A stark contrast was observed in the style of address by two presidential candidates: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump </a>and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden </a>at the rival town halls on Thursday.

Biden, on one hand, looked elaborative, empathetic in his response, which was completely different from Trump's appearance, in which he provided aggressive responses when questions related to his presidency was asked.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/peaceful-transfer-i-absolutely-want-it-says-trump-at-town-hall-meeting-335600">Peaceful transfer, I absolutely want it, says Trump at town hall meeting</a> &nbsp;

Trump continued his optimism about the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 217,000 Americans and for which he has faced a lot of flak.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-joe-biden-halts-kamala-harris-travel-after-campaign-staffers-test-positive-335540">US election 2020: Joe Biden halts Kamala Harris' travel after campaign staffers test positive</a>

"We're rounding the corner," he told NBC in Miami despite many states observing an uptick in the infections.&nbsp;

Biden, during his town hall, slammed again Trump for his response to the crisis&nbsp;

"We're in a situation where we have 210,000 plus people dead and what's he doing? Nothing. He's still not wearing masks," Biden told ABC at the event in Philadelphia.

Trump also refused to criticise QAnon, a conspiracy theory movement that propagates Trump is battling a secret war against liberal cult of Satan-worshipping paedophiles.

"I know nothing about QAnon," he said, and then continued to praise the group's stance saying it is "very much against paedophilia."

Biden received much praise for his remarks in which he committed himself in improving the atmosphere, saying "grudges don't work".

"We've got to change the nature of the way we deal with one another," the Democratic contender said.

"If I'm elected president, the first thing -- and not a joke... I'm going to pick up the phone and call them and say, 'Let's get together.'" 
&nbsp;

A stark contrast was observed in the style of address by two presidential candidates: Donald Trump and Joe Biden at the rival town halls on Thursday. Biden, on one hand, looked elaborative, empathetic in his response, which was completely different from Trump's appearance, in which he provided aggressive responses when questions related to his presidency was asked.

A stark contrast was observed in the style of address by two presidential candidates: Donald Trump and Joe Biden at the rival town halls on Thursday. Biden, on one hand, looked elaborative, empathetic in his response, which was completely different from Trump's appearance, in which he provided aggressive responses when questions related to his presidency was asked. Also read | Peaceful transfer, I absolutely want it, says Trump at town hall meeting Trump continued his optimism about the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 217,000 Americans and for which he has faced a lot of flak. Also read | US election 2020: Joe Biden halts Kamala Harris' travel after campaign staffers test positive "We're rounding the corner," he told NBC in Miami despite many states observing an uptick in the infections. Biden, during his town hall, slammed again Trump for his response to the crisis "We're in a situation where we have 210,000 plus people dead and what's he doing? Nothing. He's still not wearing masks," Biden told ABC at the event in Philadelphia. Trump also refused to criticise QAnon, a conspiracy theory movement that propagates Trump is battling a secret war against liberal cult of Satan-worshipping paedophiles. "I know nothing about QAnon," he said, and then continued to praise the group's stance saying it is "very much against paedophilia." Biden received much praise for his remarks in which he committed himself in improving the atmosphere, saying "grudges don't work". "We've got to change the nature of the way we deal with one another," the Democratic contender said. "If I'm elected president, the first thing -- and not a joke... I'm going to pick up the phone and call them and say, 'Let's get together.'"

US election 2020: Trump's coronavirus optimism continues as Joe Biden says Prez did 'nothing'

Scientific journal Nature condemned Donald Trump for 'disastrous' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Watch this video to know more.

Scientific journal Nature condemns Trump for 'disastrous' handling of pandemic

In the last <a href="https://www.wionews.com/us-election?page=1">US elections</a>&nbsp;2016, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;was not leading in the initial and exit polls. However, at the end Trump came out a winner&nbsp; which was majorly credited to the late-deciding voters.

However, this year, that might not be the case. As per a poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, it has been revealed that the late-deciding voters may not be able to save Trump&nbsp;this time.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-elections-key-issues-and-donald-trump-joe-bidens-stand-on-them-335441">Also read|&nbsp;US election's key issues and Donald Trump, Joe Biden's stand on them</a>

Reuters conducted a poll between October 09 and 13 which showed that there are very few undecided voters this year and the opinion polls may be correct and voters might pick Biden over Trump even towards the end.

The elections are scheduled for November 03 this year and will see Donald Trump and Joe Biden&nbsp;fighting for the position with Mike Pence and Kamala Harris as their respective running mates.

The polls show that&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;is currently holding a&nbsp;10-percentage-point lead nationally, with a tighter margin in the battleground states that will help to decide the election.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-how-the-states-vote-for-the-presidential-elections-335430">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: How the States vote for the Presidential elections</a>

"The candidate who is behind — Trump — needs to win undecideds at a disproportionate rate to catch up. So, if that isn’t happening, he’s not really cutting into Biden’s lead,” said Kyle Kondik, an election analyst at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

This year the change in voting pattern has majorly been due to the fear of contracting the novel coronavirus. More and&nbsp; more people are now opting for early voting and mail-in voting as people want to cautiously avoid crowded spaces.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-how-are-votes-counted-in-the-presidential-election-335422">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: How are votes counted in the presidential election?</a>

As per the unofficial figures, almost 15 million Americans have already cast their vote, which is a lot in comparison to the figure of 1.4 million early voters in the 2016 elections.

Another difference this year is that unlike the 106 elections, majority of the voters have already made up their mind, as per the opinion polls.

The Reuters/Ipsos national poll found that only about 8 per cent&nbsp;of likely voters appear to be undecided, saying either that they do not know whom to support or that they are thinking about backing a third-party candidate. This number in the last elections was twice more than this — with&nbsp;55 per cent picking Trump and only 36 per cent picking Hillary Clinton, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of voters on Election Day.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-republicans-clash-with-california-officials-over-ballot-boxes-335425">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: Republicans clash with California officials over ballot boxes</a>

The poll also found that 9 out of 10 likely Biden voters and 9 out of 10 likely Trump voters say they have locked in their decision and will not change their mind.

However, Trump&nbsp;and his team has not lost hope.&nbsp;"Our campaign is confident in the big tent, diverse coalition of support we’ve built over the last six years," said Ken Farnaso, a Trump spokesman.

(With inputs from Reuters)

In the last US elections 2016, Donald Trump was not leading in the initial and exit polls. However, at the end Trump came out a winner which was majorly credited to the late-deciding voters.

In the last US elections 2016, Donald Trump was not leading in the initial and exit polls. However, at the end Trump came out a winner which was majorly credited to the late-deciding voters. However, this year, that might not be the case. As per a poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, it has been revealed that the late-deciding voters may not be able to save Trump this time. Also read| US election's key issues and Donald Trump, Joe Biden's stand on them Reuters conducted a poll between October 09 and 13 which showed that there are very few undecided voters this year and the opinion polls may be correct and voters might pick Biden over Trump even towards the end. The elections are scheduled for November 03 this year and will see Donald Trump and Joe Biden fighting for the position with Mike Pence and Kamala Harris as their respective running mates. The polls show that Biden is currently holding a 10-percentage-point lead nationally, with a tighter margin in the battleground states that will help to decide the election. Also read| US election 2020: How the States vote for the Presidential elections "The candidate who is behind — Trump — needs to win undecideds at a disproportionate rate to catch up. So, if that isn’t happening, he’s not really cutting into Biden’s lead,” said Kyle Kondik, an election analyst at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. This year the change in voting pattern has majorly been due to the fear of contracting the novel coronavirus. More and more people are now opting for early voting and mail-in voting as people want to cautiously avoid crowded spaces. Also read| US election 2020: How are votes counted in the presidential election? As per the unofficial figures, almost 15 million Americans have already cast their vote, which is a lot in comparison to the figure of 1.4 million early voters in the 2016 elections. Another difference this year is that unlike the 106 elections, majority of the voters have already made up their mind, as per the opinion polls. The Reuters/Ipsos national poll found that only about 8 per cent of likely voters appear to be undecided, saying either that they do not know whom to support or that they are thinking about backing a third-party candidate. This number in the last elections was twice more than this — with 55 per cent picking Trump and only 36 per cent picking Hillary Clinton, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of voters on Election Day. Also read| US election 2020: Republicans clash with California officials over ballot boxes The poll also found that 9 out of 10 likely Biden voters and 9 out of 10 likely Trump voters say they have locked in their decision and will not change their mind. However, Trump and his team has not lost hope. "Our campaign is confident in the big tent, diverse coalition of support we’ve built over the last six years," said Ken Farnaso, a Trump spokesman. (With inputs from Reuters)

US election 2020: Donald Trump cannot rely on late voters this year, reports say

The line was familiar. The follow up was not.

Sen. Kamala Harris came ready to press her case against Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the second day of this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, asking if she had been aware of President Donald Trump’s promise to nominate judges who would repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

The question concluded with one of Harris’ characteristic refrains, one she memorably leveled against Justice Brett Kavanaugh two years ago: “I’d appreciate a yes-or-no answer, please.”

Like Kavanaugh, Barrett seemed briefly perplexed by Harris. “I want to be very, very careful,” Barrett said. “I’m under oath.”

But unlike then, Harris let Barrett’s tentative answer slide, hinting at what could become her new professional reality as a No. 2 to the most powerful man in politics.

Before joining the Democratic ticket as Joe Biden’s running mate, Harris was known as a politician with a withering prosecutorial style and a skill for crafting viral clips. She built her national brand on high-stakes moments — judiciary hearings, the Democratic primary debate stage — that she molded to her advantage, her years as a district attorney on display as she grilled adversaries.

Now she is trying to balance her penchant for forceful exchanges with her duties as the vice-presidential nominee. After all, being vice president means checking your ego at the Oval Office door.

From her opening remarks to her questioning on Wednesday, she cut a more restrained profile, using her platform at the confirmation hearings to amplify Biden’s message while studiously avoiding any maneuvers that could jeopardize his lead in the polls. Even her decision to monitor the proceedings from her Senate office rather than in person because of the dangers posed by the coronavirus reinforced Biden’s case that his administration would be a more responsible steward of public health than Trump’s.

Her first round of questioning focused squarely on health care and women’s reproductive rights, closely adhering to the campaign’s strategy of linking the Supreme Court vacancy to two issues of deep importance to Democrats.

“Let’s not make any mistake about it: Allowing President Trump to determine who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a champion for women’s rights and a critical vote in so many decisions that sustained the right to choose — poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country,” Harris said Tuesday.

On Wednesday, she ran through a list of top-of-mind Democratic issues, quizzing Barrett on racial justice, climate change and workers’ rights. Yet, even as she repeatedly pressed the judge, her questioning yielded no immediately explosive moments — both a reflection of Barrett’s deftness as a judicial nominee and Harris’ increasing awareness of her new position.

“Do you agree that voting discrimination exists, based on race, in America in any form?” Harris asked.

Her measured performance reflects the way many Democrats view the battle for the Supreme Court: a fight they will lose in service of one they might win.

With Republicans holding a firm majority in the Senate, Democrats recognize they will almost certainly not be able to prevent Barrett’s confirmation to the court, and many cautioned against criticizing her directly. Instead, Democratic activists, officials and the campaign are urging members of the party to filter their arguments through the lens of the election and to focus on issues that play well among swing voters.

For Harris, there is little political benefit in harsh personal attacks on Barrett. The committee questioning is unlikely to change the outcome of a confirmation hearing, but a misstep could damage the Democratic presidential ticket’s chances with more moderate voters. And the kind of liberal voter who is following a Twitter play-by-play of the confirmation hearings — and who would have seen a critical exchange — is already energized to support Biden.

The consolation prize for losing the court for a generation, some Democrats privately argue, could be winning control of the Senate — and the White House.

Along with Harris, many Democratic senators focused their questions on the possibility that Barrett would vote with the conservative majority on the court to overturn the health care law, a message similar to the one that helped Democrats win control of the House in 2018.

The discussion of health care emerged as such a strong theme that even Republicans couldn’t help noticing.

