cat slots game
None
9-Year-Old Becomes CEO of Gabb, Kid-Safe Tech CompanyDefence argues evidence too thin in Ottawa neo-Nazi terrorism trialJulia Wick | (TNS) Los Angeles Times As California politicos look ahead to 2025, the biggest question looming is whether Vice President Kamala Harris — a native daughter, battered just weeks ago by presidential election defeat — will enter the 2026 California governor’s race. Related Articles National Politics | Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people National Politics | Trump taps immigration hard-liner Kari Lake as head of Voice of America National Politics | Trump invites China’s Xi to his inauguration even as he threatens massive tariffs on Beijing National Politics | Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump National Politics | What Americans think about Hegseth, Gabbard and key Trump Cabinet picks AP-NORC poll Harris has yet to give any public indication on her thoughts and those close to her suggest the governorship is not immediately top of mind. But if Harris does ultimately run — and that’s a massive if — her entrée would seismically reshape the already crowded race for California’s highest office. Recent polling suggests Harris would have a major advantage, with 46% of likely voters saying they were somewhat or very likely to support her for governor in 2026, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey co-sponsored by The Times. “If Vice President Harris were to choose to run, I am certain that that would have a near field-clearing effect on the Democratic side,” Rep. Katie Porter, D-Irvine, said during a recent UC Irvine panel interview . Porter, a high-profile Democrat who has been eyeing the wide-open governor’s race, has yet to say whether she plans to run. Porter’s point was broadly echoed in conversations with nearly a dozen California political operatives and strategists, several of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly. Most speculated that a Harris entry would cause some other candidates in the race to scatter, creating further upheaval in down-ballot races as a roster of ambitious politicians scramble for other opportunities. “In politics, you always let the big dogs eat first,” quipped Democratic political consultant Peter Ragone. The current gubernatorial field is a who’s who of California politicians, but lacks a clear favorite or star with widespread name recognition. The vast majority of California’s 22 million voters have yet to pay attention to the race and have little familiarity with the candidates. The list of Democratic candidates includes Los Angeles’ first Latino mayor in more than a century ( Antonio Villaraigosa ); the first female and first out LGBTQ leader of the state Senate ( Toni Atkins ); the sitting lieutenant governor and first woman to hold that post ( Eleni Kounalakis ); the state superintendent of public instruction ( Tony Thurmond ) and the former state controller ( Betty Yee ). Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is serving his second term as California governor, meaning he is ineligible to run again. Several other Democrats, including Porter, outgoing Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta have also publicly toyed with the idea of a run. They could be less likely to enter the fray should Harris decide to run. What the billionaire mall mogul Rick Caruso — who has also been exploring a run — would choose to do is an open question, as Caruso might contrast himself with Harris as a more centrist candidate. The real estate developer was a registered Republican until November 2019. It’s unlikely that Harris will proffer a public decision in the immediate term, leaving plenty of time for political insiders to game out hypotheticals in the weeks and months to come. Harris’ office did not respond to a request for comment. “I think every candidate for governor is trying to get some kind of intel,” Mike Trujillo, a Los Angeles-based Democratic political consultant and former Villaraigosa staffer, said of a potential Harris run. Trujillo speculated that Harris’ current state was probably similar to Hillary Clinton’s hiking sojourns in the Chappaqua woods after losing to Donald Trump in 2016, or Al Gore growing a beard in the bruising aftermath of his 2000 defeat. “The first thing she’s probably thinking about is, ‘Well, can I run again for president in four years?’ Not, ‘Do I run for governor in two years?’” said one political operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. Harris maintains a home in Brentwood and previously served as California’s senator and attorney general. A successful run for governor in 2026 would almost certainly impede a grab for the presidency in 2028. (Though if history is any guide, an unsuccessful run for California governor does not definitively preclude a bid for the Oval Office: Two years after losing the White House to John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon lost the 1962 contest for governor to Pat Brown . The Yorba Linda native became the nation’s 37th president in 1969.) As the chief executive of a state that doubles as the world’s fifth-largest economy, Harris would have more power to steer policy and make changes as a California governor than she did as vice president, where her job required deference to President Biden. But leading a state, even the nation’s most populous, could feel like small potatoes after being a heartbeat (and a few dozen electoral votes) from the presidency. The protracted slog to November 2026 would also be a stark contrast to her ill-fated 107-day sprint toward the White House, particularly for a candidate whose 2020 presidential primary campaign was dogged by allegations of infighting and mismanagement. “I don’t think Kamala Harris has a deep psychological need to be governor of California, or to be in elective office in order to feel like she can contribute to society,” said the operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. “I think some of these people do, but she’s somebody who has enough prominence that she could do a lot of big, wonderful things without having to worry about balancing California’s budget or negotiating with Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel,” the Encino Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s budget committee. Technically, Harris has until March 2026 to decide whether she enters a race. But political strategists who spoke to The Times theorized that she probably would make a move by late spring, if she chooses to do so. “People will be more annoyed if she drops in in June,” a Democratic strategist involved with one of the gubernatorial campaigns said. Sending a clear signal by February would be more “courteous,” the strategist continued, explaining that such a move would give candidates more time to potentially enter other races. Kounalakis is a longtime friend and ally of Harris’ , and the vice president also has long-term relationships with some of the other candidates and potential candidates. California has eight statewide elected offices and campaign finance laws allow candidates to fundraise interchangeably for them, meaning money already raised for a candidate’s gubernatorial campaign could easily be redirected should they decide to run for, say, lieutenant governor instead. There are already a number of candidates running for lieutenant governor, including former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, former state Sen. Steven Bradford and former state Treasurer Fiona Ma. But that office probably would see even more interest should Harris enter the gubernatorial race. It’s a largely ceremonial position, but one that has served as a launching pad for the governorship. Still, even if Harris does enter the race, Republican political strategist Mike Murphy threw cold water on the idea that she would have an automatic glide path to the governor’s office. “It’s like Hollywood. Nobody knows anything. She’s famous enough to look credible in early polling. That’s all we know for sure,” Murphy said. “Does that predict the future? No. Are there a lot of downsides (to a potential Harris candidacy)? Totally, yes.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
With a recession deepening and the 1982 midterm elections approaching, Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker was summoned to the Oval Office, where Ronald Reagan was sitting with his chief of staff, James Baker. When Baker said Reagan wanted to give Volcker an “order” about interest rates, the 6-foot-7 central banker immediately stalked silently from the room. He did not take orders. Donald Trump is determined to break institutions to the presidential saddle, so people wonder: Could he fire the head of the Fed? (Probably not. Besides, Chair Jerome H. Powell’s term expires in May 2026.) More interesting questions are: What is the Fed for? And is its “independence” a license for mission creep? John H. Cochrane and Amit Seru of the Hoover Institution think the hyperactive Fed has become too ambitious in its interventions in the economy and social policy. Their proposal is the title of their essay “Ending Bailouts, At Last” in the Journal of Law, Economics and Policy. The problematic behavior is a century old and bipartisan: When large financial institutions are in danger of failing, government bails them out by bailing out their creditors. The 1907 financial crisis led in 1913 to the Federal Reserve Act establishing the Fed, which did not prevent the 1933 bank collapse. This led to deposit insurance and many regulations, which did not prevent Continental Illinois Bank’s 1984 failure, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and