The government ignored early warnings from the Spanish meteorological agency, dismissed the severity of the floods, and failed to evacuate flood-prone areas. This led to hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. Additionally, there was widespread mismanagement of aid, with reports of bodies being misclassified as missing to avoid financial obligations to families.
Locals report seeing multiple bodies being pulled from flooded areas, but the government has classified many as missing instead of dead. This is likely due to financial incentives, as the Spanish government must allocate €72,000 to families for each deceased person. Neighbors believe the actual death toll is in the thousands, with many bodies washed out to sea.
The Red Cross was accused of impeding independent aid workers from distributing donations and focusing on financial donations instead. Volunteers reported seeing Red Cross vehicles idle, and there were allegations of staging aid distribution for social media rather than actively helping on the ground.
Both disasters exposed government failures, including ignored warnings, delayed aid, and mismanagement. In both cases, volunteers and independent organizations had to step in due to inadequate government response. There were also allegations of media misrepresentation and suppression of the true scale of the disasters.
Voters in these states supported measures like paid sick leave and higher minimum wages, which directly impact their material conditions, while still voting for Trump due to broader political affiliations. This highlights a disconnect between party loyalty and support for specific policies that improve daily life.
Ballot measures allow voters to directly influence policy, bypassing party politics. In states with one-party dominance, they provide a rare opportunity for citizens to enact changes that may not align with the dominant party's platform, such as raising the minimum wage or protecting reproductive rights.
The ban restricts Americans' access to a platform for free expression and sets a precedent for government control over media consumption. Critics argue it undermines the First Amendment by allowing the government to decide which platforms are acceptable, potentially leading to broader censorship of foreign-owned media.
The government cited concerns over data collection by TikTok and the potential for foreign manipulation by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. However, no concrete evidence of such manipulation was provided, and critics argue the ban is more about suppressing content the government disagrees with.
The court applied strict scrutiny, accepting the government's claims about national security risks from data collection and foreign manipulation. Despite the lack of evidence, the court deferred to the government's assertions, dismissing concerns about the ban's impact on free speech.
The 1964 case Lamont v. Postmaster General, where the Supreme Court struck down a law restricting Americans from receiving foreign propaganda, could be a key precedent. It established that the government cannot burden Americans' right to access information from abroad, which may apply to the TikTok case.
James Li and Spencer Snyder discuss disaster relief corruption, TikTok ban, and why voters reject Dems while accepting progressive ballot measures.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com)
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/)
See omnystudio.com/listener) for privacy information.