Since 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, many states have made it all but impossible to get abortion care within their borders, and have done their best to isolate people facing unwanted or complicated pregnancies, making them afraid to reach out to medical providers or even to friends and loved ones who might help them. New laws have forced doctors to delay care in life-threatening situations and made women afraid to seek it, leading to preventable deaths. Did anyone really want this?

We asked people at the front lines of abortion access to help us understand how the new laws have filtered into their worlds. They answered our call with texts, audio messages, videos and pictures; some shared their stories anonymously out of fear of reprisal. Taken as a whole, their dispatches show us an untenable status quo, held together by sheer grit and determination. But for how much longer?

This presidential election will be the first since the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, when voters will be presented with a choice: to try to rein in the chaos unleashed by the ruling or to live in a country that continues to be shaped by it.

Freedom is indeed on this year's ballot for all of us, even if many have no earthly idea of that being the case.

At that point the DNC needed a primary. Nothing she's done qualified her to run for president.

I'm surprised the internet is available wherever you live because it must be so misinformed there that evidently history books are only used to place your dunce caps upon. The states run primaries, not the parties. The primaries were all finished. There is no mechanism nor regulation that if a party's presumptive nominee drops out, every single primary must be held again.

Think of how stupid it is to even raise this as a probability! Tell us Einstein, just how would that happen at the end of July? How long would it take to organize each state and territory for a single race ballot? Who's going to pay for this expense, the Republican Party? Dems sure as hell aren't.

Again - as you obviously don't know nor understand - the parties themselves determine how their nominees are chosen, not state governments. As Danforth informed you, the Democratic National Committee DOES have party rules for such a contingency and they were followed to a T! There was an open call for candidates to enter a convention nomination race with the delegates deciding. Only one candidate did, Kamala Harris. None of the 25 other 2020 candidates - nor anyone else - threw their hat in the ring. So Kamala received the votes from delegates to win and become the 2024 Democratic Presidential nominee.

And being the Vice President for 4 years is the ultimate qualification for becoming President. And again, replacing the President is the chief role of the Vice President to begin with. This is why they're elected in the first place and not fireable by the President. The Vice President is the only member of the entire Executive Branch that doesn't serve at the President's leisure, she serves as the first person selected to move into the Presidency should the need occur.

And that, my troglodytic misanthrope, is the most important qualification for becoming the President and its dictate comes from inside the US Constitution itself.

If she was doing so well why did she drop out?

Because she had no constituency from which to win the nomination and she had no money to continue her attempt. Does logic not visit whatever hovel you pollute with your toxic presence?

You're the moron running around putting lipstick on a pig.

At least I'm not sucking the mushroom of one like you are.

Harris is the elected Vice President. When the President can or does not want to continue his service, she's the FIRST ONE in line constitutionally to take over. Why is this so hard for pinheads to understand?

Biden stepped down, Harris stepped up. That is all that matters. If America felt her unfit to be President, they never would have elected her Vice President, something JD Vance is getting ready to learn firsthand.

Because she failed miserably in 2020.

So tired of this insipidly stupid talking point repeated by the ignorant.

Strawlighter is simply being who he is. There should be zero dispute over the article's title and all the substantiation showing it's accuracy in its comparisons.

[W]hen Trump was swaying to music at a surreal rally, he did so in front of a huge slogan: Trump Was Right About Everything. This is language borrowed directly from Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist. Soon after the rally, the scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat posted a photograph of a building in Mussolini's Italy displaying his slogan: Mussolini Is Always Right.

[Trump] has said of immigrants, "They're poisoning the blood of our country" and "They're destroying the blood of our country." He has claimed that many have "bad genes." He has also been more explicit: "They're not humans; they're animals"; they are "cold-blooded killers." He refers more broadly to his opponents - American citizens, some of whom are elected officials - as "the enemy from within ... sick people, radical-left lunatics." Not only do they have no rights; they should be "handled by," he has said, "if necessary, National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military." Donald Trump's described his opponents as "radical-left thugs" who "live like vermin."

