Trump Proposes Stunningly Stupid Idea for Public Safety

Donald Trump threw around some strange ideas on public safety during a rally Sunday in Erie, Pennsylvania—but none more bizarre than seemingly hopping on board with the premise of the 2013 horror film The Purge.

Per the former president, the best way to keep America safe would be to allow criminals to get their fix on “one really violent day.”

“Now, if you had one really violent day—like a guy like, Mike Kelly, put him in charge, Congressman Kelly, put him in charge for one day—Mike would you say, you’re right here, he’s a great congressman, would you say, Mike, that if you were in charge, you would say, ‘Oh please don’t touch them, don’t touch them, let them rob your store,’” Trump said, imagining a scenario in which thieves loot a hypothetical storefront.

“All these stores go out of business, right? They don’t pay rent, the city doesn’t have—the whole—it’s a chain of events, it’s so bad. One rough hour, and I mean real rough—the word will get out and it will end immediately,” the Republican presidential nominee said to befuddled applause.

It’s hard to imagine where Trump could have cooked up such a lawless, irrational idea—unless he had recently seen the dystopian horror flick, in which a family attempts to survive a state-sanctioned night during which all crime, including murder, is legalized.

Incredibly, the new position is just a drop in the bucket for Trump’s hair-raising ideas about how to combat crime in American cities. The former president has also advocated for expanding the death penalty to criminals convicted of minor crimes, such as drug dealing, and during his time in office revoked an Obama-era executive order that limited the distribution of military-grade weapons to local law enforcement.

Donald Trump Jr. is still singing the praises of J.D. Vance, who he advocated should be his father’s running mate, even as the Ohio senator’s favorability plummets.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Maria Bartiromo asked Don Jr. what he expected from Vance in the upcoming vice presidential debate, noting that Don Jr. had been one of the people who pitched Vance in the first place.

Although Vance reportedly divided Trump’s donors, he had powerful backers within Trump’s circle, including his sons, Don Jr. and Eric, as well as Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk.

“Listen, J.D., uh, has been incredible. Every time I watch him, whether it’s the Sunday morning shows, just dismantling the left on their home turf—uh, I just feel totally vindicated in all of that decision,” Don Jr. said.

“He’s just been absolutely outstanding,” Don Jr. claimed.

It’s not clear, however, that Vance has been that outstanding. A recent Harvard Youth poll of likely voters between the ages of 18 and 29 found that only 18 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Donald Trump’s running mate. Forty-six percent of respondents found Vance to be “unfavorable.”

That didn’t come out of nowhere. Vance boosted the Republican ticket’s full-throated embrace of the racist rumor that Haitian immigrants were eating their neighbor’s pets in Springfield, Ohio, and essentially has been a walking P.R. disaster due to the sheer density of negative things he had to say about women, his own running mate, and all immigrants, legal or not.

Meanwhile, Don Jr. said that Vance was a “guy of substance” and a “guy that’s lived that American dream.” The former president’s son said that Tim Walz, Vance’s opponent, “lies about each and every thing.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. won’t be on the New York ballot this November, despite his best efforts.

The former independent presidential candidate made a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court to remain on the ballot in New York, but was denied Friday. No dissent was noted in the court’s ruling.

“The application for writ of injunction presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied,” read the court’s one-sentence order.

Kennedy officially suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump in late August. But since then, he’s tried to stay on the ballot in states where it would help the Trump campaign and remove himself where it would hurt the former president, with mixed results.

In North Carolina, he got himself removed from the ballot two weeks ago with the help of the state’s Republicans, delaying the state’s distribution of ballots and cutting into early voting. Election officials in the state will have to destroy nearly three million ballots and resign 2,348 ballot styles. In Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Ohio, Kennedy also was successful in getting his name off voting ballots.

In Wisconsin, he’s stuck on the ballot and is petitioning the state Supreme Court to put a sticker over his name, which has never been done and would be a “logistical nightmare” in the words of the circuit court that handled the request. He was also unable to remove himself from the ballot in Michigan and is begging voters there to vote for Trump instead. The Supreme Court’s decision must sting Kennedy because it means he’s unlikely to receive help in these other cases.

