity and with no signs of fraud, then of course I would certify the proper electors.”
That’s a dodge, and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. And if they do say this, then perhaps those who are sanguine about the continuing threat might rethink matters.

Feels like the start............

No WHO/whitehouse/WEF you are not going to use the next manufactured pandemic to shut our worlds down and create your new normal. We'll done to these 12.

Maritime Tribunal Issues Ruling Holding Governments Responsible for Ocean Pollution​

May 23, 2024

In environmental news, an international maritime tribunal issued a ruling that says greenhouse gases are pollutants that can cause irreversible harm to the marine environment and that governments must “adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control” them.

Though the ruling is nonbinding, small island nations on the frontlines of the climate crisis hailed it as a “groundbreaking victory,” and it’s likely to lead to more cases against the largest polluters.

The decision affects 165 countries that ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — the United States is not one of them.

Login to view embedded media

Many of you might recall the fact that my father passed in the military when I was a toddler, so I never got the opportunity to fish with my dad.

I’ve actually only been fishing a handful of times in my life, but I’d like to take my son out to a shoreline or on a lake and do some fishing with him. I have absolutely no idea what we’d need. Can yall help me?

I don’t know if he’d have fun doing it but it’s one of those things I’d like to do for myself, maybe cathartic.

draft versions of the analysis obtained by the Tampa Bay Times show that this recommendation was made despite the state having contradictory data. It showed that catching COVID-19 could increase the chances of a cardiac-related death much more than getting the vaccine.

That data was included in an earlier version of the state’s analysis but was missing from the final version compiled and posted online by the Florida Department of Health. Ladapo did not reference the contradictory data in a release posted by the state.

Nice get for the Hawks. Working on a story as we speak.

Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media

Former Northwestern QB Brendan Sullivan is a Hawkeye.

This is per my girlfriend, who works for the city of CR. Happening today during the mayor's state of the city speech. I believe @Adam Jacobi is planning on watching the live stream of the event via the City of Cedar Rapids Facebook page and getting more info from the event. It starts at noon.

More details on timing and such here:

After all those months trashing him on the campaign trail...I guess she changed her mind. 😞

Login to view embedded media

Sorry if I didn’t scroll down far enough to find it but here

https://hawkfanatic.com/2024/05/01/...-swarm-collective-approaches-end-of-year-two/

I appreciate what Brad has done and continues to do but this pretty much sums up why college sports can go ahead and die in my opinion.
It just doesn’t rise to the level of concern for most to pay high school and college kids to play a sport at a university I cheer for.
I’ll find other things to do on Saturdays.

I don't care if its a Pepsi, my thread title is better.

Login to view embedded media

In my never-ending effort to make HROT a more civilized experience, I give you this peanut butter PSA

Login to view embedded media

WTF is wrong with WNBA refs...holy Sh!t they're bad...just effing horrible

The U.S. government filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit Thursday against Live Nation Entertainment, the parent company of Ticketmaster, seeking to break up the conglomerate over allegations that it has amassed and abused unrivaled power in the ticketing and concert industries.

Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend.

The landmark case — joined by 30 state and district attorneys general — could dramatically reshape an ecosystem that has long sparked outrage from artists and fans alike, whose frustrations erupted in 2022 when high fees and site outages disrupted early sales for Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tour.

Live Nation is an entertainment titan: It is a concert promoter, artist manager, venue owner and ticket seller and reseller, constituting a sprawling empire that its executives publicly herald as the “largest live entertainment company in the world.” Last year alone, Live Nation produced more than 50,000 concerts and other musical events, and it sold more than 620 million tickets globally, the company boasted to investors in April.



But the U.S. government contends that the company’s vast power and reach have also afforded it unfair advantages over competitors, allowing Live Nation to evolve into an illegal and harmful “monopolist” — with the power to box out rivals, reduce consumer choices and raise ticket prices.

“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement, later adding: “It is time to break up Live Nation.”
State and federal officials allege that Live Nation threatens to retaliate against performance venues unless they agree to use the company’s Ticketmaster service. Otherwise, these venue operators risk losing access to popular performances and tours — an unfavorable ultimatum, according to the government, that has allowed Ticketmaster to lock up more than 70 percent of sales at major concert venues.



To further entrench its dominance, Live Nation also targets artists: Performers at times must use Live Nation’s tour promotional services, or they cannot perform at company-operated venues, the complaint alleges. Live Nation owns or controls 265 concert venues in North America, including 60 of the top 100 amphitheaters in the United States, according to the government’s estimates.
State and federal antitrust watchdogs contend these arrangements ultimately have restricted artists, arrested the growth of competing ticketing services and cost audience members, who are forced to pay high, mandatory ticketing fees. In response, they asked a federal judge in New York to order structural changes to Live Nation, which could effectively force the company to break up.
A long, arduous court battle is now likely to follow, one that will see the Justice Department argue for unwinding a merger that the agency itself approved more than a decade ago.



In a statement Thursday, Live Nation sharply rebutted the charges. Dan Wall, the company’s executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, said the government “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices,” including higher production costs, artist popularity and ticket “scalping.”
“It’s also clear that we are another casualty of this administration’s decision to turn over antitrust enforcement to a populist urge that simply rejects how antitrust law works,” he added.
The lawsuit marks only the latest federal antitrust case initiated under President Biden, who came to office promising to crack down on corporate power and profiteering. Over the past three years, federal watchdogs have sued major technology companies including Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google for allegedly anticompetitive practices, and they have blocked major mergers involving airlines, biotech firms and grocery chains.



“Maybe it took people by surprise, but the president said [the government] wanted to do something on this, and they have,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the top lawmaker on the chamber’s antitrust panel. She added that Washington never should have allowed Live Nation to acquire Ticketmaster in the first place.
“However you look at it,” she said, “that’s a monopoly.”