©2022 DopeReporters. All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by multiplatforms
Manchester United’s Premier League match against Nottingham Forest at Old Trafford on Saturday will go ahead as scheduled.
This is despite weather warnings due to Storm Darragh.
The decision follows the postponement of Everton’s clash with Liverpool earlier in the day, as wind speeds of up to 70mph have been forecast across parts of the UK.
The storm has also disrupted fixtures in the Championship, League One, and League Two, as well as all matches in Wales.
In a statement, Manchester United reassured fans: “Today’s Premier League fixture at Old Trafford between Manchester United and Nottingham Forest is scheduled to go ahead as planned.
“The club will continue to consult the relevant authorities throughout the day and will update supporters immediately if anything changes.”
Other Premier League matches scheduled for Saturday, including Crystal Palace vs Manchester City is already on.
games involving Brentford and Crystal Palace, are also expected to proceed. Brentford issued a similar advisory, urging fans to “travel safely, plan ahead, and allow extra time for your journey.”
The working class’s continued attraction to Donald Trump has long rankled his opponents, who argue that his biggest first-term policy accomplishment, the 2017 Tax and Jobs Act, disproportionately benefited the wealthy. They see the President-elect as exploiting fears about cultural change and immigration to sell working people a bill of goods.
The history of another conservative populist — former Alabama governor George Wallace — indicates that such fears are well founded. Wallace is most remembered for the racism and racial violence he unleashed on civil rights protestors in the state during his first term as governor (1963-1967). Yet, looking at his subsequent, oft-forgotten time as governor in the 1970s and 1980s sheds light on Trump’s populist appeal, while also underscoring the likelihood that his business-friendly policies will actually hurt his base of working-class voters.
Wallace continuously wielded populist rhetoric and maintained support from working-class white Alabamans. Yet, after the successes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s threatened to dilute his power base, the governor joined forces with special interest groups to promote policies intended to protect big business at the expense of everyday Alabamans. The result was sky-high sales taxes, poor public services, and limited economic mobility.
Wallace entered office in 1963 as the state was already beginning to change economically. Alabama’s billion-dollar timber industry had just surpassed heavy metals as the economic leader in the state. Timber and paper companies were eager to buy up as much land from farmers as they possibly could to take advantage of Alabama’s cheap land and low taxes.
Read More: Trump — The Incoherent Demagogue
Big businesses like these especially targeted land in rural, majority-Black counties, where disenfranchisement allowed whites to control the county positions that determined the property-tax assessment rate. These white officials kept taxes low, which disproportionately helped the businesses that were buying up huge tracts of land. The companies feared that if Black officials were elected, they would raise property taxes to pay for much-needed social services, thereby severely damaging their bottom line.
That made the staunchly segregationist Wallace an ally, although their alliance was far from obvious in the governor’s rhetoric. Wallace mixed his racist appeals to white Alabamans with ample populist rhetoric, which portrayed him as a defender of Alabamans’ right to have a say in their own government. His calls for “freedom of choice,” state’s rights, and low taxes appealed to working-class white Alabamans who saw the social, political, and economic changes of the 1960s as a threat to their “way of life.”
Yet, if one dug beneath Wallace’s rhetoric, it became clear he was wielding white supremacy to defend a tax structure that allowed white elites to take advantage of the very people Wallace claimed to protect.
Wallace railed against the 1965 Voting Rights Act and federal mandates to reapportion the legislature as attacks on local control. Federal orders to equalize representation and taxation, he argued, were really ploys to force whites to pay more taxes for “radical” civil rights initiatives.
The real threat of those federal mandates, however, was to the corporate bottom line for Wallace’s biggest benefactors. Meanwhile, it was the policies that Wallace was pushing which actually hurt the white Alabamans the governor claimed to be protecting. To keep property taxes low for big business, for example, the governor had to raise sales and excise taxes just to pay for essential government functions.
