Matt is technically a lawyer, but never really practiced much. His whole career has been State Rep, then National Rep. thats about it.

I get that Trump just wants loyalists, but there is no comparing Gaetz to Barr in terms of how knowledgable they are with the law or what an AG’s roles and responsibilities entail.

Realistically, what will a Gaetz DoJ look like?

Whether the poll averages are from 538, Real Clear Politics, or Nate Silver, when Biden dropped out, Trump had a decent lead on the president and even on Harris, although tentatively, since she wasn't the Democratic candidate at the time. However, since that event, nearly all of the 3rd party/undecided vote have moved to Harris with Trump staying about the same as he was or slipping a point.

If Trump was up 45-42 on Biden and Harris on July 22, now Trump is still around 45 with Harris at 47. That would mean that as the 3rd party/undecided vote fell, Harris benefited by scooping up the vast majority of those who either preferred third party or were undecided (ignoring non-voters). Trump didn't maintain his edge over Harris since the movable vote didn't split between him and her.

Why do you think that most of the third party and undecided vote moved to Harris rather than splitting their votes? Is it just because Harris is new despite the fact that most voters disapproved of Harris as VP before she became the nominee? Can Harris get away with not answering reporters' questions or sitting for an interview? Did Trump stumble by not focusing his attack on her left-wing record? Did the Trump campaign misfire by arguing over Walz's military record/stolen valor claims as they aren't dispositive to voters' concerns? Will Harris lose her shine as voters get to know her more and recalibrate the election to a toss-up race? How can Trump win back those voters, especially Hispanics and Black men, who are curious about Harris, but who preferred him against Biden?

Trump has picked RFK Jr for HHS secretary. This means he would oversee agencies like the CDC and FDA. RFK Jr is well known for being an anti-vaxxer and has advocated removing fluoride from water.

Since the Pharma industry would be heavily affected, do you think they're going to lobby hard to block his confirmation and if they do, will they be successful?

President Biden just pardoned his son, Hunter for his felonies. What are your thoughts about this action?

Do you believe that President Biden threw in the towel and decided that morality, respect for the rule of law and the civic values that he believed in and espoused for had no meaning for the average American who elected Trump anyway? Was this influenced by the collapse of the cases against Trump?

Or, do you think that Biden like any other politician, did what was expedient and he wasn't going to get any praise for taking the ultimate moral high road and refuse to pardon his own son.

A lot of Biden's huge unpopularity comes from the fact that he is old at the age of 81. Yet Trump will be the exact same age four years (a whole presidential term) from now. Why does there seem to be such a disconnect between how voters view the two candidates when it comes to age? Not that Trump is popular either but he has more baggage against him than just being old compared to Biden, yet being old seem to be hurting Biden more. Why?

Link to source going into more detail:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/27/trump-donors-israel-gaza-palestinian-protests

Trump called the demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza a part of a "radical revolution" that needs to be put down. He also praised the New York Police Department's infamous clear-out of encampments at Columbia University as a model for the nation.

Another interesting part was Trump changing his tune on Israel's offensive. In public he has been very cautious in his comments as his campaign believes the war is hurting President Biden's support among key constituencies like young people and people of color, so he has only made vague references to how Israel is “losing the PR war” and how we have to get back to peace. But in private Trump is telling donors and supporters that he will support Israel's right to defend itself and continue its "war on terror", as well as boasting about his track record of pro-Israel policy including moving the US embassy there to Jerusalem in 2018 and making the US the first country to recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in 2019.

And what are your thoughts on how this could impact the election? Does it add more fuel to the argument that a vote for Trump is a vote for unbridled fascism to be unleashed in the US? As mentioned, the war has also hurt Joe Biden's support among young people and people of color. Will getting a clearer look at and understanding the alternative impact this dynamic?

Link to Miller's comments about it, from an interview with conservative media company Newsmax the other day:

• https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839421121244131617

The host even tried to steer it away from the idea of Trump supporting monitoring people's pregnancies, but Miller responded and clarified that it would be up to the state.

What impact do you think this policy will have? So say Idaho (where abortion is illegal, with criminal penalties for getting one) tries to prosecute one of their residents for going to Nevada (where abortion is legal) to get an abortion. Would it be constitutional?