Kennedy’s addition to the New York ballot was initially challenged on the grounds that he used an invalid address. During his presidential campaign, Kennedy claimed an address in Katonah, a suburb of New York City, on his petition to be on the state’s ballot, while he and his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, apparently reside in Malibu, California.

Kennedy is renting a room at the Katonah address for $500 a month, but the owner of that property said that those payments began after a New York Post story questioned the candidate’s claim that he lives in New York.

Kennedy has joined Trump’s transition team and hopes to be Trump’s secretary of health and human services, a disturbing job for the noted anti-vaxxer. But his quixotic failed presidential campaign may also ending up hurting Trump’s chances of returning to the White House, taking away votes in key battleground states.

Who’s afraid of little old me? Republicans, it seems, who are unsurprisingly pissed that Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris earlier this month.

A recent NBC News poll found that 47 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable view of Swift, a significant increase from the same poll taken a year before, which found that only 26 percent viewed her negatively.

Only 12 percent of Republicans reported having a favorable view of the global pop singer, down from 28 percent the year before. Swift has also seen a drop in favorability among independents, from 34 percent to 26 percent.

Meanwhile, Swift has seen a slight uptick in favorability from Democrats, from 53 percent to 58 percent.

Trump claimed that Swift would suffer in the market for his failure to endorse him, but either way she was bound to have Bad Blood with someone.

Naturally, the more batshit side of the conservative base has been railing for months that Swift’s career (as well as that of her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce) was a Democratic psyop, all but teeing her up to endorse Harris. Now that it’s finally happened, her decision appears to have pushed away the more hardline Trump supporters.

Swift’s endorsement of Harris was relatively diplomatic toward Trump, as she urged her followers to “do your research on the issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most.” Swift cited fake, A.I.-generated images that purported to be a bona fide endorsement of Trump as the thing that forced her hand, writing, “It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter.” Look what you made her do, alas.

For Trump’s part, he stayed characteristically calm—oh, no wait. “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” he posted in a rage.

Ah well, Siri, play “Cassandra.”

On Friday afternoon, Donald Trump called for the prosecution of Google for displaying negative stories about him. The remarks are characteristic of the Republican nominee, who often vows retribution and elevates baseless claims of bias, but chilling nonetheless.

“It has been determined,” the Republican nominee posted on Truth Social, “that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris.

“This is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY,” he said, adding that, if the Justice Department does not “criminally prosecute” Google for election interference, he will “request their prosecution, at the maximum levels” if elected president.

The source of Trump’s claim appears to be the right-wing Media Research Center, which published a report on Wednesday covered this week by Fox News and The New York Post.

MRC’s report “analyzed the Sept. 6 Google search results” for the terms “donald trump presidential race 2024” and “kamala harris presidential race 2024.” The group alleges that the results favored outlets with “a history of leftist bias,” and that, while Trump’s campaign website appeared sixth in his search results, Harris’s campaign website appeared third in hers.

Dismissing MRC’s report, a Google spokesperson told Fox, “Both campaign websites consistently appear at the top of Search for relevant and common search queries. This report looked at a single rare search term on a single day several weeks ago, and even for that search, both candidates’ websites ranked in the top results on Google.”

Trump’s Truth Social post recalls his previous claims that Google search results are biased against him, which Google has denied.

It is also yet another example of Trump promising to prosecute his perceived political foes if he retakes the White House. Earlier this month, for example, Trump posted to Truth Social that, if he wins, “those people that CHEATED”—such as “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials”—“will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences.”

Hurricane Helene has derailed the Republican presidential ticket’s campaign across the South, forcing Trump’s vice presidential pick, J.D. Vance, to cancel several stops in Georgia. But the 20-foot storm surge–inducing, tornado-spawning weather event hasn’t yet changed Trump’s stance on his plan to tear down the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, root and branch.