Wallace left office in 1967 and waged an unsuccessful battle to win the presidency in 1968. Then in 1970, he ran to recapture the governorship from Albert Brewer, who had succeeded Wallace’s wife Lurleen as governor when she died of cancer in 1968.
Wallace ran a rabidly racist campaign that included racialized populist promises to white voters. In particular, he railed against “federal overreach” and high taxes, which he framed as stemming from forced desegregation, legislative reapportionment, and property reassessment.
Yet, despite this populist rhetoric, Wallace’s real concern in terms of pushing low property taxes was helping his corporate benefactors.
Wallace won narrowly, and his deep alignment with corporate interests became evident when he backed a series of what was known as “lid bills.” These laws preserved large landholders’ power and profit margins by fixing property tax assessments and rates at ridiculously low levels and removing local authorities’ ability to change them. They eliminated the power of local Black officials elected after the Voting Rights Act to demand that utility companies and large timber and paper conglomerates pay their fair share.
Read More: The Troubling Consequence of State Takeovers of Local Government
Not surprisingly these industries poured thousands of dollars into these campaigns. With their crucial help, the lid bills passed in 1972 and legislators enshrined the limits they imposed into Alabama’s constitution by 1978.
The lid bills saved these interests millions of dollars and Alabama’s largest landowners quadrupled their holdings.
Passage of the lid bills was a sign of the hollowness of Wallace’s populist rhetoric. The governor had spent years claiming to oppose a “central government meddling in local affairs” — and now he championed doing just that to help corporations.
The practical impact of these policies was devastating on two levels. First, they severely limited the local contribution to things like healthcare and education, resulting in poorer public services. They also forced the legislature to enact one of the heaviest sales tax burdens of any state. The hefty sales taxes disproportionately affected poorer residents, even as companies like Alabama Power saved millions in property taxes.
These policies have hampered Alabama for decades, making it hard to recruit new businesses or keep skilled workers in state. They’ve also strained local governments’ ability to fund essential services and promote economic growth. They highlight the damage that can be done when policy prioritizes corporate interests over the public good.
Trump’s rise to power, like Wallace’s, rests on exploiting divisive social issues and presenting himself as a champion of the “common man.” His promises to create jobs and boost the economy resonate with many working class Americans.
Yet, Alabama’s experience under Wallace presents a stark warning to Trump’s working class supporters: while populist rhetoric may appear to offer a voice to voters who feel disenfranchised and marginalized, the policies that follow from it often fail to serve their needs. Unless the policies of Trump’s second term reverse course from the first, and include significant investment in public services, they may well lead to a race to the bottom — one that hurts Trump’s biggest supporters.
Brucie Porter is a doctoral candidate at Auburn University. Her work focuses on the history of race, education, and policy in the American South. Brucie is a native of Auburn, Ala. and earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of the South.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
A prophetess reportedly affiliated with Kim Kardashian issues a stern warning to celebrity stylist, Veekee James, citing potential marital crises.
Gistreel recalls that Veekee James and her husband, Femi Atere, recently faced intense social media backlash over a romantic public display at an event hosted by the celebrity stylist.
According to the prophetess, Veekee James is about to make a decision with severe consequences, citing marital crises.
The prophetess revealed that her vision showed Veekee James’ husband abandoning her, prompting a warning to exercise caution.
“If you don’t reconsider what you’re about to do, it will cost you your marriage”, She stated.
Watch the video below…
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDKH_XSMbpg/?igsh=MWQ2dmdicnJmNzdkbw==
Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) has issued warnings to five offshore cryptocurrency exchanges: Bybit Fintech Limited, KuCoin, MEXC Global, Bitget Limited, and Bitcastle LLC. These crypto exchanges are accused of operating in Japan without legal registration, which violates the country’s cryptocurrency legislation.
Operating without registration raises serious concerns about how these sites are overseen. Japan’s legislative framework for cryptocurrencies requires regulated exchanges to follow strict compliance standards aimed at protecting customers.