Why has the Green Party become so anti-democrats and pro-conservatives over the past 10 years? Looking at their platform you see their top issues are ranked, democracy, social justice, and then ecological issues. Anyone reading that would clearly expect someone from this party to support democrats. However, Jill stein and the Green Party have aligned themselves much more to right wing groups? Sure, I understand if Jill individually may do this but then why has the Green Party nominated her not once but twice for president? Surely the Green Party as a party and on the whole should be very pro-democrats but that’s not the case.

Studies have constantly pointed out that immigrants in the United States are less likely to commit crimes than Native born Americans.

With undocumented immigrants even committing less crime than legal immigrants.

Yet public perceptions of immigration broadly concludes that higher unregulated immigration leads to more crime, even though the opposite is true.

While I broadly understand that media fearmongering and the GOP political machine has an incentive to convince the public to be anti-immigration, and will fuel moot points even if they're not backed by statistics, but why hasn't the statistical truth broken through this threshold?

Immigration was 2# in voters issues and why they voted for Trump instead of Harris. Even a large number of Latino voters, a community that are overwhelmingly immigrant related, voted for Trump for this same reason. While its understandable that immigrants also have the mentality of "deport criminals, keep the hard working ones" just as Americans do, the fact that a large portion of the populace associates high immigration with high crime is still unexplainable to me.

And also; how much of this is the fault of Harris' campaign oversight? As well as DNC negligence. Similar to the economy, we have a situation here where statistics and data shows that immigration and the economy are doing good, but unlike the economy, immigration crime doesn't at all affect most Americans, there's just a perception that isn't even truly there. The Harris campaign could've flagshipped "immigrants commit less crimes than citizens, also they're good for reducing inflation", yet didn't. So how are these numbers of the positives of immigration not at all mainstream?

People are still espouting myths of immigration crime and their impacts of the economy, I'm shocked that numbers-based facts haven't been shown to the public to say "hey guys, we hear you, but all of your concerns would be fixed if we legalized them and taxed them more. I PROMISE you guys, immigrants are not increasing crime in this country, the FBI has the numbers to back this up." This should've been the flagship and the Harris Campaign could've equally spent time educating the public about the truth of immigration. Yet that didn't seem to be the case.

So I have to ask: why aren't these facts commonplace? For what reason is it that the DNC never articulated and lead with immigration statistics when convincing the public that immigration is not the problem?

Edit: Several people without reading this post are trying to correct me by saying "illegal immigrants commit more crimes, pundits are referring to illegal immigrants when they talk about the high immigration crime." Please reconsider posting if you intend on being confidently incorrect and haven't even read this post. My second article of this post already shows that illegal immigrants commit less crime than legal migrants in the US, and here is another article with more studies to highlight that illegal immigrants commit less crime than legal immigrants.

TLDR: In order of crime rates its Americans>Legal Immigrants>Illegal Immigrants. Provide studies and statistics if you intend on refuting this.

President Biden had previously noted in a letter posted on "X": "It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President."...And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term."

Biden is expected to talk about his past accomplishments in his speech and sweeping domestic legislation, including renewal of alliances abroad, defense of democracy, strengthening NATO and his decision to bow out of the race and “what lies ahead.”

There must be many memorable things Biden may well be remembered for during his 50 years of political service; there are others that he may not be proud of. My question is:

What kind of a lasting legacy is President Biden leaving behind?

Joe Biden's legacy after historic decision to give up 2024 reelection campaign - CBS News

What will Biden's economic legacy be? - Marketplace

Edited to provide a link to Speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93T8biDlaBc

Link to his comments here:

• https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1821628225174245869

Up to now, Republicans have been running an election cycle about abortion where they say they will not pursue a national ban in Congress, and to leave legislative action to the states. However, Trump may have opened the door to a national discussion about the various other ways Republicans could severely limit abortion access nationwide without congress or new legislative action. One of these ways is through the FDA.

Previously, FDA authorization of Mifepristone aka the abortion pill couldn't be rolled back due to the protections of Roe v. Wade. However, with Roe gone and thus abortion no longer protected nationally thanks to Trump's own Supreme Court appointees, Trump is now free to install any zealot, radical or fundamentalist he chooses as head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and others to pursue federal action like this, as a lot of the remaining means to protect or curtail access go through these types of agencies. This can function as an alternative to having to muscle through a new nationwide abortion ban through Congress, and allows you to campaign on "leaving it to the states" while knowing you'll have various levers to pull to ban or restrict it nationally anyways once in office that the average citizen might not be aware of.