“At times, I have been confused and I thought we were on the Health Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee, because it has been such a central talking point for every Democrat,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “I get that’s their election message.”

Harris and Democrats saw a similar opportunity to mobilize suburban women on abortion rights, given Barrett’s well-documented personal opposition to abortion and criticism of Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Most Americans say that abortions should be legal with some restrictions.

While some Republicans praised Barrett’s opposition to abortion rights, they consciously chose not to make the issue a central focus of their questioning — unlike their Democratic opponents.

For the Biden campaign, Harris’ disciplined performance came as a relief. A former rival who landed some of the toughest attacks on Biden from the debate stage during the primary, Harris spent much of her vice-presidential vetting process persuading those closest to the former vice president that she would be focused on his campaign, rather than on her future ambitions. Some Biden allies still view her with lingering mistrust.

Harris’ approach during the confirmation hearings follows a similarly deliberate performance during vice-presidential debate last week, aimed at keeping the pressure on the Republican ticket rather than reshaping the race.

Though she sharply challenged Vice President Mike Pence on the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus — calling it “the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country” — the debate had none of the fireworks or television-ready lines that have punctuated some of her past encounters.

Still, there have been flashes of Harris’ combativeness.

“I imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks that helped prepare you for this nomination hearing,” Harris said icily on Tuesday when Barrett equivocated on whether she knew of Trump’s promise to appoint judges who would overturn the health care law. “Did they inform you of the president’s statements and that this might be a question that was presented to you during the course of this hearing?”

But mostly, she proved herself a loyal soldier, just as she had convinced the Biden campaign she would be. 
&nbsp;

The line was familiar. The follow up was not. Sen. Kamala Harris came ready to press her case against Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the second day of this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, asking if she had been aware of President Donald Trump’s promise to nominate judges who would repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

The line was familiar. The follow up was not. Sen. Kamala Harris came ready to press her case against Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the second day of this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, asking if she had been aware of President Donald Trump’s promise to nominate judges who would repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. The question concluded with one of Harris’ characteristic refrains, one she memorably leveled against Justice Brett Kavanaugh two years ago: “I’d appreciate a yes-or-no answer, please.” Like Kavanaugh, Barrett seemed briefly perplexed by Harris. “I want to be very, very careful,” Barrett said. “I’m under oath.” But unlike then, Harris let Barrett’s tentative answer slide, hinting at what could become her new professional reality as a No. 2 to the most powerful man in politics. Before joining the Democratic ticket as Joe Biden’s running mate, Harris was known as a politician with a withering prosecutorial style and a skill for crafting viral clips. She built her national brand on high-stakes moments — judiciary hearings, the Democratic primary debate stage — that she molded to her advantage, her years as a district attorney on display as she grilled adversaries. Now she is trying to balance her penchant for forceful exchanges with her duties as the vice-presidential nominee. After all, being vice president means checking your ego at the Oval Office door. From her opening remarks to her questioning on Wednesday, she cut a more restrained profile, using her platform at the confirmation hearings to amplify Biden’s message while studiously avoiding any maneuvers that could jeopardize his lead in the polls. Even her decision to monitor the proceedings from her Senate office rather than in person because of the dangers posed by the coronavirus reinforced Biden’s case that his administration would be a more responsible steward of public health than Trump’s. Her first round of questioning focused squarely on health care and women’s reproductive rights, closely adhering to the campaign’s strategy of linking the Supreme Court vacancy to two issues of deep importance to Democrats. “Let’s not make any mistake about it: Allowing President Trump to determine who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a champion for women’s rights and a critical vote in so many decisions that sustained the right to choose — poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country,” Harris said Tuesday. On Wednesday, she ran through a list of top-of-mind Democratic issues, quizzing Barrett on racial justice, climate change and workers’ rights. Yet, even as she repeatedly pressed the judge, her questioning yielded no immediately explosive moments — both a reflection of Barrett’s deftness as a judicial nominee and Harris’ increasing awareness of her new position. “Do you agree that voting discrimination exists, based on race, in America in any form?” Harris asked. Her measured performance reflects the way many Democrats view the battle for the Supreme Court: a fight they will lose in service of one they might win. With Republicans holding a firm majority in the Senate, Democrats recognize they will almost certainly not be able to prevent Barrett’s confirmation to the court, and many cautioned against criticizing her directly. Instead, Democratic activists, officials and the campaign are urging members of the party to filter their arguments through the lens of the election and to focus on issues that play well among swing voters. For Harris, there is little political benefit in harsh personal attacks on Barrett. The committee questioning is unlikely to change the outcome of a confirmation hearing, but a misstep could damage the Democratic presidential ticket’s chances with more moderate voters. And the kind of liberal voter who is following a Twitter play-by-play of the confirmation hearings — and who would have seen a critical exchange — is already energized to support Biden. The consolation prize for losing the court for a generation, some Democrats privately argue, could be winning control of the Senate — and the White House. Along with Harris, many Democratic senators focused their questions on the possibility that Barrett would vote with the conservative majority on the court to overturn the health care law, a message similar to the one that helped Democrats win control of the House in 2018. The discussion of health care emerged as such a strong theme that even Republicans couldn’t help noticing. “At times, I have been confused and I thought we were on the Health Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee, because it has been such a central talking point for every Democrat,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “I get that’s their election message.” Harris and Democrats saw a similar opportunity to mobilize suburban women on abortion rights, given Barrett’s well-documented personal opposition to abortion and criticism of Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Most Americans say that abortions should be legal with some restrictions. While some Republicans praised Barrett’s opposition to abortion rights, they consciously chose not to make the issue a central focus of their questioning — unlike their Democratic opponents. For the Biden campaign, Harris’ disciplined performance came as a relief. A former rival who landed some of the toughest attacks on Biden from the debate stage during the primary, Harris spent much of her vice-presidential vetting process persuading those closest to the former vice president that she would be focused on his campaign, rather than on her future ambitions. Some Biden allies still view her with lingering mistrust. Harris’ approach during the confirmation hearings follows a similarly deliberate performance during vice-presidential debate last week, aimed at keeping the pressure on the Republican ticket rather than reshaping the race. Though she sharply challenged Vice President Mike Pence on the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus — calling it “the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country” — the debate had none of the fireworks or television-ready lines that have punctuated some of her past encounters. Still, there have been flashes of Harris’ combativeness. “I imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks that helped prepare you for this nomination hearing,” Harris said icily on Tuesday when Barrett equivocated on whether she knew of Trump’s promise to appoint judges who would overturn the health care law. “Did they inform you of the president’s statements and that this might be a question that was presented to you during the course of this hearing?” But mostly, she proved herself a loyal soldier, just as she had convinced the Biden campaign she would be.

Harris’ new strategy: A hearing appearance that doesn’t make waves

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/republican-party">Republican Party </a>clashed with California authorities after it placed ballot boxes at conservative churches, gun shops and other areas of the state.&nbsp;

A spokesperson of the party claimed that the boxes are kept simply for "ballot harvesting," which let third parties collect and deliver ballots in a few US states.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-how-are-votes-counted-in-the-presidential-election-335422">US election 2020: How are votes counted in the presidential election?</a>

"We're going to continue our ballot harvesting programs," said California Republican Party spokesperson Hector Barajas to local CBS station on Monday, as quoted by news agency AFP.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fumes-as-facebook-twitter-limit-reach-of-smoking-gun-article-on-biden-and-his-son-335344">Trump fumes as Facebook, Twitter limit reach of 'smoking gun' article on Biden and his son</a>

Californian authorities argue that the boxes are "misleading" voters and have given an ultimatum to the party to remove them by Thursday.&nbsp;

"Misleading voters is wrong, regardless of who is doing it," said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.&nbsp;

"Political parties and campaigns can engage in get out the vote efforts, but they cannot violate state law," Padilla added in a statement.&nbsp;

"The unofficial, unauthorized drop boxes in question violate state law and jeopardize the security of voters' ballots."

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned Republicans of civil or criminal punishment if they fail to remove the ballots.&nbsp;

The Republicans, however, are looking in no mood to remove the boxes as its spokesperson said they would erase the word "official", but they would themselves not remove the boxes.&nbsp;

"Show us within the law, where we should stop," Barajas said.&nbsp;

"Tell us within the law, where we’re breaking the law." 
&nbsp;

The Republican Party clashed with California authorities after it placed ballot boxes at conservative churches, gun shops and other areas of the state. A spokesperson of the party claimed that the boxes are kept simply for "ballot harvesting," which let third parties collect and deliver ballots in a few US states.

The Republican Party clashed with California authorities after it placed ballot boxes at conservative churches, gun shops and other areas of the state. A spokesperson of the party claimed that the boxes are kept simply for "ballot harvesting," which let third parties collect and deliver ballots in a few US states. Also read | US election 2020: How are votes counted in the presidential election? "We're going to continue our ballot harvesting programs," said California Republican Party spokesperson Hector Barajas to local CBS station on Monday, as quoted by news agency AFP. Also read | Trump fumes as Facebook, Twitter limit reach of 'smoking gun' article on Biden and his son Californian authorities argue that the boxes are "misleading" voters and have given an ultimatum to the party to remove them by Thursday. "Misleading voters is wrong, regardless of who is doing it," said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla. "Political parties and campaigns can engage in get out the vote efforts, but they cannot violate state law," Padilla added in a statement. "The unofficial, unauthorized drop boxes in question violate state law and jeopardize the security of voters' ballots." State Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned Republicans of civil or criminal punishment if they fail to remove the ballots. The Republicans, however, are looking in no mood to remove the boxes as its spokesperson said they would erase the word "official", but they would themselves not remove the boxes. "Show us within the law, where we should stop," Barajas said. "Tell us within the law, where we’re breaking the law."

US election 2020: Republicans clash with California officials over ballot boxes

Day 3 of the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is underway in Washington. Watch report.

US Supreme Court Nominee: Day 3 of Barrett's conformation hearing

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was "time to dissent" against attempts to "push through" Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on US Supreme Court before US Elections due on November 3. Amy Coney Barrett is US President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created due to passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.&nbsp;

"This is a moment for us to dissent against President Trump's and Mitch McConnell's desire to push through, the confirmation of a successor before election day," said Clinton.

Clinton said that it was Justice Ginsburg's "dying wish" that a new judge not be appointed before American people have had their say through the ballot. Hillary Clinton was speaking at a livestream event called Honour Her Wish.

US President Donald Trump and Republican Party have made it their priority to confirm Amy Coney Barrett on Supreme Court before November 3 elections.&nbsp;

Republican Party and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are facing criticism for what some say is their 'hypocrisy'

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kamala-harris-grills-barrett-on-obamacare-she-sidesteps-question-335107">Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question</a>

In 2016, when then US President Barack Obama wanted to fill Supreme Court vacancy, McConnell had refused to hold Senate hearings saying such a move to fill Supreme Court vacancy in an election year should not be made.

But McConnell himself is now pushing for confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett when elections are literally weeks away.

Why&nbsp;the hurry

Republicans and Trump himself envisage that Supreme Court may have to step-in to declare winner of US Elections 2020 just like it did in 2000. In such a case, Trump may have an advantage if conservative judges hold 6-3 majority, which they will if Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed in the Supreme Court.

Currently, Republicans hold a 57-43 majority in the Senate and Barrett is expected to get confirmed easily in the hearings.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was "time to dissent" against attempts to "push through" Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on US Supreme Court before US Elections due on November 3.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was "time to dissent" against attempts to "push through" Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on US Supreme Court before US Elections due on November 3. Amy Coney Barrett is US President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created due to passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "This is a moment for us to dissent against President Trump's and Mitch McConnell's desire to push through, the confirmation of a successor before election day," said Clinton. Clinton said that it was Justice Ginsburg's "dying wish" that a new judge not be appointed before American people have had their say through the ballot. Hillary Clinton was speaking at a livestream event called Honour Her Wish. US President Donald Trump and Republican Party have made it their priority to confirm Amy Coney Barrett on Supreme Court before November 3 elections. Republican Party and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are facing criticism for what some say is their 'hypocrisy' Also Read | Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question In 2016, when then US President Barack Obama wanted to fill Supreme Court vacancy, McConnell had refused to hold Senate hearings saying such a move to fill Supreme Court vacancy in an election year should not be made. But McConnell himself is now pushing for confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett when elections are literally weeks away. Why the hurry Republicans and Trump himself envisage that Supreme Court may have to step-in to declare winner of US Elections 2020 just like it did in 2000. In such a case, Trump may have an advantage if conservative judges hold 6-3 majority, which they will if Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed in the Supreme Court. Currently, Republicans hold a 57-43 majority in the Senate and Barrett is expected to get confirmed easily in the hearings.

Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections

US President Donald Trump and Democratic rival Joe Biden fanned out to critical battleground states on Tuesday as the presidential race entered a final, intense phase amid record numbers of early votes cast.

US Election 2020: Joe Biden, Donald Trump duel in battleground states

Joe Biden holds a significant lead in the pivotal states of Michigan and Wisconsin, with President Donald Trump so far failing to retain the overwhelming advantage he enjoyed among white voters there in 2016, according to surveys from The New York Times and Siena College on Monday.

Overall, Biden led Trump by 8 percentage points in Michigan, 48% to 40%, among likely voters. His lead in Wisconsin was slightly larger, 51% to 41%.

The new results, along with recent Times/Siena surveys from elsewhere in the Northern battlegrounds, suggest that the president has not yet managed to reassemble his winning coalition across the region. He faces modest but significant defections among white and independent voters, while facing a groundswell of opposition from those who voted for a minor-party candidate or didn’t vote at all in 2016.

The president’s path to reelection is narrow if he doesn’t win either Wisconsin or Michigan. If Biden puts those two states in his column, along with the states carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016, he will hold 258 electoral votes, putting him on the doorstep of the 270 needed to win.

Nonetheless, the Trump campaign appears to recognize that the two states no longer represent his likeliest path to reelection. Over the past month, the campaign has reduced its television ad spending in the two states in favor of an apparent push to sweep Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania, where Times/Siena surveys conducted since the first debate show the president trailing by somewhat narrower but still significant 5-to-8-point margins.

Four years ago, Trump’s strength among white voters without a college degree helped him breach the so-called blue wall of traditionally Democratic Northern battleground states, including Michigan and Wisconsin. The new surveys show him well short of matching 2016 levels of support among white voters, leaving the president with a daunting deficit with just three weeks until the election.

Overall, Biden leads by 8 points among white voters in Wisconsin and trails by just 1 percentage point among white voters in Michigan.

While Trump’s surprising victory in 2016 lent him an aura of political invincibility, an Upshot analysis of more than 5,000 respondents to Times/Siena surveys in the Northern battleground states suggests that his winning coalition was always a fragile one. The president’s margin of victory was extremely narrow, and he failed to reach 50% of the vote in each of the decisive states. He also did so against an unusually unpopular opponent, Clinton.

In the years after her defeat, Democrats agonized over whether their best path to the presidency was to lure back the white, working-class voters who’d defected to the president or to increase turnout among Democratic voters who may have stayed home or supported minor-party candidates like Jill Stein. The Times/Siena surveys suggest that Biden is succeeding on both fronts, by at once peeling off a modest but crucial sliver of the president’s former supporters and benefiting from a significant advantage among voters who either backed a minor-party candidate four years ago or didn’t vote at all.

Overall, recent Times/Siena respondents in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Ohio indicate that they backed Trump by a 2.6-point margin in 2016, the same as his actual 2.6-point margin of victory across the Northern battlegrounds. Now, they back Biden across all six states.

How the Northern Battlegrounds Have Gone From Trump +3 to Biden +6

People who have switched sides since 2016 make up less than 4% of registered voters. But they effectively pack twice the punch of other voters, as they have both deducted a vote from their former preferred candidate and added one to the candidate they now support. Alone, these switches would be enough to give Biden a fairly comfortable victory, even without any change in the composition of the electorate or in the attitudes of voters who back a minor-party candidate.

Although the sample is small, the president’s Midwestern defectors appear to be surprisingly representative of his supporters overall, at least demographically. They are only slightly likelier to be women, college graduates or suburbanites.

Biden also holds a significant lead among respondents who say they backed a minor-party candidate, like Gary Johnson or Stein.

Biden’s lead is largest among the former supporters of Stein, who say they back him, 59% to 9%.

Biden’s lead among the former supporters of Johnson is smaller, 38% to 14%, with this year’s Libertarian nominee, Jo Jorgensen, winning 29% of their support.

Biden’s lead would expand further to 7 points if registered voters who didn’t vote in 2016 turned out. Of course, not everyone will vote in the end, but he holds a 48% to 34% lead among this group.

Put it together, and Biden leads by 6 points across the Midwestern battlegrounds, a significant improvement over Clinton’s nearly 3-point deficit across the region four years ago. It’s almost exactly the same as Barack Obama’s 6-point victory in the same states in 2012.

But while the results seem to represent a restoration of the traditional Democratic coalition in the Midwest, a closer analysis reveals that the president’s breakthrough victory in the region four years ago has had a lasting effect on the region’s partisan loyalties and political geography.

Unlike in 2012, self-identified Republicans now outnumber Democrats in Times/Siena polls of Wisconsin, Michigan and even Pennsylvania, where the Democratic registration advantage remains significant but has dwindled in recent months.

Instead, Biden leads with an overwhelming advantage among independent voters, who back him by 20 percentage points in both states.

And although Biden’s gains among white voters are broad, spanning both those with and without a college degree, he fares far better than Obama did among white college graduates, while faring worse among those without a four-year degree. As a result, Biden still trails narrowly in the precincts that flipped from Obama to Trump, while holding an overwhelming advantage in the smaller number of predominantly suburban precincts that backed Mitt Romney in 2012 and then supported Clinton in 2016.

In Michigan, Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, faces a surprisingly strong challenge from John James, a graduate of West Point who is considered one of the Republicans’ top recruits of the cycle. Peters leads by just 1 percentage point, 43% to 42% among likely voters, a significant narrowing of the race since a Times/Siena survey in June that found Peters leading, 41% to 31%.

The relatively high number of undecided voters reflects the relatively low profile of the two candidates. Around 20% of voters do not have an opinion on either of them. James’ favorability ratings have increased to 45% favorable versus 35% unfavorable, up from 36% favorable and 29% unfavorable in the June survey. Part of Peters’ weakness is that he has thus far failed to match Biden’s tallies among nonwhite voters, who disproportionately remain undecided. It remains to be seen whether James, who is Black, will ultimately make significant inroads among these voters.

A closely fought race in Michigan complicates the Democratic path to flipping control of the Senate, which has looked increasingly plausible as several Senate Republican incumbents have fared worse than the president in surveys. Yet here it is the incumbent Democrat faring worse than Biden, and a Republican win in Michigan would force Democrats to pick up a win in a state that Trump won comfortably in 2016, like Iowa or Montana, to win Senate control.

Public opinion polls have been remarkably stable this year, through the pandemic, the economic crisis and social unrest. The surveys of Wisconsin and Michigan were conducted during another tumultuous week in the campaign, and they offered little indication that any of the news had worked to the president’s favor.

The surveys began after Trump was released from the hospital, and there was no immediate indication that his political standing recovered along with his health. Most voters in Wisconsin and Michigan expected that the president would recover quickly from the illness, echoing findings from Times/Siena surveys fielded while he was hospitalized.

The president did not appear poised to benefit from the public’s sympathy; by at least a 2-1 margin in both states, voters said the president did not take adequate precautions to protect against the coronavirus.

The survey in Wisconsin was conducted entirely after the vice-presidential debate, and attitudes about it fell along predictable partisan lines. Biden’s supporters said Sen. Kamala Harris won, 73% to 3%, while Trump’s supporters said Vice President Mike Pence won by a nearly identical margin of 74% to 2%. Overall, voters thought Harris defeated Pence in the debate, 40% to 33%, with her advantage appearing to reflect little more than Biden’s overall advantage in the presidential race.

The Wisconsin survey was also conducted entirely after the president announced he would not participate in the virtual town hall debate proposed by the presidential debate commission. Wisconsin voters said they supported the proposed virtual town hall format, 58% to 34%, and said Trump should have decided to participate in the debate, 70% to 21%.

This week, the president might be on firmer political ground; the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court have begun. A plurality of voters in both states said they supported her nomination and thought the Senate should act on it before the election.

Joe Biden holds a significant lead in the pivotal states of Michigan and Wisconsin, with President Donald Trump so far failing to retain the overwhelming advantage he enjoyed among white voters there in 2016, according to surveys from The New York Times and Siena College on Monday.

