The unpopular, angry old man leading the GOP in the Senate will not fund Ted Cruz and Kari Lake. He also attacks Donald Trump and Rick Scott less than two weeks before the election in a new biography. He invoked Ronald Reagan’s name, claiming Reagan would not support Making America Great Again. That is provably […] The post Betrayal! Mitch McConnell Tries to Sway the Election to Democrats appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

A CNN panel exploded when “Shark Tank’s” Kevin O’Leary pointed out that the Democratic party did not have a nomination process and instead Vice President Kamala Harris was “chosen” by the Democratic party elites. During a CNN panel about Harris’ dismal performance in the CNN Town Hall, O’Leary brought up how the party in 2016 picked then-Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton over presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who appeared to have more energy and support from their base. “Only 90 days ago, Pelosi went to Biden and said, ‘You need to step aside,’ and convinced him to do so,” O’Leary said. “He did actually ask her, we’ve now learned this, ‘Is she[ Harris] the right person to drive this home?’” “He questioned that,” he added. “He could’ve said, ‘We need to run a process in order for me to make this move,’ but they decided not to. I don’t know who they is? Was it Obama, was it Pelosi? I don’t care who it was.” NEW: CNN panel explodes into chaos when @kevinolearytv dares to point out that Kamala was not elected to the party’s nomination, and was “chosen” by Pelosi and Dem party elites. Holy smokes. Watch how quickly and angrily the “Defenders of Democracy” attack O’Leary and justify… pic.twitter.com/LhH9nseNBh — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 25, 2024 “This is the second time the Democratic Party has circumvented Democracy and chose…” O’Leary tried to continue, noting what happened to Sanders, but got pushback by several people on the panel who talked over him and said it was simply “not true.” “Hillary Clinton was chosen, and she had Bruce Springsteen, too, and what happened to her?” he tried to add. CNN host Abby Phillip hit back and said, “Hillary Clinton won a primary. She won a primary. You might not like how the primary … she won a primary. First of all, that’s the first thing.” MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28 However, when O’Leary asked, “Did Kamala Harris win a primary?,” none of the CNN hosts wanted to answer him. “Listen, we have talked about this before,” Phillip replied. “It’s not in the Constitution. The political parties can choose however they want to choose their nominee. And as long as they meet the legal deadline, in the states where they are on the ballot, they can do it.” Phillip said that the party can “decide in December of 2023 to just handpick someone. You don’t have to have a primary. It’s just not a thing. … You’re describing something as undemocratic that has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic process.” “Do you think that’s really what matters to voters?” another CNN contributor interjected. “Your whole shtick is, let’s talk about what matters to voters. Do you really think voters care about the intranessine primary process of the Democrat Party?” “If you are a Democrat, you sure as hell care today,” O’Leary replied. Related: CNN Commentator Rips Kamala After Town Hall: ‘A Duck-Billed Platitude’

Put yourself in the shoes of a senior official in the Biden-Harris administration. Say you’re running the DOJ. Right now you know that, in just a matter of months, you could be out of a job. In fact, that seems pretty likely at this point. If there’s any important cases you want to pursue, or policies you want to defend, now’s the time to do it. This is your opportunity to cement your legacy, at least until the next administration fires you and completely dismantles it. Given that setup, what would you make a top priority? With so many things going wrong in this country, what are the battles you’d choose to fight, with the limited time you have left? We’re not quite in a “lame duck” period, technically speaking, but everyone in the administration is asking this question right now. And as low as your expectations may be for the Biden-Harris administration, their answer to that question is pretty remarkable. In what could very well be their final days in power, senior leaders in the federal government are going to federal court to defend DEI policies. And I’m not talking about just any garden-variety DEI policies here. As we speak, the Justice Department is going to court to demand that DEI is used in the selection process to appoint an independent monitor to oversee Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. The job of this independent monitor is to make sure that Boeing stops making planes that fall apart in the sky, or fall out of the sky completely. In other words, the Biden-Harris DOJ is fighting to ensure that the second-largest commercial jet manufacturer in the world is supervised by a DEI hire. What could possibly go wrong? If you’ve been following Boeing lately, you know that a lot can go wrong. There’s a decent documentary on Netflix called “Downfall: The Case Against Boeing” that outlines a lot of the background. But here’s the gist. As you probably remember, there were two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2018 and 2019. A total of 346 people were killed in just a few months. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show Investigation revealed that the crashes were linked to Boeing’s decision to accelerate production of the 737 MAX to compete with their rival, Airbus. The design of Boeing’s new 737 MAX was a lot like the older Boeing jets, with one key exception: the engines were larger and they were positioned further forward on the plane. While this helped with efficiency, it came with a side effect, which is that the plane had a tendency to pitch upwards during flight. To counteract that tendency, Boeing designed a new software program that they installed on their new 737 MAX aircraft. The idea was that the software would automatically lower the nose to a level position, if the plane started creeping upwards. It was supposed to be a subtle fix that the pilots wouldn’t really notice. The problem is that the software was completely dependent on one sensor on the plane, called the “angle of attack” sensor. And if that sensor failed for whatever reason, or provided inaccurate data, the plane would inaccurately believe that it was climbing too quickly. And the software, in response, would make the plane plunge towards the Earth. And that’s exactly what happened, in both cases. Here’s coverage of one of the crashes:   What’s incredible about this crash — the Ethiopian airlines one — is that it happened after the Lion Air crash several months earlier. And after the Lion Air crash, Boeing sent out advisories to a bunch of airlines, warning them about their software. They said that, if they encounter a similar issue, pilots should just turn off the electrical system of that part of the aircraft, to disable their software entirely. The problem is that, when the Ethiopian pilots did that, they