Usually, the person with the most information makes better decisions. But when you rely on info that’s wrong, chances increase that your decisions are wrong. So it is with Florida’s solar power ballot Amendment 1. Opponents are funneling misinformation into the discussion. The truth is that by voting for Amendment 1, Florida voters have a historic opportunity to advance solar power in the Sunshine State, at the same time ensuring that energy consumers are treated fairly; this includes those who choose solar and those who do not. What does the amendment do? It constitutionally guarantees individuals and businesses the right to buy or lease solar equipment to produce their own energy; this means consumers will always have the right to generate their own solar electricity, and politicians cannot tamper with that right. Contrary to what opponents say, solar customers can still sell any excess electricity they generate back into the electric grid. More importantly, it protects Florida consumers from scams, rip-offs, overcharging and unfair subsidies. It treats all electricity consumers fairly. Because it is renewable energy, a tax break is provided. This is because renewable solar energy aids in protecting the environment. If you choose not to install solar, you won’t be required to subsidize the costs of electric grid access and back-up power to those who do. Another good point made by Florida TaxWatch is that, for Floridians who want the right to provide their own energy needs, “this amendment raises that right to Constitutional status, which strengthens that right, as it cannot be changed by state or local governments without going back to the voters.” Something else you should know, since we are seeing political leftists like the League of Women Voters dishing out misinformation to welcoming publishers like The Palm Beach Post (which editorially calls Amendment 1 a “fraud”), is that this ballot initiative is being supported by a wide list of groups other than utility companies. These include bipartisan coalitions of business, civic, non-profit and faith-based organizations working to promote solar energy without sacrificing common sense consumer protection. Many of those opposing Amendment 1 are companies that don’t want you to buy your own solar panels to generate your own electricity because they want you to buy solar electricity from them. Their business model is to lock consumers into 20-year contracts to put their solar equipment on your roof and sell you the electricity from it. And here’s the awful catch: The current published price for one of the leading companies, Solar City, is nearly 50% higher than what average Floridians pay for electricity today, plus its contract includes an automatic 2.9% cost increase—double what Floridians normally face. Something else these opponents fail to divulge is that they want a subsidy to operate their business model in Florida, a “stand-by charge” uniformly applied to every electric customer to ensure their model makes economic sense—for them. I do not believe that’s good for Floridians. Amendment 1 protects consumers from this type of subsidy. The Amendment does not block ownership of solar, it does not make solar more expensive, and it certainly does not discourage people from installing solar on their homes. These are outright lies to pull the wool over your eyes. Florida deserves a holistic approach to solar. Thankfully, Amendment 1 will provide a constitutional framework for solar in the Sunshine State, which will keep politicians and special interest groups from tampering with it. Answer: minutes
The article was inaccurate in that it claimed that the German children in question had been forced to carry out work for migrants. The Kiel Ministry of Education confirmed that the school had come up with the idea because some migrant children sat in the class. It said that the students themselves thought of the project. Answer: minutes
by Walter W. Murray, reporter The easily triggered college students of the left won’t let facts stand in the way of their false outrage. In a hilarious video that’s going viral, students at the University of California, Santa Barbara were hopping mad over President Donald Trump’s plan to send troops to the U.S.-Mexico border just 200 miles away… not knowing they were trashing former President Barack Obama, too. “It’s not justified!” seethed one of the students. “It is, like, a totally uncalled-for act of power.” Sponsored: Did Russians “hack” the secret to eternal energy? Another came right out and admitted to Cabot Phillips of Campus Reform, who filmed it, that “I’m not a huge fan of the military to begin with.” The footage shows student after student steaming over the plan to increase border security. Take a look here — Just one problem: The very act they’re livid over — the actions they blame on Trump — are the same exact moves made by former President Barack Obama, the hero of the young leftists. When that fact is dropped on them, it leaves the liberals stunned into silence. Sponsored: Wow! Scientists discover blood pressure-improving effects of 3 common foods In 2010, Obama sent up to 1,200 troops to the border as part of the $110 million Operation Phalanx. Those troops assisted border patrol with more than 17,000 apprehensions of people caught trying to cross illegally. They also intercepted massive amounts of drugs, including 56,342 pounds of marijuana with a street value of more than $100 million. Liberals didn’t make a peep at the time! Sponsored: Is this Ronald Reagan’s secret cancer cure? When told that Obama did the same thing, these young