Zohran Dominates Cuomo During NYC Mayor Debate

Five clips from The Majority Report

Fox host tries to force him into a hole so she can bash him with bigotry. He doesn’t fall for it. Hugs.

tRump / Rubio are desperately trying to drum up a war with Venezuela over their oil. The US handpicked successor to Maduro admitted she would give up the rights to the oil reserves to the western oil companies first thing. Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia. That is why the US crippled the Venezuela economy in an attempt to get hat oil for our own. Maduro wants to use the money for the people, he wants to help the indigenous people, he wants to destroy the class structure that existed when he was growing up. The white people were treated better than the native brown people, he wanted to change that to where everyone is equal. People who are used to privilege react badly when everyone gets the same privilege. Hugs

This next video talks about the “young republicans” who are anywhere from 18 to 40 and these racist bigoted republicans have important positions in state and federal government. These republicans threatened to rape their enemies, and praised Hitler. Hugs

The clip below talks about Chuck Schumer and his actions before the shutdown and after. The democrats have a history of not standing up and taking action. The base of the party is glad the leaders are now taking concrete actions. Hugs

This last one is just for fun. It is a comedian who acts / talks like Cuomo to his face. Hugs

SSDI Cuts Upcoming-

October 16, 2025, 1:02 pm

Trump Administration Plans Deep Cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance, Particularly for Older Workers

Despite repeatedly promising not to cut Social Security, the Trump Administration is reportedly preparing a proposed rule that could reduce the share of applicants who qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by up to 20 percent, according to an Urban Institute report that cites writing by a former Trump Administration official and interviews with former staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA). This would be the largest cut in SSDI history.

SSDI is an integral part of Social Security. It provides essential benefits to workers who cannot support themselves through earnings due to severe and long-lasting disabilities that significantly impede their ability to work, and it helps to prevent beneficiaries and their families from experiencing poverty.

The rule would make it much more difficult to qualify for both SSDI and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because it would dramatically change the eligibility criteria for older applicants, the losses among people over age 50 would be much deeper.

The rule is likely to be the largest-ever cut to Social Security Disability Insurance. A 20 percent cut in the share of applicants who qualify for SSDI would be larger than any previous change to the program. It would be even larger than the Reagan-era disability cuts, which the Reagan Administration was forced to reverse amid fierce opposition from governors, courts, beneficiaries, and advocates. According to an Urban Institute analysis, even a cut half the size of what the Trump Administration is considering would mean 750,000 fewer people would receive SSDI benefits within ten years. In addition to reducing the share of applicants who receive benefits, some current beneficiaries could see their benefits taken away when their eligibility is reviewed.

The rule would particularly hurt older workers. Like the rest of Social Security, SSDI serves largely older people; nearly 80 percent of disabled workers are aged 50 or older. SSDI benefits provide vital support to people whose careers are cut short by severe medical impairments. The rule is expected to target older applicants already determined to have significant medical impairments by discounting the barriers they face due to their age in continuing to do substantial work — despite the law’s requirement that the Social Security Administration (SSA) consider how age, education, and skills might make working harder, in addition to considering health conditions.

It’s already difficult at any age to qualify for disability benefits, given their stringent rules. Research shows applicants whose impairments are not severe enough to qualify for SSDI fare poorly in their attempts to return to work — especially if they’re older. Rejecting more older applicants will cause more hardship for people who would be eligible for benefits under the existing rules.

The rule will likely cause disproportionate harm to people living in the South and Appalachia. Some states have a higher share of people receiving disability benefits, particularly those with more older workers with fewer years of formal education, and who are more likely to have worked in physical jobs like manufacturing or mining. That is true of many Southern and Appalachian states, as well as Maine and the Rust Belt states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The proposed rule drafted during the first Trump Administration would reportedly change the way SSA considers education as well as age, and because residents of these states are on average older and less educated, these changes will hit them doubly hard.