Furthermore, the FSA underlined that unregistered exchanges lack regulatory oversight, making it difficult to run operations properly. The lack of asset segregation is a key concern, as platforms may mix client monies with operating assets.
Users of unregistered platforms are likewise denied legal protection under Japanese law. Customers are left without recourse for compensation in disputes or unexpected occurrences, such as insolvency or security breaches. Their failure to comply with regulations exposes them to potential losses.
Under Japanese law, any company that provides cryptocurrency trading services must register with the Japan FSA or a municipal financial bureau. This need ensures that the platforms operate under a strong regulatory framework. Registered exchanges must put in place strict asset management protections and ensure that their activities are transparent.
The warnings issued by the Japan FSA encourage consumers to check the compliance status of cryptocurrency services. Japan takes strict measures to ensure consumer protection and market integrity.
Also Read: Japan’s Remixpoint Buys $3.27M Bitcoin to Hedge Yen
The Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, ASUP has announced plans to embark on a two weeks warning strike, commencing from December 2nd, 2024.
The decision was arrived at the National Executive Council meeting of the Union in Abuja, on Thursday, where ASUP criticised government of reneging in implementing a number of demands tabled before them.
President of ASUP, Comrade Kpanja Shammah announced the planned industrial action, stating that the eleven demands for which government have been recalcitrant to meet, dates back to successive governments, especially former President Muhammadu Buhari.
Recall that ASUP had issued a 15-day ultimatum to the Federal Government and other relevant agencies to immediately review and reverse all decisions inconsistent with the provisions of the Polytechnics Act and other governance instruments in the sub-sector.
The Union had also alleged issues of impunity and disregard for clear provisions of the Federal Polytechnics Act, various edicts establishing state-owned institutions, and other governance instruments.
ASUP had also accused the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) of overstepping its bounds by intruding into the regular functions of the Academic Boards of Polytechnics, particularly concerning the admission of Higher National Diploma students within the Nigerian polytechnic system.
More details later…
On Nov. 5, 2024, Donald Trump won a second non-consecutive term in the White House. Trump’s triumph drew comparisons to the 1892 reelection of Democrat Grover Cleveland — the only President other than Trump to regain the White House after he previously lost re-election. Cleveland won in 1884, lost in 1888, and recaptured the presidency in 1892. Like Trump, he maintained popularity within his party despite losing. This support enabled Cleveland to cruise to the 1892 nomination, and he capitalized on Republican struggles to recapture the White House. Yet, while his second election was a triumph for the Democratic Party, it ended up demolishing the party for a generation. Cleveland’s example offers a cautionary tale for Republicans in 2024: a second Trump Administration involves as many risks as possible benefits.
Grover Cleveland would have been an unlikely candidate for President in any period of American history other than the one in which he served. Born in 1837 in New York, he worked as a lawyer in Buffalo for much of the 1860s and the 1870s, a period during which the state’s Democratic Party became nationally renowned for corruption because of the rule of the Tammany Hall machine.
Cleveland entered politics by winning election as sheriff of Erie County in 1870. His political career quickly soared because he avoided the taint of corruption that plagued many New York Democrats. By the beginning of the 1880s, he had cultivated an appreciative group of supporters who helped propel him to the governorship in 1882 on a platform of reforming the state’s civil service and combating corruption.
Cleveland’s governorship got off to such a successful start that only two years later, Democrats made the New Yorker their presidential nominee. Once again, he ran as a reformer against the scandal-ridden Republican candidate James Blaine, and he became the first Democrat to win the presidency since 1856.
Read More: Donald Trump, Grover Cleveland, and the History of Winning Back the White House
President Cleveland’s first term was remarkably uneventful, and few major pieces of legislation passed Congress. He dithered over whether he would support a high or a low tariff on imported goods, which was the major economic issue of the day. Only in 1887 did Cleveland come out in support of a low tariff on imported goods. This policy outraged American manufacturers, as they believed that the proposed bill did not provide them with enough protection from foreign competition. The opposition of influential manufacturers and high-tariff supporters in both major parties doomed the bill in Congress. The bill’s defeat deprived Cleveland of an achievement to tout during his reelection campaign in 1888.