Adolf Hitler used these kinds of terms often. In 1938, he praised his compatriots who had helped "cleanse Germany of all those parasites who drank at the well of the despair of the Fatherland and the People." In occupied Warsaw, a 1941 poster displayed a drawing of a louse with a caricature of a Jewish face. The slogan: "Jews are lice: they cause typhus." Germans, by contrast, were clean, pure, healthy, and vermin-free.

Stalin used the same kind of language at about the same time. He called his opponents the "enemies of the people," implying that they were not citizens and that they enjoyed no rights. He portrayed them as vermin, pollution, filth that had to be "subjected to ongoing purification," and he inspired his fellow communists to employ similar rhetoric.

Some prominent corporate leaders -- including Elon Musk, a founder of Tesla; the investors David Sacks and Bill Ackman; and the financier Stephen Schwarzman -- have been supportive of Mr. Trump's candidacy. Beyond pure cynicism, it's nearly impossible to understand why.

This week Donald Trump provided a stark reminder that this election is different. In remarks that ought to alarm any American committed to the survival of our democratic experiment, the Republican nominee again refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election. That comes on the heels of remarks in which he declared that he regards his political opponents as an "enemy from within" and that he would consider deploying the military against them merely for opposing his bid for the presidency. The implication is that participation in the democratic process is treason, and the threat is a fresh indication that if he is elected to a second term, Mr. Trump intends to deploy government power in new and dangerous ways.

Right-wing populists often win elections by promising pro-business policies that will unleash economic growth. Once in office, however, they don't just fiddle with the knobs; they break the machinery. They undermine economic stability by attacking and delegitimizing people and institutions, inside or outside the government, who might challenge or correct bad economic decisions.

Mr. Trump's attacks on the integrity of federal data and on government experts are examples of the ways in which he already pursues these strategies. In August, for example, he claimed that a routine revision in employment data issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was manipulated to favor his opponent. Michael Strain, a conservative economist at the American Enterprise Institute, called this attack on the integrity of the agency "grossly irresponsible and completely inaccurate."

And he is not the man for moments of crisis. His management of the government's response to the Covid pandemic was disastrous. On China, his confrontational showmanship and his dismissive treatment of potential allies did nothing to improve America's strategic position. Is there any reason for public confidence in the ability of a Trump White House to wrestle with the ever more thorny and high-stakes issues posed by artificial intelligence technology?

This language isn't merely ugly or repellant: These words belong to a particular tradition. Adolf Hitler used these kinds of terms often. In 1938, he praised his compatriots who had helped "cleanse Germany of all those parasites who drank at the well of the despair of the Fatherland and the People." In occupied Warsaw, a 1941 poster displayed a drawing of a louse with a caricature of a Jewish face. The slogan: "Jews are lice: they cause typhus." Germans, by contrast, were clean, pure, healthy, and vermin-free. Hitler once described the Nazi flag as "the victorious sign of freedom and the purity of our blood."

Stalin used the same kind of language at about the same time. He called his opponents the "enemies of the people," implying that they were not citizens and that they enjoyed no rights. He portrayed them as vermin, pollution, filth that had to be "subjected to ongoing purification," and he inspired his fellow communists to employ similar rhetoric.

In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes ... "If you don't use certain rhetoric," he told an interviewer, "if you don't use certain words, and maybe they're not very nice words, nothing will happen."

His talk of mass deportation is equally calculating. When he suggests that he would target both legal and illegal immigrants, or use the military arbitrarily against U.S. citizens, he does so knowing that past dictatorships have used public displays of violence to build popular support. By calling for mass violence, he hints at his admiration for these dictatorships but also demonstrates disdain for the rule of law and prepares his followers to accept the idea that his regime could, like its predecessors, break the law with impunity.

These are not jokes, and Trump is not laughing. Nor are the people around him. Delegates at the Republican National Convention held up prefabricated signs: Mass Deportation Now. Just this week, when Trump was swaying to music at a surreal rally, he did so in front of a huge slogan: Trump Was Right About Everything. This is language borrowed directly from Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist.

Several generations of American politicians have assumed that American voters, most of whom learned to pledge allegiance to the flag in school, grew up with the rule of law, and have never experienced occupation or invasion, would be resistant to this kind of language and imagery. Trump is gambling - knowingly and cynically - that we are not.

"Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet." ---Maya Angelou

Trump could be announced dead and the Republican Party would still keep him as the presidential nominee and he wouldn't lose a vote.

which of her policy proposals that she detailed had you the most excited?

The one about keeping a 34 times convicted felon, tax cheat, charity fraudster, indicted classified document thief and insurrectionist, now promising to use the Justice Department, National Guard and active military go after citizens who don't agree with him out of the White House where he doesn't belong.

How about you?

This is the biggest story in the news right now and almost no one is paying attention.

Some of us are, that's why it's here. But isn't it curious who's completely absent from this thread - particularly posters who've unrepentantly forwarded some of the aforementioned Russian propaganda right here on this blog?

They really don't recognize the hard work and talent some one like Kamala has demonstrated her whole life. They think that they all just fall backassword into success like their heroes.

I've tried my level best to post factual information going back to the earliest part of her career, showing people that her 2019 campaign was a self-abort that actually propelled her to where she now is. And the fact she rightly pulled the ripcord when she had no money nor constituency from which to challenge the more popular and better funded Democrats only confirms she's a pragmatic - if not fortunate - politician, not an ego-driven selfish one.

And of course, the ignoranti who only looked at 2019, had no clue as they claimed she was nothing more than a DEI hire and had slept her way to success because she dated Willie Brown in the past. Even if Harris should lose, based on where she started to where her campaign lies today is a remarkable journey of success considering the unprecedented circumstances and political realities she's navigating in real time that no other modern politician has ever traveled before her.

Her besting and spanking Trump during the debate was not fluke. It came from her psychological studies on how to deal with charming sociopathic defendants in criminal courts, where the jury tends to like them. The prosecutors have to use the defendant's own ego and need to dominate others against them without upsetting jurors who otherwise might think the prosecutor is being too personal and harsh.

Trump never saw it coming, or if he did he had no effective counter maneuver, which is why he stood there like a stump when Harris called him things no other person on planet Earth ever had to his face before. And that's why he refuses to share another stage with her again. He knows the same dynamic will again emerge, showing him to be weak and defenseless against a woman who's spent a career incarcerating men just like Trump.

What does this Kamala Harris' video for the Catholic Al Smith dinner look Iike you Tony?

It looks like Kamala understood the purpose of the Al Smith dinner - levity and humor - unlike donOld Trump who droned on and on about his campaign grievances without any witticism in sight.

Since you know so little about America, let me explain to you what the Al Smith dinner is about. The dinner is supposed to be a political DMZ in the middle of a heated campaign that allows candidates to show humility, self deprecation, and the ability to laugh at the circumstances the American electoral experience forces candidate into.

It's so rich for the same people who've continually and repeatedly gaslit about Kamala lacking intelligence, lacking the ability to respond off-the-cuff, lacking the ability to articulate a message see all of that get blown up right before their very eyes when all they had to do was look accurately back at the past. Yes, Kamala's time was not 2020. Same for every other Democrat not named Joe Biden, but I don't see anyone claiming that Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren, Bennett, or any of the other candidates that Biden defeated are instantly non-viable in the future because they weren't successful then. Only Kamala - who went on to become Vice President and now the party's standard bearer for President, when none of those others threw their hats into the ring - as they could have - when Biden stepped down.

Kamala is 7-0 in elected politics, yet yabobs like Onenut can't recognize political talent when it smacks them in the face. When all is said and done, the political instincts and abilities Kamala has honed over her 3 decades of public service will show that Karl Rove in 2010 knew exactly what she was to become.

Nice article from 2019.

Not surprising, Trumpers live in the past because they're so frightened by a future where white privilege is no longer a thing.

It's basically a corollary to Dr. Martin Luther King's greatest speech: They're absolutely apoplectic when they're accurately judged by the "content of their character" since they repeatedly - and often with oblivious pride - continually show that they don't have any of depth by projecting their own hegemony as the targeted goal of those they fear will eventually succeed them.