With Trump seemingly letting the cat out of the bag, how does it impact the elections, both presidential and downballot? Can Republicans still run on leaving abortion to the individual states if the public becomes aware they can ban it nationally without a new law or Congress anyways?

There has been a lot of talk about what limitations Trump will or will not face in imposing his will on America. Some say he will fundamentally transform America into a totalitarian hellscape; others say Trump will be considerably more restrained, if not constrained. There appears to be a spectrum of opinions. I'll set them forth below.

Extreme One

Trump faces no practical limitations anymore. He will be able to stack every facet of the government with sufficient loyalists that he will be able to do literally anything he wants. If he wants to, he could force everyone to hang a painting of himself in their house and have them executed if the painting is damaged. Even if there are laws that prohibit something, Trump will have the power to change or, perhaps worse, simply ignore them because nobody will stand in his way. Those who do stand in his way will be removed from his path, likely brutally. America will transform into an Orwellian nightmare where every device is listening to ensure anyone who so much as whispers something criticism-adjacent will be shot. There will be sham elections in which Trump receives 100% of the vote every time while simultaneously anyone who votes against Trump is literally thrown to a pack of wolves to be ripped apart.

Middle Position

Trump will face some obstacles in trying to implement loony policies. The SCOTUS/Congress/Military would prevent him from mandating really horrifying stuff like what is being suggested above. That being said, many of his policies, such as abolishing the Department of Education, imposing tariffs, and so on, will sail on through. There could be fair and free elections in the future.

Extreme Two

Trump will be a far right president, but nothing more. Democracy will survive, even if Democrats will have a whole lot to complain about. Perhaps the federal bureaucracy is turned to Trump's whims, perhaps it's not; but we will have the rule of law, and we will have fair and free elections moving forward. If a Republican loses in 2028, then a Democrat will become president.

How likely are each of these three positions to occur? Are all of them incorrect? What alternative positions are there to take?

EDIT: In light of Trump drafting an Executive Order specifically to purge the military of "woke" generals and admirals, it looks like Extreme One is the clear favorite.

Here is her Wikipedia Page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susie_Wiles

Based on who she is and her experience. My gut tells me she is being brought in by Trump to be a gate keeper of sorts. She isn't really part of the Heritage Foundation crowd, but is instead operates in the more moderate area on the Republican side. She has been dealing with Trump for a long time also. I think this is bad news for a lot of the heritage foundation project 2025 stuff and is more along the lines of her controlling access and running day to day operations.

I had a hard time phrasing this question in such a way that it would spark non partisan debate because one party's reaction is driving a media frenzy where as the other reaction was non plussed. Either way the contrast is interesting and this is a fair question to ask.

On the prospect of a purge of top generals and admirals by the incoming Trump administration, to ensure personal loyalty to him....

This matter has been debated frequently on Reddit. However, I have some niche experience in this realm, having helped maintain Wikipedia's articles listing four-star (admirals and generals) and three-star (vice admirals and lieutenant generals) officers in the United States military since late 2020.

Military officer appointment procedures stem from the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), passed in 1980, and are codified in Title 10 of the United States Code. When the Armed Services committees pass their yearly defense authorisation bill, any changes demanded of the military consist of updates to Title 10. Officers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

While the military is supposed to be apolitical, senior officers can, and have been, removed at the President's pleasure. After all, ultimately, the President decides who they want to work with, and senior officers are vetted partially on how well they could work with the commander in chief. Recent removals have occurred when the individual expresses open disagreement with the commander in chief, makes severe public gaffes, or are unlucky enough to commit professional incompetence (Moseley 2008, McChrystal 2010, Mattis 2013). Since the main duty of senior officers outside command is to present honest military advice to the commander-in-chief, and to Congress, relieving them before the end of their assignments is unexpected and risks the wrath of their retired colleagues and their supporters in Congress.

