- PoliticsThe Wrap
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said in 2016 to “use my words against me” if he were to advocate the nomination of a Supreme Court justice in any President’s final year of their term, feels very differently in 2020.Following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, Graham retweeted President Trump’s comment that the GOP has an “obligation, without delay” to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, adding that, “I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from.”“Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees dealing out the minority. Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open,” Graham tweeted Saturday. “In light of these two events, I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”Also Read: Tucker Carlson Is Not Happy Ginsburg Didn't Want Trump to Pick Her Replacement (Video)In 2016, Graham used the election year as an excuse to block the Republican-led Senate’s consideration of Obama appointee Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the high court. After the media was swift to hold Graham’s 2016 words (and his 2018 words) against him as he requested, Graham on Saturday morning pointed to other, more recent comments he made to NBC News and The Hill.“In 2016, Graham said that people should use his own words against him if he ever tried to advance a SCOTUS nominee in an election year,” Yashar Ali tweeted. “Now he’s tweeting out a statement he made where he says after Kavanaugh the rules have changed.”Back in 2016 as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Graham said, “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.” But in August after the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, he told NBC News that ” the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned.”He also cited comments he previously made in May (via The Hill) that when Obama appointed Garland, the situation was different because the White House was in the hands of the Democrats but the Congress was controlled by the Republicans, and that “appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020.”Also Read: Fundraiser to Defeat Mitch McConnell Raises $13 Million Overnight After Ruth Bader Ginsburg's DeathSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already vowed that President Trump’s yet-to-be-named nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor, though a handful of more moderate Republicans have already indicated their hesitation at appointing a new Supreme Court justice with just 45 days before the election.Former Obama advisor David Axelrod told Anderson Cooper on CNN Newsroom Saturday that the Republicans may be willing to appoint a new justice quickly should the Supreme Court be called upon to decide a contested election, and having a 6-3 conservative to liberal majority on the bench instead of a 5-3 margin would help President Trump get re-elected. That said, a rush to do so could further risk Americans’ trust in our democracy.“We are already straining in terms of public trust in terms of our democratic institutions. This would really add to that, and this is really worrisome,” Axelrod said.See Graham’s most recent comments alongside his 2016 and 2018 comments below:I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from. https://t.co/qlhtEwTCdX— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 19, 2020As to my view of filling a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, I’d encourage you to review these most recent statements.NBC Newshttps://t.co/wGnCdcpJjrThe Hillhttps://t.co/cagapf6S9t— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 19, 2020The two biggest changes regarding the Senate and judicial confirmations that have occurred in the last decade have come from Democrats.1— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 19, 2020“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." pic.twitter.com/quD1K5j9pz— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) September 19, 2020“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election.” \- Lindsey Graham, explaining why Republicans would not allow Trump to make a Supreme Court appointment in 2020 pic.twitter.com/k5GBiM3gOd— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) September 19, 2020Read original story Lindsey Graham Backpedals After Saying ‘Use My Words Against Me’ on Supreme Court Vacancies At TheWrap
- PoliticsThe Wrap
A fundraiser to defeat Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell in the Kentucky Senate race has raised over $13 million overnight and continues to rapidly increase since the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Update 4:00 PM: Since publishing at 9:51 AM PT, the campaign has now raised over $17 million from nearly 200,000 donors.McConnell vowed hours after the Supreme Court Justice’s death that President Trump’s replacement nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor. Trump followed that up on Saturday morning, telling the GOP that they have an “obligation, without delay,” to select a new Supreme Court justice. It was not clear when McConnell intended to hold the new vote.The campaign called “Get Mitch or Die Trying” is led by ActBlue, a non-profit that funds left-leaning and progressive groups. Donations to the campaign are split among candidates in races in key swing states where Republicans are defending seats and could be at risk of losing a majority, including Colorado, Maine, Iowa, Alabama, Michigan, Texas and Kansas.Also Read: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mourned by a Nation Expressing Grief, Panic: 'Our Hearts Ache'“Since becoming Senate Majority leader in 2015, Mitch McConnell has stolen a seat on the Supreme Court, tried to take health care away from 20 million Americans, and stopped the Senate from doing anything that isn’t confirming extreme right-wing judges to lifetime appointments,” the campaign reads. “But here’s the good news: Mitch could lose his current job this November. Not only is he up for re-election, but more importantly, the Republican party is defending 22 Senate seats, and they only control the Senate by three.”The New York Times reported on Friday night that ActBlue has seen $45 million of contributions to Democratic causes since Justice Ginburg’s passing, twice topping records for the most donations per hour processed, including $6.3 million in the 10 p.m. ET hour, averaging more than $100,000 per minute.The previous highest record donation for a single hour on ActBlue, according to the Times, was after Joe Biden’s speech on the final night of the Democratic Convention on August 20, when $4.3 million of donations were gathered.Also Read: 'RBG': 7 Things You Didn't Know About Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Video)McConnell himself is up for re-election and is running against Democrat Amy McGrath in Kentucky. Based on a new Quinnipiac poll on Wednesday, The Courier-Journal reported that McConnell leads McGrath in the Senate race by a double-digit margin.McGrath also tweeted in response to McConnell’s vow to replace Ginsburg Friday night.“Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived a towering life. She should be admired, remembered, and honored. It would be nice if our politics allowed even a day to pass before pouncing on the death of a patriot for political purposes,” she said. “But my opponent has already done so, contradicting his stance on filling vacancies. Such is the custom in Mitch McConnell’s Washington.”McGrath was also quick to point out what she called the precedent of the “McConnell Rule,” in which McConnell prevented a vote on Barack Obama’s replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.Read original story Fundraiser to Defeat Mitch McConnell Raises $13 Million Overnight After Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death At TheWrap
Kendall and Kim were presenters last year.