leftists were left stammering and one was literally speechless. They couldn’t approve the move because Trump did it — but they couldn’t condemn it anymore, either, since their hero did the same thing. “That’s kind surprising,” was the best response one of the students could manage. “People have been so conditioned to think anytime they hear ‘President Trump’ they have to oppose it,” Phillips observed in a Fox News interview. “They’re taught in the classroom, they’re taught by society and the media, it must be horrible, it must be racist.” Sponsored: Did you see this news? It’s not just Obama did the same thing. California Gov. Jerry Brown has also authorized sending National Guard troops to the border both during the Obama administration and now again under Trump. While his most recent act also involved sending a sulky letter filled with textbook liberal gripes, he also was forced to admit that National Guard troops play an essential role in U.S. border security. “Your funding for new staffing will allow the Guard to do what it does best: support operations targeting transnational criminal gangs, human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers along the border, the coast and throughout the state,” Brown admitted in the letter to Trump. “Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans — Republicans and Democrats.” For your eyes only (personal matter) [sponsored] Quote that letter to the left – tell them Trump said it – and you can bet they would take to the streets. Resist! Just don’t ask them who or what they’re resisting because clearly, they don’t know. — Walter W. Murray is a reporter for The Horn News. He is an outspoken conservative and a survival expert, and is the author of “ America’s Final Warning.” Answer: infected
Quick: what is the appropriate response to the stabbing death of a human? And let's just never mind the fact that the stabbing was completely random and unprovoked. Or that the victim just happened to be days away from graduating from Bowie State University and had recently been commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army and was preparing to move to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for training in defending the country against chemical attacks. What is important here, since it seems to be the only thing that is ever important in these situations, is that the victim - Richard Collins III, 23 - was Black. His murderer, Christopher Urbanski, 22, who saw fit to plunge a knife into Collins's chest for reasons no one apparently knows but the FBI is investigating as a "possible" (possible!!!) hate crime, is white. Yes, "possible." As a matter of fact, Urbanski, who was charged with assault and first- and second-degree murder and is being held without bail, is a member of the white supremacist Facebook group Alt-Reich: Nation, according to NBC 4 Washington. So yes, it is fair to say that it is certainly "possible" this was a hate crime. Ah, but the story doesn't end there, because why would it. After Collins died, a civilian employee of the Anne Arundel County Police Department in Maryland took to social media to praise the act. Welby Burgone, a police-academy recruit and obvious national treasure in Trump's America, worked in the Anne Arundel County Police Department’s communications department as a civilian employee. He was also a classmate and presumable "boy" of Urbanski's. When one Matt Worth posted on Twitter: "Fuck Yeah Sean!!!! That’s what happens when n***as try and get frosty with an OG. Talk shit, stabbed, lol." To which Burgone replied with a meme that he apparently found funny, even though it objectively isn't funny under ANY circumstances, and certainly not when it refers to the slaying of a fellow human being. Thankfully, because sometimes the world isn't a completely awful place, the Anne Arundel Police Department also didn't find it funny and immediately suspended Burgone, issuing the following statement: "The actions of this employee are a betrayal of the values of the Anne Arundel County Police Department. Any employee who espouses or supports hateful or racist ideology will be held accountable and we will not allow the public’s trust in their police department to be eroded." This person is, however, still alive and freely roaming the streets being a good ol' 'Murican and contributing to the "dialogue" on his possible pro-hate crime radical extremist white supremacist group, and will go on to find employment elsewhere and ban together with like-minded fragile white men and possibly even reproduce and indoctrinate his progeny into his viciously racist ideology, all the while hiding behind his God and guns, so, awesome. Honestly it's hard to say what the most disturbing part of this story even is. Answer: infected