Joe Biden holds a significant lead in the pivotal states of Michigan and Wisconsin, with President Donald Trump so far failing to retain the overwhelming advantage he enjoyed among white voters there in 2016, according to surveys from The New York Times and Siena College on Monday. Overall, Biden led Trump by 8 percentage points in Michigan, 48% to 40%, among likely voters. His lead in Wisconsin was slightly larger, 51% to 41%. The new results, along with recent Times/Siena surveys from elsewhere in the Northern battlegrounds, suggest that the president has not yet managed to reassemble his winning coalition across the region. He faces modest but significant defections among white and independent voters, while facing a groundswell of opposition from those who voted for a minor-party candidate or didn’t vote at all in 2016. The president’s path to reelection is narrow if he doesn’t win either Wisconsin or Michigan. If Biden puts those two states in his column, along with the states carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016, he will hold 258 electoral votes, putting him on the doorstep of the 270 needed to win. Nonetheless, the Trump campaign appears to recognize that the two states no longer represent his likeliest path to reelection. Over the past month, the campaign has reduced its television ad spending in the two states in favor of an apparent push to sweep Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania, where Times/Siena surveys conducted since the first debate show the president trailing by somewhat narrower but still significant 5-to-8-point margins. Four years ago, Trump’s strength among white voters without a college degree helped him breach the so-called blue wall of traditionally Democratic Northern battleground states, including Michigan and Wisconsin. The new surveys show him well short of matching 2016 levels of support among white voters, leaving the president with a daunting deficit with just three weeks until the election. Overall, Biden leads by 8 points among white voters in Wisconsin and trails by just 1 percentage point among white voters in Michigan. While Trump’s surprising victory in 2016 lent him an aura of political invincibility, an Upshot analysis of more than 5,000 respondents to Times/Siena surveys in the Northern battleground states suggests that his winning coalition was always a fragile one. The president’s margin of victory was extremely narrow, and he failed to reach 50% of the vote in each of the decisive states. He also did so against an unusually unpopular opponent, Clinton. In the years after her defeat, Democrats agonized over whether their best path to the presidency was to lure back the white, working-class voters who’d defected to the president or to increase turnout among Democratic voters who may have stayed home or supported minor-party candidates like Jill Stein. The Times/Siena surveys suggest that Biden is succeeding on both fronts, by at once peeling off a modest but crucial sliver of the president’s former supporters and benefiting from a significant advantage among voters who either backed a minor-party candidate four years ago or didn’t vote at all. Overall, recent Times/Siena respondents in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Ohio indicate that they backed Trump by a 2.6-point margin in 2016, the same as his actual 2.6-point margin of victory across the Northern battlegrounds. Now, they back Biden across all six states. How the Northern Battlegrounds Have Gone From Trump +3 to Biden +6 People who have switched sides since 2016 make up less than 4% of registered voters. But they effectively pack twice the punch of other voters, as they have both deducted a vote from their former preferred candidate and added one to the candidate they now support. Alone, these switches would be enough to give Biden a fairly comfortable victory, even without any change in the composition of the electorate or in the attitudes of voters who back a minor-party candidate. Although the sample is small, the president’s Midwestern defectors appear to be surprisingly representative of his supporters overall, at least demographically. They are only slightly likelier to be women, college graduates or suburbanites. Biden also holds a significant lead among respondents who say they backed a minor-party candidate, like Gary Johnson or Stein. Biden’s lead is largest among the former supporters of Stein, who say they back him, 59% to 9%. Biden’s lead among the former supporters of Johnson is smaller, 38% to 14%, with this year’s Libertarian nominee, Jo Jorgensen, winning 29% of their support. Biden’s lead would expand further to 7 points if registered voters who didn’t vote in 2016 turned out. Of course, not everyone will vote in the end, but he holds a 48% to 34% lead among this group. Put it together, and Biden leads by 6 points across the Midwestern battlegrounds, a significant improvement over Clinton’s nearly 3-point deficit across the region four years ago. It’s almost exactly the same as Barack Obama’s 6-point victory in the same states in 2012. But while the results seem to represent a restoration of the traditional Democratic coalition in the Midwest, a closer analysis reveals that the president’s breakthrough victory in the region four years ago has had a lasting effect on the region’s partisan loyalties and political geography. Unlike in 2012, self-identified Republicans now outnumber Democrats in Times/Siena polls of Wisconsin, Michigan and even Pennsylvania, where the Democratic registration advantage remains significant but has dwindled in recent months. Instead, Biden leads with an overwhelming advantage among independent voters, who back him by 20 percentage points in both states. And although Biden’s gains among white voters are broad, spanning both those with and without a college degree, he fares far better than Obama did among white college graduates, while faring worse among those without a four-year degree. As a result, Biden still trails narrowly in the precincts that flipped from Obama to Trump, while holding an overwhelming advantage in the smaller number of predominantly suburban precincts that backed Mitt Romney in 2012 and then supported Clinton in 2016. In Michigan, Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, faces a surprisingly strong challenge from John James, a graduate of West Point who is considered one of the Republicans’ top recruits of the cycle. Peters leads by just 1 percentage point, 43% to 42% among likely voters, a significant narrowing of the race since a Times/Siena survey in June that found Peters leading, 41% to 31%. The relatively high number of undecided voters reflects the relatively low profile of the two candidates. Around 20% of voters do not have an opinion on either of them. James’ favorability ratings have increased to 45% favorable versus 35% unfavorable, up from 36% favorable and 29% unfavorable in the June survey. Part of Peters’ weakness is that he has thus far failed to match Biden’s tallies among nonwhite voters, who disproportionately remain undecided. It remains to be seen whether James, who is Black, will ultimately make significant inroads among these voters. A closely fought race in Michigan complicates the Democratic path to flipping control of the Senate, which has looked increasingly plausible as several Senate Republican incumbents have fared worse than the president in surveys. Yet here it is the incumbent Democrat faring worse than Biden, and a Republican win in Michigan would force Democrats to pick up a win in a state that Trump won comfortably in 2016, like Iowa or Montana, to win Senate control. Public opinion polls have been remarkably stable this year, through the pandemic, the economic crisis and social unrest. The surveys of Wisconsin and Michigan were conducted during another tumultuous week in the campaign, and they offered little indication that any of the news had worked to the president’s favor. The surveys began after Trump was released from the hospital, and there was no immediate indication that his political standing recovered along with his health. Most voters in Wisconsin and Michigan expected that the president would recover quickly from the illness, echoing findings from Times/Siena surveys fielded while he was hospitalized. The president did not appear poised to benefit from the public’s sympathy; by at least a 2-1 margin in both states, voters said the president did not take adequate precautions to protect against the coronavirus. The survey in Wisconsin was conducted entirely after the vice-presidential debate, and attitudes about it fell along predictable partisan lines. Biden’s supporters said Sen. Kamala Harris won, 73% to 3%, while Trump’s supporters said Vice President Mike Pence won by a nearly identical margin of 74% to 2%. Overall, voters thought Harris defeated Pence in the debate, 40% to 33%, with her advantage appearing to reflect little more than Biden’s overall advantage in the presidential race. The Wisconsin survey was also conducted entirely after the president announced he would not participate in the virtual town hall debate proposed by the presidential debate commission. Wisconsin voters said they supported the proposed virtual town hall format, 58% to 34%, and said Trump should have decided to participate in the debate, 70% to 21%. This week, the president might be on firmer political ground; the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court have begun. A plurality of voters in both states said they supported her nomination and thought the Senate should act on it before the election.

Trump defectors help Biden build leads in Wisconsin and Michigan

President Donald Trump will try to put his bout with COVID-19 behind him when he returns to the campaign trail on Monday, beginning a three-week sprint to the November&nbsp;3 US&nbsp;election with a rally in the battleground state of Florida.

The event at an airport in Sanford, Florida, will be Trump's first campaign rally since he disclosed on Oct. 2 that he tested positive for COVID-19. Trump, who spent three nights in the hospital for treatment, said on Sunday he had fully recovered and was no longer infectious, but did not say directly whether he had tested negative for the coronavirus.

The Republican president, 74, is seeking to change the dynamics of a race that national opinion polls and some state polls show he is losing to Democratic challenger Joe Biden, 77.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/opinions-blogs/donald-trumps-alternate-constitutional-reality-334422" hreflang="en">Donald Trump’s alternate constitutional reality</a>

For months, Trump had worked furiously to shift public attention away from the virus and his handling of the pandemic, which has infected nearly 7.7 million people in the United States, killed more than 214,000 and put millions out of work.

His own illness has put the spotlight squarely on his coronavirus response during the closing stretch of the race.

In a sign of fresh optimism, Biden heads on Monday to Ohio, a state Trump won by 8 percentage points in 2016 and almost certainly must carry again to win. It is Biden's second campaign trip in as many weeks to Ohio, which was once thought out of reach but where polls now show a tight race.

Trump's rally in Florida, and planned rallies in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Iowa on Wednesday and North Carolina on Thursday, will be watched closely to see whether the president has reshaped his campaign approach since contracting the virus.

Critics fault him for failing to encourage supporters at campaign events, and even White House staff, to wear protective masks and abide by social-distancing guidelines. At least 11 close Trump aides have tested positive for the coronavirus.

Standing alone on a White House balcony on Saturday, a maskless Trump urged hundreds of largely Black and Latino supporters to help get out the vote. Most in the crowd wore masks but ignored social-distancing guidelines.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/for-trump-defying-mideast-truisms-produced-breakthroughs-and-backfires-334656" hreflang="en">For Trump, defying Mideast truisms produced breakthroughs and backfires</a>

Biden, who has said it is irresponsible for any candidate to hold events where attendees are not wearing masks or engaging in social distancing, lashed out at the president's approach.

"President Trump comes to Sanford today bringing nothing but reckless behavior, divisive rhetoric, and fear mongering," Biden, the Democratic former vice president said in a statement.

FLORIDA UP FOR GRABS

Trump told Fox News in an interview on Sunday that he felt good and pointed to his physician's memo from Saturday saying he had taken a test showing he was no longer infectious.

"I passed the highest test, the highest standards, and I'm in great shape," Trump told "Sunday Morning Futures."

Trump also said, without producing evidence, that he was now immune, an assertion that drew a flag from Twitter for violating the social media platform's rules about misleading information related to COVID-19.

The scientific research has been inconclusive on how long people who have recovered from COVID-19 have antibodies and are protected from a second infection.

Most recent polls in Florida, where a Trump loss would dramatically narrow his path to re-election, show Biden with a small lead. Trump won Florida over Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 by just 1.2 percentage points, which helped propel him to the White House.

On his visit to Ohio, Biden will deliver a speech in Toledo meant to undermine what polls show is Trump's last greatest strength, the view among some voters that the former real estate entrepreneur is better on handling the economy.

Biden also will attend a get-out-the-vote event in Cincinnati, his campaign said.

Trump has pulled back his advertising in Ohio in recent days, while Biden has increased his, another sign of the opportunity he and his fellow Democrats see to make more states competitive than they initially imagined.

President Donald Trump will try to put his bout with COVID-19 behind him when he returns to the campaign trail on Monday, beginning a three-week sprint to the November 3 US election with a rally in the battleground state of Florida.

President Donald Trump will try to put his bout with COVID-19 behind him when he returns to the campaign trail on Monday, beginning a three-week sprint to the November 3 US election with a rally in the battleground state of Florida. The event at an airport in Sanford, Florida, will be Trump's first campaign rally since he disclosed on Oct. 2 that he tested positive for COVID-19. Trump, who spent three nights in the hospital for treatment, said on Sunday he had fully recovered and was no longer infectious, but did not say directly whether he had tested negative for the coronavirus. The Republican president, 74, is seeking to change the dynamics of a race that national opinion polls and some state polls show he is losing to Democratic challenger Joe Biden, 77. Also read: Donald Trump’s alternate constitutional reality For months, Trump had worked furiously to shift public attention away from the virus and his handling of the pandemic, which has infected nearly 7.7 million people in the United States, killed more than 214,000 and put millions out of work. His own illness has put the spotlight squarely on his coronavirus response during the closing stretch of the race. In a sign of fresh optimism, Biden heads on Monday to Ohio, a state Trump won by 8 percentage points in 2016 and almost certainly must carry again to win. It is Biden's second campaign trip in as many weeks to Ohio, which was once thought out of reach but where polls now show a tight race. Trump's rally in Florida, and planned rallies in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Iowa on Wednesday and North Carolina on Thursday, will be watched closely to see whether the president has reshaped his campaign approach since contracting the virus. Critics fault him for failing to encourage supporters at campaign events, and even White House staff, to wear protective masks and abide by social-distancing guidelines. At least 11 close Trump aides have tested positive for the coronavirus. Standing alone on a White House balcony on Saturday, a maskless Trump urged hundreds of largely Black and Latino supporters to help get out the vote. Most in the crowd wore masks but ignored social-distancing guidelines. Also read: For Trump, defying Mideast truisms produced breakthroughs and backfires Biden, who has said it is irresponsible for any candidate to hold events where attendees are not wearing masks or engaging in social distancing, lashed out at the president's approach. "President Trump comes to Sanford today bringing nothing but reckless behavior, divisive rhetoric, and fear mongering," Biden, the Democratic former vice president said in a statement. FLORIDA UP FOR GRABS Trump told Fox News in an interview on Sunday that he felt good and pointed to his physician's memo from Saturday saying he had taken a test showing he was no longer infectious. "I passed the highest test, the highest standards, and I'm in great shape," Trump told "Sunday Morning Futures." Trump also said, without producing evidence, that he was now immune, an assertion that drew a flag from Twitter for violating the social media platform's rules about misleading information related to COVID-19. The scientific research has been inconclusive on how long people who have recovered from COVID-19 have antibodies and are protected from a second infection. Most recent polls in Florida, where a Trump loss would dramatically narrow his path to re-election, show Biden with a small lead. Trump won Florida over Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 by just 1.2 percentage points, which helped propel him to the White House. On his visit to Ohio, Biden will deliver a speech in Toledo meant to undermine what polls show is Trump's last greatest strength, the view among some voters that the former real estate entrepreneur is better on handling the economy. Biden also will attend a get-out-the-vote event in Cincinnati, his campaign said. Trump has pulled back his advertising in Ohio in recent days, while Biden has increased his, another sign of the opportunity he and his fellow Democrats see to make more states competitive than they initially imagined.

Trump resumes campaign with Florida rally 10 days after COVID-19 disclosure

When President Trump introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his third nominee to the Supreme Court, he praised her “unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.” The implicit premise was that her fidelity to the nation’s founding document as a judge could excuse his violations of the Constitution as president.

But the highest test of politicians’ constitutional scruples is not how they populate another branch of government. It is how they carry out their responsibilities in their own spheres. By that test, Mr. Trump’s loyalty to the Constitution has yielded to political convenience time and again.

The rhetoric surrounding Judge Barrett’s nomination, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to take up on Monday, reflects a troubling strain of constitutional decay: the belief that presidents and legislators fight over policy, while the Constitution is the province of the courts. This view suggests that elected officials can check the box on their own oaths to the Constitution not by upholding them but rather by outsourcing the defense of the Constitution to judges.