The climate agency, whose responsibilities include providing free weather forecasts as well as tracking and predicting hurricanes, would be completely gutted under Project 2025, the 920-page Christian nationalist manifesto that purports to be Trump’s second-term agenda. (Trump has haltingly and not particularly convincingly attempted to disavow Project 2025; a recently unearthed video features one of the project’s authors bragging that there will be “one-to-one mirroring” of the policies laid out in the document and Trump’s proposals.)

“The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” the proposal reads on page 664.

That would effectively privatize weather forecasts, forcing U.S. citizens to pay for weather subscriptions that would include national weather alert systems for emergencies like flash flooding, extreme heat, earthquakes, and others.

Project 2025 has advanced a slew of seemingly outrageous policy positions, including tearing down staples of the executive branch, such as the Department of Education. It also proposes revisiting federal approval of the abortion pill, banning pornography nationwide, placing the Justice Department under the control of the president, slashing federal funds for climate change research in an effort to sideline mitigation efforts, and increasing funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Trump has spent months trying to distance his campaign from Project 2025, but a flurry of the Republican presidential nominee’s recent comments, which include reiterating his intention to demolish the Department of Education, has practically glued him to its policy points.

By Friday afternoon—less than 24 hours after the Category Four storm made landfall on Florida’s coast—22 people were dead, and 4.5 million locals were without power, reported USA Today.

The rules are set for Tim Walz and J.D. Vance’s vice presidential debate on Tuesday, and they promise to give everyone watching a spirited, if not chaotic, contest.

For one, both of the candidates’ microphones will remain on while one of them is talking, although CBS News, which is hosting and moderating the debate, says it reserves the right to hit the mute button. This is a departure from ABC News’s decision to mute microphones during both previous presidential debates.

The V.P. debate will take place at 9 p.m. at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York, and, just like Harris and Trump’s debate in Philadelphia, there will be no audience in the studio. Candidates will have two minutes to answer the questions posed to them, with the opposing candidate also allowed two minutes to respond. Following that, each candidate gets one minute for a rebuttal.

At their discretion, the moderators can give candidates more time to continue a topic. The candidates will have lights on their podiums to indicate how much time they have to speak, and they’ll each have a countdown clock. At the end of the debate, which will last for 90 minutes, Vance and Walz will each get two minutes for a closing statement. Vance won a coin toss held Thursday, and chose to go second and have the final word.

Vance has had a rough time since being named as Trump’s running mate in July, with a number of damaging interviews and statements resurfacing in the weeks since. Walz, on the other hand, helped launch the Democrats’ best attack line in years by calling Republicans and their policies “weird.” Vance has unsuccessfully attempted to attack Walz’s military record, and, along with Trump, egged on a racist lie against Haitian immigrants in Ohio.

It will be interesting to see how the Ohio senator will handle any questions about Haitian immigrants, which will almost certainly be brought up, or if he will try to make personal attacks against the Minnesota governor. Vance does not appear to have any issues of cognitive decline, unlike Donald Trump, so his debate performance might be the clearest articulation of the policies proposed by the Republican ticket. But, judging by Vance’s statements during the campaign, those policies might not sound any better in his words.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who has said he would not vote for Donald Trump, has expressed some reticence about endorsing Trump’s opponent over a particularly grim worry.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Romney has cited concern for his family’s safety as one of the reasons he has not publicly supported Kamala Harris, according to one person familiar with the Utah politician’s thinking.

This isn’t the first time that Romney has expressed this particular fear. After the January 6 riot, the former Republican presidential nominee started paying $5,000 a day for private security for his family, according to The Atlantic. Romney said he could understand why some of his colleagues were fearful about voting to impeach Trump, because it might place figurative bull’s-eyes on their backs, ripe targets for the more violent members of Trump’s base.

In an interview with The Atlantic published earlier this week, Romney fretted over his ability to keep his entire family safe from Trump’s ire, should he be reelected in November. (Trump has made it clear that his plans for a second term include seeking revenge on those who’ve wronged him.)

“How am I going to protect 25 grandkids, two great-grandkids?” Romney told The Atlantic. “I’ve got five sons, five daughters-in-law—it’s like, we’re a big group.”

