The defining characteristic of the Democratic Party is contempt for America, says Sen John Kennedy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congressman Morgan Luttrell Tours Hertha Metals' Texas Plant Driving U.S. Steel and Iron Independence
CONROE, Texas, August 14, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On August 11th, CEO Laureen Meroueh and Hertha Metals – a domestic steel and high-purity iron producing company based out of Conroe – hosted Congressman Morgan Luttrell for a tour of Hertha Metals' plant. During the tour, Congressman Luttrell saw Hertha's one-step furnace in action: turning low-grade domestic ore and millscale into high-purity iron for rare earth magnets used in defense, energy, and electronics. The visit also spotlighted Hertha's upcoming 9,000-tonne-per-year plant, set to bring 550 jobs and strengthen America's industrial security. "It was an honor to welcome Congressman Morgan Luttrell to our Conroe plant," said Laureen Meroueh, CEO of Hertha Metals. "By producing high-purity iron domestically, we're reducing America's reliance on foreign supply chains for materials critical to defense, energy, and advanced manufacturing – all while creating more than 550 jobs and making Conroe a cornerstone of America's industrial future." "The United States is the world's largest steel importer yet has no domestic source of high-purity iron. China exports over 90 percent of the high-purity iron in rare earth magnets – a reliance that poses a direct threat to America's industrial and national security," said Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX). "Hertha Metals is changing that and meeting the moment by creating a 9,000 tonne per year plant in Conroe with enough capacity to meet the country's demand in the rare earth magnet market. I'm proud that this new high purity iron production plant will generate over 500 jobs in my district." More Background: Hertha Metals is revitalizing American-made high-purity iron and steel manufacturing through innovation. By leveraging abundant U.S. natural gas and domestic iron ore, Hertha developed a next-generation steelmaking process that delivers high-purity iron, as well as high performance steel, using our country's abundant resources. By 2030, Hertha Metals will scale steel production to 500,000 tonnes annually, a commercial steel micro mill. To learn more, visit View source version on Contacts media@
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
U.S. Congressional District maps are displayed as the Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting meets at the Texas State Capitol on August 6, 2025 in Austin, Texas. Credit - Brandon Bell—Getty Images President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price. Contact us at letters@
Buzz Feed
17 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Outrage Over PA Republican's Livable Wage Comments
Recently, we wrote about Republican Pennsylvania lawmaker Jesse Topper, who, back in June, gave remarks to the state's House of Representatives advocating against raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. "Not every wage, and please hear me clearly on this," Topper says in a viral clip. "Not every wage is designed to be a livable wage." He goes on to give examples of his point, like a teenager or a retired person working for income they don't technically need to survive. The BuzzFeed Community had a WHOLEEE lot to say about Topper's comments, so let's get into it: "One thing I'll never understand is the idea that some jobs are 'supposed' to be for students trying to make money. Dude, who do you think is going to make your mid-morning coffee or make your fast-food lunch when STUDENTS ARE IN SCHOOL? It's just not feasible! Obviously, some students can make it work — and sometimes have to support their parents, unfortunately — but there just aren't enough people even available for minimum wage jobs. Adults have to do these jobs, too, and not just as 'starter jobs.' They need to make enough money to live, support kids, bills, etc." "If people who work full-time do not earn enough for them to live on, how are they supposed to survive? One way is by receiving benefits like Section 8, Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC. And I'm sure that this guy wants to cut those benefits. Or eliminate them. So, people who work hard to support themselves should go hungry? Live in their cars? Or the streets?" —rutharcone "If $7.25/hour is an acceptable pay rate to Pennsylvania lawmakers, then why don't they just make that the pay rate for Pennsylvania lawmakers?" "Sure, a job that a high schooler or a retiree is working to make extra money doesn't need to pay enough to live off of because they're not working it full-time. If that job IS being worked full-time, that job should have a wage that is able to be lived off of, because whoever is working that job is doing so TO MAKE A LIVING. Any job that hires any employee for 40 hours or more a week needs to pay a living wage." "The idiocy is not lost on me that these fast-food workers were considered 'essential' during the lockdown and still had to go to work, yet they aren't 'essential' enough to pay a livable wage to." —jasonr4da82caf9 "As an introverted disabled retiree, if I ever go back to work, it won't be because I want to. I've got plenty to do at home, and it would bring me no joy to go back out into the world and deal with assholes all day every day for $7.25/hour." "Let him live off of that wage!" "I think he is correct. Growing up as teenagers, we worked at jobs such as waitress, babysitter, pumping gas, cashier, filing paperwork, etc., to gain experience in the working world and also earn a wage to learn how to handle money, learn about taxes, etc. Originally, those types of jobs were not intended to actually support a family. The fact that