Cleveland’s penchant for harsh rhetoric also alienated many constituencies. He owed his first election to Republican defectors often referred to as “Mugwumps.” However, Cleveland angered these supporters because he proved willing to replace Republicans with Democrats in positions throughout the federal civil service.
Yet, this wasn’t enough for many members of his own party, who complained that Cleveland did not appoint enough Democrats. The President didn’t take their concerns seriously, often dismissing them with mockery and sarcasm. He responded to one patronage request by stating “Ah, I suppose that you mean that I should appoint two horse thieves a day instead of one!” This posture soured his relationship with many Democrats.
Cleveland also had a fraught relationship with the military. He became infamous by repeatedly vetoing pension requests by Union veterans as they suffered from numerous physical and psychological ailments tied to their service. He mocked the morphine addiction of one applicant, and he dismissed the idea that “sore eyes” were a side effect of the chronic diarrhea of another pension applicant. Cleveland also tried to return Confederate flags held in the North to white Southerners in an attempt to further the post-Civil War reconciliation between the North and South. Additionally, he appointed numerous Confederate veterans to his cabinet, and even one to the Supreme Court during his first term. These actions alienated many Union veterans.
Cleveland’s divisiveness cost him reelection in 1888. While he won the popular vote, he fell to Republican Benjamin Harrison in the Electoral College. His popular vote victory enabled Cleveland to remain a front-runner for the 1892 Democratic nomination.
And by 1890, his fortunes were looking up. Harrison’s presidency had run aground after he and congressional Republicans passed a high tariff that led to defections from their ranks. Republican legislators also failed to pass a major civil rights act that could have provided federal marshals to guard polling places and protect African-American voters. This failure rendered Black voters unable to vote in a many places, depriving the GOP of support from the party’s most loyal constituency.
These mistakes helped put Cleveland back into the White House. Yet, the glow of 1892 was temporary for the new President and for his party. The Panic of 1893 began shortly after his reelection, and it would prove to be the worst economic crisis to plague the nation until the Great Depression. The panic led to widespread unemployment and even to starvation.
Cleveland refused to provide federal aid to those in need during the crisis, despite marches designed to draw attention to the plight of unemployed workers. He also refrained from making adjustments to his economic platform to try to fix the struggling economy. Instead, he clung to support for a low tariff, and crucially, to a strong gold standard.
This latter decision fatally fractured Cleveland’s party. Western Democrats in particular longed to have the price of silver be valued at 16-to-1 against gold rather than the standard 32-to-1 ratio — which would have improved their local economies dramatically. The President, however, refused to compromise.
The low tariff that Democratic congressmen passed in 1894 did nothing to stop the damage caused by the Panic of 1893. The result was a wipeout of the Democratic Party in the 1894 midterms. The losses destroyed the party outside of the South for a generation. Democrats would not regain the House of Representatives until 1910 or the Senate until 1912.
The miserliness of Cleveland’s first term had helped him to win a second term, but in his second term it destroyed his popularity. Even after his party’s midterm wipeout, the president ignored continued pleas for either a high tariff or a high valuation of silver in relation to gold, which increasingly alienated him from his own party.
By 1896, the relationship was so bad that Cleveland refused to back the Democratic nominee for president, William Jennings Bryan, because of his stance on silver. At his behest, even Confederate veterans in Cleveland’s cabinet — who had supported Democratic candidates since the 1860s — backed the third-party candidate John Palmer over Bryan. Cleveland simply didn’t see intraparty harmony as a major goal for presidents.
Even after he left the White House, Cleveland continued to actively oppose Bryan’s pro-silver views within the Democratic Party, which made him a pariah until his death in 1908.
Trump shares many similarities with Cleveland — and the parallels between the two men are not encouraging for Republicans. Both showed little interest in party unity or the broader success of their parties. They also both detested the media throughout their careers, dismissed the beliefs of the majority of economists on tariffs, and railed against “establishment” politicians within and outside of their parties.