Last month, Mr. Trump declared that “apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make.”

Exhorting his fellow Republicans to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the president also said that “we were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices.” Not faithfully executing the law, which Article II of the Constitution requires presidents to do?

Similarly, in late 2017, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader now shepherding Judge Barrett’s nomination, likewise cited the confirmation of conservative judges as the most important achievement of his 36 years in the U.S. Senate. Not the essential constitutional power of Congress, deliberating on legislation?

James Madison assumed that all federal officeholders, not simply judges, were required to maintain the Constitution. As a member of the House of Representatives, Madison routinely participated in debates about whether proposed legislation was constitutional, not just whether it was expedient. As president, his view of executive power was so modest that he would not even lobby members of Congress over dinner, as his predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, had done.

Mr. Trump has not felt comparably constrained. He operates in an alternate constitutional reality in which criticism of him is treason; the process of electing a chief magistrate requires the incumbent to accept the result; and Article II accords him, as Mr. Trump put it last year, “the right to do whatever I want as president.”

In keeping with the tradition of his recent predecessors, he has asserted executive power without any sense of constitutional self-control, sometimes in startling ways. Campaigning for the White House, he famously claimed he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose voters.

Last year, one of his lawyers asserted that occupants of the office were immune from prosecution even if they did commit murder, a view the Supreme Court rejected as placing the president above the law. Recently, when Congress did not agree with him about economic relief in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, Mr. Trump issued a series of executive orders attempting to achieve through decree what constitutional processes denied him.

For its part, Congress suffers from the opposite problem. Rather than expanding its power, it often declines to exercise it at all. During the Trump era, Mr. McConnell, once known as an institutionalist who defended the Senate’s prerogatives, has abetted this surrender of legislative authority.

When a newly inaugurated Mr. Trump used a 1952 law to ban entry into the United States from several Muslim-majority countries, Mr. McConnell raised constitutional objections. As a legislator, he could have addressed them by working to curtail the decades-old legislative authority Mr. Trump cited.

Instead of asserting personal responsibility for the Constitution, though, Mr. McConnell punted to the judiciary: “Ultimately,” he said, “it is going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far.” That is not what Mr. McConnell’s oath says: On the first day of each of his six terms, Mr. McConnell has sworn that he, not someone else, would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In February 2019, Mr. Trump’s insistence on funding for his coveted border wall threatened a government shutdown. Mr. McConnell helped avert it by supporting the president’s unconstitutional contention that he could divert funds by declaring a bogus national emergency.

As Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial loomed in late 2019, Mr. McConnell acknowledged with astonishing candor that he did not regard the Senate as independent from the president: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” he declared on Fox News.

Mr. McConnell has also rejected attempts to reclaim Congress’s war powers. When the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to assert Congress’s constitutional authority over potential hostilities with Iran, for example, Mr. McConnell opposed it. He also endorsed Mr. Trump’s end run around Mr. McConnell’s own branch of government on coronavirus relief.

The image of Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell as constitutional defenders because they support originalist judges is itself a strange breed of originalism. It assumes that judges should adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution with respect to everything but the Constitution’s modest view of judicial power. Yet there is no Madisonian case for seeing judges as more responsible for the Constitution than anyone else who holds national office.

In abrogating their own constitutional responsibilities, Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell have often referred to Democratic support of President Barack Obama’s use of unilateral executive authority.

They are correct to note that Democrats were also complicit in constitutional abuses. Mr. Obama’s executive orders on topics from health care to immigration extended the imperial presidency into the domestic realm. Many of the Democrats opposing Mr. Trump’s assertions of executive power now were quiet then.

But this situational constitutionalism is exactly the problem, and a party whose platform proclaims “a rebirth of constitutional government” bears a particular responsibility to break the cycle. It cannot do so through judges alone because the Constitution is not merely a judicial instrument. Far from it. Every elected official is a constitutional custodian. If Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell — or their eventual successors — want to proclaim themselves champions of America’s founding principles, the best way for them to prove it is not by delegating the Constitution’s defense to judges. It is by undertaking it themselves.

When President Trump introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his third nominee to the Supreme Court, he praised her “unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.” The implicit premise was that her fidelity to the nation’s founding document as a judge could excuse his violations of the Constitution as president.

When President Trump introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his third nominee to the Supreme Court, he praised her “unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.” The implicit premise was that her fidelity to the nation’s founding document as a judge could excuse his violations of the Constitution as president. But the highest test of politicians’ constitutional scruples is not how they populate another branch of government. It is how they carry out their responsibilities in their own spheres. By that test, Mr. Trump’s loyalty to the Constitution has yielded to political convenience time and again. The rhetoric surrounding Judge Barrett’s nomination, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to take up on Monday, reflects a troubling strain of constitutional decay: the belief that presidents and legislators fight over policy, while the Constitution is the province of the courts. This view suggests that elected officials can check the box on their own oaths to the Constitution not by upholding them but rather by outsourcing the defense of the Constitution to judges. Last month, Mr. Trump declared that “apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make.” Exhorting his fellow Republicans to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the president also said that “we were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices.” Not faithfully executing the law, which Article II of the Constitution requires presidents to do? Similarly, in late 2017, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader now shepherding Judge Barrett’s nomination, likewise cited the confirmation of conservative judges as the most important achievement of his 36 years in the U.S. Senate. Not the essential constitutional power of Congress, deliberating on legislation? James Madison assumed that all federal officeholders, not simply judges, were required to maintain the Constitution. As a member of the House of Representatives, Madison routinely participated in debates about whether proposed legislation was constitutional, not just whether it was expedient. As president, his view of executive power was so modest that he would not even lobby members of Congress over dinner, as his predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, had done. Mr. Trump has not felt comparably constrained. He operates in an alternate constitutional reality in which criticism of him is treason; the process of electing a chief magistrate requires the incumbent to accept the result; and Article II accords him, as Mr. Trump put it last year, “the right to do whatever I want as president.” In keeping with the tradition of his recent predecessors, he has asserted executive power without any sense of constitutional self-control, sometimes in startling ways. Campaigning for the White House, he famously claimed he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose voters. Last year, one of his lawyers asserted that occupants of the office were immune from prosecution even if they did commit murder, a view the Supreme Court rejected as placing the president above the law. Recently, when Congress did not agree with him about economic relief in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, Mr. Trump issued a series of executive orders attempting to achieve through decree what constitutional processes denied him. For its part, Congress suffers from the opposite problem. Rather than expanding its power, it often declines to exercise it at all. During the Trump era, Mr. McConnell, once known as an institutionalist who defended the Senate’s prerogatives, has abetted this surrender of legislative authority. When a newly inaugurated Mr. Trump used a 1952 law to ban entry into the United States from several Muslim-majority countries, Mr. McConnell raised constitutional objections. As a legislator, he could have addressed them by working to curtail the decades-old legislative authority Mr. Trump cited. Instead of asserting personal responsibility for the Constitution, though, Mr. McConnell punted to the judiciary: “Ultimately,” he said, “it is going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far.” That is not what Mr. McConnell’s oath says: On the first day of each of his six terms, Mr. McConnell has sworn that he, not someone else, would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In February 2019, Mr. Trump’s insistence on funding for his coveted border wall threatened a government shutdown. Mr. McConnell helped avert it by supporting the president’s unconstitutional contention that he could divert funds by declaring a bogus national emergency. As Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial loomed in late 2019, Mr. McConnell acknowledged with astonishing candor that he did not regard the Senate as independent from the president: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” he declared on Fox News. Mr. McConnell has also rejected attempts to reclaim Congress’s war powers. When the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to assert Congress’s constitutional authority over potential hostilities with Iran, for example, Mr. McConnell opposed it. He also endorsed Mr. Trump’s end run around Mr. McConnell’s own branch of government on coronavirus relief. The image of Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell as constitutional defenders because they support originalist judges is itself a strange breed of originalism. It assumes that judges should adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution with respect to everything but the Constitution’s modest view of judicial power. Yet there is no Madisonian case for seeing judges as more responsible for the Constitution than anyone else who holds national office. In abrogating their own constitutional responsibilities, Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell have often referred to Democratic support of President Barack Obama’s use of unilateral executive authority. They are correct to note that Democrats were also complicit in constitutional abuses. Mr. Obama’s executive orders on topics from health care to immigration extended the imperial presidency into the domestic realm. Many of the Democrats opposing Mr. Trump’s assertions of executive power now were quiet then. But this situational constitutionalism is exactly the problem, and a party whose platform proclaims “a rebirth of constitutional government” bears a particular responsibility to break the cycle. It cannot do so through judges alone because the Constitution is not merely a judicial instrument. Far from it. Every elected official is a constitutional custodian. If Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell — or their eventual successors — want to proclaim themselves champions of America’s founding principles, the best way for them to prove it is not by delegating the Constitution’s defense to judges. It is by undertaking it themselves.

Donald Trump’s alternate constitutional reality

In his first public address after recovering from coronavirus, US President Donald <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-florida-trump-to-take-part-in-two-more-rallies-next-week-334358">Trump</a> told his supporters that he was "feeling great" from the White House balcony on Saturday.

Watch:&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/president-trump-develops-coronavirus-antibodies-calls-catching-covid-19-a-blessing-333550/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Our nation will defeat the China virus, the vaccine is coming in record time, it is coming very soon," the US president said, adding," I am thankful to everyone who prayed for my health."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/allan-lichtman-the-man-who-has-correctly-predicted-us-election-since-1984-334317">Also Read |&nbsp;Allan Lichtman: The man who has correctly predicted US election since 1984&nbsp;</a>

"Science, medicine will eradicate the China virus once and for all, it's going to disappear. It's disappearing," Trump asserted. "I have defeated the China virus, &nbsp;This disease is going to disappear."

"Science, medicine will eradicate the China virus once and for all," the US president said.

Trump took a dig at Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden saying: "Sleepy Joe Biden&nbsp;betrayed Latino and Black Americans. If you think he can run this country, you're wrong." With the US election just days away, Trump's campaign team announced that the US president would be attending three rallies next week in Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

"If the left gains power, they'll launch a nationwide crusade against law enforcement," he said. "Joe Biden doesn't know what to say, he is told what to say," the president told his supporters.

"We have law enforcement watching all those ballots, tremendous problems with the ballots. You see how many crooked ballots are being found? he asked.

"I have done more for the black community than any other President since Abraham Lincoln," he said.

"This is the most important election we have ever had. Even more than the last one, so please get out there and vote," the US president told his supporters.

In his first public address after recovering from coronavirus, US President Donald Trump told his supporters that he was "feeling great" from the White House balcony on Saturday.

In his first public address after recovering from coronavirus, US President Donald Trump told his supporters that he was "feeling great" from the White House balcony on Saturday. Watch: "Our nation will defeat the China virus, the vaccine is coming in record time, it is coming very soon," the US president said, adding," I am thankful to everyone who prayed for my health." Also Read | Allan Lichtman: The man who has correctly predicted US election since 1984 "Science, medicine will eradicate the China virus once and for all, it's going to disappear. It's disappearing," Trump asserted. "I have defeated the China virus, This disease is going to disappear." "Science, medicine will eradicate the China virus once and for all," the US president said. Trump took a dig at Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden saying: "Sleepy Joe Biden betrayed Latino and Black Americans. If you think he can run this country, you're wrong." With the US election just days away, Trump's campaign team announced that the US president would be attending three rallies next week in Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania. "If the left gains power, they'll launch a nationwide crusade against law enforcement," he said. "Joe Biden doesn't know what to say, he is told what to say," the president told his supporters. "We have law enforcement watching all those ballots, tremendous problems with the ballots. You see how many crooked ballots are being found? he asked. "I have done more for the black community than any other President since Abraham Lincoln," he said. "This is the most important election we have ever had. Even more than the last one, so please get out there and vote," the US president told his supporters.

Science, medicine will eradicate the China virus, it will disappear, says Trump from White House balcony

Watch this special episode of WION-VOA Co-Production over US Election 2020: A civil Vice Presidential debate..