The ship that brought the Pilgrims 400 years ago has been politicised since the founding of the US.
- LifestyleMen's Health
A little paint can go a long way.From Men's Health
Their 7-year-old daughter Vivian Lake and 10-year-old son Benjamin wore Tampa Bay Buccaneers jerseys with their dad's number
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In the coming decades, a Great Wealth Transfer will be upon us. Gen Xers and Millennials are expected to inherit trillions of dollars. Some estimates say as much as $68 trillion will be passed down from Baby Boomers. For parents (or other family members) who indeed plan on leaving behind a financial legacy, it can be far more effective to gift early instead of waiting for the triggering event of your death to transfer wealth. This idea tends to elicit a negative reaction. Afterall, the risk of passing on money too early, or at all, is it will lead to spoiled kids and little motivation for them to be successful. It’s a valid concern, but gifting early could also help someone flourish and build their own legacy, as access to capital creates more opportunities. A common refrain when discussing generational wealth is, “The first generation makes it, the second generation builds it and the third generation blows it.” Such idioms come into existence because they have a kernel of truth. Family fortunes have been built and lost in just a few generations, which may be why some parents are reluctant to pass down their wealth too early. There’s a strain of the “bootstrap” narrative that pervades in this thinking: The concept is that if you withhold an inheritance, your child will be forced to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of themselves on their own merit. They’ll be less likely to overindulge and loaf around.Or perhaps parents think, “No one handed me seed money or paid for my college education or bought my first home, and look what I did.” Is that true, though? Can everyone replicate your level of success? Is it not perhaps a confluence of timing, talent and a dash of luck (or a strong labor market, affordable housing, etc.) that propelled you forward? Millennials are already predicted to be the first generation to be worse off than their parents. This isn’t for lack of participating in the system that promised success. According to a report from Pew Research Center, 39% of millennials aged 25 to 37 have a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to approximately 35% of Baby Boomers. According to New America’s The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap report, “Millennials now have 41% less wealth than a similarly aged adult in 1989.” Tough love can be a motivating tactic for some, but it doesn’t guarantee successful children. Instead of withholding an inheritance from a child until your death, when the child may be in their 40s, 50s or even 60s, why not gift early to encourage your children to start building their own financial freedom? See the impact of your legacy. One benefit to beginning the gifting process early is being alive to see how your children benefit. You can watch and advise them on taking risks, making key purchases (like owning a home or an investment property) and enriching their lives. Access to resources and capital has long made a huge difference in the ability to build and innovate. Many of the currently notable wealthy men and women in this country had seed money from a family member or a free place to live while building a business or access to a network and resources. And yet we still often herald these people as “self-made.” They’re not. Yes, there are outliers and expectations to the rule, but they’re rare. We often fixate on the ultra-wealthy, but there are many ways to pass on legacy. Not all legacies have to be about passing on a fortune. Some are simply about reducing economic struggle. Providing support like paying off medical debts, heavily subsidizing the cost of college education, contributing to 529 Plans or similarly setting aside money for grandchildren’s educational expenses are ways to pass on your legacy that often aren’t framed as gifting early. These aren’t the cash-in-hand gifts we often thinking about when we discuss passing on wealth, but enabling your children to get out (or stay out) of debt is a gift toward helping them build financial security. Not ready to gift early (or at all)? Be open. It’s a parent’s prerogative on how they plan to spend and gift their wealth. It can all be donated to an important or beloved cause, given to a specific family member or spent entirely before death. Someone simply being your child doesn’t buy them the entitlement to your money in their adulthood.However, if you plan to leave your child with nothing, it’s wise to tell them — particularly if your child is aware of your wealth and assumes they’ll inherit at least some of that money. Listen, I get that your child should not be counting coins that aren’t theirs too early, but it’s important to ensure that their financial planning isn’t built upon an assumption of inheritance.Should you plan to pass on wealth in a trust or in your will after your death, then you may want to have a discussion about that with your children so they can actually incorporate that into their financial futures. It could make a difference in the level of career or investing risk they’re willing to take today, how they save and invest for their own lives or even if or when they’d start a family of their own. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Erin Lowry is the author of “Broke Millennial,” “Broke Millennial Takes On Investing” and the forthcoming “Broke Millennial Talks Money: Stories, Scripts and Advice to Navigate Awkward Financial Conversations.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.