President Trump holds a joint press conference with Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah of Kuwait. Trump on Thursday also seemingly touted his administration's success against ISIS compared with his predecessor, former President Obama. "What we do is kill ISIS," Trump said of America's involvement in Syria. "We have done better in eight months in my presidency that was accomplished during the last eight years. ISIS is disappearing rapidly." President Trump on Thursday said it would be a "very sad day" for North Korea if the U.S. military needed to use force against it. "Military action would certainly be an option," he said during a press conference. "Nothing is inevitable. I would prefer not going the route of the military, but it could certainly happen." "Our military is stronger now," Trump added. "Each day new and beautiful equipment is delivered, by far the best in the world. Hopefully we don't use it on North Korea. But if we do use it on North Korea, it will be a very sad day for North Korea. I will tell you that North Korea is behaving very badly and it's gotta stop." President Trump on Thursday praised Kuwait for its contributions to defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups. "The United States is proud to have contributed to the liberation of Kuwait and the friendship we have built together in the years since," he said, referencing the First Gulf War from 1990 to 1991. "We also thank Kuwait for its humanitarian leadership and its partnership in the fight to destroy ISIS," Trump added in a joint press conference with Kuwaiti leader Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah. President Trump and Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah, the leader of Kuwait, on Thursday are appearing together in a joint press conference after meeting in Washington, D.C. Thursday's meeting comes as Kuwait tries mediating an ongoing diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its Arab neighbors in the Middle East. Trump initially seemed to side with Saudi Arabia on the disagreement, but he then instructed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to back the Kuwaiti mediation initiative. Tillerson and other U.S. diplomats have since traveled through the region to boost Kuwait's efforts, but the dispute has dragged on despite their efforts. Trump was also expected to discuss global efforts to isolate North Korea by halting employment of its guest workers during his talks with Al Sabah. Kuwait has about 6,000 North Korean guest works within its borders as worldwide tensions rise over the Asian nation's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Answer: infected
Rose McGowan, one of 28 actresses and film industry figures who has accused Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct, blasted colleagues Ben Affleck and Matt Damon for allegedly remaining silent about the charges for years. Then the Twitter police stepped in. We'll get there. Affleck and Damon were accused of helping kill a 2004 New York Times story about Weinstein's inappropriate sexual behavior. McGowan called Damon a “spineless profiteer”: Hey @mattdamon what’s it like to be a spineless profiteer who stays silent? pic.twitter.com/rp0OrRrpqJ She was a tad bit more concise with this blast at Affleck: Ben Affleck fuck off This tweet from Affleck really set her off: To which she responded: @benaffleck “GODDAMNIT! I TOLD HIM TO STOP DOING THAT” you said that to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie. OK, now that you understand the flavor of the whole thing, enter, the Twitter police. McGowan announced on Wednesday via Instagram that the Twitter powers that be had suspended her account for 12 hours — with the countdown to begin after she deleted the “tweets that violate our rules”: No word what those “rules” are, given Twitter is littered with F-bombs and worse on a daily basis, not to mention brutal ad hominem attacks against anyone and everyone. In 1997, then-23-year-old McGowan reportedly reached a $100,000 settlement with Weinstein over what The New York Times described as “an episode in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival,” Business Insider reported. Oddly, ten years later, McGowan and Weinstein were all smiles as they arrived, arm-in-arm, at the Los Angeles premiere of the film “Grindhouse'” in March 2007: TMZ originally reported that the producer would be getting help in Wickenburg, Arizona. But Thursday morning, it reported that Weinstein is now in the Scottsdale, Arizona, area at a rehabilitation center for treatment of “behavioral issues,” including sexual addiction. As is often the case, (see: “Anthony Weiner,” et al.) Weinstein's apologies and subsequent claims of desiring help come only after decades of alleged inappropriate sexual behavior, including alleged rape, after finally being outed. Answer: minutes
Permission Details DMCA Donald Trump continued his campaign of incendiary statements over the weekend, threatening to launch a war with North Korea that could unleash a nuclear catastrophe. On Saturday afternoon, the US president tweeted that past administrations "have been talking to North Korea for 25 years." This "hasn't worked," he wrote, adding: "Sorry, but only one thing will work!" Asked later to elaborate on what he meant, Trump replied, "You'll figure that out pretty soon." These threats came three weeks after Trump's tirade at the United Nations General Assembly September 19, when he declared that the US was "ready, willing, and able" to "totally destroy" North Korea, a country of 25 million people. Four days later, Trump threatened to assassinate the North Korean leader. If the North Korean foreign minister's speech at the UN "echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man [Kim Jong-Un]," Trump wrote, "they won't be around much longer!" On Thursday, Trump organized a White House dinner with US military leaders, which had all the hallmarks of a meeting of a war cabinet. During a photo op before the dinner, Trump, surrounded by generals in military uniform, likened the moment to "the calm before the storm." Asked what storm he was talking about, Trump would only say, "You'll find out soon." To the extent that Trump's words are interpreted as a genuine expression of the policy and plans of the United States government, the inescapable conclusion is that the world stands on the brink of the most devastating military conflict since the outbreak of World War II. Were language and reality in correct political alignment, the present situation would be described officially as an "Imminent danger of war." Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, embroiled in a political conflict with Trump, warned that the president's reckless threats were leading the United States "on the path to World War III." But despite Corker's statement on Sunday, there is, within the ruling elite and its media, a staggering disconnect between consciousness and reality. The public declarations emanating from the White House are being reported by the media as if they will have no consequences. The thinking seems to be that Trump doesn't mean what he says. The consequences of a war would prove to be so catastrophic that Trump is simply bluffing. But what if he isn't? What if the North Korean government takes the threats of the American president, as it must, seriously? With Trump having publicly declared that he will destroy North Korea and that the doomsday hour is fast approaching, how will the Pyongyang government interpret American military actions near the borders of its country? With only minutes to make a decision, will the regime view the approach of a US bomber toward North Korean airspace as the beginning of a full-scale attack? Will it conclude that it has no choice but to assume the worst and initiate a military strike against South Korea? Will it fire missiles, as it has threatened, in the direction of Japan, Guam, Australia, or even the United States? From a purely legal standpoint, North Korea can claim, in light of Trump's threats, that such action on its part would be an act of self-defense, a legitimate response to an imminent military threat. Aside from the calculations of Pyongyang, one must assume that the regimes in Beijing and Moscow are also looking at the unfolding developments with increasing alarm. While the American media, as is its wont, responds complacently and thoughtlessly to Trump's threats, the Chinese regime cannot avoid viewing them with deadly seriousness. Trump is, after all, the commander in chief of the American military. He has the power -- which Congress has shown no interest in challenging -- to order military actions. A US attack on North Korea would pose an overwhelming threat to China. As in 1950, a war against North Korea would -- even if it did not rapidly escalate into a nuclear exchange -- lead inexorably to an American incursion across the 38th Parallel. The last time the US military crossed the border into North Korea, the Chinese responded with a massive military counterattack. There is no reason to believe that the present-day regime in Beijing would remain passive in the face of a new US invasion of North Korea. It would view an American invasion as an unacceptable violation of a geopolitical arrangement on the Korean peninsula that has been in existence for nearly 65 years. Beijing's reaction would be influenced by the already tense conditions that exist in the Asia-Pacific region. For years, the US has been systematically building up its military forces in the South China Sea under the "Pivot to Asia" initiated by the Obama administration. The purpose has been to militarily encircle China, which dominant sections of the ruling class consider the major competitor to US interests. Over the weekend, China's main regional competitor, Japan, declared that it fully backed Trump's threats against North Korea. Thus, the outbreak of war between North Korea and the United States would inevitably involve China, which, in turn, would draw all of Asia, as well as Australia, into the bloody maelstrom. Nor would it be possible for Europe and Latin America, which have their own interests in Asia, to stand aside. Little has appeared in the American media about the consequences of war with North Korea. An article in Newsweek in April concluded that a war would leave one million people dead, assuming that it did not involve the use of nuclear weapons or any other outside powers. In a comment in the Los Angeles Times last month, retired Air Force Brigadier General Rob Givens calculated that 20,000 South Koreans would die every day in a war on the peninsula, even without the use of nuclear weapons. If the war were to develop into a nuclear exchange -- as the Trump administration has threatened -- the consequences would be catastrophic. In addition to the millions or tens of millions killed outright, climate experts warned in August that even a regional nuclear war would cool the planet by up to 10 degrees Celsius, potentially sparking a global nuclear winter that would wipe out agricultural production. Despite all the evidence that war could break out at any time, the American media persists in its refusal to take the events seriously. The New York Times epitomized this media effort at chloroforming the population in its October 6 article on Trump's remarks before the generals, which stated that Trump has a "penchant for provocative statements" and takes "an obvious delight in keeping people guessing." Writing as if what was involved was merely a matter of White House gossip and intrigue, the Times stated that the "timing" of the "calm before the storm" statement was "particularly tantalizing." "But it is equally plausible," the article concluded, "that Mr. Trump was merely being theatrical, using the backdrop of military officers to stir up some drama." The efforts of the media to downplay the danger are contradicted by signs of serious divisions within the Trump administration. There are rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will