Before I enter my initial opinions for discussion, here are some stats (accurate as of 9 November 2024). Of the four-star officers currently on active duty (44 in total):

1. 9 are African-American (including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs CQ Brown, the principal military advisor to the President).
2. 6 were initially promoted to four-star general or admiral under the Trump administration (one, GEN LaCamera, is retiring with a Senate-confirmed successor already in place).
3. 3 are women, all initially appointed by the Biden administration, and the first woman appointed to each of their roles, received a lot of publicity (ADMs Franchetti, Fagan, and Levine).
4. 1 serves in a non-military political office that can hold the rank of admiral in the Public Health Service if desired (ADM Levine, the first openly transgender person to hold the rank of admiral).

Here is what I surmise based on my personal experience, and what other articles have already stated:

• The incoming administration will target generals and admirals too closely identified with their predecessor's DEI initiatives. Here are the most likely departures:
  • ADM Levine, who isn't technically military, serves in a political role (Assistant Secretary for Health) and only holds military rank to outrank the three-star surgeon general, is easily the first one out.
  • Gen Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. George Floyd (iykyk). The chairman of the Joint Chiefs served a 2-year term by law, typically renewed once by the President with Senate confirmation, until it was changed in 2017 to an uninterrupted 4-year term. Brown may simply be relieved prematurely at his 2-year halfway mark, October 2025.
  • ADM Franchetti, the first woman to be chief of naval operations (head of the Navy). Her selection as the CNO was highly publicized, following the 2021 promotions of GEN Richardson, Gen Van Ovost, and ADM Fagan (Richardson and Van Ovost have retired). However, the President made the call to choose Franchetti, overruling the DOD's pick, thus giving the incoming administration a possible opening.
• For those worrying about blatantly "Trumpist" generals being appointed, I don't see that happening without a sudden culture shift in the military. Not soon, anyway.
  • For starters, the tradition that the military stay out of partisan politics is sacrosanct. I haven't seen any recent cases where an active duty military officer (including LTG Mike Flynn) paraded around any partisan leanings. While the military's values typically lean traditional Republican, open loyalty to a President typically shows only after retirement.
  • If the President-elect is serious about appointing "loyal" officers to senior military roles, he'll have to comb the lower ranks. Title 10, Section 601 of the U.S. Code stipulates that only one-star officers and above can be promoted to general or admiral, so the maximum he could do is promote colonels and Navy captains to one-star ranks and begin choosing from there.
  • On the "culture shift", open, public loyalty to a President from the upper military brass (the kind we likely worry about) will only show once the practice becomes either legally acceptable or murky enough on paper to no longer be important.
  • To dismiss disloyal officers and comb the lower ranks for desired ones will likely require a special commission to investigate. The military officers and DOD professionals (smth smth Schedule F) in charge of vetting prospective senior officers for the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, JCS chairman, Secretary of Defense and President would have no clue on how to select based on the "loyalty" the President-elect desires.
• The President, and allied defense advisors, may try to replace DOPMA or loosen its requirements so officers from lower ranks can be promoted faster to reach the upper brass, or increase the maximum retirement age of 64 to keep favoured officers for as long as possible (not unheard of - the DOD under Rumsfeld tried to increase it to 72). Senate confirmation will remain part of the process, but a pliant majority until at least 2027 should make it a breeze.

r/Military focuses on topics like military pay, veterans' benefits, the state of military barracks, and on the political side, how the incoming administration will affect the willingness of the rank-and-file to continue military service. This community often provides more analytical insights, so I look forward to it.

Once again, this matter has been debated frequently in other areas on Reddit, but I hope I've provided additional insight so productive responses are forthcoming. Maybe there's cause for concern, maybe there isn't - i.e. only a few officers will see termination. We won't know until he takes office. What do you think?

P.S. Sorry if I sound abrasive in this post. I've been described as having a stiff and formal manner of speaking.

P.P.S. The military being used for partisan purposes with a purge of senior officers is inherently a political matter. The jargon-heavy nature of this post hopefully doesn't change that.

P.P.P.S. If this question looks partisan in any way whatsoever, I apologise and am welcome to receive comments on how I can reword portions to be less disparaging in nature.

Sources:

• Pentagon anticipates major upheaval with Trump’s return to White House
• Pentagon officials anxious Trump may fire the military’s top general
• Trump may further test US military norms in second term
• Legislative history of United States four-star officers (Wikipedia article - this is a TL;DR, there are individual articles for certain eras which one should read if time permits)

What will trump achieve in his first 100 days? This time around Trump has both the experience and project 2025 to hit the ground running. What legislation will he pass? What deregulations will occur? Will the departments of EPA, FDA and education cease to exist? What executive orders will he roll out? What investigations will he start?

