Watch Donald Trump Supporter Marco Rubio Get Booed Offstage by a Crowd of Latino Voters
On Sunday, Marco Rubio attended Calle Orange, an Orlando, Florida, street festival popular among the city’s Puerto Rican community. The Republican senator and former presidential candidate is currently locked in a tight race with Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy and is struggling to capture Latino support. While Florida’s large Cuban American population broadly supports Rubio, who is Cuban American himself, the state’s many Puerto Rican voters skew heavily Democrat. Rubio has further alienated these voters by endorsing Donald Trump, who has referred to Latinos in disparaging terms and favored policies anathema to their community. It’s no surprise, then, when Rubio took the microphone, the heavily Puerto Rican crowd promptly and vigorously booed him offstage:
NPR’s Adrian Florido was on the scene and asked the audience about their reaction. “Latinos might have differences amongst each other, but we're also united as one,” one man said, noting that he resented Rubio endorsing Trump. “And when we have someone like Trump, who hits our Mexican brothers, our Latino brothers, then you jump on that bandwagon after all that stuff he says not only about you personally ... as a Latino, you're a freaking sellout. I would not vote for him if they paid me.”
“He's from the party of Trump,” another audience member told Florido. “I've never belonged to any political party, but this year, I'm inclined toward the Democrats. The little I've seen of Trump and the Republicans and how hard they've made it for immigrants has left me unconvinced with them.”
Florida has long been a critical state on the path to the presidency, and Republicans routinely rely on its Cuban American population to tilt the state red. But Puerto Ricans are set to outnumber Cuban Americans in Florida within four years—and in two incredibly tight races, they may already have the opportunity to tilt the state both against Trump and Rubio.
Start Your NBA Season Off Right With This Remorseless Twitter Burn of Former Warriors Center Andrew Bogut
I was rooting for the Warriors in the Finals and I have no interest in actually getting into the debate over whether "social justice warriors" have caused political correctness to run amok online, but this is a good burn.
Ya burnt, former Golden State Warriors center and current Dallas Mavericks center Andrew Bogut! The NBA season begins Tuesday night.
Does the President of the Philippines Hate America? Depends What Time of Day You Ask Him.
Consistency is not one of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s virtues. On a visit to Japan Tuesday the president declared that the United States would remain the Philippines’ sole military ally, saying, “There should be no worry about changes of alliances. I do not need to have alliances with other nations.”
This is not exactly what he said when visiting Beijing last week, when he told Chinese leaders that “America has lost now. I’ve realigned myself to your ideological flow” and suggested a three-way anti-American alliance between China, Russia, and the Philippines.
It’s also not quite in the spirit of remarks he made at the airport earlier Tuesday morning just as he was boarding the flight to Japan, when he said, addressing the United States, “son of a bitch, do not make us your dogs, as if I am a dog with a leash, and you throw some bread, where I can't reach.”
The U.S. and the Philippines are close military allies, particularly on counterterrorism and anti-drug issues. Until Duterte arrived on the scene, the Philippines had been at odds with China over overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea, which the U.S is also concerned about. Recently, though, Duterte has been playing down the issues with China. But his problems with America seem less motivated by strategic calculations about his country’s relationship with China than personal animosity.
The bad blood dates back to when Duterte was campaigning for president earlier this year and U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg criticized him for joking about the rape of an Australian missionary. Duterte responded by calling Goldberg a “gay son of a whore.” He also called President Obama a “son of a whore,” apparently his go-to insult, for criticizing his bloodthirsty anti-drug policies, which involve empowering police and vigilantes to kill hundreds of drug users and dealers. Duterte’s beef may actually go back even farther: In his remarks at the airport Tuesday morning, Duterte told a story of having once been denied a visa to travel to the United States to visit a girlfriend. Dude holds on to a grudge.
The U.S. seems a little flummoxed about how to deal with Duterte. His own subordinates sometimes seem just as confused. In September, foreign minister Perfecto Yasay denied that Duterte had ordered a halt to joint U.S.-Philippines military exercises, just moments after Duterte had ordered a halt to joint U.S.-Philippines military exercises. (At the moment, it’s unclear whether these operations will continue or not.) After Duterte’s remarks in Beijing, his spokesman Ernesto Abella denied that the Philippines was severing relations with the U.S. and said Duterte was merely hoping to forge an “independent foreign policy.” This hedging prompted White House spokesman Josh Earnest to dub Abella “the Filipino Mike Pence.” Silver lining: At least Hillary Clinton will have some practice dealing with a guy like Duterte by the time she gets into office.