In the weeks since Election Day, Trump has given little indication that he has changed since his first term. This raises the specter of Cleveland: he, too, remained the same man as he returned to the White House. And as he demonstrated, comebacks can be temporary for someone who doesn’t learn from the mistakes of his first term. Such a President can quickly remind voters of why they rejected him in the first place, with his party paying the price. No one knows how Trump’s story ends, but the history of Cleveland suggests that it might not be good for Republicans.
Luke Voyles is a Ph.D. student at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. He studies Confederate veterans and their role in U.S. politics.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a revised nuclear doctrine declaring that a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack on his country.
Putin’s endorsement of the new nuclear deterrent policy comes on the 1,000th day after he sent troops into Ukraine, on Feb. 24, 2022.
It follows U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to let Ukraine strike targets inside Russia with U.S.-supplied longer-range missiles.
The signing of the doctrine, which says that any massive aerial attack on Russia could trigger a nuclear response, demonstrates Putin’s readiness to tap the country’s nuclear arsenal to force the West to back down as Moscow presses a slow-moving offensive in Ukraine.
Asked whether the updated doctrine was deliberately issued on the heels of Biden’s decision, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the document was published “in a timely manner” and that Putin instructed the government to update it earlier this year so that it is “in line with the current situation.”
Read More: Europe Shrugs Off Russia’s Latest Nuclear Threats
Putin first announced changes in the nuclear doctrine in September, when he chaired a meeting discussing the proposed revisions.
Russia’s president has previously warned the U.S. and other NATO allies that allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied longer-range weapons to hit Russian territory would mean that Russia and NATO are at war.
The updated doctrine states that an attack against Russia by a nonnuclear power with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” will be seen as their “joint attack on the Russian Federation.”
It adds that Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike or a conventional attack posing a “critical threat to sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Russia and its ally Belarus, a vague formulation that leaves broad room for interpretation.
It does not specify whether such an attack would necessarily trigger a nuclear response. It mentions the “uncertainty of scale, time and place of possible use of nuclear deterrent” among the key principles of the nuclear deterrence.
The document also notes that an aggression against Russia by a member of a military bloc or coalition is viewed as “an aggression by the entire bloc,” a clear reference to NATO.
At the same time, it spells out conditions for using nuclear weapons in greater detail compared with previous versions of the doctrine, noting they could be used in case of a massive air attack involving ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and other flying vehicles.
The wide formulation appears to significantly broaden the triggers for possible nuclear weapons use compared with the previous version of the document, which stated that Russia could tap its atomic arsenal if case of an attack with ballistic missiles.
President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus with an iron hand for more than 30 years and has relied on Russian subsidies and support, has allowed Russia to use his country’s territory to send troops into Ukraine and to deploy some of its tactical nuclear weapons.
Since Putin sent troops into Ukraine, he and other Russian voices have frequently threatened the West with Russia’s nuclear arsenal to discourage it from ramping up support for Kyiv.
Russian hawks have been calling for toughening the doctrine for months, arguing that the previous version failed to deter the West from increasing its aid to Ukraine and created the impression that Moscow would not resort to nuclear weapons.
NEW YORK — New York City on Monday issued its first drought warning in 22 years and paused major repairs to its main water aqueduct out of concern for the lack of rainfall.
Dry conditions across the Northeast have been blamed for hundreds of brush fires. They had already prompted New York City and state officials to implement water-conservation protocols when Mayor Eric Adams upgraded the drought warning and temporarily halted the $2 billion Delaware Aqueduct project, which was intended to repair leaks in the 80-year-old tunnel.
Last week, a park on the northern tip of Manhattan caught fire, sending smoke billowing across the city — less than a week after a brush fire in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park.
The city may elevate the warning to an emergency if dry conditions persist, Adams said. A drought emergency involves requiring residents and city agencies to cut down on water usage. Upgrading from a watch to a warning requires a range of conservation protocols, Adams said.
Water-saving measures planned for the coming weeks will include washing buses and subway cars less frequently and limiting water use for fountains and golf courses, Adams said.
“Our city vehicles may look a bit dirtier, and our subways may look a bit dustier, but it’s what we have to do to delay or stave off a more serious drought emergency,” he said.
The shut-off of a stretch of the Delaware Aqueduct to address leaks had been in the works for years.
The aqueduct carries water for 85 miles (137 kilometers) from four reservoirs in the Catskill region to other reservoirs in the city’s northern suburbs.
A portion of the aqueduct was shut off in early October but will now be turned back on because water levels across the city’s reservoir system are too low to make up the difference, officials with the city Department of Environmental Protection said.
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
Inside Donald Trump’s hermetically sealed bubble of supporters, it’s become something of a given that the former and future President can simply bypass Congress and magically fill his Cabinet with the loyalists of his choosing.
That might have been the case if Trump didn’t want Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth as Attorney General and Secretary of Defense, or Tulsi Gabbard overseeing the nation’s spy agencies—not to mention Robert F. Kennedy Jr. getting anywhere near the CDC. These are picks almost tailor-made to ensure the Constitution’s Advice and Consent clause remains on sturdy ground.
Even those who most need Trump to think they are worthy allies are setting the ground for a slow slide back to reality: “None of this is gonna’ be easy,” incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune said last week of Trump’s nominees, underscoring just how much of a slam-dunk this Cabinet is not.
But if you want to really understand the posture key leaders are taking on Trump’s norm-busting nominees, listen carefully to what outgoing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is telling allies in open session and, perhaps, in private counsel.
“Institutions worth preserving have to be defended. And this is the work which, by necessity, has occupied my focus during my time in Washington,” McConnell told a conservative think tank gala in his honor last week. “It’s been quite evident to me that a credible check on majority rule was worth preserving even when it didn’t serve my party’s immediate political interests. Because wild swings in policy with every transfer of power don’t serve the nation’s interest. For consequential legislation to endure, it should have to earn the support of a broad coalition.”
McConnell was speaking broadly at an American Enterprise Institute event about the Senate’s baked-in slow pace and its capacity to cool passions. But when asked point-blank, the outgoing Leader minced no words: “Each of these nominees needs to come before the Senate and go through the process and be vetted.”
To someone unversed in McConnell-ese, that answer might not have meant much, but it was a doozy for anyone who knows the way in which the Kentucky Republican wields his influence. By Sunday night, perhaps egged on by a since-deleted message on the platform formerly known as Twitter, the MAGAverse was going ballistic at the suggestion that the Upper Chamber was not on-board with giving Trump a blank check on his own Cabinet.
If Trump can’t get the support he needs from a Republican-controlled Senate to confirm his polarizing picks, that leaves only the prospect of recess appointments to ram them through. It’s an idea that’s led to some out-of-the-box fantasizing. (The House, too, would have to recess, although the roadmap to Speaker Mike Johnson managing to engineer a Senate recess has too many pitfalls to take seriously.)
Privately, Republicans are dubious that availing himself of widespread or even unilateral recess appointments is the best way for Trump to assemble his second-term team or to sustain any credibility for the Senate. But they also are bracing for an incoming White House unmoored with norms or traditions, with an eye toward vengeance, and a leader who sees any second-guessing as disloyalty meriting meted justice.
Yet at least on his Cabinet nominees, no one should expect Thune to abdicate his safeguarding role. After all, he’s long sat at McConnell’s side to study the particulars of the Senate history and tradition.
That’s why so many insiders see McConnell’s comments—those confirmed and those dubiously reported and then deleted from social media—as a cover for others to quietly defect. Like House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, McConnell expects to formally slide back into a rank-and-file position in his party but retain outsized influence on big questions of strategy, identity, and ambition—even as party colleagues may grumble about leaders who won’t actually give up power.
