Connect with us

Politics and Current

Stephen A. Smith fumes at Oprah and Michelle Obama, accusing them of making voters feel like they don’t ‘necessary’

Published

on

Stephen A. Smith Blames Oprah, Michelle Obama for Kamala Harris Loss; Did Celeb Endorsements Actually Hurt the Democrat?

Let the electoral blame game begin.

ESPN host Stephen A. Smith has he solid his vote within the post-election ritual of pointing to someone or something as the explanation a candidate lost, pointing to Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama.

On Wednesday on his podcast “The Stephen A. Smith Show,” Smith said the media mogul and former first lady set an exclusionary tone that turned off men (Trump’s most credible voting bloc).

Stephen A. Smith blames Oprah and Michelle Obama for the loss of Kamala Harris; Have celebrity endorsements actually hurt Democrats?
Left: Stephen A. Smith; Bottom right: Oprah Winfrey; Top right: Michelle Obama

“If we don’t agree with you, are we against you?” Smith said, referencing the media mogul and former first lady’s speeches. “What do you think the men thought about this? So we must do what you tell us; otherwise we are against you? Did you think it worked? Do you know anything about most men? Do you think this will work?”

Oprah and Michelle O. are among the many long list of celebrities who’ve endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris. She had on her side the most well-liked artists within the country (Beyonce and Taylor Swift), essentially the most famous athlete (LeBron James) and two of essentially the most famous actors (George Clooney and Harrison Ford). Stars from the past (Madonna and Bruce Springsteen) and current (Charli xcx and Lizzo) declared their support for Harris.

But together they were all fair sermon for the choirsaid Seth Abramovitch, senior author at the Hollywood Reporter.

“Oprah, Katy Perry, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Madonna, Ariana Grande – these are artists whose audiences (black, female, liberal, queer) were already willing to vote for Kamala,” he told The Guardian.

Swift, popular with each country and pop fans, appears to be an outlier, Abramovich said, but her influence was negligible amongst two demographic groups which have shifted significantly toward Trump.

Of course, the identical may be said about famous Trump supporters. Women of color, part of the demographic most proof against the previous and future commander-in-chief, weren’t about to be influenced by the likes of Hulk Hogan, Kid Rock and Lee Greenwood.

Left or right, famously, they rarely, if ever, move the counter together with voters.

“In the academic literature,” said Professor Margaretha Bentley of Arizona State University, who has studied Swift’s cultural impact, “research has shown that while celebrity endorsements can increase civic engagement and voter registration, it has not been proven to have a direct impact on the way people make voting decisions.”

When Swift endorsed Harris, she directed followers to this page voting.gov. The website was visited by 405,999 people in 24 hours. However, not everyone was convinced to vote for the previous prosecutor and current vice chairman.

In fact, Swift can have hurt Harris greater than helped. A poll conducted by YouGov shortly after her endorsement found that only 8 percent of voters can be “somewhat” or “much more” more likely to vote for Harris, well below the 20 percent of respondents who said supporting Swift would make them less more likely to vote for a Democrat.

Ashley Spillane of Harvard, who writer a study titled “Celebrities Strengthen Our Culture of Democracy” found that it’s unattainable to quantify whether a celeb endorsement translates into more votes for a candidate.

This is a change from the past. A 2008 poll conducted by Northwestern University found that Oprah’s endorsement of Barack Obama added roughly a million votes to his final tally.

But that was in less divisive times.

Smith argued that it was Oprah’s message, not Oprah herself, that turned off male voters. Her warning on the eve of the election was that a second Trump term would herald an antidemocratic takeover of the United States

“This is something that alienates the electorate, alienates the voter,” Smith said. “Because the freedom you tell them you have, you’re trying to morally confiscate it by letting them know you’re worth nothing if you don’t vote the way we think you should vote.”

“Who will decide on this in the general election?” Smith asked. “In an economy full of inflation, with over 12 million people crossing the border?”

The high-power recommendations also served to substantiate Republicans’ findings that Democrats were an elite party.

“Ultimately, stars price lots of of tens of millions, if not billions, who most American residents imagine are incredibly out of touch with their lifestyle and the standard of it, weren’t going to run away and blame them for doing something different than what their experience says and what they should do with it do,” Smith said.

The people almost certainly to learn from a celeb’s endorsement are the celebrity themselves, says Laurence F. Maslon, an art professor at New York University.

“I think sometimes it’s a way of tying your star to someone who seems to be good for you, and maybe there’s some kind of reflected glory in that,” Maslon said.

British comedian Ricky Gervais probably said it best video – he posted in June wherein he ridiculed overly serious stars who imagine that their political beliefs really matter.

“As a celebrity, I know everything about science and politics, so trust me when I tell you who you should vote for,” Gervais said. “If you don’t vote the right way it will be like a hate crime and it makes me sad and angry so I will leave the country and you don’t want that.”