American Bar Association Produces Report Calling Trump a Libel Bully, Censors It Because He’s a Libel Bully
Throughout his career, Donald Trump has consistently threatened his critics with lawsuits in order to silence them—including, just last week, the women who have accused him of sexual assault. Disturbed by this censorial use of the law, the American Bar Association commissioned a report on Trump’s attempts to stifle free expression. (Disclosure: I am a member of the ABA). The result is a comprehensive, thoroughly documented study concluding that Trump is a “libel bully.”
But the ABA refused to publish the report, out of fear that Trump would sue the organization for libel.
As reported by the New York Times, ABA leadership stepped in upon seeing a draft of the report with pleas to tone down its language. James Dimos, the group’s deputy executive director, asked the Forum on Communications Law—the media-law committee that authored the report—to eliminate the “libel bully” label and remove its bite in other ways. Dimos explained that while “we do not believe that [any potential Trump] lawsuit has merit, it is certainly reasonable to attempt to reduce such a likelihood by removing inflammatory language that is unnecessary to further the article’s thesis.” In other words, the ABA shouldn’t call a libel bully a libel bully because the libel bully might sue the ABA for libel.
The committee refused to comply—rightly so, of course—and the ABA declined to publish its work. Charles D. Tobin, a former chairman of the committee,called the ABA’s decision “colossally inappropriate,” slamming the organization for “sponsor[ing] a group of lawyers to study free speech issues” then “censor[ing] their free speech.” George Freeman, another former committee chairman, concurred. “As the guardian of the values of our legal system,” Freeman said, “the A.B.A. should not stop the publication of an article that criticizes people for bringing lawsuits not to win them but to economically squeeze their opponents.”
It Could Cost You $100 to Park in Cleveland Today
Tuesday night, the first game of the World Series will be played in Cleveland, whose Indians haven't won a championship since 1948. (They're facing the Chicago Cubs, who also have a title drought you may have heard about.) Across the street from that game, the Cleveland Cavaliers will be opening the NBA season against the New York Knicks—and receiving their championship rings for winning the 2016 NBA Finals, which was Cleveland's first title victory in any major sport since 1964.
So it's going to be a wild night in Cleveland. And parking prices are apparently rising accordingly.
$100 to park in downtown Cleveland! Truly, wonders never cease.
Justice Department Reportedly Replaces Investigators in Eric Garner Chokehold Case
In a highly unusual move, the Justice Department replaced the team investigating the controversial 2014 death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old black man who was choked to death on camera by police officers. In 2014, a local grand jury refused to indict the NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo most involved Garner’s death. Since then, the DOJ has been putting together a civil rights case with limited success.
From the New York Times:
Federal authorities have been investigating whether officers violated Mr. Garner’s civil rights in his fatal encounter with the police. But the case had been slowed by a dispute because federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so… Another complicating factor, according to three federal officials, is that the disagreement between Washington and New York is reflected in the F.B.I. reports, which often become evidence at trial.
In recent weeks, the F.B.I. agents who have been investigating the case were replaced with agents from outside New York, according to five federal officials in New York and Washington. Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn are no longer assigned to the case. It is not clear whether civil rights prosecutors from Washington will work alone in presenting evidence to a grand jury in Brooklyn and in trying the case if charges are eventually brought.
Garner’s death came in the wake of Michael Brown’s shooting death at the hands of police in Ferguson, Missouri. Garner was accused of illegally selling individual cigarettes on the street corner when officers surrounded him and took him to the ground. The incident was recorded on a camera phone; Garner was on the ground screaming “I can’t breathe” when he was killed. The city of New York agreed to a nearly $6 million settlement with the Garner family last year.
Watch Donald Trump Absolutely Gush Over Hillary Clinton in a 2008 Interview
Donald Trump basically cutting a campaign ad after the 2008 election for his lifelong friends, the Clintons. Wow. pic.twitter.com/9Q71NaTFOR— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) October 25, 2016
We all know what the 2016 edition of Donald Trump thinks of Hillary Clinton. It isn't particularly nice. But it wasn’t long ago that what appears to be the same human Donald Trump, not a body double, appeared destined to own an “I’m with her” T-shirt someday. During a 2008 NY1 interview, Trump wasn't just complimentary of his now-rival, he positively gushed about her, and her husband's presidency:
Her history is far from being over, I’d like to answer that question in another 15 year from now. I think she’s going to go down at a minimum as a great senator. I think she is a great wife to a president and I think Bill Clinton was a great president. … Hillary Clinton is a great woman and a good woman.