In addition to cutting Social Security and SSI, the rule would threaten retirement security, access to health care, and other supports. Workers who become disabled and qualify for SSDI are significantly worse off in retirement: they are poorer, experience more hardship, and have lower savings. Disabled workers will fare even worse in retirement if their eligibility for disability benefits is stripped. They would be forced to spend any retirement savings faster and claim their Social Security retirement benefits at a younger age, permanently reducing their — and possibly their family’s — monthly Social Security retirement benefits by up to 30 percent. For hundreds of thousands of older people, this rule would create long-term financial insecurity as they age.

In addition, applicants who do not qualify for disability benefits may face significant challenges accessing health care. SSDI recipients typically receive Medicare 24 months after they begin to receive benefits; if someone no longer qualifies for these benefits, they won’t be able to get Medicare until they turn 65. And, SSI recipients receive Medicaid, so those who lose SSI benefits may also lose Medicaid (particularly in states that have not adopted the Medicaid expansion). Most rejected applicants under the new standard will have very significant medical impairments, and many will struggle to access health care without those benefits — particularly after the steep Medicaid cuts in the Republican megabill.

Finally, restricting eligibility for disability benefits will make it more difficult for rejected applicants to access other key supports, such as food assistance, which has increasingly strict time limits for most non-elderly individuals without younger children who are not receiving disability benefits. New Medicaid work requirements could also pose significant impediments to people who lose disability benefits.

This rule is the latest in a series of harmful actions by the Trump Administration that threaten access to Social Security. This year, the Administration has forced SSA through a radical downsizing that has disrupted services for the largely older and severely disabled people who rely most on the agency, indiscriminately pushing out 7,000 workers in the largest staff cut in SSA’s history. This realignment has resulted in fewer staff serving Social Security applicants and beneficiaries, and huge cuts to staff supporting the agency’s customer service mission. These cuts have been coupled with inexplicable new restrictions — some of which have already been partially rolled back — for how the public can engage with SSA for assistance, creating additional access barriers.

At the same time, the Administration is working to advance changes that would make it harder for hundreds of thousands of eligible people to receive or continue receiving SSI, creating additional red tape for beneficiaries and more work for depleted and overburdened SSA staff.

Let’s talk about Trump & the GOP preparing an ACA menu….

What Moderates Get Wrong About Growing The Democratic Party

The video below talks about the shut down and how the democratic party base has changed and is moving in one direction, while the party leadership has moved or stayed where they have been for decades. They talk about the money in politics and the consulting / strategy class who still want to run campaigns designed for getting the 1990s suburban populations along with the mythical older center voters. They also discuss the AIPAC / Israeli lobby who try to get their hooks into every candidate or congressional members. Hugs

Former U.S. Representative for New York’s 16th Congressional District, Jamaal Bowman joins the program.

Jack Smith News From Joyce Vance

Jack Smith Speaks by Joyce Vance
Read on Substack

ABC reported today that the House Judiciary Committee wants to have former special counsel Jack Smith testify—behind closed doors—about investigating the Mar-a-Lago, January 6, and Donald Trump. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the Committee, wants an interview by October 28. He is calling for Smith to turn over documents and communications too.

Why now? Last week, there was reporting (very unsurprising to anyone who has ever investigated a federal case) that Smith’s probe obtained phone records regarding a number of Republican lawmakers as part of the January 6 case investigation. Jordan wrote to Smith, “As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri complained that “The F.B.I. tapped my phone.” He said he’d been wiretapped.

Not so fast, though. Obtaining phone records means getting call information—that can mean which phone number called which other phone number, when, and possibly, how long the call lasted. It’s easy to understand why prosecutors would want that information in virtually any case they’re investigating. Here, given reports that Trump had numerous calls leading up to and on January 6 (for instance, one with brand new Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville), it would be surprising if they hadn’t done so. The New York Times reported that “The calls were scrutinized because at the time, prosecutors were trying to identify relevant communications between the president and his inner circle with members of Congress on the key days surrounding the violence.”