US Election 2020: A civil Vice Presidential debate | WION-VOA Co-Production

The next US presidential debate between President Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will be "virtual", organizers said on Thursday.

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/harris-vs-pence-on-the-vice-presidential-debate-discuss-trumps-response-on-pandemic-333373/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, according to reports, Trump said he will not "participate"&nbsp;in a virtual presidential debate.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-vp-debate-2020-kamala-harris-im-speaking-snub-to-pence-appears-on-t-shirts-mugs-online-333370">Also Read:&nbsp;Kamala Harris' 'I'm speaking' snub to Pence appears on t-shirts, mugs online</a>

"I'm not going to do a virtual debate," the US president told a TV news network while adding that it was "not acceptable to us."

Amid the confusion,&nbsp;Trump's campaign manager Bill Stepien said: "An in-person town hall debate, with questions from voters, "should happen on October 22, and accordingly, the third debate should then be shifted back one week to October 29."

However, Biden's team asserted that President Trump cannot "rewrite the calendar".&nbsp;

Joe Biden had earlier expressed concern over appearing for the next TV debate after President Trump was detected with the virus.

"I'm looking forward to being able to debate him, but I just hope all the protocols are followed," Biden had said, adding," "If he still has COVID, we shouldn't have a debate."

Biden and Trump are set to clash again on October 15. Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 just two days after his first debate with Biden.&nbsp;

Biden and Trump are set to clash again on October 15.

The next US presidential debate between President Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will be "virtual", organizers said on Thursday. Watch: However, according to reports, Trump said he will not "participate" in a virtual presidential debate.

The next US presidential debate between President Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will be "virtual", organizers said on Thursday. Watch: However, according to reports, Trump said he will not "participate" in a virtual presidential debate. Also Read: Kamala Harris' 'I'm speaking' snub to Pence appears on t-shirts, mugs online "I'm not going to do a virtual debate," the US president told a TV news network while adding that it was "not acceptable to us." Amid the confusion, Trump's campaign manager Bill Stepien said: "An in-person town hall debate, with questions from voters, "should happen on October 22, and accordingly, the third debate should then be shifted back one week to October 29." However, Biden's team asserted that President Trump cannot "rewrite the calendar". Joe Biden had earlier expressed concern over appearing for the next TV debate after President Trump was detected with the virus. "I'm looking forward to being able to debate him, but I just hope all the protocols are followed," Biden had said, adding," "If he still has COVID, we shouldn't have a debate." Biden and Trump are set to clash again on October 15. Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 just two days after his first debate with Biden. Biden and Trump are set to clash again on October 15.

After refusing to participate in 'virtual' debate, Trump team pushes for schedule changes; Biden refuses

Democratic Party's presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Thursday that he will air his opinion on increasing number of judges on US Supreme Court if he defeats President Donald Trump in November 3 election. Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She is yet to get a nod from the US Senate for her appointment on the Supreme Court. Republican Party has said that it will push for confiemation from the Senate before November 3 election.

Following Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg`s death on Sept. 18, some Democrats have pressed Biden to consider "packing the court" with liberal justices if Trump`s Republican party fills Ginsburg`s seat ahead of the election and creates a 6-3 conservative majority.

Trump has criticized Biden for repeatedly declining to provide his view on the matter.

On Thursday, Biden told reporters that revealing it now would distract voters from focusing on Trump`s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the top court.

"The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that other than - other than focusing on what’s happening now," Biden said.

It is believed that the Republican Party's push to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett is inanticipation of possble upper hand they will get in case court has to intervene to decide winner of the election. Such a situation has a precedent. In US Presidential Elections 2020, the court intervened to declare winner of the election.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-censors-us-vice-presidential-debate-when-pence-gets-asked-on-the-communist-nation-333731">China censors US vice-presidential debate when Pence gets asked on the communist nation</a>

White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Biden`s comments were a sign he does plan to expand the court. "Voters deserve a clear answer, though we basically already have one," she said on Twitter.

The U.S. Senate, which has the power to confirm presidential nominees to the high court, is currently under Republican control though that could change after November`s elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to start hearings on Barrett on Monday.

The number of justices on the high court has remained at nine since 1869, but Congress has the power to change the size of the bench and did so several times before that.

(With Reuters inputs)

Democratic Party's presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Thursday that he will air his opinion on increasing number of judges on US Supreme Court if he defeats President Donald Trump in November 3 election.

Democratic Party's presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Thursday that he will air his opinion on increasing number of judges on US Supreme Court if he defeats President Donald Trump in November 3 election. Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She is yet to get a nod from the US Senate for her appointment on the Supreme Court. Republican Party has said that it will push for confiemation from the Senate before November 3 election. Following Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg`s death on Sept. 18, some Democrats have pressed Biden to consider "packing the court" with liberal justices if Trump`s Republican party fills Ginsburg`s seat ahead of the election and creates a 6-3 conservative majority. Trump has criticized Biden for repeatedly declining to provide his view on the matter. On Thursday, Biden told reporters that revealing it now would distract voters from focusing on Trump`s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the top court. "The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that other than - other than focusing on what’s happening now," Biden said. It is believed that the Republican Party's push to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett is inanticipation of possble upper hand they will get in case court has to intervene to decide winner of the election. Such a situation has a precedent. In US Presidential Elections 2020, the court intervened to declare winner of the election. Also Read | China censors US vice-presidential debate when Pence gets asked on the communist nation White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Biden`s comments were a sign he does plan to expand the court. "Voters deserve a clear answer, though we basically already have one," she said on Twitter. The U.S. Senate, which has the power to confirm presidential nominees to the high court, is currently under Republican control though that could change after November`s elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to start hearings on Barrett on Monday. The number of justices on the high court has remained at nine since 1869, but Congress has the power to change the size of the bench and did so several times before that. (With Reuters inputs)

Will talk about Supreme Court expansion after US election results: Joe Biden

US vice-presidential Debate&nbsp; 2020 - Live coverage of US vice-presidential Debate was blocked in China at the time when US Vice President Mike Pence was asked a question on the communist nation. The broadcast came back when Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris criticised Trump government for its approach to China. Harris said during the debate that Trump's approach to China resulted in 'loss of American lives, American jobs, and America's standing'.

The broadcast block affected a small number of viewers in China who had access to CNN. The channel is available in some hotels in China.

Fox News reported that a screen featuring colour bars with all-caps message 'NO SIGNAL PLEASE STAND BY' flashed as the broadcast was censored.

"The censorship offered a vivid example of Beijing`s willingness to excise information it cannot control, even when it involves potentially important insights into relations with the country`s largest trading partner," Fox News was quoted as saying by ANI.

"Censors in China are moving quickly to block criticism of the country`s leaders, discussion of historical events like the Tiananmen Square massacre or any conversation that could involve organizing resistance to the government," Fox News added.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/internet-goes-berserk-after-errant-housefly-on-pences-head-photobombs-vp-debate-333508">Internet goes berserk after errant housefly on Pence's head photobombs VP debate</a>

US vice-presidential Debate on Wednesday (local time) witnessed sharp exchange of words between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence.

Though the debate did not see exchanges as heated as those seen in the first Presidential Debate, some memorable moments included Kamala Harris asking Mike Pence to stop talking by saying "Mr Vice President, I'm (still) speaking".

Both debaters overshot the time limit several times during the debate but Mike Pence was observed to do this more than Kamala Harris. The moderator of the debate had to step in many times and had to remind Pence to conclude his argument.

(With ANI inputs)

US vice-presidential Debate 2020 - Live coverage of US vice-presidential Debate was blocked in China at the time when US Vice President Mike Pence was asked a question on the communist nation.

US vice-presidential Debate 2020 - Live coverage of US vice-presidential Debate was blocked in China at the time when US Vice President Mike Pence was asked a question on the communist nation. The broadcast came back when Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris criticised Trump government for its approach to China. Harris said during the debate that Trump's approach to China resulted in 'loss of American lives, American jobs, and America's standing'. The broadcast block affected a small number of viewers in China who had access to CNN. The channel is available in some hotels in China. Fox News reported that a screen featuring colour bars with all-caps message 'NO SIGNAL PLEASE STAND BY' flashed as the broadcast was censored. "The censorship offered a vivid example of Beijing`s willingness to excise information it cannot control, even when it involves potentially important insights into relations with the country`s largest trading partner," Fox News was quoted as saying by ANI. "Censors in China are moving quickly to block criticism of the country`s leaders, discussion of historical events like the Tiananmen Square massacre or any conversation that could involve organizing resistance to the government," Fox News added. Also Read | Internet goes berserk after errant housefly on Pence's head photobombs VP debate US vice-presidential Debate on Wednesday (local time) witnessed sharp exchange of words between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. Though the debate did not see exchanges as heated as those seen in the first Presidential Debate, some memorable moments included Kamala Harris asking Mike Pence to stop talking by saying "Mr Vice President, I'm (still) speaking". Both debaters overshot the time limit several times during the debate but Mike Pence was observed to do this more than Kamala Harris. The moderator of the debate had to step in many times and had to remind Pence to conclude his argument. (With ANI inputs)

China censors US vice-presidential debate when Pence gets asked on the communist nation

American publications are not only reporting on the US election campaigns, they are also becoming cheerleaders for the candidates.

The New York Times has endorsed Joe Biden, so has the Washington Post. American publications have for long been endorsing presidential candidates but should the media tell you who to vote for?

Joe Biden has vowed to "restore the soul of America" it is a painful reminder that the country is weaker, angrier, less hopeful and more divided than it was four years ago. Amid unrelenting chaos, Biden is offering an anxious, exhausted nation something beyond policy or ideology. His campaign is rooted in steadiness, experience, compassion and decency. He would understand that his first duty, always, is to the American people.

It might sound like lines from Joe Biden's election campaign material but it is not from someone from his team who has made these statements.

It is what an editorial in a leading publication in the United States has said about the Democratic the presidential contender. The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Joe Biden for the US presidency.

The editorial piece says Biden knows that there are no easy answers. He has the experience, temperament and character to guide the nation through this valley into a brighter, more hopeful future. He has our endorsement for the presidency.

It introduces itself as a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values, it is separate from the newsroom, in other words, a group of journalists openly declaring support for an election candidate but since when do journalists tell you who to vote for?

In the United States, it happens all the time as a tradition.

The New York Times has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1860 and it's not alone. Newspapers across the United States have followed this tradition. Newspaper endorsements are specific statements of support for a political candidate through the endorsements newspapers say they aim to educate the masses.

American media remains divided on the question. Earlier this year, America's NBC news said the practice of presidential endorsement by publications must end. It said, "in an era in which most readers don't trust the news media, endorsements are more likely to hurt an organization's journalism than help its readers".

The practice is not limited to just the United States. In Canada, 23 newspapers followed the liberal free press tradition of endorsing a candidate for prime minister in the 2015 federal elections. In the election in 2011, 22 dailies did the same.

In the UK too, editorials in national newspapers tend to make their loyalties known ahead of the election. According to a 2008 study by PEW research centre, almost seven in 10 Americans said their local newspaper's endorsement had no impact on who they vote for and with the oversaturation of social media and polarised media activity, people are probably placing lesser trust in the mainstream media.

In the 2016 US presidential election, it was noted that Hillary Clinton had more than 200 endorsements from daily and weekly newspapers in the United States. Trump had only six endorsements, and yet he won.

In India, the biases are clear, but formal endorsements are not the practice.

American publications are not only reporting on the US election campaigns, they are also becoming cheerleaders for the candidates. The New York Times has endorsed Joe Biden, so has the Washington Post.

American publications are not only reporting on the US election campaigns, they are also becoming cheerleaders for the candidates. The New York Times has endorsed Joe Biden, so has the Washington Post. American publications have for long been endorsing presidential candidates but should the media tell you who to vote for? Joe Biden has vowed to "restore the soul of America" it is a painful reminder that the country is weaker, angrier, less hopeful and more divided than it was four years ago. Amid unrelenting chaos, Biden is offering an anxious, exhausted nation something beyond policy or ideology. His campaign is rooted in steadiness, experience, compassion and decency. He would understand that his first duty, always, is to the American people. It might sound like lines from Joe Biden's election campaign material but it is not from someone from his team who has made these statements. It is what an editorial in a leading publication in the United States has said about the Democratic the presidential contender. The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Joe Biden for the US presidency. The editorial piece says Biden knows that there are no easy answers. He has the experience, temperament and character to guide the nation through this valley into a brighter, more hopeful future. He has our endorsement for the presidency. It introduces itself as a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values, it is separate from the newsroom, in other words, a group of journalists openly declaring support for an election candidate but since when do journalists tell you who to vote for? In the United States, it happens all the time as a tradition. The New York Times has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1860 and it's not alone. Newspapers across the United States have followed this tradition. Newspaper endorsements are specific statements of support for a political candidate through the endorsements newspapers say they aim to educate the masses. American media remains divided on the question. Earlier this year, America's NBC news said the practice of presidential endorsement by publications must end. It said, "in an era in which most readers don't trust the news media, endorsements are more likely to hurt an organization's journalism than help its readers". The practice is not limited to just the United States. In Canada, 23 newspapers followed the liberal free press tradition of endorsing a candidate for prime minister in the 2015 federal elections. In the election in 2011, 22 dailies did the same. In the UK too, editorials in national newspapers tend to make their loyalties known ahead of the election. According to a 2008 study by PEW research centre, almost seven in 10 Americans said their local newspaper's endorsement had no impact on who they vote for and with the oversaturation of social media and polarised media activity, people are probably placing lesser trust in the mainstream media. In the 2016 US presidential election, it was noted that Hillary Clinton had more than 200 endorsements from daily and weekly newspapers in the United States. Trump had only six endorsements, and yet he won. In India, the biases are clear, but formal endorsements are not the practice.

When US publications become cheerleaders for presidential candidates

Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden appears to lead President Donald Trump in certain swing states, in opinion poll conducted by Reuters and IPSOS, just less than a month ahead of voting.

US Election 2020: 'Joe Biden appears to lead President Donald Trump in certain swing states'

Nearly four million people have voted in the US so far from the postal ballot system, a number that indicates that record voting can take place in the country.&nbsp;

Amid the pandemic that has worst hit the US, Americans are heavily relying on mail-in voting for the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">presidential election</a> to avoid the risk of contracting the virus by going to the polling station.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-still-have-to-make-america-great-again-trump-promises-to-return-soon-to-start-us-election-campaign-332338">'We still have to make America great again': Trump promises to return soon to start US election campaign</a>

The US Elections Project, which makes data of early voting said that over 3.8 million people have cast their ballot so far, which greatly surpasses the nearly 75,000-mark that was touched during this time in 2016.

Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, who administers this project, believes that this massive rise in mail-in voting is because it's a safe process in view of coronavirus outbreak and since several people have decided <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a> fate.&nbsp;

"We've never seen this many people voting so far ahead of an election," he said, as quoted by news agency Reuters.&nbsp;

"People cast their ballots when they make up their minds, and we know that many people made up their minds long ago and already have a judgment about Trump."

McDonald predicted that this spike in early voting could lead to an overall turnout of nearly 150 million, a record number since 1908.

He said these figures have arrived from the 31 US states out of the 50 that have started mail-in voting and added that the early voting will rise further after more states will start allowing it in the upcoming weeks.&nbsp;

Nearly four million people have voted in the US so far from the postal ballot system, a number that indicates that record voting can take place in the country. Amid the pandemic that has worst hit the US, Americans are heavily relying on mail-in voting for the presidential election to avoid the risk of contracting the virus by going to the polling station.

Nearly four million people have voted in the US so far from the postal ballot system, a number that indicates that record voting can take place in the country. Amid the pandemic that has worst hit the US, Americans are heavily relying on mail-in voting for the presidential election to avoid the risk of contracting the virus by going to the polling station. Also read | 'We still have to make America great again': Trump promises to return soon to start US election campaign The US Elections Project, which makes data of early voting said that over 3.8 million people have cast their ballot so far, which greatly surpasses the nearly 75,000-mark that was touched during this time in 2016. Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, who administers this project, believes that this massive rise in mail-in voting is because it's a safe process in view of coronavirus outbreak and since several people have decided Donald Trump's fate. "We've never seen this many people voting so far ahead of an election," he said, as quoted by news agency Reuters. "People cast their ballots when they make up their minds, and we know that many people made up their minds long ago and already have a judgment about Trump." McDonald predicted that this spike in early voting could lead to an overall turnout of nearly 150 million, a record number since 1908. He said these figures have arrived from the 31 US states out of the 50 that have started mail-in voting and added that the early voting will rise further after more states will start allowing it in the upcoming weeks.

US Election 2020: About 4 million people already voted; record turnout likely

White House remains in chaos with PressSec -Kayleigh McEnany being the latest to test positive for COVID-19. With just 29 days to USEelection, Joe Biden has taken the high road of not attacking Donald Trump.

US Election 2020: Who is leading on opinion poll charts?

The concerns around Donald Trump’s health is rising. Behind the concerns, lie an uncomfortable long history of American Presidents being secretive & deceptive about their health.

US Election 2020: An uncomfortable truth of dishonesty

29 days to USElection & the mystery around Donald Trump's true condition remains. Trump administration follows the unwritten rule that THE PUBLIC DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW EVERY DETAILS OF PRESIDENT'S HEALTH. But does the public deserve to be misled?

US Election 2020: When will Trump return to White House?

'THE PROUD BOYS' now has a new meaning on twitter. The far-right group 'PROUD BOYS' made headlines after Donald Trump refused to condemn white supremacists.

US Election 2020: Hashtag 'Proud Boys' now with a twist

It is not unreasonable to withhold some sensitive information about Donald Trump's health from the public. But White House appears to be actively misleading the public.

US Election 2020: Will the tradition of secrecy backfire?

Donald Trump's health remains a major factor for the flux in global markets. After the staged drive-by & other improvement reports, global stocks have recovered & other risk assets have risen.

US Election 2020: Trump's health news dominate market flux

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Friday tested negative for coronavirus just hours after US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania tested positive.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tests-positive-us-vice-president-mike-pence-tests-negative-for-coronavirus-332022">Also Read:&nbsp;Trump tests positive: US Vice President Mike Pence tests negative for coronavirus</a>

Biden, 77, now plans to travel to Grand Rapids which Trump won in 2016. Biden was quick to declare "wear a mask" after Trump contracted the virus.

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/coronavirus-pandemic-trump-largest-driver-of-misinformation-says-study-331932/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"I'm happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID-19," Biden said, adding, "I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands."

Biden's doctor Kevin O'Connor in a statement said: "Vice President Joe Biden and Dr Jill Biden underwent PCR testing for Covid-19 today and Covid-19 was not detected."

"Jill and I send our thoughts to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for a swift recovery," Biden tweeted.

"We will continue to pray for the health and safety of the president and his family," he said.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Friday tested negative for coronavirus just hours after US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania tested positive.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Friday tested negative for coronavirus just hours after US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania tested positive. Also Read: Trump tests positive: US Vice President Mike Pence tests negative for coronavirus Biden, 77, now plans to travel to Grand Rapids which Trump won in 2016. Biden was quick to declare "wear a mask" after Trump contracted the virus. Watch: "I'm happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID-19," Biden said, adding, "I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands." Biden's doctor Kevin O'Connor in a statement said: "Vice President Joe Biden and Dr Jill Biden underwent PCR testing for Covid-19 today and Covid-19 was not detected." "Jill and I send our thoughts to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for a swift recovery," Biden tweeted. "We will continue to pray for the health and safety of the president and his family," he said.

Biden tests negative for coronavirus, set on campaign trail

The organsiers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwihr5ry7o_sAhWawzgGHb0eDLAQFjAAegQIBRAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw0AfO9799mZXkwQdiR-a7m_">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;and his&nbsp;Democratic rival <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ9JHp7o_sAhW9yjgGHfB6D5oQFjABegQICRAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2uWmb1SVt292OTp_JacPPr">Joe Biden</a>&nbsp;engaged in a 'chaotic' debate.

First presidential debate of the US elections 2020 were nothing less than a chaos of three men talking at the same time, of which one was trying to take his turn and the moderator was simply asking to establish order. This was one of rare times — probably the first — when the moderator had to ask a candidate that their campaign manager had agreed to rules which were being flouted by the candidate.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/moderator-of-us-elections-debate-snaps-at-trump-for-speaking-out-of-time-331319">Also read:Moderator of US elections debate snaps at Trump for speaking out of time</a>

The debate's chaos and lack of order were highly criticised. While the Democrats blamed Trump&nbsp;for constant interruptions, and the Republicans defended the President by claiming it to be Biden's&nbsp;fault for saying 'absurd' statements, the Debate Commission has decided to put it behind them and prepare for the next debate.

Last night's debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues," the Commission on Presidential Debates said in a statement.

Without revealing the details, the commission is now looking for additional measures "to ensure that additional tools to maintain order are in place for the remaining debates."

The chaos was even identified by the Fox News journalist and debate's moderator Chris Wallace as he agreed that the debate had gone off the rails at one point. "I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did," he told local media.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-election-2020-planners-vow-less-chaos-at-the-next-debate-331603/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"I guess I didn't realize — and there was no way you could, hindsight being 20/20 — that this was going to be the president's strategy, not just for the beginning of the debate but the entire debate," Wallace said.

A lot of people on social media asked the organisers to allow the moderator to mute the candidate who is speaking out of turn. However, Wallace put that thought to rest by reminding everyone that since the two candidates were standing at a very less distance,&nbsp;Joe Biden&nbsp;would have easily heard Trump even without a mic.

"I’m a pro. I’ve never been through anything like this," Wallace added, recalling the debate.

The organsiers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden engaged in a 'chaotic' debate.

The organsiers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden engaged in a 'chaotic' debate. First presidential debate of the US elections 2020 were nothing less than a chaos of three men talking at the same time, of which one was trying to take his turn and the moderator was simply asking to establish order. This was one of rare times — probably the first — when the moderator had to ask a candidate that their campaign manager had agreed to rules which were being flouted by the candidate. Also read:Moderator of US elections debate snaps at Trump for speaking out of time The debate's chaos and lack of order were highly criticised. While the Democrats blamed Trump for constant interruptions, and the Republicans defended the President by claiming it to be Biden's fault for saying 'absurd' statements, the Debate Commission has decided to put it behind them and prepare for the next debate. Last night's debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues," the Commission on Presidential Debates said in a statement. Without revealing the details, the commission is now looking for additional measures "to ensure that additional tools to maintain order are in place for the remaining debates." The chaos was even identified by the Fox News journalist and debate's moderator Chris Wallace as he agreed that the debate had gone off the rails at one point. "I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did," he told local media. × "I guess I didn't realize — and there was no way you could, hindsight being 20/20 — that this was going to be the president's strategy, not just for the beginning of the debate but the entire debate," Wallace said. A lot of people on social media asked the organisers to allow the moderator to mute the candidate who is speaking out of turn. However, Wallace put that thought to rest by reminding everyone that since the two candidates were standing at a very less distance, Joe Biden would have easily heard Trump even without a mic. "I’m a pro. I’ve never been through anything like this," Wallace added, recalling the debate.

US elections 2020: Debate Commission promises 'orderly' debate next time

On Wednesday, during the first national presidential debate, the US President &nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwihr5ry7o_sAhWawzgGHb0eDLAQFjAAegQIBRAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw0AfO9799mZXkwQdiR-a7m_">Donald Trump</a> not only missed an opportunity to condemn the white supremacist groups, but rather told them to "stand by".

This comment was immediately taken to the social media and while some criticised the President sending out message to the group, some — mainly from the group itself — rejoiced on being mentioned in the presidential debate and took it as a message from Trump.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-misses-opportunity-to-condemn-white-supremacists-group-proud-boys-331376">Also read:&nbsp;Trump misses opportunity to condemn white supremacists group Proud Boys</a>

Afetr the comments, the only African-American Republican in the US Senate,&nbsp;Senator Tim Scott, said, "White supremacy should be denounced at every turn. I think the president misspoke, and he needs to correct it," he said.

"If he doesn't correct it, I guess he didn't misspeak," Scott added.

However, upon seeing the major backlash on social media and local media on this comment, Trump, later, backtracked on his statement and, once again pretending to not know who they are, said,&nbsp;"I don't know who Proud Boys are but whoever they are they have to stand down."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trump-defends-supreme-court-pick-barrett-331308">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: Trump defends Supreme Court pick Barrett</a>

"Stand down, let law enforcement do their work," he said. "Whoever they are, stand down," he continued.

By the time Trump corrected his statement, his Democratic rival &nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ9JHp7o_sAhW9yjgGHfB6D5oQFjABegQICRAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2uWmb1SVt292OTp_JacPPr">Joe Biden</a> had already used to opportunity to gain an upper hand.&nbsp;"My message to the Proud Boys and every other white supremacist group is: cease and desist," Biden said. "That's not who we are. This is not who we are as Americans."

After the debate, Biden started on a tour of Ohio and Pennsylvania — two important states in the election. While campaigning, he was repeatedly asked if he thought the 90-minute debate went well, considering there was constant interruption from Trump and name calling from Biden — such as<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-biden-calls-trump-a-clown-as-candidates-spar-in-first-presidential-debate-331321"> clown</a>, Putin's puppy and a direct put-down where Biden told Trump to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-elections-2020-shut-up-man-biden-accuses-trump-of-lying-331313">shut up</a>. To save his face from the blame of name-calling, Biden quickly shifted the blame to Trump and said, "The president of the United States conducted himself the way he did -- I think it was a national embarrassment."

On Wednesday, during the first national presidential debate, the US President Donald Trump not only missed an opportunity to condemn the white supremacist groups, but rather told them to "stand by".

On Wednesday, during the first national presidential debate, the US President Donald Trump not only missed an opportunity to condemn the white supremacist groups, but rather told them to "stand by". This comment was immediately taken to the social media and while some criticised the President sending out message to the group, some — mainly from the group itself — rejoiced on being mentioned in the presidential debate and took it as a message from Trump. Also read: Trump misses opportunity to condemn white supremacists group Proud Boys Afetr the comments, the only African-American Republican in the US Senate, Senator Tim Scott, said, "White supremacy should be denounced at every turn. I think the president misspoke, and he needs to correct it," he said. "If he doesn't correct it, I guess he didn't misspeak," Scott added. However, upon seeing the major backlash on social media and local media on this comment, Trump, later, backtracked on his statement and, once again pretending to not know who they are, said, "I don't know who Proud Boys are but whoever they are they have to stand down." Also read| US election 2020: Trump defends Supreme Court pick Barrett "Stand down, let law enforcement do their work," he said. "Whoever they are, stand down," he continued. By the time Trump corrected his statement, his Democratic rival Joe Biden had already used to opportunity to gain an upper hand. "My message to the Proud Boys and every other white supremacist group is: cease and desist," Biden said. "That's not who we are. This is not who we are as Americans." After the debate, Biden started on a tour of Ohio and Pennsylvania — two important states in the election. While campaigning, he was repeatedly asked if he thought the 90-minute debate went well, considering there was constant interruption from Trump and name calling from Biden — such as clown, Putin's puppy and a direct put-down where Biden told Trump to shut up. To save his face from the blame of name-calling, Biden quickly shifted the blame to Trump and said, "The president of the United States conducted himself the way he did -- I think it was a national embarrassment."

Trump backtracks on Proud Boys; Biden calls debate 'national embarrassment'

Ahead of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">US elections</a>, the Democratic candidate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ9JHp7o_sAhW9yjgGHfB6D5oQFjABegQICRAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2uWmb1SVt292OTp_JacPPr">Joe Biden</a>&nbsp;decided toallegedly woo the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is an ally of the US President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwihr5ry7o_sAhWawzgGHb0eDLAQFjAAegQIBRAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw0AfO9799mZXkwQdiR-a7m_">Donald Trump</a>.

Biden had offered to pay up to US$20 billion to help save the depleting Amazon wildforests. The topic was initiated in the first&nbsp;Presidential debate&nbsp;that took place on Septmber 19 in Ohio. "Rainforests of Brazil are being torn down, are being ripped down," Biden&nbsp;&nbsp;said during the segment on climate change.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/unga-2020-bolsonaro-calls-brazil-victim-of-brutal-disinformation-on-amazon-329477">Also read|&nbsp;UNGA 2020: Bolsonaro calls Brazil victim of 'brutal disinformation' on Amazon</a>

He further added that if chosen would be "gathering up and making sure we had the countries of the world coming up with $20 billion to say 'here's $20 billion, stop tearing down the forest and if you don't, you are going to have significant economic consequences.'"

However,&nbsp;Bolsonaro slammed back at the offer and called it a 'bribe' and a shameful act. He took to Twitter to decline the offer and give a&nbsp;reply to the frontrunner.

"What some have not yet understood is that Brazil has changed. Today, its President, unlike the left, no longer accepts bribes, criminal demarcations or unfounded threats. OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE," he said in a series of tweets.&nbsp;(Text has been translated)

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
1- O candidato à presidência dos EUA, Joe Biden, disse ontem que poderia nos pagar U$ 20 bilhões para pararmos de "destruir" a Amazônia ou nos imporia sérias restrições econômicas.
— Jair M. Bolsonaro (@jairbolsonaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/jairbolsonaro/status/1311325653179006977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Bolsonaro openly condemned the statement by&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;and urged him to not act out of 'greedy' motives. "However, the explicit demonstration of this greed by someone who is running for the presidency of his country is a clear sign of contempt for cordial and fruitful coexistence between two sovereign nations."

He also hinted towards his friendship with the Presiden&nbsp;Donald Trump&nbsp;by mentioning his ongoing conversation with&nbsp;Trump.&nbsp;"US cooperation is welcome, including for sustainable investment projects that create decent jobs for the Amazonian population, as I have been talking to President Trump."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brazil-president-jair-bolsonaro-calls-amazon-fires-a-lie-320024/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Bolsonaro-led government has often clashed with the international media and western governments over protection and destruction of the Amazon forests.&nbsp;

Ahead of the US elections, the Democratic candidate Joe Biden decided toallegedly woo the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is an ally of the US President Donald Trump.

Ahead of the US elections, the Democratic candidate Joe Biden decided toallegedly woo the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is an ally of the US President Donald Trump. Biden had offered to pay up to US$20 billion to help save the depleting Amazon wildforests. The topic was initiated in the first Presidential debate that took place on Septmber 19 in Ohio. "Rainforests of Brazil are being torn down, are being ripped down," Biden said during the segment on climate change. Also read| UNGA 2020: Bolsonaro calls Brazil victim of 'brutal disinformation' on Amazon He further added that if chosen would be "gathering up and making sure we had the countries of the world coming up with $20 billion to say 'here's $20 billion, stop tearing down the forest and if you don't, you are going to have significant economic consequences.'" However, Bolsonaro slammed back at the offer and called it a 'bribe' and a shameful act. He took to Twitter to decline the offer and give a reply to the frontrunner. "What some have not yet understood is that Brazil has changed. Today, its President, unlike the left, no longer accepts bribes, criminal demarcations or unfounded threats. OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE," he said in a series of tweets. (Text has been translated) 1- O candidato à presidência dos EUA, Joe Biden, disse ontem que poderia nos pagar U$ 20 bilhões para pararmos de "destruir" a Amazônia ou nos imporia sérias restrições econômicas. — Jair M. Bolsonaro (@jairbolsonaro) September 30, 2020 × Bolsonaro openly condemned the statement by Biden and urged him to not act out of 'greedy' motives. "However, the explicit demonstration of this greed by someone who is running for the presidency of his country is a clear sign of contempt for cordial and fruitful coexistence between two sovereign nations." He also hinted towards his friendship with the Presiden Donald Trump by mentioning his ongoing conversation with Trump. "US cooperation is welcome, including for sustainable investment projects that create decent jobs for the Amazonian population, as I have been talking to President Trump." × The Bolsonaro-led government has often clashed with the international media and western governments over protection and destruction of the Amazon forests.

'Brazil does not accept bribes': Bolsonaro slams Biden for offering help for Amazon

After a chaotic and controversial US presidential debate of Tuesday night, Google search results for “move to Canada” spiked in the hours following the debate, as many Americans contemplated abandoning their country for the true north strong and free.

The Presidential debate between Joe Biden and President Trump was an absolute dumpster fire. For 90 minutes both Trump and Biden just yelled at each other in one of the most unpleasant debates in history.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/moderator-of-us-elections-debate-snaps-at-trump-for-speaking-out-of-time-331319">Also read:Moderator of US elections debate snaps at Trump for speaking out of time</a>

The Trump-Biden debate had a lot of Americans wanting to make way for the northern border, or at least writing or tweeting about it.&nbsp;

Queries for “how to apply for Canadian citizenship” skyrocketed about an hour into the yelling match between the two men, peaking around 10:30 p.m., according to Google.

The search was most popular in the state of Massachusetts, followed by Ohio and Michigan.

Meanwhile, the organizers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden engaged in a 'chaotic' debate.

The first presidential debate of the US elections 2020 were nothing less than a chaos of three men talking at the same time, of which one was trying to take his turn and the moderator was simply asking to establish order. This was one of rare times — probably the first — when the moderator had to ask a candidate that their campaign manager had agreed to rules which were being flouted by the candidate.

The debate's chaos and lack of order was highly criticised. While the Democrats blamed Trump for constant interruptions, and the Republicans defended the President by claiming it to be Biden's fault for saying 'absurd' statements, the Debate Commission has decided to put it behind them and prepare for the next debate. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

After a chaotic and controversial US presidential debate of Tuesday night, Google search results for “move to Canada” spiked in the hours following the debate, as many Americans contemplated abandoning their country for the true north strong and free.

After a chaotic and controversial US presidential debate of Tuesday night, Google search results for “move to Canada” spiked in the hours following the debate, as many Americans contemplated abandoning their country for the true north strong and free. The Presidential debate between Joe Biden and President Trump was an absolute dumpster fire. For 90 minutes both Trump and Biden just yelled at each other in one of the most unpleasant debates in history. Also read:Moderator of US elections debate snaps at Trump for speaking out of time The Trump-Biden debate had a lot of Americans wanting to make way for the northern border, or at least writing or tweeting about it. Queries for “how to apply for Canadian citizenship” skyrocketed about an hour into the yelling match between the two men, peaking around 10:30 p.m., according to Google. The search was most popular in the state of Massachusetts, followed by Ohio and Michigan. Meanwhile, the organizers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden engaged in a 'chaotic' debate. The first presidential debate of the US elections 2020 were nothing less than a chaos of three men talking at the same time, of which one was trying to take his turn and the moderator was simply asking to establish order. This was one of rare times — probably the first — when the moderator had to ask a candidate that their campaign manager had agreed to rules which were being flouted by the candidate. The debate's chaos and lack of order was highly criticised. While the Democrats blamed Trump for constant interruptions, and the Republicans defended the President by claiming it to be Biden's fault for saying 'absurd' statements, the Debate Commission has decided to put it behind them and prepare for the next debate. (With inputs from agencies)

After US presidential debate, Google search surge for ‘how to apply for Canadian citizenship’

In what was supposed to be an attempt to sway the undecided voters, Presidential Debates 2020 unraveled INTO shout fest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace TRIED, but FAILED to control the candidates & their brutal rebuttals

US Election 2020: A brutal cross-talk Extravanganza | Donald Trump vs Joe Biden

us-elections

Us Elections, News on Us Elections, stories on Us Elections, articles on Us Elections, Us Elections stories at Wion, Us Elections news, Us Elections latest news

us elections