Donald Trump is the GOP favorite and likely to seize the presidential nomination in 2024. But,I am not really convinced that Trump will be the person that ends up in the White House come 2025. I think his legal problems, his declining health and age will keep him from returning to the White House even if the GOP can ride the wave of Joe Biden’s unpopularity back to the White House.
The truth is the GOP has a better chance of winning back the White House if not for Donald Trump. He is unpopular but so is Biden. Yet right now, Trump sucks all of the air out of the Republican primary. Trump may very well win the Republican Primary or many of the early states, but a dramatic change events leads him not to ultimately cinch the nomination. That leaves a potential opening, one that I doubt will be filled by Ron Desantis which many people view as the ultimate political faker, a stunt master of dubious political acts but who has little leadership capacity.
Who would fill this void? I am thinking a dark horse might be out there. And it might be a women, especially should Donald Trump pick somebody like South Dakota Kristi Noem as the Vice Presidential-candidate. A women leading the Republican ticket could help blunt the messaging around abortion and women’s rights, especially a strong women with working-class roots. Being a rancher and having that Western-spirit doesn’t hurt either. If Trump ultimately doesn’t win the presidency, I am sure the candidate he would most likely want to be in the White House is a hand-picked successor.
And even if it’s somebody else, a working-class (at least in appearance) women could be a very strong GOP candidate next year for President. People really don’t like elites or at least educated people who are too condescending and act like they no better then everybody else. Opposition to wokeness is likely key to winning the White House next-cycle, especially for a Republican candidate as most highly-educated people are increasingly becoming Democrats. But many don’t like that as they feel like scientists and educators too often wrap their science and education into their politics, and they want a new voice, who isn’t the traditional white male, but also doesn’t cowtoe to the establishment.
Before the ink was dry on a series of 10 election reforms signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul on Wednesday, Republicans – including U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik – filed a lawsuit arguing that one of the reforms, which expands the use of mail-in balloting during the early voting period “reverses the will of the people."
That’s a reference to a 2021 ballot question expanding absentee voting that voters defeated by a margin of 55-45%.
But according to bill sponsor state Senate Deputy Majority Leader Mike Gianaris , the bill in question, the so-called "Early Mail Voting Act," is distinct from the question on the ballot in 2021.
“We’re not expanding absentee voting. We’re allowing people to vote by mail during the early voting period,” Gianaris told Capital Tonight. “The Constitution is very clear that the Legislature gets to determine the methods of voting."
The absentee process deals with people who may be absent or unavailable to get to the polls on Election Day. The statute signed into law by Hochul relates to a method of early voting.
“What we’re saying is that, as a method of early voting, which we now have in this state, you can go show up at the polls on any of those given early days, or you can vote by mail if you choose to,” explained Gianaris.
The anticipated new law would allow all registered voters to request an early mail voting ballot from their local board of elections. It also requires the BOE to establish and maintain an online system where voters can apply for and track their early voting ballot applications, similar to the system already in place for voters to request an absentee ballot. Voters would then need to submit those early mail voting ballots before the polls close on Election Day.
The dynamics of population movement have been a longstanding concern for regions like Upstate New York. The exodus of residents seeking greener pastures, warmer climates, and reduced government regulations has raised alarms about the state’s future. To address these challenges, considering the potential of asylum seekers as new residents offers an intriguing perspective.
The decline in New York State’s population poses multifaceted challenges, from a loss of federal resources to business closures due to reduced demand. The resulting spiral of higher taxes and deteriorating infrastructure underscores the urgency of finding solutions. It is evident that introducing a fresh influx of population can potentially rejuvenate the state’s trajectory.
Asylum seekers, often fleeing repressive governments that target them for their ethnicity, religious beliefs, or political views, represent a demographic in dire need of assistance. The historical lessons of the United States’ refusal to aid Jews during World War II highlight the moral obligation to provide sanctuary for those facing persecution. Their harrowing experiences necessitate a compassionate response from society.
While immigration policies dictate that courts determine the legitimacy of asylum claims, the initial evaluation by immigration officials underscores the merit of offering shelter. Recognizing that aiding asylum seekers incurs costs, it’s imperative to remember that supporting residents, regardless of their citizenship or voter status, is a societal duty. Comparable to the provision of police, fire protection, and education, extending assistance to those seeking refuge is an ethical and humanitarian imperative.
Though the waiting period of nearly half a year before lawful work is allowed might appear discouraging, it serves as a deterrent against fraudulent migration. This measure safeguards against exploitation and preserves fairness for those pursuing legal immigration paths. Yet, acknowledging the diverse array of jobs available, asylum seekers can contribute significantly to Upstate communities, especially in sectors like agriculture, food service, and healthcare.
The sluggish pace of immigration proceedings, while frustrating, reflects the gravity of life and death decisions at stake. While expediting the process is desirable, ensuring accurate judgments is paramount. An asylum seeker denied entry could be returning to a perilous situation, underscoring the importance of thorough evaluations. Striking the balance between efficiency and accuracy is crucial to maintaining a just immigration system.
Considering the influx of over 100,000 asylum seekers into New York City within a year, it is clear that addressing their needs and aspirations can reshape the landscape of Upstate New York. Vacant motels and underutilized spaces could be repurposed to accommodate and support these individuals, providing job opportunities and fostering economic growth. Though there are costs associated with local governments and schools, the long-term potential of revitalizing declining communities holds promise.
In conclusion, the incorporation of asylum seekers as potential new residents offers a chance for Upstate New York to reverse its population decline. By embracing these individuals, the state can tap into their potential as contributors to various sectors, while simultaneously adhering to a moral imperative of offering refuge to those in need. The challenges and costs associated with this endeavor are outweighed by the potential benefits of revitalized communities and a more diverse and vibrant state.