Call information, which frequently produces investigative leads, is acquired routinely by investigators. But it is not the same thing as a wiretap, which lets law enforcement listen in on a target’s phone calls. To get a wiretap, prosecutors and agents have to get an order from a federal judge in compliance with the strict requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. They have to establish probable cause and show that less intrusive investigative methods were tried and failed. A wiretap only lasts for 30 days, and prosecutors must go back to the judge, with fresh proof, in order to reup the wiretap for an additional 30 days.

Jordan’s allegation that this is the weaponization of the DOJ should fall on deaf ears. Jack Smith was investigating one of the most serious situations our country has ever faced—an effort to interfere with the smooth transfer of power between two American administrations, with involvement by the outgoing president who had lost the election—using routine investigative techniques. Jordan and other Republicans should be able to differentiate between that and wiretaps, since these are statutory creatures and Congress sets the requirements for when they can be used.

Jordan admonished Smith that he was “ultimately responsible for the prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional abuses of your office,” a comment that is a not-too-veiled threat in the era of revenge prosecutions.

Smith spoke out earlier this week, in an interview in London with Andrew Weissmann. Smith praised the integrity, competence, and selflessness of professionals at DOJ and the FBI—many of whom were subsequently fired by the Trump administration. Why prosecute Trump for classified documents when Biden didn’t get prosecuted, Smith was asked. He responded that it was simple because the facts were starkly different; with Trump, there was evidence of willfulness and intent to violate the law regarding protection of classified documents. Trump obstructed justice, even lying and saying he had returned all the documents he retained. Of course, when the search warrant was executed at Mar-a-Lago, it conclusively proved that was a lie.

Trump indictment: Former president kept classified docs in Mar-a-Lago bathroom, ballroom

At a talk he gave last month at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., Smith said, “The heart of the Rule of Law is treating people equally under the rule of law. Good prosecutors do not care about politics. They bring cases that are supported by facts.”

That’s what good prosecutors do. What is the difference between the prosecution of Donald Trump for possessing classified documents and the decision not to prosecute Joe Biden? It’s evidence. Evidence of willfulness and intent and of Trump’s effort to obstruct justice by keeping classified documents from being recovered by the government after claiming his lawyers claimed he’d returned everything in his possession. What makes the prosecution of Jim Comey a perversion of our criminal justice system? It’s the absence of evidence that he committed a crime and the clear direction from the President of the United States to his Attorney General to go after him. We do not need to engage in bothsidesism here; one of these things is not like the other. The people who are complaining that the prior administration weaponized the Justice Department are, in fact, the ones who are doing exactly that, but all of the noise can get confusing and exhausting.

But this is no “he said, she said” controversy. When even Chris Christie, the former New Jersey U.S. Attorney and Governor, who is no stranger to legal controversy like the Bridgegate Scandal, condemns what is happening in this administration, there is every reason to pay attention.

It was the ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, who got it just right, as he so frequently does. With his sarcasm font on full blast, Raskin congratulated Jordan for also “demand[ing] the release of Smith’s full report, and all accompanying records, from his investigation into Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified documents and obstruction of justice at Mar-a-Lago” after “an extraordinary years-long MAGA cover-up has deprived the American public of the opportunity to read this special counsel report that the taxpayers paid for.” Republicans, of course, have not. This is not about a commitment to transparency. This is not about being the party of law and order. It’s certainly not about following the rule of law.

The details about the documents Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago, and for all we know, keeps there to this day, remain largely undisclosed. Just like the Epstein files are still being kept secret. Donald Trump is committed to an all-powerful presidency. It’s easy to understand why he thinks that’s so desirable—it’s not about doing justice.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Poster Ideas/Graphics

No Kings Day- October 18th by Ann Telnaes

Suggestions for posters Read on Substack

As I’ve said before, please feel free to use my cartoons for your posters (just no altering text or images, please). Contact me either in the comments or email for the hi-res file (atelnaes@anntelnaes.com) . Here’s also a few suggestions from my archives if you don’t have a particular one in mind.

