Log inLog Out
For YouNewsEntertainmentRelationshipLifestyleSportTechnology
Kamala Harris called a Pete Buttigieg comment 'naive' — and Buttigieg agreed

Nanette Oiboh

Nov. 03, 2019

1:49 p.m.
Sen. Kamala Harris had a good laugh at her fellow Democratic presidential candidate South Bendia, Indiana Mayor, Pete Buttigieg's comments that he the race was "getting to be" a two-person showdown between Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
In an interview with CBS, Harris called the suggestion "naive" and that the mayor should review some history books to remind himself of the fact that elections generally aren't decided this early.
Buttigieg was later asked about Harris' response to his comments and he couldn't help but agree. He said he couldn't remember the exact context that led to his answer, but he thinks "we all know that this is a fluid race, that it's a very competitive race, and that anything could happen." Tim O'Donnell
1:24 p.m.
Public hearings are apparently coming to a theater near you.
In the wake of Republican criticism about closed-door depositions, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said Sunday during an appearance on ABC's This Week that "there will be public hearings very very soon" in the House impeachment inquiry. Likewise, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) told Fox News' Chris Wallace on Fox New Sunday that his best guess is public hearings will begin in the next two or three weeks.
Himes said a few more witnesses need to be interviewed first before the shift, but that doesn't sound like it'll take very long. As for the witnesses who have already interviewed, Engel said the transcripts of their hearings will be released, which Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) reiterated to host Margaret Brennan on Sunday's edition of Face the Nation on CBS. Tim O'Donnell
12:47 p.m.
The main draw of Sunday's slate of NFL games is probably the Sunday night matchup between the Baltimore Ravens and the New England Patriots, but while the two division leaders should put on a show, this week is defined by a series of games which could have playoff ramifications for a few middling teams. Here are four to watch:
Philadelphia Eagles vs. Chicago Bears, 1:00 p.m. E.T. on Fox — In a rematch of last season's NFC Wild Card game, the 3-4 Bears will head to Philadelphia to take on the 4-4 Eagles. Neither time has played particularly well this year in the face of high expectations, though the Eagles are coming off a dominant win against the Buffalo Bills. The Bears likely need to win this game to have a realistic shot in the competitive NFC North.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Indianapolis Colts, 1:00 p.m. E.T. on CBS — The 3-4 Steelers have performed better than anticipated since quarterback Ben Roethlisberger went down for the season in Week 2, but they're still two back of the Ravens in the division and 2.5 back of the Wild Card. It wouldn't be an insurmountable deficit to overcome if they lose to Indianapolis, but it's still a crucial game. The 5-2 Colts, on the other hand, will look to maintain their AFC South lead.
Carolina Panthers vs. Tennessee Titans, 1:00 p.m. E.T. on CBS — These two teams aren't talked about frequently when it comes to playoff contenders, but they're both hanging around. It's important game for both sides, as Carolina was humbled by the San Francisco 49ers last week, dropping to 4-3, while Tennessee is coming off two straight wins behind quarterback Ryan Tannehill to get back to 4-4.
Oakland Raiders vs. Detroit Lions, 4:05 p.m. E.T. on Fox — Like Carolina and Tennessee, Oakland and Detroit are mostly flying under the radar. The playoffs don't seem likely for either team, but with a win the Raiders would improve to 4-4, and Detroit could get to 4-3-1, which is a reasonable position to be in at this point of the season. Tim O'Donnell
12:15 p.m.
Democratic voters still think former Vice President Joe Biden is their best chance to defeat President Trump, but they're not necessarily sure he's the top candidate for what comes after the election, a new poll from The Washington Post and ABC suggests.
Biden maintained a lead over the field at 28 percent, though Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) trailed by 5 points, which falls within the poll's margin of error. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the only other candidate to hit double digits at 17 percent, while South Bend, Indiana, Mayor was inching closer at 9 percent. It wasn't the best survey for any of the other candidates, none of whom surpassed the 2 percent threshold, including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who did at least find out she had qualified for the December debate stage on Sunday.
So yet another poll maintains Biden is the tenuous favorite, and he was far ahead of the pack when voters were considering who would best stand up to Trump in the general election. The former vice president garnered 42 percent on that question, while Sanders and Warren lagged behind at 16 and 17 percent, respectively. At the same time, the three leading candidates were essentially tied when asked which candidate would bring the most change to Washington with Sanders edging both Warren and Biden by a point with 25 percent. All in all, the numbers indicate voters are still grappling with whether they'll vote purely in terms of policy or if the oft-mentioned electability will emerge as the primary factor.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone between Oct. 27-30 among a random national sample of U.S. adults. The margin of error was 5.5 percentage points. Read more at The Washington Post . Tim O'Donnell