these jobs are occupied by people who do need them is a sad reflection on our society." —smartnugget986 "Since when is a kid saving for college not necessary? Since when is grandma running a cash register at Walmart not needed income? This asshole's constituents should send him packing!" "Wow, how truly despicable." "Public service should be a minimum wage job. You're supposed to be sacrificing your time and effort for the greater good. So let's start enforcing that." "I didn't go to college, and I work in childcare, where I make $19.50 an hour. I still can't afford to live on my own, making almost $20 an hour. $7.50 is an absolute fucking joke. How can anyone afford to do anything with that?" —redpizza125 "I think all politicians should make minimum wage so they can truly understand how their constituents live. Watch them bitch and moan about not being able to live on $7.25 an hour while the people they represent have to. Don't like it, well then raise the minimum wage." "Love when they say the job is meant for teenagers when those same teenagers are supposed to be in school for most of the hours the job is open. There isn't a fast-food chain in the country that exclusively runs after 3 p.m., and that's without including prep work and opening." "I wish there would be a major push, worldwide, that politicians get paid whatever the minimum wage is of the region they're representing. They work fewer hours than the average worker. This would help bring back the ideology of the politicians working for the people again. It's become a joke where the majority of them are nepos of some sort who never worked a day in their lives." —animalmagentism "Welcome to America, where we work for vibes." "That's why it's called the MINIMUM wage. If jobs are difficult or require experience, then they get paid more than that. They make it sound like these employees will suddenly be living in the lap of luxury at $31,200 a year. If your rent is $1,000 (the national average is $1,700), that leaves you with only $19,000 to live on for the whole year before taxes. That doesn't count food, cars, clothes, insurance, phones, etc...." "At one time, businesses said they needed slavery so they could continue their lavish lifestyles. I would say if you cannot afford a livable wage to workers, do the work yourself so you can prosper on your own sweat." "I am retired and lucky that I am able to manage due to my husband's pension and Social Security income. I went into banking a very long time ago because they had retirement plans, but those were soon disbanded in the late '70s and '80s with the advent of 401(k) programs, so I have both 401(k) and Social Security." "My husband and I volunteer at the local retirement center and deliver food for the Meals on Wheels program. The meals cost $4, and some clients cannot even afford this cost, so since this is a 'suggested' amount, they pay what they can or pay $0. Since federal funding was cut by the Trump administration for social programs for counties, funding is no longer available for these senior centers, so now private and commercial donations have to make up the shortfall. I truly believe the Republicans are out of step regarding wages, programs for the needy, and retirees. There are a lot of retirees who have second jobs because their SS does cover their living expenses. Sad."—skimscissors355 "I'm really starting to hate Republiclowns. They should all be voted out of office. It kills me to think my tax dollars are paying for assholes like this." "There shouldn't be a minimum wage. Each job should just pay what the job is worth." "Over the past year in Pennsylvania, I've seen the local car wash hiring at $16/hour, and just this week, a relative was hired at a fast-food restaurant for a $15/hour starting wage. Anything less, and these positions stayed vacant. Idiots like this overpaid legislator (in one of America's largest and overpaid state governments) just show how out of touch our overlords actually are." —emoelf137 "They don't want to pay a livable wage, but then they get mad when people need assistance to survive, like Medicaid and food stamps. How do they not realize the cycle they have created? Do you want the guy who can work fast food and do a great job to make a living wage and support himself, or do you want him to not make that and have to apply for government assistance? Or is the truth of it just that you want poor people to die because they aren't convenient for you to think about?" "To not even consider that some of the people in those jobs might not be teenagers: The close-mindedness is willful and deliberate." —bexobexo"Also, if a teenager is working, it's extremely likely that they also need the money. Maybe more than if they were older and independent! My brother-in-law dropped out of high school to wash dishes so he could support his mom. Should he have had to? Absolutely not. But did he deserve a wage that you can support a family on just as much as any other working person? Absolutely. His family stayed housed, but he worked his ass off, and then had to go through the shame (to him — we didn't feel there was any shame in it) of telling my sister and our family that he needed to get a GED before they could carry out their plans for higher education for him as a mature student. Just to give one example of why teens aren't necessarily working just for 'fun money.'"—casualpizza23 "Can we stop with the wealthy people telling the rest of us to live with the scraps we get? Or at least stop telling us to be grateful for it." "Guy who gets paid $106K per year to work in a legislature that meets 50 or 60 days a year says what??? The man is clearly asking for a less-than-livable wage, and so he should have it." And finally, "USA is a straight-up dystopia." —cutealligator6018 What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