Stay safe and be loud with your First Amendment Rights.

UPDATE: Thank you for all your requests and my apologies for not being able to respond to your added kind messages. Even if you’re only getting the attached file, I’ve read and appreciated them all.

***Liza Donnelly and Steve Brodner are both offering their excellent editorial cartoons to download for posters.

From Charlotte On Sunday, Today-

Fun times with accidental noises, and I like the way she thinks for her birthday fundraiser!

Sounds I Still Make in My 30s by Charlotte Clymer

Last lap. Read on Substack

Today is my birthday.

This morning, I was in the backseat of an Uber ride and absentmindedly playing with my lips in the quiet way it’s socially acceptable for grown adults to do (or, perhaps, that’s me rationalizing) when, to my surprise, I accidentally forced too much air through the aperture of my mouth, creating a sound that could understandably be perceived by the driver as a fart.

Mildly panicked, I leapt into action by recreating the sound a few more times in quick succession in order to non-verbally (?) communicate to the driver:

Haha, see? That totally wasn’t what you thought it was! I accidentally made that sound with my lips! I’m now doing it again two or three more times to show that it’s just me playing with my mouth and not doing something very rude right behind you! Actually, making that sound is rude, too — look, I promise I am not blasting ass in the backseat of your car, okay?!

I am 39-years-old today. It’s my final year in this decade. It’s been a doozy.

I turned 30 a little over three weeks before the 2016 election. (I know. We won’t get into that because you already get it.)

All my life, I’ve heard of folks in their late-30s just dreading the big FOUR ZERO, and it’s not my place to judge them. I’m sure they had their reasons.

But me? I’m so ready for my 40s. If I could snap my fingers and make it happen now, I would have turned 40 today. Maybe I’ll just lie and say I’m 40 moving forward.

Being in your 40s sounds awesome. Being in your 50s and 60s sounds even better. I wanna fast-forward and get there already. I want the accumulated wisdom and experience and memories right now. I want that whole toolbox immediately.

Sadly, I cannot have it immediately. That is earned. I must brave the final year of my 30s in our oh-so-stable world to get a little closer to the benefits of being older and wiser.

To that end, I’m gonna make this a great Year 39. I plan to treat it like a final dress rehearsal for the second half of my life.

I’d like y’all to help me get things off to a great start.

Every year, for the past decade, I’ve hosted a birthday fundraiser for my favorite organization Running Start, a non-profit that trains young women in high school and college to run for office someday.

These programs are wide-ranging: from one-day workshops on college campuses (Elect Her) to congressional fellowships to the HBCU Women’s Leadership Summit, thousands of young women have been equipped with necessary skills to go on and do great things in politics, law, advocacy, and media.

I’ve served on the Board of Running Start since 2021, working harmoniously alongside my colleagues—Democrats and Republicans and independents—to ensure the next generation of young women get an exceptional head start toward leading our country someday.

In that time, I have seen a huge, diverse network of alums directly benefit from these programs and then watch as their campuses and communities benefit from them, too.

So, I am kindly asking y’all to help me celebrate my birthday by making a modest donation to Running Start: https://www.runningstart.org/charlotte

And believe me, I get it, everyone and their mother and their cousin is hitting y’all up for money right now — for that campaign or that non-profit or that candidate or that cause and on and on.

Thus, I am grateful for the consideration. It means a lot. I am thankful.

As always, those making very generous donations ($250 or more) should know you’ll be getting a phone call from me to thank you for your generosity, and if you really wanna go above and beyond ($1000 or more), that’ll mean coffee over zoom OR me treating you to lunch here in D.C. (or wherever you live if we can make it happen — no kidding, we will find a way.)

But also: everyone donating will get a personal email from me thanking them because every donation, no matter how much, means something to me and the young women who benefit from Running Start’s programs.

In the meantime, please wish me luck on this final lap of my 30s, and if you could offer up a prayer that I’ll avoid embarrassing sounds in cars, I’d appreciate that, too.