The Republican nominee, who has taken dirty campaign rhetoric and tactics to a previously unimaginable level, also had this to say about the Clinton's treatment during the 2008 campaign*:
I thought they roughed her up pretty good. I think she’s a wonderful woman. I think she’s a little bit misunderstood. You know, Hillary’s a very smart woman, a very tough woman, that’s fine … but she’s also a very nice person. … I thought she was roughed up. … I’m not knocking the other side, you know, you want to win a battle so if it gets a little bit nasty it is politics and politics is a tough game, but I thought she was perhaps unnecessarily roughed up.
I’d like to see what 2016 Donald would do to 2008 Donald in a debate.
Correction, Oct. 24, 2016: This post originally misstated that Donald Trump was referring to Hillary Clinton getting “roughed up” during Bill Clinton’s presidency; Trump was referring to her treatment during the 2008 campaign.
Average Obamacare Health Premiums to Rise 25 Percent Next Year on Federal Exchanges
For Americans that get their health insurance from Obamacare, monthly premiums are set to rise again next year, in some cases significantly, federal officials announced Monday. Premiums for plans sold on the federal exchange will rise an average of 25 percent, across the 38 states that use the federal health insurance marketplace. Last year, the same plans increased by an average of 7.5 percent.
When the enrollment period begins Nov. 1, customers will have fewer coverage options to choose from in many states. Higher-than-expected costs have led some large insurers to pull their coverage from the exchange. “Among the states relying on HealthCare.gov, the typical number of plans available is declining by more than one-third, from 47 to 30,” according to the Washington Post. “In Arizona, the number of plans will plummet from 65 to four. … And 21 percent of the customers shopping in the federal exchange will find only one insurance company, compared with 2 percent for 2016.”
Administration officials stressed that federal subsidies will cushion the blow for many of the 11.4 million expected to sign up for Obamacare for 2017 and more than three-quarters of current enrollees would still be able to purchase insurance for less than $100 out-of-pocket each month. Despite the rise, Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Kevin Griffis says prices are still in line with the Congressional Budget Office’s projections when the law was first passed. “The initial marketplace rates came in below costs,” he said. “Many companies set prices that turned out to be too low.”
Today’s Trump Apocalypse Watch: Does Hillary Have This in the Bag? Not if You Ask Bill Mitchell.
This is Bill Mitchell.
Mike Crapo Re-Endorses Donald Trump, Inspiring No Puns Whatsoever
In the hours after Donald Trump was revealed to have boasted that he would kiss women and “grab them by the pussy” without their consent, Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo was one of the earliest of a number of Republican political leaders to revoke their support for the GOP presidential nominee.
“This is not a decision that I have reached lightly, but his pattern of behavior has left me no choice,” read a statement announcing Crapo’s apparently principled stand. “His repeated actions and comments toward women have been disrespectful, profane and demeaning.”
Crapo has now had another change of heart. On Monday, Politico reported that Crapo had released another statement stating that he would in fact be voting for Trump.
Again, this stood in stark contrast to his statement earlier this month that indicated he felt that Trump’s now infamous hot mic moment in 2005 was more than just “locker room talk,” the excuse the candidate has stuck by even as a flood of accusers have come forward to say they were attacked by Trump in exactly the way he described.
“I have spent more than two decades working on domestic violence prevention,” Crapo said at the time of his unendorsement. “Trump’s most recent excuse of ‘locker room talk’ is completely unacceptable and is inconsistent with protecting women from abusive, disparaging treatment.”
There has been no public polling of the Senate race in Idaho, a deep red state that hasn’t elected a Democratic Senator since 1974. The three-term Republican incumbent is running against businessman Jerry Sturgill for a seat that electoral prognosticator and academic Larry J. Sabato has continued to list as “safe” for Crapo and the GOP. It’s possible that Crapo felt squeezed by Republican voters that still strongly back Trump and more moderate voters who have been turned off by the assault talk and accusations, and opted to go with the base. Still, it’s hard to say what’s behind Crapo’s sudden shift. The move does seem especially craven, though, given what should be a solid Crapo seat.
One thing’s for sure, there should be some sort of expression for what Crapo has been doing this election cycle that might also serve as an interesting play on his very unusual name. But it’s really, really hard to think of one.
I mean, what do you call someone who promises one thing based on what he claims are sincerely held beliefs and then does the exact opposite thing?
Or if only there was an idiom for someone who struggles to conclusively make up his mind on a matter for an absurd period of time?
Or a phrase to describe someone who is “totally or utterly worthless, contemptible, or of very poor quality.”
Anyways, if you can think of ways to describe Mike Crapo’s indecision that also might serve as a fun bit of wordplay, please leave them in the comments below, because we are at a complete loss.