This article was originally published on : atlantablackstar.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics and Current

Jasmine Crockett blasts Republicans for so-called white “oppression” over anti-DEI bill

Published

on

By

Jasmine Crockett, theGrio.com

On Wednesday, during a passionate speech before the committee, Sen. Jasmine Crockett, R-Texas, chided her Republican colleagues for the content of an anti-DEI bill that calls for eliminating all diversity, equity and inclusion programs and offices within the federal government.

Crockett, a 43-year-old congressional student who has change into a star within the Democratic Party because of her quite a few viral committee appearances, condemned the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024. The bill, H.R. 8706 – first introduced by Republican Vice President-elect J.D. Vance – essentially prohibit all DEI-related activities within the federal government, including all related positions, offices, training, and funding. Strikingly, the bill also prohibits federal employees working in DEI positions from transferring to a different federal position.

During a House Oversight Committee hearing wherein she responded to Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., who repeatedly called DEI policies “oppression” — seemingly aimed toward white people, as many Republicans suggested — Crockett used the committee’s speaking time to criticize the suggestion that white individuals are oppressed in consequence of efforts to shut racial disparities in sectors resembling business, education, and health.

“You don’t understand the definition of oppression… I would ask you to just Google it,” said Crockett, who moments later read the dictionary definition of the word, adding: “Oppression is long-term cruel or unfair treatment or control, that’s the definition of oppression.” The congresswoman emphasized: “There was no oppression of the white man in this country.”

Referring to the history of chattel slavery and racial segregation within the US, the Texas lawmaker said: “Tell me which white men were dragged from their homes. Tell me which one was dragged across the ocean and that you will go to work. We will steal your wives. We will rape your wives. It didn’t happen. This is oppression.”

Attempting to further explain the importance of DEI, Crockett noted that she is barely the fifty fifth Black woman elected to Congress in its 235-year history, unlike the 1000’s of white men who’ve served on Capitol Hill.

“So if you want to talk about history and pretend it was that long ago, it wasn’t,” Crockett said, citing data showing that corporations perform higher and are more profitable after they are more diversified.

The anti-DEI movement, championed exclusively by Republicans, has led to several lawsuits invalidating federal programs, including debt forgiveness for Black farmers and business loans to Black and other disadvantaged businesses. Many states led by Republican governors have indicated that DEI – especially teaching about slavery and racism – is harmful to students, namely white students. In response, they banned such topics from public classrooms.

Jamarr Brown, executive director of Color of Change PAC, the political arm of the civil rights organization, said Congresswoman Crockett’s statements on DEI were “poignant and necessary.”

Jordan Brand amplifies Black storytelling with StoryCorps'

While the Dismantling DEI Act actually won’t be passed while Democrats control the Senate and President Joe Biden stays in office, it signals what may very well be a priority for Republicans next yr, as outlined within the pro-Trump “Project 2025” political manifesto “.

“According to Project 2025, diversity, equity and inclusion is synonymous with ‘White lives don’t matter,’” Brown noted. “Now more than ever, we at Color Of Change PAC, as well as advocates and activists across the country, must work to protect Black people and other people of color from harm resulting from anti-DEI attacks.”

Brown continued, “Civil rights protections have helped reduce mortgage discrimination, increase the number of Black physicians to counter problems such as Black maternal mortality, and provide financing for Black-owned businesses.”

He added: “Our country thrives and everyone benefits when diversity, equality and inclusion are valued rather than stifled.”

This article was originally published on : thegrio.com
Continue Reading

Politics and Current

Why is Trump delaying signing the ethics agreement?

Published

on

By

Trump, election, Vanity Fair, cover


The campaign’s legal department reports that President-elect Donald Trump is stalling the presidential transition process by refusing to sign an ethics pledge that is legally required of each sitting president

Under the Presidential Transition Act, Trump and his transition team must sign a document ensuring he avoids any conflicts of interest once he takes office. Only after the document is signed and sent to the General Services Administration (GSA) can the incoming administration gain access to federal agencies.

The transition, which President Joe Biden has promised will likely be “orderly and peaceful,” sets the tone for the Trump-Vance administration’s approach to transparency, accountability and earning the trust of Americans, all of that are seen as essential to making sure the administration fulfills its responsibilities to the U.S. people mean .

The reasons for withholding Trump’s documents are unknown, but some speculate it has to do along with his latest financial disclosure reports and for one reason particularly. Many of his holdings might be considered conflict of interest red flags, equivalent to his latest cryptocurrency business, a majority stake in his social media platform Truth Social, real estate, books and licensing deals.

It’s not only the GSA that the president-elect is avoiding. According to , Trump also refused to make use of the State Department’s secure phone lines and interpreters and kept away from using the FBI’s security clearance system. That’s why House Democrats issued latest laws on November 19 requiring Executive Office employees to have FBI security clearances. If not, Congress will likely be warned.

Democratic lawmakers and powerful Trump opponents like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are baffled by his transition team’s refusal to sign an ethics agreement.

“Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law. I would know because I wrote the law myself,” Warren wrote in X on November 11. “Future presidents are obliged to prevent conflicts of interest and sign an ethics agreement. This is what illegal corruption looks like.”

Skepticism towards the bill, presented by Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Ted Lieu (D-CA)persists. The upcoming GOP-controlled Congress is seemingly leaning toward Trump. Once back in office, Trump will give you the chance to issue security clearances to anyone he wants, no matter the FBI’s objections or whether the person faces legal charges. This latest situation involves two of Trump’s Cabinet picks – Matt Gaetz as attorney general and Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, each of whom have faced allegations of sexual misconduct.


This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Continue Reading

Politics and Current

Social media reacts to video of Susan Smith’s tearful plea for parole 30 years after she killed her two sons and blamed their disappearance on a black man

Published

on

By

Susan Smith pleads for mercy during parole hearing

Parole was denied Wednesday for notorious South Carolina mother Susan Smith, who drowned her two young children after initially claiming a black man had kidnapped them.

“I wish I could take it back, I really do,” Smith, now 53, said. “I didn’t lie to get away with it. … I used to be just afraid. I didn’t know the way to tell the individuals who loved them that they might never see them again.

Smith said she found peace because of her Christian faith. God is a vital part of her life testified on Wednesday, “and I know he has forgiven me.”

Susan Smith pleads for mercy at her parole hearing
Susan Smith cries openly during her emotional parole hearing. (Source: ABC News live video screenshot)

It was her first appearance before the state parole board, which voted unanimously to keep her in prison for the remaining of her life. After serving 30 years, Smith is eligible for parole every two years.

“I know what I did was terrible,” she said in her testimony given via Zoom. “And I would give anything if I could go back and change it.”

“I love Michael and Alex with all my heart,” she said openly, crying and wiping away tears.

The disappearance of 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alex made national headlines after their mother told the chilling story of how a black man stopped her automotive and took her children. She appeared incessantly on television, playing every bit the role of a distraught mother, and the search for her boys lasted nine grueling days.

It was then that Susan Smith, questioned by police who began to doubt her story, truthfully confessed what really happened on October 25, 1994.

Smith, then 23, strapped her sons into their automotive seats and drove the automotive into a lake near her home in Union, South Carolina.

Smith’s pleas fell on the ears of not only the parole board but in addition many on social media. As videos of her interrogation began circulating online, a whole bunch of comments condemned the mother for not seeming sufficiently remorseful about her actions.

“☠️MONSTERS should be kept in CAGES☠️”, one person wrote on Xformerly Twitter.

Another added: “I remember it when it happened. She claimed that her children were kidnapped by black people. And people believed her, unfortunately. She should be sentenced to death. He must remain behind bars until the very end.”

“I’m sure her children, strapped in their automotive seats, screamed and cried as they drowned in their own mother’s hands for her lustful pleasures. Shameful,” – wrote one other commentator.

Sixteenth Judicial District Solicitor Kevin Brackett recalled pulling Susan Smith’s automotive out of the water with her children inside. She added that these crimes shocked not only the family but your complete country.

“On behalf of the community I now represent, I do not believe she should ever be released from prison until the last living person who remembers Michael and Alex dies, and that will not happen in her lifetime. She should never have been released,” Brackett said Wednesday.

Defense lawyer Susan Smith argued that she planned to die with her sons, but jumped out of the automotive on the last minute.

Lead prosecutor Tommy Pope noted that Smith was not wet or injured when she ran for help after the automotive disappeared beneath the lake.

“Susan’s focus was always on Susan,” said Pope, who presented evidence during Smith’s murder trial that she was distraught over her breakup with one other man. Prosecutors say the connection ended because Smith had children.

“Susan made a terrible, terrible decision, choosing a man over her family,” Pope said. “If she could have put David in the car, he would have been there too.”

David Smith, Michael and Alexander’s father, who was captured entering the constructing, told the board that his ex-wife had never shown any remorse for their murder.

“It wasn’t a tragic mistake. (…) She deliberately wanted to end their lives,” he said.

David Smith testified that his grief over the loss of his sons “came close to taking my own life.”

His current wife, Tiffany Smith, says there are still days when her husband cannot get out of bed because of the pain.

“Michael and Alex didn’t get a chance at life,” she said. “They were given the death penalty.”

He said his ex-wife served just 15 years for each child. “It’s just not enough.”

Susan Smith’s attorney, Tommy Thomas, told the parole board his client’s case shows “the dangers of untreated mental health.” He said Susan Smith was not diagnosed with depression after the birth of her second child.

Her stepfather testified that he had sexually abused her for years.

Susan Smith was not a model prisoner. She was convicted multiple times, once for sex with a prison officer and one other time for drug possession. She was also threatened with punishment for providing documents with her ex-husband’s contact details.

Her lawyer said that if she was released on parole, she would live with her brother.

David Smith said if his wife applied for parole again, he could be there for the sake of his sons.

(*30*) he told the board.


This article was originally published on : atlantablackstar.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending