Warriors’ Kevin Durant Out for 2019 NBA Finals Game 4 vs. Raptors with Injury

TORONTO, ON -  JUNE 1: Kevin Durant of the Golden State Warriors during practice and media availability as part of the 2019 NBA Finals on June 01, 2019 at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2019 NBAE (Photo by Noah Graham/NBAE via Getty Images)

Noah Graham/Getty Images

Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr announced Thursday superstar forward Kevin Durant will sit out Game 4 of the 2019 NBA Finals against the Toronto Raptors on Friday night at Oracle Arena in Oakland.

Durant has been sidelined since suffering a strained right calf in Game 5 of the Western Conference Semifinals against the Houston Rockets on May 8.

  1. McCollum and the Blazers Snapped Postseason Losing Streak for “Jennifer”

  2. Stars Invest in Plant-Based Food as Vegetarianism Sweeps NBA

  3. The NBA Got Some Wild Techs This Season

  4. Jarrett Allen Is One of the NBA’s Hottest Rim Protectors

  5. Wade’s Jersey Swaps Created Epic Moments This Season

  6. Westbrook Makes History While Honoring Nipsey Hussle

  7. Devin Booker Makes History with Scoring Tear

  8. 29 Years Ago, Jordan Dropped Career-High 69 Points

  9. Bosh Is Getting His Jersey Raised to the Rafters in Miami

  10. Steph Returns to Houston for 1st Time Since His Moon Landing Troll

  11. Lou Williams Is Coming for a Repeat of Sixth Man of the Year

  12. Pat Beverley Has the Clippers Stealing the LA Shine

  13. LeBron Keeps Shredding NBA Record Books

  14. Young’s Hot Streak Is Heating Up the ROY Race with Luka

  15. LeBron and 2 Chainz Form a Superteam to Release a New Album

  16. Wade’s #OneLastDance Dominated February

  17. Warriors Fans Go Wild After Unforgettable Moments with Steph

  18. Eight Years Ago, the Nuggets Traded Melo to the Knicks

  19. Two Years Ago, the Kings Shipped Boogie to the Pelicans

  20. ASG Will Be Competitive Again If the NBA Raises the Stakes

Right Arrow Icon

Before Game 3 of the Finals, a 123-109 loss to put the Dubs in a 2-1 series hole, Warriors owner Joe Lacob told ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith he expected the two-time defending NBA Finals MVP to return at some point during the championship clash with Toronto:

SportsCenter @SportsCenter

Warriors owner Joe Lacob says he expects to see KD on the floor at some point during the #NBAFinals. https://t.co/S5fcgjuYIo

Although Kerr has provided updates on the 10-time All-Star selection before each game, the University of Texas product has remained mostly quiet about his comeback efforts.

“Nah, it was different. Different,” Durant told reporters in late May about his current calf injury compared to ones suffered earlier in his career. “… It was worse.”

The 30-year-old Washington, D.C. native averaged 34.2 points, 5.2 rebounds and 4.9 assists while shooting 51.3 percent from the field, including 41.6 percent from three-point range, across 11 appearances in this year’s postseason before the injury.

  1. McCollum and the Blazers Snapped Postseason Losing Streak for “Jennifer”

  2. Stars Invest in Plant-Based Food as Vegetarianism Sweeps NBA

  3. The NBA Got Some Wild Techs This Season

  4. Jarrett Allen Is One of the NBA’s Hottest Rim Protectors

  5. Wade’s Jersey Swaps Created Epic Moments This Season

  6. Westbrook Makes History While Honoring Nipsey Hussle

  7. Devin Booker Makes History with Scoring Tear

  8. 29 Years Ago, Jordan Dropped Career-High 69 Points

  9. Bosh Is Getting His Jersey Raised to the Rafters in Miami

  10. Steph Returns to Houston for 1st Time Since His Moon Landing Troll

  11. Lou Williams Is Coming for a Repeat of Sixth Man of the Year

  12. Pat Beverley Has the Clippers Stealing the LA Shine

  13. LeBron Keeps Shredding NBA Record Books

  14. Young’s Hot Streak Is Heating Up the ROY Race with Luka

  15. LeBron and 2 Chainz Form a Superteam to Release a New Album

  16. Wade’s #OneLastDance Dominated February

  17. Warriors Fans Go Wild After Unforgettable Moments with Steph

  18. Eight Years Ago, the Nuggets Traded Melo to the Knicks

  19. Two Years Ago, the Kings Shipped Boogie to the Pelicans

  20. ASG Will Be Competitive Again If the NBA Raises the Stakes

Right Arrow Icon

Golden State was able to close out the Rockets and roll past the Portland Trail Blazers in the Western Conference Finals without him. The Raptors are putting up a much greater fight, however, cruising to a Game 3 win in a contest the Warriors also played without shooting guard Klay Thompson (hamstring).

Durant sitting out Game 4 is a seriously concerning sign for the Dubs. Not only does that mean they’ll remain at less than full strength in a key game, but his inability to return with the team facing a potential 3-1 deficit raises further questions about whether he’ll be available at all in the series.

The burden will once again fall on Stephen Curry, who scored 47 points in the Game 3 loss, to carry the Golden State offense on his back for at least one more night. And the Warriors need some other players to step up if they’re going to level the series before heading back to Toronto.   

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2ZcEKu2
via IFTTT

LeBron James Calls out Warriors Part-Owner Mark Stevens for Kyle Lowry Push

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 05:  Kyle Lowry #7 of the Toronto Raptors is pushed by Warriors minority investor Mark Stevens (blue shirt) after falling into the seats after a play against the Golden State Warriors in the second half during Game Three of the 2019 NBA Finals at ORACLE Arena on June 05, 2019 in Oakland, California. According to to the Warriors, Stevens will not be in attendance for the remainder of the NBA Finals as they look further into the incident. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images)

Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images

Golden State Warriors minority stakeholder Mark Stevens pushed Toronto Raptors point guard Kyle Lowry after he dove into the stands during Game 3 of the NBA Finals on Wednesday night.

And Los Angeles Lakers superstar LeBron James took to Instagram on Thursday to call out Stevens for his inappropriate actions:

“When you sit courtside you absolutely know what comes with being on the floor and if you don’t know it’s on the back on the ticket itself that states the guidelines. But he himself being a fan but more importantly PART-OWNER of the Warriors knew exactly what he was doing which was so uncalled for. He knew the rules more than just the average person sitting watching the game courtside so for that Something needs to be done ASAP! A swift action for his actions.

“Just think to yourself, what if @kyle_lowry7 would have reacted and put his hands back on him. You guys would be going CRAZY!! Calling for him to damn near be put in jail let alone being suspended for the rest of the Finals all because he was protected himself. I’ve been quite throughout the whole NBA playoffs watching every game (haven’t missed one) but after I saw what I saw last night, took time to let it manifest into my thinking. I couldn’t and wouldn’t be quiet on this!”

This article will be updated to provide more information on this story as it becomes available.

Get the best sports content from the web and social in the new B/R app. Get the app and get the game.    

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2WPxt5K
via IFTTT

Russia: Putin warns New START nuclear arms treaty at risk

President Vladimir Putin has said Russia was prepared to drop a nuclear weapons agreement treaty with the United States and warned of “global catastrophe” if Washington keeps dismantling a global arms control regime.

Speaking at an economic forum in St Petersburg, Putin said Washington showed no genuine interest in conducting talks on extending the New START treaty which caps the number of nuclear warheads well below Cold War limits.

“If no one feels like extending the agreement – New START – well, we won’t do it then,” Putin said.

“We have said a hundred times that we are ready [to extend it], but no one is holding any talks with us. The negotiations process hasn’t been arranged at all.”

The treaty was signed by US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Prague in 2010.

The accord, which expires in 2021, limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

Together with another agreement known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, New START is considered a centrepiece of superpower arms control. 

The US pulled out of the INF in February, accusing Russia of violating its terms. Moscow, which has denied any breaches, followed suit. 

Nuclear arms race

Putin said the potential implications of letting the New START treaty expire would be huge, suggesting its demise could fuel a nuclear arms race.

“If we don’t keep this ‘fiery dragon’ under control, if we let it out of the bottle – God forbid – this could lead to global catastrophe,” Putin said.

“There won’t be any instruments at all limiting an arms race, for example, the deployment of weapons in space.”

“This means that nuclear weapons will be hanging over every one of us all the time.”

Putin said he was puzzled by the absence of a global discussion.

“Will anyone think about it, speak up, show some concern?” the Russian leader said. “No – total silence.”

While criticising the US moves, Putin said that his latest phone call with US President Donald Trump in May “encouraged certain optimism”. Trump shared his concern about an arms race, Putin said, adding that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo whom he hosted the same month also spoke “in a similar vein”.

Calling for “practical steps towards joint action”, the Russian president said all nuclear powers – both officially recognised as possessing nuclear weapons and not – should take part in future talks.

Pompeo and Trump have called for the New START treaty to be expanded to include China, which has already rejected the idea.

Trump’s domestic rivals in the Democratic Party have also voiced concern over the lack of negotiations.

In a letter to Trump on Wednesday, senior Democrats in Congress urged him to extend New START through to the end of 2026.

“We believe that a decision to forego the benefits of New START by failing to extend the agreement would be a serious mistake for strategic stability and US security,” said the letter signed by eight legislators including Eliot Engel, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

At the same time, Putin said Moscow would not be afraid of shelving the treaty because it was developing a new generation of weapons that will “ensure Russia’s security” in the long term.

“When it comes to creating hyper(sonic) weapons, we have overtaken our competitors.”

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2QUuovN
via IFTTT

House Dem leaders to give chairmen broad power to enforce subpoenas


Jerry Nadler

Democrats like Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler have indicated that empowering committees to take their fights to court could help force witness testimony and documents. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

House Democratic leaders are preparing to grant sweeping authority to committee chairs to sue the Trump administration over its refusal to comply with congressional demands for information — from President Donald Trump’s tax returns to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s underlying files.

The draft resolution, which the House will consider on Tuesday, formally holds Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress for defying House Judiciary Committee subpoenas seeking Mueller’s unredacted report, its underlying evidence, and additional witness testimony.

Story Continued Below

But the most dramatic proposal will empower the chairs of all House committees to initiate legal action each time a witness or administration official defies a committee subpoena, a move to streamline and speed up the House’s ability to respond to a mounting list of confrontations with the White House.

Under the proposal, committee chairs seeking to enforce its subpoenas in federal court would still be required to obtain the approval of a bipartisan — but Democrat-controlled — panel of House leaders that includes Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

The resolution can also apply to subpoenas that have not yet been issued. Committee leaders will have the authority to enforce those subpoenas without requiring the full House to vote on each one. Democrats emphasize that the reason for the wholesale change is to prevent contempt citations from dominating House’s limited floor time.

“There’s a concern that there could be a lot of floor time eaten up if we handle these one at a time,” said a Democratic congressional aide. “We are carefully prioritizing the fights we choose to elevate to this level.”

The move is a reflection of rising frustration among Democrats, who have been largely stymied in their efforts to investigate Mueller’s findings because of roadblocks thrown up by the Trump White House. Though the stonewalling has led some Democrats to demand impeachment proceedings, Democrats like Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler have indicated that empowering committees to take their fights to court could help force witness testimony and the production of key documents.

“We are re-affirming the power of the committees to get subpoenas in response to what’s really an unprecedented intent to prevent a co-equal branch of government from doing its constitutional duties,” said another Democratic aide.

Additionally, the resolution empowers House General Counsel Douglas Letter to use outside attorneys to assist House Democrats in federal court. The House Rules Committee will review and potentially revise the resolution on Monday.

Tuesday’s full House vote will mark House Democrats’ most dramatic effort to date to enforce its subpoenas for documents and witness testimony that Trump has sought to block.

The Judiciary Committee held Barr in contempt last month after he refused to provide the committee with Mueller’s complete report and underlying evidence. The committee subsequently subpoenaed McGahn — one of Mueller’s central witnesses — after he acquiesced to a White House directive that he decline to testify.

House Democrats have already secured two key victories in federal court after Trump sought to invalidate their subpoenas seeking his personal and business financial records. Trump, who filed lawsuits challenging the subpoenas in his personal capacity, has appealed those rulings.

But House Democrats have yet to engage directly with the White House in their lawsuits. Tuesday’s vote will give them that sweeping authority.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2WS3ryd
via IFTTT

German nurse gets life sentence for killing 85 patients

A court in Germany has handed life sentence to a nurse, believed to be the most prolific serial killer in the country’s post-war history, for the “unfathomable” crime of murdering 85 patients in his care.

Judge Sebastian Buehrmann on Thursday called Niels Hoegel’s killing spree “incomprehensible” and acknowledged the trial left many families with painful unanswered questions.

The 42-year-old murdered patients, selected at random, with lethal injections between 2000 and 2005, when another nurse caught him in the act of injecting medication that had not been prescribed into a patient.

The 85 victims Hoegel was convicted of murdering ranged in age from 34 to 96. He was acquitted on 15 counts for lack of evidence.

Hoegel has already spent a decade in prison following a previous life sentence he received for six other murders.

The exhumation and autopsy of more than 130 bodies were necessary to build the case for the prosecution.

‘Unfathomable’

Police suspect that Hoegel’s final death toll may be more than 200.

But the court was unable to say for sure because of gaps in Hoegel’s memory and because many likely victims were cremated before autopsies could be performed.

Buehrmann of the regional court in the northern city of Oldenburg said the number of deaths at Hoegel’s hands “surpasses human imagination”.

“Your guilt is unfathomable,” he told the defendant. “Sometimes one’s worst nightmares fail to capture the truth.”

He expressed regret that the court had not been “fully able to lift the fog” for loved ones about other likely victims.

On the final day of hearings on Wednesday, Hoegel asked his victims’ families for forgiveness for his “horrible acts”.

“I would like to sincerely apologise for everything I did to you over the course of years,” he said.

Caught in 2005 while injecting an unprescribed medication into a patient in Delmenhorst, Hoegel was sentenced in 2008 to seven years in prison for attempted murder.

A second trial followed in 2014-2015 under pressure from alleged victims’ families.

He was found guilty of murder and attempted murder of five other victims and given the maximum sentence of life.

At the start of the third trial in October, Buehrmann said the court aimed to establish the full scope of the killing that was allowed to go unchecked for years.

“It is like a house with dark rooms – we want to bring light into the darkness,” he said.

Hope for closure

Christian Marbach, whose grandfather was killed by Hoegel and who has served as a victims’ representative, welcomed the “big and clear verdict”.

But he noted that many more families hoped they would find closure from the trial with a definitive explanation as to what happened to their loved ones.

“It can’t satisfy us entirely. It is what was legally possible,” he said.

Marbach said the families would now file suit against the two hospitals where Hoegel killed patients.

“We’re finished with the defendant. Now we can bring those people to justice who made his crimes possible,” he said.

After admitting on the first day of testimony to killing 100 patients in his care, Hoegel later revised his statement.

He now says he committed 43 murders but denies five others.

For the remaining 52 cases examined by the court, he says he cannot remember whether he “manipulated” his victims – his term for administering the deadly injections.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2XvlPKe
via IFTTT

Jerry Nadler could subpoena Mueller within two weeks


Jerry Nadler

On Wednesday, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler told reporters he was “confident” Robert Mueller will appear before his panel, and that he would issue a subpoena “if we have to.” | Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler told Democratic leaders at a closed-door meeting this week that he could issue a subpoena to Robert Mueller within two weeks if he is unable to reach an agreement to secure the former special counsel’s public testimony, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

Nadler’s comments at the Tuesday meeting were his clearest remarks to date on the possibility of compelling Mueller’s attendance at a public hearing. The committee is still negotiating with Mueller, who, according to Nadler, is thus far only willing to answer lawmakers’ questions in private — a nonstarter for most House Democrats.

Story Continued Below

The sources cautioned that the committee has not settled on a timetable for a potential subpoena to Mueller. Speaker Nancy Pelosi hosted the meeting, and four other committee chairs were in attendance.

On Wednesday, Nadler told reporters that he was “confident” Mueller will appear before his panel, and that he would issue a subpoena “if we have to.”

“We want him to testify openly. I think the American people need that,” Nadler added. “I think, frankly, it’s his duty to the American people. And we’ll make that happen.”

Mueller spoke publicly last week for the first time since the start of his 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump sought to obstruct the probe. In addition to formally closing down his investigation and resigning from the Justice Department, Mueller said: “I hope and expect that this is the only time that I will speak to you in this manner.”

But he said that if he testifies before Congress, his remarks “will not go beyond our report.”

“The work speaks for itself,” Mueller added. “The report is my testimony.”

Getting Mueller in front of the cameras is House Democrats’ top priority as they seek to spotlight the special counsel’s evidence outlining Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation. Democrats are also going to federal court as soon as next week to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn’s testimony, and they have issued subpoenas to other former Trump aides whose testimony Mueller cited in his 448-page report.

Their efforts also come as Pelosi faces pressure to launch a formal impeachment inquiry. During the same meeting Tuesday night, Pelosi stood firm against such proceedings, saying Trump should be “in prison,” not impeached.

But Nadler, who has publicly resisted calls to kick off an impeachment inquiry, made the case to Pelosi for opening one, saying it would strengthen his committee’s standing in federal court as it seeks to haul McGahn and other witnesses before the panel.

Around 60 Democrats have come out in support of impeachment proceedings, and several more have said publicly and privately that Mueller’s testimony will be the deciding factor.

Trump issued a blanket claim of executive privilege over Mueller’s full report and underlying evidence, but Attorney General William Barr has said he does not have an issue with Mueller testifying.

Some Republicans, too, have urged Mueller to testify before Congress, including Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, Nadler’s GOP counterpart.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2wGAab2
via IFTTT

Here’s Where The Major 2020 Candidates Stand On Federally Funding Abortion Care

By Christianna Silva

On Wednesday, June 6, former vice president and current Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden confirmed that he still supports the Hyde Amendment, a measure that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, despite the procedure being legal across the country.

Biden immediately faced backlash from the Democratic Party, and particularly progressive members, given how the amendment disproportionately and negatively affects poor people and people of color, who may see cost as a barrier from safely receiving an abortion procedure.

What is the Hyde Amendment?

Simply put, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funds for abortions. The amendment passed in 1976, just three years after the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion is a legal right; it has since been voted on every single year as a part of the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill for the past four decades, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. (Appropriations bills are passed to fund various governmental programs, and must be passed annually.)

There have been a few different variations of the amendment over the past 42 years, but the current version includes exceptions that allow Medicaid funds to be used for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the pregnant person, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. All other federal funding of abortion is currently banned.

The amendment was named after one of its biggest anti-choice advocates, the late Republican congressman Henry Hyde from Illinois. But from the outset, pro-choice groups like the Reproductive Freedom Project, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Planned Parenthood said that the amendment unfairly affected poor women. They took the amendment to the Supreme Court, where, in 1980, SCOTUS ruled it to be constitutional.

According to a 2009 report from NPR, during the three years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and before the Hyde Amendment banned federal funding for the procedure, tax dollars funded about 300,000 abortions annually — roughly 25 percent of the abortions performed legally during that time. After the Hyde Amendment went into effect, abortions financed by the federal government dropped to a few thousand a year, though the actual number of abortions being performed has not declined as steeply. (For that, however, Planned Parenthood has credited better access to contraception and comprehensive sex education, not legislation, given that the birth rate hasn’t increased, either.)

Why does it matter?

The ACLU argues that the Hyde Amendment is pretty blatantly sexist, saying “for no covered medical service that men need does the federal Medicaid program restrict the standard for reimbursement as it does for abortions.”

Moreover, the union argues that in practice, putting restrictions on public funding for the procedure effectively takes away the right to an abortion from poor people, and especially poor people of color, who are pregnant. However, people with higher incomes can afford to travel to have the procedure or pay for their abortions out-of-pocket.

“The problem is, the Hyde Amendment affects poor women, women of color, black women, Hispanic women,” Patti Solis Doyle, who served as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager in 2008 and has also worked for Biden, told the New York Times on Wednesday. “And women of color will elect the next president of the United States.”

Where do the candidates stand on it?

The Hyde Amendment originally had bipartisan support in Congress, and maintained that support for some time, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. Since it is part of the annual appropriations process, nearly every sitting member of Congress has voted on it as part of the HHS appropriations bill.

One of the first presidents to campaign against it was then-President Bill Clinton in 1992. He urged Congress to overturn it, but, after politics got in the way, compromised to amend the act and allow federal reimbursement for abortions in cases of rape or incest, according to the library at the Eternal Word Television Network. President Barack Obama didn’t make his opinion on the amendment clear, but he did include similar protections in the Affordable Care Act, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, banning federal funds for abortion services except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the pregnant person is in danger.

The amendment is quite popular among constituents, according to polls reviewed by Vox, so Democratic candidates typically steered clear of the legislation. But after grassroots activism made the Hyde Amendment a topic of discussion again, arguing that abortion needs to be not just legal but also affordable, most Democratic presidential candidates have pivoted to supporting the repeal of the amendment.

In fact, the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act is a bill in Congress right now that would effectively repeal the Hyde Amendment. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell and Seth Moulton — all of whom are running for the Democratic nomination – are all co-sponsors. The only sitting members of Congress who aren’t co-sponsoring the bill are Michael Bennet, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tim Ryan.

Democrats have been asking President Donald Trump to repeal the amendment since 2016; his entire track record suggests that won’t happen under his watch. Here’s where all of the Democratic presidential candidates stand on the Hyde Amendment:

Michael Bennet supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “Defenders of women and their health care rights have agreed for decades: the Hyde Amendment is federally sanctioned discrimination. It is wrong and should be overturned immediately.”

Bill de Blasio supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “The Hyde Amendment only hurts low income women, especially women of color. If you don’t support repeal, you shouldn’t be the Democratic nominee.”

Cory Booker supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “The Hyde Amendment is a threat to reproductive rights that punishes women and families who already struggle with access to adequate health care services.”

Steve Bullock supports repealing the amendment. In late May, he told a #RightsForAll ACLU volunteer that he would lift the Hyde Amendment if he was elected president.

Pete Buttigieg supports repealing the amendment, according to his website.

Julián Castro supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “All women should have access to reproductive care, regardless of their income or the state they live in. Abortion care is health care—it’s time to repeal the #HydeAmendment.”

John Delaney hasn’t made any public comments about the Hyde Amendment, but he told ThinkProgress in late April that he supports federal funding for abortion.

Tulsi Gabbard hasn’t made any public comments about the Hyde Amendment, but she told ThinkProgress in late April that she supports federal funding for abortion.

Kirsten Gillibrand supports repealing the act. “Repealing the Hyde Amendment is critical so that low-income women in particular can have access to the reproductive care they need and deserve,” she tweeted. “Reproductive rights are human rights, period. They should be non-negotiable for all Democrats.”

Mike Gravel supports repealing the act. In a statement made to MTV News, his spokesperson said he “supports the immediate repeal of the Hyde Amendment and believes that Joe Biden should be ashamed of himself for supporting such a monstrous provision.”

Kamala Harris supports repealing the amendment. She tweeted: “No woman’s access to reproductive health care should be based on how much money she has. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

John Hickenlooper supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “At a time when women’s rights are under attack, we need to stand tall for our values. The #HydeAmendent actively harms women by limiting access and choice. It needs to be repealed.”

Jay Inslee supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “I voted against the Hyde Amendment in 1993. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Reproductive health care is health care. Period.”

Amy Klobuchar hasn’t said anything publicly about repealing it, but is a co-sponsor of the EACH Woman Act, a bill that would repeal the amendment.

Wayne Messam hasn’t made any public comments about the Hyde Amendment, but he told ThinkProgress in late April that he supports federal funding for abortion.

Seth Moulton hasn’t said anything publicly about repealing it, but is a co-sponsor of the EACH Woman Act, a bill that would repeal the amendment.

Beto O’Rourke supports repealing the amendment. In May, he tweeted “Repeal the Hyde Amendment” along with a video of a speech calling for more funding for family planning centers like Planned Parenthood.

Tim Ryan supports repealing the amendment. He told MSNBC in May, “we’ve got to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.”

Bernie Sanders supports repealing the amendment. “There is #NoMiddleGround on women’s rights,” he tweeted. “Abortion is a constitutional right. Under my Medicare for All plan, we will repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

Eric Swalwell supports repealing the amendment. He tweeted: “We can’t live in the past when it comes to women’s health. The next president must appoint judges who #ProtectRoe BUT also MUST fight to #RepealHyde.” He also tagged Planned Parenthood, as well as NARAL, and its president, Ilyse Hogue.

Elizabeth Warren supports repealing the amendment. She told reporters after a rally in Indiana, “This isn’t about politics, this is about what’s right. The Hyde Amendment should not be American law.”

Marianne Williamson hasn’t made any public comments about the Hyde Amendment, but she told ThinkProgress in late April that she supports the Women’s Health Protection Act and the EACH Woman Act, which would provide federal funding for abortion.

Andrew Yang has not said anything public about the Hyde Amendment and did not immediately respond to a request for comment from MTV News.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2XCncqV
via IFTTT

Report: Warriors Part Owner Mark Stevens Pushed Kyle Lowry; NBA Investigating

Tim Daniels@TimDanielsBRTwitter LogoFeatured ColumnistJune 6, 2019
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 05:  Kyle Lowry #7 of the Toronto Raptors is pushed by a fan after falling into the seats after a play against the Golden State Warriors in the second half during Game Three of the 2019 NBA Finals at ORACLE Arena on June 05, 2019 in Oakland, California. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images)

Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images

Mark Stevens, who owns a minority stake in the Golden State Warriors, is reportedly the person who pushed Toronto Raptors point guard Kyle Lowry during Game 3 of the 2019 NBA Finals at Oracle Arena in Oakland on Wednesday.

Ina Fried of Axios reported the update and noted the “league and team are investigating” the incident.

This article will be updated to provide more information on this story as it becomes available.

Get the best sports content from the web and social in the new B/R app. Get the app and get the game.

    Report: Warriors ‘Optimistic’ for KD Will Play Game 4

    via Bleacher Report

    Report: Klay Will Return for Game 4

    via Bleacher Report

    NBA Teams Desperate to Make a FA Splash

    via Bleacher Report

    Big Names Likely to Change Teams This Summer 🔄

    via Bleacher Report

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2WOmlWU
via IFTTT

What Taylor Swift’s Allyship Means To Her Fans — And The LGBTQ+ Fandom



Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for iHeartMedia

By Carson Mlnarik

I learned about the gospel of Taylor Swift through my mom, whose car stereo was permanently tuned to country radio. Her first single, “Tim McGraw,” sparked something in me, and I was immediately obsessed  — to the point where my family was calling Taylor “Carson’s girlfriend” within weeks. I was 11 years old; it would be six years before I told anyone that I was gay. And it would take even longer — and for Taylor herself to proclaim, “You can want who you want / Boys and boys and girls and girls” — for my family to learn that I didn’t want to date Taylor Swift, I wanted to be like Taylor Swift.

As I became more accepting of my sexuality, it helped that Taylor was growing into an LGBTQ+ ally. And as the years went by, her music, frankly, got gayer.

When she debuted in 2006, Taylor was my middle school confessional queen. She always knew what it was like to be an outsider at the lunch table (“The Outside”) or to dramatically pine after someone who wasn’t into you (“Teardrops on My Guitar”). And while anthems like “Fearless” and “Speak Now” encouraged listeners to live their truths, I was only beginning to realize my truths: namely, that the fixation on male friendships that took up 113 percent of my brain was most definitely a manifestation of some same-sex attraction. I took note, but stayed closeted, especially given that I was navigating my own identity in conservative Arizona.

The fact that Taylor got her start in country music is not lost on me, either; the genre’s current focus on Christian faith, heteronormative imagery, and popularity in states that often vote red (no relation to the album) have garnered it a reputation as the “Republican genre.” You’d be hard-pressed to find mainstream country music by out LGBTQ+ artists, and, until recently, little solidarity with the community by its biggest stars. Thanks to open allyship from artists like Kacey Musgraves and Luke Bryan, that’s changing, but for the most part, they’re still the exception.

Taylor was always an icon in my eyes but it wasn’t until she went pop that her allyship seemed to take form. While “icon” status is a term some people seem to apply like chapstick, “ally” involves putting in a certain kind of work. Taylor had never come out against the community but was an unlikely ally nonetheless, especially considering she came from country and scrubbed a potentially homophobic line from her discography early on. Her first solidly pop entry, however, found her empowered enough to shout out the community and even arguably earned her gay Twitter’s respect. The Reputation era found her taking on a more active ally role: it was then, ahead of the 2018 midterms, that she finally stated her pro-gay rights stance, encouraged fans to vote, gave a Pride Month speech on tour, and made pro-LGBTQ donations.

“I’ve always seen her as someone who’s really accepting of everyone,” Gia, a fan who identifies as bisexual and lives in Scotland, told MTV News. But even she has noticed an uptick in active and affirmative allyship, from both Taylor and her fans.

In the LGBTQ+ community, having an “active ally” — a friend, co-worker, or acquaintance who not only believes in equality but does so visibly with empathy, patience, and recognition of privilege — can make a huge difference. Allies not only promote acceptance in the greater community but can also be sources of information and help. In schools with gay-straight alliances, 91 percent of LGBTQ+ students in the club felt supported enough to further advocate for other social or political issues, and workplaces that have openly supportive senior staff or a company culture of acceptance help employees feel more comfortable in being professionally out.

“Within the last year, I’ve seen a lot more pride [within the Taylor fandom], especially when I attended the Rep Tour and saw other [people] with pride flags,” Gia added.

Gia said she truly realized the extent of LGBTQ+-identifying individuals in the fandom after seeing hashtags like #LGBTQSwifties and #GayForTay. Stan Twitter and Tumblr bios boast rainbow emojis and pride flags, which aren’t necessarily decisions that Taylor had any part in making, but still affirm that there isn’t just space in the fandom for LGBTQ+ fans — we’re welcome here, too.

Jeremy, a Twitter user who identifies as bisexual, has been a fan of Taylor’s since 2006. While he is “definitely happy that she has been more explicit with her stances,” he says her message of “self-love and [embracing] that self loudly and passionately” has always been a source of comfort for him.

“She always inspires us to be proud of who we are, and to ignore those who tell us to be different,” he told MTV News.

For me, that pride took a while to establish, and even longer to give voice to. Still, Taylor was there for me every step of the way: In my junior year of high school, she released a mixed-genre foray into pop that gave us bops like “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” “22,” and “I Knew You Were Trouble,” and I didn’t just enjoy the Red album, I felt it. The emotional LP provided inspiration as I became student body president and big man on campus, but kept my sexuality a complete secret. It would become a source of comfort after I came out to close friends and family but lacked the confidence to do so on a larger scale. It would even become a guide to love and heartbreak after I got — and then broke up with — my first boyfriend.

He left me with bitter parting words: “I’ll never be able to listen to another Taylor Swift song without thinking of you.” I may get that inscribed on my tombstone.

As I started my freshman year of college, I was tired of feeling splintered about my identity. I started introducing myself as gay and going out on dates with guys, with the newly-released 1989 as my companion. While Taylor’s pop departure alienated some people, I found lyrics like, “I got this music in my mind / sayin’ it’s gonna be alright,” take on new weight in the midst of finding myself. If Taylor could start anew, so could I. Besides, what gay doesn’t love a good bop?

We make connections to music based on what we’re experiencing when we’re listening for the first time. Even if it’s beyond what the songwriter intended, their work can often become shorthand for certain times, places, and feelings — it’s chemical. It’s a phenomenon Taylor has even penned about, and while her lyrics, for the most part, describe heterosexual relationships, they do so in such a raw and confessional manner that it never mattered to me. Whether she was calling a boy out by name on her albums or scorning her bullies at the Grammys, there was an echoing theme of never hiding your feelings.

And through her vulnerability and openness, the singer has nurtured a fandom of people like myself who not only unite to feel seen and validated by her music but see and validate each other.

For Grace, who lives in Tennessee and has had a stan account since 2017, having a network of allies and openly LGBTQ+ people in the Taylor fandom has helped her in her own self-acceptance.

“I think a big part of it was just seeing how open other people were about their own sexuality and everyone was super supportive and loving towards them,” she said. “It’s not something that I had ever really seen much of before and it made me feel comfortable enough to accept myself and be open about it. I’m not sure I would be as secure in myself as I am now without it.”

When Taylor donated $113,000 to the Tennessee Equality Project to fight against the state’s “Slate of Hate” legislation, Grace felt directly moved. “I cried at the fact that someone I have admired for so many years of my life was fighting for me directly,” she said.

Arthur, a bisexual trans man from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, said he grew up seeing a lot of “bigoted people in the fandom,” but since Taylor has become a more active ally, he has seen a huge shift. An activist since age 14, he started following Taylor around 2012 in her Red era and knew when she eventually spoke up, things would start to change.

“LGBTQ fans are gaining space, as [are] fans of color, which is so great to see,” he said. “Taylor being more politically engaged helped [make] this change happen.”

Taylor has not only made her stance clear but continues to affirm it. She kicked off Pride Month this year by creating a petition for the Senate to pass the Equality Act, a sweeping policy that would protect LGBTQ people against sexuality-based discrimination. She also shared a letter she wrote to her state senator urging them to pass the bill and encouraged fans to do the same.

“While we have so much to celebrate, we also have a great distance to go before everyone in this country is truly treated equally,” she tweeted.

Taylor is hardly the first pop star to encourage their fans to get political. But as discussions arise around Pride becoming branded and straight people co-opt events, she’s proving to be a pretty good model of what it means to be an active ally in this political climate.

That’s not to say we’re there yet. We’ve still got a long way to go, and Taylor’s even acknowledged it. But as a former purveyor of yee-haw music and a current pop queen, she’s doing what she’s always done best for many of her gay fans: helping us feel seen and heard.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2QU7IMb
via IFTTT

Who’s in — and out — of the first Democratic debates


poster=”http://bit.ly/2HYjh1X;

true

2020 Elections

Barring a last-minute change, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock will not make the stage.

A prominent governor running in the Democratic primary is at serious risk of getting shut out of the party’s first presidential debates — while a meditation guru and obscure tech entrepreneur take the stage for the most important event of the race so far.

That’s the state of play less than a week before the deadline to qualify for the June 26 and 27 debates under the set of rules set by the Democratic National Committee.

Story Continued Below

Presidential hopefuls have until June 12 to cross one of two thresholds to qualify for the primary debates, and 13 of the 20 slots available are set in stone. And Montana Gov. Steve Bullock is currently on the outside looking in, one of the foremost candidates in danger of missing the stage after what his campaign calls the DNC’s 11th-hour “unmasking” of “arbitrary” polling rules.

Bullock’s status isn’t the only question remaining in the final week of qualifying, but the latest update comes after the Democratic National Committee provided POLITICO with additional guidance about its polling criteria — the first time the party committee has publicly addressed questions surrounding the previously announced guidelines.

The DNC declined to comment, as it has done in the past, on the qualifications for any individual candidate. POLITICO’s analysis for who has (and has not) qualified for the debate is based off public polling and public comments from the campaigns about their donor counts.

But if Bullock does manage to qualify before next Wednesday’s deadline, it could throw the status of other second-tier candidates into doubt, unleashing a complicated set of DNC-written tiebreaker rules that could leave another currently officeholder high and dry.

In order to be eligible for the debates, candidates must cross one of two thresholds: earning 1 percent in three polls approved by the Democratic National Committee, or receiving donations from 65,000 people, with 200 in 20 different states. A baker’s dozen have met both thresholds and have clinched their spots. But there are at least 10 credible candidates bidding for the final 7 spots — a list that includes two sitting senators, three congressmen, a governor, a former governor and the mayor of New York City.

Next week’s deadline is a make-or-break moment for these second-tier candidates, who risk fading into irrelevance if they aren’t among the 20 candidates on the stage in Miami.

The 13 candidates who can book their tickets to Miami include the race’s top figures. Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Julian Castro are the top-polling candidates; following a random drawing, they will be split across the two nights, with five on one night and four on the other.

But also meeting both the polling and fundraising thresholds are Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee and two lesser-known figures: Marianne Willamson, best known for authoring spiritual, self-help books, and Andrew Yang, a first-time candidate who wears a baseball cap that says “MATH” on the front as he touts his proposal for a universal basic income.

After those 13 candidates, the rest of the field gets murky. According to a POLITICO analysis, an additional seven candidates have hit the polling threshold: Michael Bennet, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell.

That list does not include Bullock — who POLITICO has previously believed to have qualified. On Thursday, the DNC told POLITICO that a pair of Washington Post/ABC News polls would not be considered eligible polls that candidates can use to qualify. One of the three polls Bullock would have relied on to qualify was a Post/ABC poll taken in January.

Bullock’s campaign was sharply critical of the announcement. “While Gov. Bullock was expanding Medicaid to one in ten Montanans despite a two-thirds Republican legislature, the DNC was making arbitrary rules behind closed doors,” Jenn Ridder, Bullock’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “The DNC’s unmasking of this rule singles out the only Democratic candidate who won a Trump state — and penalizes him for doing his job.”

A DNC official said to POLITICO that Bullock’s camp was aware of the rule before it was made public.

The rules, initially announced in February, list ABC News and The Washington Post as qualified poll sponsors, but did not give any guidance on methodology. ABC/Post polls stood out from the rest of the qualified polls because, unlike every other poll that can qualify candidates for the debate stage, the ABC/Post poll asked respondents about the Democratic primary in an open-ended question, as opposed to reading off a list of candidates.

But there was nothing laid out in the original set of rules that explicitly ruled out open-ended polling from counting for the first and second debates. Arguably, earning 1 percent in a poll in which respondents have to volunteer a candidate’s name instead of repeating it from an interviewer’s list is an even higher bar to meet. And the initial set of rules were announced after the first ABC/Post poll was already publicly released.

POLITICO was not alone in its assessment believing that Bullock has passed the threshold, before the DNC announced the Post/ABC poll will not count. Other media outlets — including MSNBC (one of the media partners for the first debate), ABC News, The Washington Post, FiveThirtyEight, and New York magazine — had all previously published analysis saying Bullock has crossed the polling threshold. Bullock is the only candidate whose debate prospects currently are hinging on the ABC/Post poll.

The DNC also publicly announced how to count a Reuters poll that had multiple samples, which affirms de Blasio as a qualifying candidate — something POLITICO’s analysis could not originally confirm.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll presented results among several samples. In one sample of all Americans, de Blasio has crossed the 1 percent bar. In another sample included in the poll, a slightly more restrictive screen of registered voters, de Blasio has not.

POLITICO had long opted to use the sample of registered voters from the May poll in its analysis as opposed to the all Americans sample, but several other outlets previously listed de Blasio as a qualifying candidate, using the all Americans sample. The DNC affirmed to POLITICO that it is counting the all Americans sample, definitively giving de Blasio his third qualifying poll.

A de Blasio campaign official told POLITICO Wednesday that de Blasio asked DNC chairman Tom Perez which sample would count in the past and was personally told that the adult sample counted. Until Thursday, the DNC had not publicly clarified which sample to count. The Reuters/Ipsos polls were also conducted online, the only qualified polls to do so.

The DNC has moved to address these disputed polls, which have long vexed those trying to forecast the debate stage, for later debates. For the debates that will be hosted in the fall, Reuters was struck as an approved poll sponsor, and a rule was instituted to explicitly disallow open-ended questions from counting.

The DNC has said they will allow no more than 20 candidates across the two nights in June — leaving no room to spare with 20 candidates having qualified, by POLITICO’s updated analysis. The DNC, is the final arbiter for who has or has not qualified for the debate.

But all hope for making the first debate stage is not lost for Bullock. There’s still six more days to go for candidates to qualify, and more polls may still come out in that time period.

If Bullock does ultimately qualify, that would make 21 candidates who have met at least one of the two criteria. The DNC has repeatedly said it would limit the first two debates to 20 participants, and it has outlined a series of tiebreakers to trim the field.

Candidates who have not crossed both thresholds will be sorted by their polling average — which is calculated by taking a candidate’s top three-highest polls, so long as those polls are from different pollsters, or the same pollster in different regions. So far, no candidate who has only crossed the polling threshold has a polling average higher than 1.5 percent.

Three of these candidates have an average of 1.3 percent: Gillibrand, Hickenlooper and Ryan. The remainder — Bennet, de Blasio, Delaney and Swalwell — have a polling average of 1 percent (Bullock could join this group).

Rep. Seth Moulton, Wayne Messam and former Sen. Mike Gravel has not crossed either threshold. They appear unlikely to hit the polling threshold, based off past results, and because 20 candidates have hit the polling threshold, it is impossible for them to qualify through donors alone.

To break any tie among candidates with identical polling averages, the DNC previously announced that it will then look at the number of qualifying polls in which a candidate received 1 percent. Delaney has four polls, but the remaining 1-percent candidates only have three polls, the bare minimum to get on stage.

If the DNC determines that more than 20 candidates have crossed the polling threshold, the difference between the 20th candidate on the stage and the 21st candidate left off could — theoretically — be determined by one candidate getting 1 percent in one more poll than the other candidate. Every single poll for lower-tier candidates could be crucial.

But with many of the lower-tier candidates frequently posting zeroes in qualified polls, it is also plausible that there’s a tie in both the polling average and in the number of qualified polls between the 20th and 21st candidate. The DNC did not answer questions about what would happen in that situation.

After the DNC confirms which 20 candidates qualified next Wednesday, there will be a random drawing — expected on June 14 — to determine the debate lineups.

The candidates will be split into two groups: one of high-polling candidates (those whose average is at or above 2 percent) and one of the lower-polling candidates. Those two groups will then be evenly and randomly divided across the two nights.

Sally Goldenberg in New York contributed to this report.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2IpUYJc
via IFTTT