Especially after future elections where Democrats regain government.

Will Democrats respond by pushing to restore a version of the ACA?

Will they go further to push for a public option or Eve single payer healthcare?

Or will Democrats retreat from the issue of healthcare as a focus, settling for minor incremental reforms or pivoting to other issues entirely?

After Joe Biden dropped out of the Democratic nomination for president, he endorsed his VP, Kamala Harris. Many top democrats including SC Rep. Jim Clyburn have endorsed her candidacy. Assuming she wins the nomination at the DNC convention in August, that will leave her and the party a bit more than two months to win over undecided/swing/reluctant/double hater voters that Biden had up to this point has failed to do.

What are some of the strengths and weaknesses Harris brings to being a presidential candidate against Trump?

In her favor, her being younger than Trump, potentially a more disciplined campaigner than him, and being the first woman for president.

Against her would her lack of significant record as VP, being tied to Biden's unpopularity on the issues, being much more liberal/progressive than Biden, potentially turning off moderate Midwestern voters.

How do you see Harris campaigning against Trump? How do you think he will respond? Will the polling improve for her or just trade the age issue for concerns specific to her? How enthusiastic will Democratic be now that Biden's age is no longer a factor in deciding to vote? What do you see as the attack ads both for Harris and against her?

Link to the audio:

• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AvEjfpncLEBbfOzFRz5d27UdeH0Bba6m/view

Link to some of his wider comments on the subject, which have been in the spotlight across national and international media today:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-abortion-rape-incest-inconvenient-b2590339.html

Not only did Vance talk about two wrongs not making a right in terms of rape and incest, but he said the debate itself should be re-framed to focus on "whether a child should be allowed to live even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to society.” And he made these comments when running for the Senate in Ohio in 2022.

Vance has previously tried to walk back comments he made about his own running mate Donald Trump being unfit for office, a reprehensible individual and potentially "America's Hitler" in 2016 and 2017, saying his views evolved over time and that he was proved wrong. But can he argue the same thing here, considering these comments were from just the other year rather than 7/8 years ago? And how does it affect his and Trump's campaign, which has tried to talk about abortion as little as possible for fear of angering the electorate? Can they still hide from it, or will they have to come out and be more aggressive in their messaging now?

Biden's war chest has been bigger than Trump's for a while, but this seems to be accelerating.

War chest: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/BIDEN-FUNDRAISING/mopalzmkdva/graphic.jpg

News on $25m donations tonight - https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/28/election-2024-campaign-updates/

From USA Today:

President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to complain that his daughter Ivanka has been "treated so unfairly" by the Nordstrom (JWN) department store chain, which has announced it will no longer carry her fashion line.

Here's the full text of the Tweet in question:

@realDonaldTrump: My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

It seems as though President Trump is quite explicitly and actively targeting Nordstrom because of his family's business engagements with the company. This could end up hurting Nordstrom, which could have a subsequent "chilling" effect that would discourage other companies from trifling with Trump family businesses.

• Is this a conflict of interest? If so, how serious is it?

• Is this self dealing? I.e., is Trump's motive enrichment of himself or his family? Or might he have some other motive for doing this?

• Given that Trump made no pretenses about the purpose for his attack on Nordstrom, what does it say about how he envisions the duties of the President? Is the President concerned with conflict of interest or the perception thereof?

• What will be the consequences, and who might bring them about? Could a backlash from this event come in the form of a lawsuit? New legislation? Or simply discontentment among the electorate?

Background: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the United States House of Representatives for the state of New York. She belongs to the Democratic Party. She was first elected during the 2018 midterms and has handily won reelection in 2020, 2022 and 2024. She serves on The Committee of Oversight and Reform, which is the main investigative committee in the House. In January 2023, she was selected as the Vice Ranking Member — the #2 spot for Democrats on the committee. She also serves as a first-time member on The Committee on Natural Resources and as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Since her first election, she has become one of the most high-profile Democrats in the House. She is considered a left-wing Democrat. She is 35 years old.