The Trump-McConnell animus is never going to evaporate and provides a useful foil for Thune to try to stay in Trump’s good graces as long as possible. When asked last week about the possible use of recess appointments, Thune was careful in his word choice and seemed plenty happy to let McConnell play the heavy.
“It’s an option,” he said of leaving the Senate on a break long enough for Trump to install his picks to serve roughly two years. But he was realistic about the math in his chat with Fox News.
“You have to have all Republicans vote to recess, as well. So the same Republicans … that might have a problem voting for somebody under regular order probably also has a problem voting to put the Senate into recess.”
Put plainly: that is really, really unlikely to happen. Someone like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is not going to be ready to tank a Gaetz nomination by recorded vote but then send herself home for at least 10 days to give Trump a Supreme Court-guided window of a recessed legislature.
All of this is steeped in the experiences of the longest-serving party chief in Senate history, McConnell. He has hardly been circumspect about his skepticism toward Trump—or any President, really—relying on the procedural loophole to stack the deck while lawmakers are away, regardless of if the fuse-lighting tweet might have been made in haste or error.
Take, for instance, Trump’s 2018 demands that McConnell eliminate the procedural hurdle of 60 votes to move forward on most legislation. McConnell simply ignored the demand, drawing more ire from Trump without any real cost to his power in the Senate. And when Joe Biden tried for the same result in 2022, McConnell once again simply pretended the request didn’t land in the Capitol.
It’s expected to remain the same when Thune takes over in the next Congress. Most Republican lawmakers seemed to agree with that posture, one that served McConnell and his legacy well even if it left Trump and Biden alike frustrated.
Therein lies the power of Senate inertia. Unlike Trump, the Senate doesn’t swerve. It tends to hold steady, which is why—at least in an historical framework—Trump’s visions of unilateral appointments to the Cabinet don’t really hold up to scrutiny. Going against Trump is risky, but the bigger trouble may come from trying to recalibrate the Senate to accommodate potential Cabinet picks who thus far have drawn a mix of confusion, bemusement, and horror from the halls of the U.S. Capitol.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has cautioned the public to remain vigilant against foreign crypto firms falsely presenting themselves as banks, according to a Nov. 15 notice.
The regulator revealed that some overseas crypto firms are portraying themselves as banks to gain the trust of Hong Kong users. Many of these entities operate without proper licenses and are not authorized to use the term “bank” in their branding or promotional materials.
The HKMA stressed that such actions could violate the Banking Ordinance, which governs the use of banking-related terms and activities in Hong Kong.
Violators
The alert pointed to two unnamed foreign crypto firms as offenders. One reportedly referred to itself as a bank, while the other described its product as a bank card. These representations, according to the HKMA, risk misleading the public into believing these entities are licensed banks under its supervision.
The financial authority clarified that only licensed banks, restricted license banks, and deposit-taking companies authorized by the HKMA are legally permitted to engage in banking or deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong.
HKMA stated that the Banking Ordinance prohibits unauthorized individuals or organizations from using “bank” in their names or descriptions. It also forbids misleading representations that suggest an entity is a bank or conducts banking business in Hong Kong.
The regulator also emphasized that crypto firms not recognized as authorized institutions in Hong Kong are outside its regulatory scope.
It added that foreign crypto firms using the term “bank” or branding themselves as “crypto banks” licensed in other jurisdictions do not necessarily hold a banking license in Hong Kong. Similarly, products or services labeled with “bank” may not originate from licensed banks in the region.
The warning comes amid Hong Kong’s recent decision to expand the list of licensed crypto exchanges by the end of the year.
Despite its reputation as a key Asian crypto hub, Hong Kong enforces a rigorous licensing process. So far, only three crypto exchanges — OSL Exchange, HashKey Exchange, and HKVAX — have secured licenses.
Mentioned in this article
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) 2023 presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has issued a stern warning against any form of election malpractice ahead of the governorship election scheduled for Saturday in Ondo State.
He reiterated the importance of conducting a free, fair, and transparent election, urging both party members and the electorate to remain vigilant against any attempts to undermine the democratic process.