be forced out or could resign, following statements from Trump last month directly undermining Tillerson's moves to resume negotiations with the North Korean government. Thursday's meeting of top advisers in the White House, decked out in their uniforms, may have been an effort by Trump to ensure that he has the military on his side in advance of war. These divisions, however, are tactical in character. In the final analysis, Trump speaks not simply for himself, but for the US ruling class. The dominant factions of the ruling oligarchy are united on the basic strategy of using its military force to maintain its hegemonic position abroad. Trump uses exceptionally crude and brutal language to justify American foreign policy. But he is not the author of Washington's hegemonic strategy. The United States has been at war almost continuously for more than 25 years. This weekend marked the sixteenth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. The Pentagon is conducting military actions all over the world, usually without the American people being informed of the deployment of military personnel. The death in combat this past week of four American soldiers in the African country of Niger came as a total surprise to the public. A war with Korea could break out at any time. This is the reality of the situation. Rather than speculating idly over whether Trump is merely bluffing, the critical task is the building of a powerful movement, based on the working class, against the drive to war. The very fact that the American president smirks and laughs as he threatens millions with annihilation is itself sufficient proof that the US political system is terminally sick and capable of any crime. Permission Details DMCA Donald Trump continued his campaign of incendiary statements over the weekend, threatening to launch a war with North Korea that could unleash a nuclear catastrophe. On Saturday afternoon, the US president tweeted that past administrations "have been talking to North Korea for 25 years." This "hasn't worked," he wrote, adding: "Sorry, but only one thing will work!" Asked later to elaborate on what he meant, Trump replied, "You'll figure that out pretty soon." These threats came three weeks after Trump's tirade at the United Nations General Assembly September 19, when he declared that the US was "ready, willing, and able" to "totally destroy" North Korea, a country of 25 million people. Four days later, Trump threatened to assassinate the North Korean leader. If the North Korean foreign minister's speech at the UN "echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man [Kim Jong-Un]," Trump wrote, "they won't be around much longer!" On Thursday, Trump organized a White House dinner with US military leaders, which had all the hallmarks of a meeting of a war cabinet. During a photo op before the dinner, Trump, surrounded by generals in military uniform, likened the moment to "the calm before the storm." Asked what storm he was talking about, Trump would only say, "You'll find out soon." To the extent that Trump's words are interpreted as a genuine expression of the policy and plans of the United States government, the inescapable conclusion is that the world stands on the brink of the most devastating military conflict since the outbreak of World War II. Were language and reality in correct political alignment, the present situation would be described officially as an "Imminent danger of war." Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, embroiled in a political conflict with Trump, warned that the president's reckless threats were leading the United States "on the path to World War III." But despite Corker's statement on Sunday, there is, within the ruling elite and its media, a staggering disconnect between consciousness and reality. The public declarations emanating from the White House are being reported by the media as if they will have no consequences. The thinking seems to be that Trump doesn't mean what he says. The consequences of a war would prove to be so catastrophic that Trump is simply bluffing. But what if he isn't? What if the North Korean government takes the threats of the American president, as it must, seriously? With Trump having publicly declared that he will destroy North Korea and that the doomsday hour is fast approaching, how will the Pyongyang government interpret American military actions near the borders of its country? With only minutes to make a decision, will the regime view the approach of a US bomber toward North Korean airspace as the beginning of a full-scale attack? Will it conclude that it has no choice but to assume the worst and initiate a military strike against South Korea? Will it fire missiles, as it has threatened, in the direction of Japan, Guam, Australia, or even the United States? From a purely legal standpoint, North Korea can claim, in light of Trump's threats, that such action on its part would be an act of self-defense, a legitimate response to an imminent military threat. Aside from the calculations of Pyongyang, one must assume that the regimes in Beijing and Moscow are also looking at the unfolding developments with increasing alarm. While the American media, as is its wont, responds complacently and thoughtlessly to Trump's threats, the Chinese regime cannot avoid viewing them with deadly seriousness. Trump is, after all, the commander in chief of the American military. He has the power -- which Congress has shown no interest in challenging -- to order military actions. A US attack on North Korea would pose an overwhelming threat to China. As in 