Russia is the most active foreign threat to the 2024 election, according to U.S. officials. A pair of indictments unsealed in September alleged an expansion of Russia's influence operation: from crude, fake social media posts and bot networks in 2016 to more ambitious and successful recent campaigns. That includes laundering propaganda through seemingly independent U.S. actors, according to one of the indictments.

Experts fear Storm-1516 and similar groups have the potential to sway public opinion by undermining the credibility of democratic institutions, influencing U.S. policy and diminishing people's ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Russia is increasingly leaning on an advancing technology landscape -- including artificial intelligence and more sophisticated bot networks -- to spread its falsehoods. But Storm-1516's most valuable quality is persistence, according to Clint Watts, the general manager of the Microsoft Threat Analysis Center.

"The danger comes with just the sheer volume of claims that they make, and it only takes one person, one influencer with outsized influence, to grab onto a video and amplify it in the United States," Watts said. "They may miss 99 times, but the 100th time they may get it just right."

The Storm-1516 campaigns rely on faked primary sources -- audio, video, photos, documents -- presented as evidence of the claims' veracity. They are then laundered through international news sources and influencers to reach their ultimate target: a mainstream Western audience.

At least 50 false narratives have been launched this way since last fall, according to a count NBC News assembled with researchers. The narratives aim to diminish Western support for military aid in Ukraine following Russia's invasion, a contentious issue in Congress. The videos also back the re-election of Donald Trump, who has pledged to halt military aid to Ukraine, while painting the former president as a victim of a "deep state." And they attack Vice President Kamala Harris.

In one fake video, a Ukrainian troll farm operative reveals the machinations behind a CIA plot to defeat Trump.

In another piece of propaganda, a woman says she was paralyzed as a child -- by Harris in a hit-and-run accident.

In a third, a "whistleblower" falsely claims Ukraine's leaders spent U.S. aid money on yachts.

The claims peddled by the actors and false primary sources in these videos fall apart upon basic inspection. Experts quickly identified Olesya, the Ukrainian troll, as an AI-generated fake. The 2011 hit-and-run never happened, according to San Francisco police, and KBSF-TV, the local news station behind the claims, does not exist.

And the companies that own the yachts told reporters they hadn't been sold. But the story spread anyway, and this time, far -- from small-time right-wing influencers to members of Congress, including Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, now the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Makes one wonder what job Brett is auditioning for should his preferred candidate win.

Baier's not leaving Fox News making 8 figures to go work in a Trump Administration for $200-300K. Bret was trying to please Fox viewers and in concert please Donald Trump by basically tailoring his questions to the issues Trump and Vance are prosecuting against Harris.

Don't forget, abortion was never mentioned and it's a personal issue with a little over half the electorate with the potential to affect millions of men, husbands and fathers should they live in a ban state.

Transcript from video clip above.

CHARLAMAGNE: I think a lot of your press hits get criticized. Folks say you come off very scripted. They say you like to stick to your talking points -

KAMALA HARRIS: That would be called discipline.

CHARLAMAGNE: -- and some people say you have an inability to fearlessly say who you are and what you believe. I know that's not true, but what do you say to that criticism? And is it fair for SNL to make fun of it?

KAMALA HARRIS: Hasn't Maya Rudolph been wonderful? I have nothing but admiration for the comedy, and I think it's important to be able to laugh at yourself and each other in the spirit of comedy, obviously, and not belittling people as my opponent would do.

CHARLAMAGNE: But what do you say to people who say you stay on the talking points?

KAMALA HARRIS: I would say, you're welcome! I mean, listen, here's the thing: I love having conversations, which is why I'm so happy to be with you this afternoon. The reality is that there are certain things that must be repeated to ensure that everyone knows what I stand for and the issues that I think are at stake in this election. And so it requires repetition.

You know, some people say that until someone has heard the same thing at least three times, it just doesn't stay with them. So repetition is important. And for that reason, yes, at my rallies, I say the same thing when I go to Detroit as I do in Philly, or wherever I am, to make sure that people hear and receive what I think are some of the most critical issues at stake in this election.