Atiku called on the relevant authorities to ensure that all necessary measures are in place to prevent electoral fraud and protect the integrity of the election.
He believes that the will of the people must be respected and that every vote should count in shaping the future of Ondo State.
Atiku warned that the PDP would firmly stand against any form of election malpractice during Saturday’s poll.
In a statement by his media aide, Paul Ibe, the PDP chieftain urged the people of Ondo State to come out in large numbers to cast their ballots and ensure that their ballots count.
According to Atiku, the All Progressives Congress, APC, must not be allowed to suppress electorates in Ondo State.
“This is also a sound warning to all election management officials and volunteers that the PDP will stand firmly against any malpractice in the Ondo governorship election.
“When the tide is high, it becomes too big to rig. The people of Ondo State are known for their forthrightness, and this particular election calls for eternal vigilance.
“As leaders of the party, we shall provide all necessary support to ensure that the APC is not allowed to repress the wishes of the electorate in this election,” Atiku said
Arsenal manager, Mikel Arteta, is adamant his team will beat Chelsea if they replicate their performance against Inter Milan.
The Gunners lost 1-0 to the Serie A side in the Champions League on Wednesday night.
It was their second consecutive defeat, after they were beaten 1-0 at Newcastle United last weekend.
Hakan Calhanoglu’s controversial penalty just before half time proved decisive at San Siro.
Arteta now must pick his players up ahead of a Premier League trip to Chelsea on Sunday.
He said: “If we play the way we play, we‘ll have a big chance to win against Chelsea.
“That‘s the way we have to go. I told them that I’m proud of them.
“I haven‘t seen them play in Europe in the manner that we have today. We are disappointed because we didn’t get what we wanted out of the game, that’s for sure.”
Former Arsenal ace, Paul Merson has issued a warning to manager Mikel Arteta that his team are out of the Premier League title race if they lose to Liverpool on Sunday.
Arsenal head to the game following a shock 2-0 defeat to Bournemouth last weekend.
The Gunners already find themselves four points off the early league leaders Liverpool.
Speaking ahead of this weekend’s clash between both teams, Merson suggested that another defeat would end Arsenal’s title race as Liverpool would go seven points ahead.
“I’d be shocked If Arsenal lost this and went on and won the league,” Merson told Sky Sports. “I’d be absolutely amazed, I’d be flabbergasted.
“They are not just chasing one team down, they are chasing two [Liverpool and Manchester City]. I know everybody will be sitting at home going, “There’s 29 games left,” but at the start of the season when there were 38 games left, if I said I will have Man City and Liverpool to win the league and you can have Arsenal but you’ve got to give me seven points head start, you wouldn’t do it in a million years, so you wouldn’t do it now with 29 games to go.
“Arsenal would be out of the title [race] for me, they’d be out, I just can’t see how they’d catch that up with the figures that Man City have put up over the past five or six years.”
The National Examinations Council (NECO) has warned school owners and other stakeholders to desist from enrolling candidates for its examinations by proxy.
This is contained in a statement made available to newsmen in Abuja on Monday by the acting Director, Information and Public Relations, Azeez Sani.
Sani said that the Council had observed that such fraudulent practice often resulted in identity theft and subsequent parade of fake results.
In a bid to eradicate all forms of examination malpractices, he said that the Council had put in place some measures to check impersonation in all its examinations.
”Some of the measures include: the use of Biometric Data Capturing Device, use of customised answer booklets and embossing of photograph and date of birth of candidates on the original certificates,” he said.
Sani also said that the NECO e-verify, an online platform for confirmation/verification of results, was unveiled in 2023 to reduce infractions.
He urged members of the public to note that any certificate purported to have been issued by the Council, and which could not be verified or authenticated, using the NECO e-verify platform, was fake.
”The Council, therefore, calls on state ministries of education and other school owners to ensure that only personal details of genuine candidates are used for registration in all NECO-conducted examinations.”
Newer Posts