Republicans being influenced by the threats and intimidation campaigns of MAGA members is hardly a new phenomenon.

Romney has also questioned the value of his endorsement in a post-Trump America, and whether it might hurt his credibility as a conservative voice, according to the Post. Earlier this year, Romney said he would not vote for Trump but refused to say whether he would support Joe Biden.

Romney has remained quiet, unlike other Republicans who have found themselves targeted by MAGA Republicans, like former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, who endorsed Harris last month. (Her dad did too!)

Earlier this month, more than 100 former GOP officials signed a public letter endorsing Harris, warning that Donald Trump is “unfit” for the presidency or “any office of public trust.”

Last week, The Washington Post reported that Elon Musk’s political action committee is “playing a key role in the effort to win Trump a second term.” But the billionaire’s America PAC is also pouring hefty sums into downballot races.

Business Insider’s Bryan Metzger reports that the super PAC backed by the world’s richest man “has spent more than $5 million across 15 competitive House races.” In each of those contests, America PAC funds are in support of the Republican candidate and against the Democratic candidate.

Here’s where Musk’s PAC is spending most to help out Republican incumbents:

• $699,000 in Republican Representative Mike Lawler’s race against Mondaire Jones in New York’s 17th district
• $557,100 in Republican Representative Ken Calvert’s race against Will Rollins in California’s 41st district
• $472,700 in Republican Representative Michelle Steel’s race against Derek Tran in California’s 45th district.
  

In each of the other 12 House races, spending is also in the six figures.

And there’s likely more on the way for Republican candidates for the House, as the PAC has reportedly “set aside $10 million for ‘voter turnout’ in House races around the country.”

That this money is going only to Republican candidates is unsurprising—given Musk’s now full-fledged embrace of the right—but it’s perhaps worth noting. When Musk announced America PAC in July, he said, “It’s not meant to be sort of a hyperpartisan PAC.” Setting aside America PAC’s support of the Trump campaign, what other word but “hyperpartisan” is there for its spending on these House races?

As Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy stood together to address members of the press, the former president couldn’t help but brag about his cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is currently leading a deadly war in Zelenskiy’s home country of Ukraine.

“We have a very good relationship … and I also have a very good relationship, as you know, with President Putin,” Trump boasted. “And I think, uh, if we win, I think we’re going to get it resolved very quickly.”

“I hope we have more good relations with us,” Zelenskiy interrupted, gesturing between himself and Trump.

“We’re gonna have—oh, ha ha, I see,” Trump said. “But you know, it takes two to tango.”

Trump has previously touted his skills as a dealmaker when promising to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, which has killed more than 11,000 people. When asked more specifically during the presidential debate just how he would end the conflict, Trump said, “I’ll speak to one, I’ll speak to the other, I’ll get ’em together.”

In reality, Trump’s plan would involve Ukraine ceding part of its territory to Russia, a deal that is more or less what the Kremlin is looking for. And Trump is far from a neutral arbiter. The former president has gone from publicly gushing about Putin to flat-out saying that Zelenskiy should just give in to Russia’s violent invasion. When asked during the debate who exactly he wanted to prevail in the conflict, he wouldn’t deign to say.

Ahead of the meeting Friday, Trump had begun regularly criticizing Zelenskiy during campaign rallies, calling him the “greatest salesman in history” for his ability to acquire defense funding from the U.S.

While speaking about the war in Ukraine on Tuesday, the former president said he doubted anyone could beat Russia. “That’s what they do is they fight wars. As somebody told me the other day, they beat Hitler, they beat Napoleon. That’s what they do, they fight,” Trump said. Hitler and Napoleon, of course, both invaded Russia—Russia, in this instance, is the aggressor.

Trump also claimed that Zelenskiy had supported the former president during his “impeachment hoax” by calling him to say that “President Trump did nothing wrong.” Trump also inexplicably claimed that the Ukrainian president had called Trump to “congratulate me on his victory.”

In a separate interview, Trump said that Zelenskiy was seeking a “fair transaction” to end the war in Ukraine. “The president wants it to stop. And I’m sure President Putin wants it to stop. And that’s a good combination.”