Even from those who've criticised her for their past interactions as subordinates, not a single person has ever said that Harris isn't disciplined nor that she doesn't demand the same from those around her. As Trump floats from one verbalized thought cloud to the next - like a child blowing dandelion seeds into the wind - Harris maintains the message discipline that's served her well in her prosecutorial career and now as the head of the Democratic ticket.

Those who call her repetitions as 'talking points' are absolutely correct. But talking points only become definitive memories if they are heard multiple times by those hearing them. This fact is confirmed by the study and application of human psychology. And it takes discipline to make repetition effective.

As The Washington Post and several other news outlets have reported, McConnell has repeatedly - and privately - derided Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6 assault, denouncing him for his role in fomenting the attack. Yet after the House impeached Trump on a charge of "incitement of insurrection" and a Senate trial in February 2021, McConnell made no effort to rally Republicans to convict Trump and voted to acquit the former president.

At the time McConnell made the comments, Trump and his allies were working to overturn the results of the election, falsely claiming that the election had been fraudulent in key states including Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia. McConnell reportedly said - before the Georgia runoff races - that Trump is "stupid" and "ill-tempered." Trump, he added, "can't even figure out where his own best interests lie."

"For a narcissist like him ... that's been really hard to take," McConnell said. "And so his behavior since the election has been even worse, by far, than it was before, because he has no filter now at all."

According to the book, some of McConnell's staffers barricaded themselves in their office as rioters stormed the building on Jan. 6. After the attack, McConnell sobbed softly as he spoke to his office staff, thanking them for their actions that day.

"You are my family, and I hate the fact that you had to go through this," he told them, Tackett writes.

But I shed no tears for McConnell protecting Trump and leaving this nation where we are today when all he had to do was release his caucus to vote their conscious during Trump's 2nd impeachment trial.

America's morons re elected him AFTER he lied us into a war of aggression.

But John Kerry's stolen valor was simply a bridge too far for America.

They voted for the AWOL Texas National Guard member instead.

Has she released the playlist yet?

Another viewpoint:

Another view from a billionaire:

Mr. Baier's aggressive demeanor was consistent with the kind of tough coverage of Ms. Harris that blankets Fox News's daily programming. Lots of viewers were surely eager to hear how she would respond when confronted head-on.

Frequently, however, Mr. Baier did not give viewers that chance. Instead, looking frustrated, he cut off several of Ms. Harris's answers after a few seconds. His first interruption came within the first half-minute of their exchange.

"May I please finish responding?" Ms. Harris asked at one point. "I'm in the middle of responding to the point you're making, and I'd like to finish."

A veteran interviewer, and the face of Fox News's relatively nonpartisan 6 p.m. newscast, Mr. Baier was eager to shake Ms. Harris off her usual talking points, including playing a Trump campaign ad and asking her to respond.

Still, in his eagerness to prevent a filibuster, Mr. Baier's follow-up questions sometimes resembled rebuttals.

"We feel like we definitely achieved what we set out to achieve, in the sense that she was able to reach an audience that has probably been not exposed to the arguments she's been making on the trail," Brian Fallon, Ms. Harris's campaign communications director, told reporters on Air Force Two. "She also got to show her toughness in standing tall against a hostile interviewer."

Mr. Trump has refused to participate in another debate with Ms. Harris - even on Fox News ... For now, Mr. Baier's grilling on Wednesday evening may have to stand in.

Gotta go......it's now safe for the little trolls to enter and personally attack me.

No reason to attack you. I presented documented evidence of what the 3 Trump donors want from him, but you've offered no such details with Harris' Democratic donors, only claiming by inference that they're not unwanting either.

I never denied that. I have seen where some of her donors want the FTC commissioner gone and I've disagreed based on the little I know now. But one thing I doubt is that all 79 want the exact same things from Harris and most of them will go disappointed. We've seen Trump's transactional nature and it's documented by pardons, communtations, along with specific governmental actions and policies that assist both individuals and their corporations.

I'm not privy to anything similar from Harris or Biden to the degree we saw and are seeing from Trump. If you have the goods, please deliver them, but don't expect me to be critical of things that aren't presented as factual evidence of questionable returns given to major donors because of their large donations.