many other bumps on the road to 2008. “Never again, we say, again and again,” wrote Cochrane and Seru. Bailouts multiply, larger each time, spreading to highly leveraged industrial companies, as in the auto bailout of 2009. “Too leveraged to fail,” they wrote, “might be the summary of our new regime.” Too leveraged is a consequence of interest rates too low for too long, combined with confidence that the bailout culture is forever and unlimited. During the pandemic, the market for Treasury bonds became fragile, so the Fed lent bond dealers money to buy the bonds, “then turned around and bought the Treasurys from the dealers a few days later.” Cochrane and Seru wrote that the Fed almost has an implicit policy of buying “whatever quantity” necessary to prop up corporate bond prices. They noted that the Biden administration’s “paycheck protection” program made “forgivable loans” — Washington-speak for gifts — “to small businesses with 500 or fewer employees to cover their business costs, including mortgage interests, rent, utilities and up to eight weeks’ payroll costs.” It is one thing for the accountable political institutions to do this, quite another for the Fed to lend “on lenient terms to the real economy, not just the financial sector.” Throughout the economy, Cochrane and Seru wrote, leverage has been rewarded: “If you saved and bought a house with cash, if you saved and went to a cheaper college rather than take out a big student loan, or if you repaid that loan promptly, you did not get money.” In today’s permanent central-bank-run credit system, “Borrow. Borrow especially if you are big or part of a big and politically influential class of borrowers. As with student loans, borrow from the government.” You might not have to pay it back. When Silicon Valley Bank accepted many large, uninsured deposits, then got in trouble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — the government — guaranteed all deposits. So now, wrote Cochrane and Seru, “effectively markets expect all deposits of any size to be guaranteed going forward, at least during any newsworthy event.” The Congressional Budget Office projects budget deficits of 5% to 8% of gross domestic product forever. And this, Cochrane and Seru correctly believe, is too unrealistic. CBO assumes no crises, recessions, wars, pandemaics or — most laughably — spending increases. But even this optimistic debt path “simply cannot happen.” “We have,” Cochrane and Seru wrote, “once-in-a-century crises every 10 years these days.” “Crisis” has come to mean “the possibility that someone, somewhere might lose money.” And “contagion” now denotes a vague fear that “any ripple anywhere might bring down the financial system.” Societies get what they incentivize. Moral hazards — incentives for perverse, risky behaviors — are now sown throughout American life. Cumulatively, they might break the government before Trump’s eccentric Cabinet nominees can. Will writes for The Washington Post. Get local news delivered to your inbox!
Flowserve Corp. stock outperforms competitors on strong trading day
It’s not just you: ChatGPT is currently downVivek Ramaswamy, an outspoken ex-biotech executive turned fierce critic of the industry’s main regulator, is now in a position to reshape the agency he derides as the “Failed Drug Administration” in ways that could benefit him personally. Newly tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to co-lead an initiative to slash the federal bureaucracy, Ramaswamy has heaped criticism on the Food and Drug Administration for “ unnecessary barriers to innovation .” At the same time, the company he founded, Roivant Sciences, is pursuing studies for three drugs that, if positive, could land before the FDA during Trump’s second term. His stock in Roivant is worth about $670 million.It was described as one of the best games of the season as Premier League leaders Liverpool drew 3-3 with Newcastle in an enthralling match at St James' Park. The Reds twice trailed and then led thanks to a double from the ever-reliable Mohamed Salah, and looked set to extend their winning run in the league to five games. But Fabian Schar's 90th-minute equaliser earned Newcastle a deserved point at the end of an exhausting encounter. "One of the best [games] I've seen this season," said former Chelsea winger Pat Nevin on BBC Radio 5 Live at full-time. "We have seen it ebb and flow. Both sides will be happy with the point in the end." But they will not be the only sides happy with the draw, with Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City - second, third and fourth respectively - all picking up wins on Wednesday. Fifth-placed Brighton, meanwhile, play Fulham on Thursday. It means Liverpool's lead is cut from nine points to seven at the start of a busy December that could see things change dramatically