10:56 a.m.
Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil giant, announced its initial public offering Sunday.
The company intends to list shares on the local stock exchange in Riyadh, and trading is expected to begin in December with allegedly somewhere between 2 percent and 5 percent of its shares being listed. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the launch after nearly four years of delays since the plan was initially brought to the table. Aramco will reportedly next hold investor meetings to get a sense of international and domestic demand and publish a prospectus on Nov. 9.
Right now, it's not entirely clear what the company's value is. Prince Mohammed has it at $2 trillion, but advisers working on the IPO have said that's probably too high for investors, The Wall Street Journal reports , so the target base valuation is reportedly expected to around $1.7 trillion. But even that could reportedly be a stretch, with some international investors indicating the value at $1.5 trillion.
"Today is a profoundly important day for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia," Aramco Chair Yasir al-Rumayyan said at a press conference. The offering is part of the crown prince's vision of diversifying the Saudi economy. Read more at The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg . Tim O'Donnell
8:40 a.m.
In a throwback, cameo-free cold open, Saturday Night Live's Kate McKinnon portrayed an energetic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was hosting a town hall in Iowa, to begin Saturday evening's episode.
McKinnon's Warren started off the sketch by mocking former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), who recently dropped out of the race, as well as President Trump for moving his residency from New York to Florida, offering congratulations to the commander-in-chief for "paying less taxes" because of it.
She then took questions from undecided voters, who weren't quite sure if the Democratic presidential candidate's Medicare-for-all plan was right for them. McKinnon's Warren enthusiastically defended the policy by suggesting she'd get Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to pay "a tax" while convincing banks like J.P. Morgan to behave like non-profits. It all ended in frustration, though, when the voters couldn't quite hop off the fence. Watch the full clip below. Tim O'Donnell
8:02 a.m.
The courts continue to be a thorn in the side of the White House as the Trump administration seeks to curb immigration into the United States.
A federal judge granted a 28-day temporary restraining order Saturday preventing the Trump administration from implementing a policy that would require immigrants to prove they would either have U.S. health insurance within 30 days or the ability to pay for medical costs upon entry into the country.
The policy was set to go into effect Sunday, but Judge Michael Simon of the Federal District Court in Portland, Oregon, issued the ruling, which he justified by stating it would be too damaging to immigrants and their families. "Facing a likely risk of being separated from their family members and a delay in obtaining a visa to which family members would otherwise be entitled is irreparable harm," he wrote .
Seven U.S. citizens and an advocacy organized filed the lawsuit, noting that the policy "rewrites our immigration and healthcare laws by Presidential fiat" and could potentially keep hundreds of thousands of immigrants from entering the U.S. The Trump administration has defended the policy by arguing insuring immigrants was too much of a financial burden on Americans. Read more at The New York Times and Reuters . Tim O'Donnell
November 2, 2019
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her plan to finance Medicare-for-all without a middle class tax increase Friday, and while she's received a fair amount of praise, others were quicker to point out some flaws.
Josh Barro wrote in New York that he found many of the ideas in the plan to be "worthy," but he also noted that a few were "implausible," and probably don't do enough to solve the financing issues that are currently blocking the U.S.'s path to single-payer. He's not sold on the senator doubling her proposal to increase an annual wealth tax on billionaires from 3 percent to 6 percent — the proposed tax is already "constitutionally dubious," Barro writes , and he's also skeptical about her adviser's confidence in enforcing it. Along those lines, Barro doesn't think it's realistic to expect an extra $3 trillion per decade through increased spending on tax enforcement alone, even though the writer favors such a move himself.
Ultimately, Barro says he remains convinced Warren would not enact single payer health care if elected next year since she'll either be working with a Republican-controlled Senate, or a slim Democratic majority which would still consist of moderates who wouldn't sign up for a lot of the proposals she has brought to the table. Read more at New York . Tim O'Donnell
Sign in to post a message
You're the first to comment.
Say something
Log in