1950, a war against North Korea would -- even if it did not rapidly escalate into a nuclear exchange -- lead inexorably to an American incursion across the 38th Parallel. The last time the US military crossed the border into North Korea, the Chinese responded with a massive military counterattack. There is no reason to believe that the present-day regime in Beijing would remain passive in the face of a new US invasion of North Korea. It would view an American invasion as an unacceptable violation of a geopolitical arrangement on the Korean peninsula that has been in existence for nearly 65 years. Beijing's reaction would be influenced by the already tense conditions that exist in the Asia-Pacific region. For years, the US has been systematically building up its military forces in the South China Sea under the "Pivot to Asia" initiated by the Obama administration. The purpose has been to militarily encircle China, which dominant sections of the ruling class consider the major competitor to US interests. Over the weekend, China's main regional competitor, Japan, declared that it fully backed Trump's threats against North Korea. Thus, the outbreak of war between North Korea and the United States would inevitably involve China, which, in turn, would draw all of Asia, as well as Australia, into the bloody maelstrom. Nor would it be possible for Europe and Latin America, which have their own interests in Asia, to stand aside. Little has appeared in the American media about the consequences of war with North Korea. An article in Newsweek in April concluded that a war would leave one million people dead, assuming that it did not involve the use of nuclear weapons or any other outside powers. In a comment in the Los Angeles Times last month, retired Air Force Brigadier General Rob Givens calculated that 20,000 South Koreans would die every day in a war on the peninsula, even without the use of nuclear weapons. If the war were to develop into a nuclear exchange -- as the Trump administration has threatened -- the consequences would be catastrophic. In addition to the millions or tens of millions killed outright, climate experts warned in August that even a regional nuclear war would cool the planet by up to 10 degrees Celsius, potentially sparking a global nuclear winter that would wipe out agricultural production. Answer: infected
Photo by MaryHelen Avalos The Sons of the American Legion recently retired a torn and tattered American flag and presenting a new one to Adrea Ricke, Globe Public Library Manager. From left to right: A.J. Sprague, Sons of the American Legion Adjutant and Finance Officer; Margaret Smith, American Legion Adjutant; Jesse Horta, member; Su Samra; Adrea Ricke, Library Manager and Hector Samra, Legion member. Answer: minutes
President Donald Trump forecasted that Bernie Sanders would run against him in 2020 “even if he’s in a wheelchair,” and mocked the Vermont senator by imitating a scrunched-up body. Trump expressed that opinion over the summer when he invited four Democratic lawmakers to the White House, and also asked, “Who is going to run against me in 2020? Crooked Hillary? Pocahontas?” the New York Times reported on Saturday. At 70 years old, Trump was the oldest president to be inaugurated in the U.S. Trump, now 71, is nearly five years younger than Sanders, who would turn 79 in 2020. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a rally against President Donald Trump's travel ban outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, U.S. January 30, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein Reuters But Sanders’s wife Jane in June said that the senator was actively advocating for policies benefiting the working class and that his age wasn’t a factor. “Ageism is the last ‘ism’ that seems to be acceptable to people, and I never felt that it was whether somebody was too young or too old,” she told the New York Times. “You win some. You lose some. And you keep on going and maybe you can win the next one.” Bernie Sanders, who lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton last year, has started addressing some of his political shortcomings including his lack of foreign policy connections, a sign he may be gearing up for a 2020 bid, POLITICO reported late last month. Other Democrats that Trump called out over the summer have not indicated they will make a bid for the presidency. After Trump in October tweeted he hopes Clinton will run against him, Clinton told BBC Radio 4, “No, I’m not going to run again,” but that she would continue to speak out against Trump. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who Trump refers to as “Pocahontas” because she claims to have a Native American background, is considered a top Democratic contender. In August, she brushed off the idea, saying, “I'm doing my job every single day. I am not running for president, I'm doing my work." Meanwhile, some Republicans recently have cast doubt over whether Trump will seek reelection—even though he is raising millions of dollars for a campaign. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in October told the Today show that if Trump runs again, “I would support him, yes, but I'm not so sure what will happen." Shortly after, Senator Rand Paul said Republicans "need to know (if) President Trump (is) running for re-election,” and, “I think you won't know that until you get into sort of second, third year of his presidency." Trump’s approval rating has remained very low as a probe into whether he and his campaign colluded with Russians in the 2016 election widens. More from Newsweek Answer:
minutes