at the top of the table. Historically, Liverpool were already in a title-winning position before a ball was kicked on Wednesday. After beating Manchester City on Sunday they were nine points clear of second place after 13 league games. Only two teams in Premier League history have had a lead of at least nine points after the same number of matches - Manchester United in 1993-94 and Chelsea in 2005-06 - and both went on to win the title. Despite that, many are still urging caution in the battle at the top. Reds boss Arne Slot said before the Newcastle game that 19 matches would be a better barometer of how the title battle is shaping up, an opinion that will have only been galvanised after the 3-3 draw with Newcastle. Manchester City's loss to Liverpool left them 11 points adrift of the Reds but that has been cut to nine, and history suggests they are more than capable of overturning such a deficit. In 2018-19, they trailed Liverpool by 10 points after a poor run of form in December but then won 18 of their 19 matches from the 30th of that month to go on and clinch the title. "I think we know Man City are not out of the title race - they are going to have a say," former Manchester City player and manager Stuart Pearce said on Amazon Prime. "There are going to be a lot of twists and turns in the title race. That's what makes the Premier League so good." Former Arsenal forward Theo Walcott added: "This is where you get a feel for where you will end up at the end of the season. It is a period where you can make up a lot of points." Former Manchester United striker Dimitar Berbatov, a Premier League champion with them in 2008–09 and 2010–11, said his former manager Sir Alex Ferguson would never entertain title talk at this stage of the season. "He would say if we stay first after the Christmas period we win the league," he told Amazon Prime. "He was always very strict around this time of the year - 'stay at home and don't go out'. It was worth it - it is about winning the title at the end of the day." Liverpool's next match is the unpredictability of a Merseyside derby, while they also face Tottenham on 22 December - with both those games away. Chelsea also have a trip to London rivals Spurs, but after that the highest-placed team they face is Brentford, currently ninth. All Arsenal's opponents are currently in the bottom half of the table, whereas Manchester City have a derby against Manchester United on 15 December and must also go to Aston Villa. Brighton, who play on Thursday night and could go fourth with a win, only have two home games in the rest of December - against Crystal Palace and Brentford. Top five's upcoming fixtures: Liverpool: 7 Dec Everton (a); 14 Dec Fulham (h); 22 Dec Tottenham (a); 26 Dec Leicester (h); 29 Dec West Ham (a) Chelsea: 8 Dec Tottenham (a); 15 Dec Brentford (a); 22 Dec Everton (a) 26 Dec Fulham (h) 30 Dec Ipswich (a) Arsenal: 8 Dec Fulham (a); 14 Dec Everton (h); 21 Dec Crystal Palace (a); 27 Dec Ipswich (h) Man City: 7 Dec Crystal Palace (a); 15 Dec Manchester United (h); 21 Dec Aston Villa (a); 26 Dec Everton (h); 29 Dec Leicester (a) Brighton: 5 Dec Fulham (a) 8 Dec Leicester (a); 15 Dec Crystal Palace (h); 21 Dec West Ham (a); 27 Dec Brentford (h); 30 Dec Aston Villa (a) Liverpool boss Arne Slot after the Newcastle draw: "A great game to watch. This is what we do lately but with the exception of us not winning this game. There were moments in the game where I was happy about it but then at 3-2 up [to draw 3-3] it is a disappointment." Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta, on Liverpool dropping points on Wednesday: "I didn't know as I was so happy celebrating in the dressing room [after Arsenal beat Manchester United]. "We got that news, but it is difficult to win this league. It is still very early." Gunners midfielder Declan Rice: "When you have a blip in the league you get written off. People get carried away. You just need to be around it in February time. Liverpool have dropped points - they're seven away so we will see what happens." Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola on if Wednesday's win against Nottingham Forest will prove a turning point: "I don't know. We have to prove it again. It's just one game but it was important to break this run." Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca on his side's form: "We are focused on that [performing] since the start. I think that the results, for sure, helps a lot - calms down a little bit of noise around the club. "It's a good feeling, especially to see the fans happy because after the last two years, you know better than me, many things happened. The feeling from them now is good and it is a good feeling also for us."
Roy Keane gives damning on Man Utd star - "his general play is shocking"
- Previous: joy slots game
- Next: fake slots game