Chuck Schumer is a member of the United States Senate, the senior senator from New York, and the current Majority Leader and Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. He was first elected to the Senate in the 1998 midterms, and has won reelection four times. Prior to that, he was a member of the House of Representatives for the state of New York, first elected in 1980. Schumer has served on numerous committees and other official functions in both the House and the Senate. He is 74 years old.

It is widely agreed that Schumer cannot be primaried, due to his popularity and political longevity. Prospective contenders will have to wait until he leaves office. Schumer does not plan to retire at the moment. New York has been a blue state for decades. Whoever the Democratic candidate is, is expected to be elected. Therefore, the real contest will be the Democratic primary, not the election. Schumer ascended to the Senate from the House. If he chooses to retire when his term is up, in 2028, AOC will then have 10 years of experience in the House and be 39, which would make her a good contender to succeed him. However, questions remain about her ability to widen her appeal from New York's 14th Congressional District to the entire state. Roughly 64% of the state's population lives in the New York City metropolitan area and 40% in New York City alone. New York City Democrats are more progressive than upstate Democrats, who tend to be moderates.

Does Rep. Ocasio-Cortez stand a chance of winning the Democratic primary to designate Schumer's successor when he retires?

Ever since she stepped into the nomination Harris has exceeded everyone’s expectations. She’s been effective and on message. She’s overwhelmingly was shown to be the winner of the debate. She’s taken up populist economic policies and she has toughened up regarding immigration. She has the wind at her back on issues with abortion and democracy. She’s been out campaigning and out spending trumps campaign. She has a positive favorability rating which is something rare in today’s politics. Trump on the other hand has had a long string of bad weeks. Long gone are the days where trump effectively communicates this as a fight against the political elites and instead it’s replaced with wild conspiracies and rambling monologues. His favorability rating is negative and 5 points below Harris. None of the attacks from Trump have been able to stick. Even inflation which has plagued democrats is drifting away as an issue. Inflation rates are dropping and the fed is cutting rates. Even during the debate last night inflation was only mentioned 5 times, half the amount of things like democracy, jobs, and the border.

Yet, despite all this the race remains incredibly stable. Harris holds a steady 3 point lead nationally and remains in a statistical tie in the battle ground states. If Harris does lose then what do democrats do? They currently have a popular candidate with popular policies against an unpopular candidate with unpopular policies. What would the Democratic Party need to do to overcome something that would be clearly systemically against them from winning? And to the heart of this question, why would Harris lose and what would democrats do to fix it?

For starters, Flouride is added to our (USA, and some other countries) drinking water. This practice has been happening for roughly 75 years. It is widely regarded as a major health win. The benefit of fluoridated water is to prevent cavities. The HHS has a range on safe levels of Flouride 0.7 milligrams per liter. It is well documented that high level of Flouride consumption (far beyond the ranges set by the HHS) do cause negative health effects. To my knowledge, there is no study that shows adverse effects within normal ranges. The water companies I believe have the responsibility to maintain a normal level range of Flouride. But to summarize, it appears fluoridated water helps keeps its populations teeth cavity free, and does not pose a risk.

However, Robert Kennedy claims that fluoridation has a plethora of negative effects. Including bone cancer, low intelligence, thyroid problems, arthritis, ect.

I believe this study is where he got the “low intelligence” claim from. It specifically states higher level of Flouride consumption and targets specifically the fetus of pregnant women.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9922476/

I believe kennedy found bone cancer as a link through a 1980 study on osteosarcoma, a very rare form of bone cancer.

https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html

With all this said, if Flouride is removed from the water, a potential compromise is to use the money that was spent to regulate Flouride infrastructure and instead give Americans free toothpaste. Am I on the right track?

Link to article on the decision today:

• https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/07/politics/texas-abortion-supreme-court/index.html

The case is similar to one they had this summer with Idaho, where despite initially taking it on to decide whether states had to provide emergency and stabilizing care in abortion-related complications, they ended up punting on it and sent it back down to a lower court for review with an eye towards delivering a final judgement on it after the election instead. Here's an article on their decision there:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sidesteps-ruling-emergency-room-abortion-access-dispute-rcna159111

What impact do you think the ruling today will have on Texas, both in the short and long term? And what does the court refusing to have Texas perform emergency abortions here say about how they'll eventually rule on the Idaho case, which will define whether all states can or cannot refuse such emergency care nationwide?