encountered a bunch of other unexpected issues that they weren’t really trained on. They were panicking, and during the chaos, they left the throttle on maximum, which made it impossible to control the plane without the help of the electrical system. And when they tried to regain some control, they turned the electrical system back on, at which point the plane promptly crashed itself. Obviously, there are a lot of failures that occurred in this whole situation. The regulators at the FAA delegated a lot of their responsibilities to Boeing, which meant that Boeing was in charge of certifying the safety of its own software. Additionally, Boeing knowingly made false representations about its software during the certification process. That’s not in dispute. Boeing admits this. This summer, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to “conspiring to defraud” the government concerning the 737 MAX’s software. Then Boeing and the DOJ filed a plea agreement in court so that a judge could review it. The plea agreement essentially makes Boeing — as a company — a convicted felon. But to his credit, the judge, whose name is Reed O’Connor, isn’t signing off on the plea deal — at least not yet. This is a bit like the situation with Hunter Biden this summer. Just because both parties agree to a plea deal, that doesn’t mean the judge has to accept it. And in this case, there’s a very important reason why the judge won’t accept it. From the judge’s order this month: “The Agreement mandates an independent compliance monitor to assess whether Boeing has adequately mitigated the risk of providing false or fraudulent information to the Federal Aviation Administration and other government regulators. … Like many of the Agreement’s other provisions, the victims strongly oppose the Agreement’s compliance monitor requirements. Among other reasons, the victims argue the Court should reject the Agreement because it allows the Government, not the Court, to select a monitor with input from Boeing and ‘in keeping with the Department’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.'” In other words, both the judge and the victims’ families have an issue with this provision. And you can see why. When both the regulator and the airline manufacturer mess up, causing the deaths of hundreds of people, then you’d think you’d want to bring in the most competent people you can find, in order to make sure that it never happens again. But that’s not what’s happening here. When the judge asked the government’s attorney, Sean Tonolli, to explain what exactly this “diversity, equity and inclusion” policy would entail, Tonolli responded that he’s not an expert in the topic. But he eventually got around to saying “diversity” refers to “race, gender, background and any number of factors, including background and experience.” Tonolli added that “inclusion” is, “another way of maybe saying the same thing and not excluding people because of any characteristic that would be included in diversity.” Then he tapped out. He said he couldn’t provide any more information than that. But he did insist that the government wouldn’t pick someone who was unqualified. That led the judge to ask, “Did the department used to exclude certain people on race, gender, and other things?” And in response to that question, Tonolli responded: “Not to my knowledge.” That was an alarming answer, to say the least. Especially when you’re talking about making sure that more planes don’t fall out of the sky, the answer should be an unequivocal “No, we definitely wouldn’t exclude anyone based on race or gender.” It’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or gender in any context. But it’s completely insane to do it when you’re talking about regulating Boeing, which if you haven’t noticed, is having a lot of problems right now — both on this planet and in space. So the judge asked Boeing for their input. But they just deferred to the government’s answer. Then the judge pulled up Boeing’s website, where he found that the company has a “set of aspirations” that it plans to achieve by next year. Those aspirations, which are based on DEI, include explicit quotas on the basis of race, including Boeing’s efforts to, “[i]ncrease the Black representation rate in the U.S. by 20%” and “[c]lose representation gaps for historically underrepresented groups.” The judge also found that Boeing pays its executives bonuses depending on how many of their DEI goals they’ve achieved. At the moment, we don’t know exactly how this legal battle will play out. The judge has said he wants a full hearing on this, before he signs off on any plea agreement. He wants to make sure that the Biden-Harris administration is going to select someone who can do the job, before any more people die in Boeing airplanes. And based on the statements of Boeing and the Biden-Harris administration so far, the judge doesn’t have those assurances. If you look at any of the corporate media coverage of this story, you’ll find a lot of snark directed at the judge. Reuters, for example, ran this headline: “How a US judge injected culture wars into Boeing 737 MAX plea deal.” They interviewed a lawyer who criticized the judge, saying he was acting “incredibly unusual.” CNN meanwhile accused the judge of engaging in a “politically tinged” courtroom battle. This is the same tactic we see in the trans debate, and in so many other areas. Left-wing activists implement some new, insane policy. And when you push back against it in any way, or even ask questions about it, you’re accused of injecting a “culture war” in a way that’s somehow inappropriate. It’s apparently not injecting a”culture war” when Boeing and the federal government both decide to start hiring people on the basis of their skin color. But it’s definitely a “culture war” when a judge asks if we’re hiring the most qualified people to make sure that more planes don’t crash themselves into the ocean. The reason these outlets are lashing out like this is that they recognize this judge’s ruling is significant. They realize they’re indeed losing the culture war that they started. This is the first time, that I’m aware of, that a federal judge has explicitly called out DEI in the context of an ongoing case. He’s demanded to know what exactly it entails. And in response, the government and Boeing — which both practice DEI — couldn’t even answer the question. It’s yet another sign that the tide is turning sharply against the whole concept of diversity, equity and inclusion, particularly when lives are at stake. MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28 When I started working on my film “Am I Racist” a few years ago, developments like this were pretty difficult to imagine. But throughout the process, we all knew that taking down DEI meant exposing exactly what it is, in practice. Once reasonable people can see exactly what diversity, equity, and inclusion entails, then they turn against it. They recognize that it’s immoral and unethical, not to mention dangerous in some cases. And they also recognize that the high priests of the DEI cult actually have no idea what they’re talking about. Like Boeing’s lawyers, or the various “experts” and activists I spoke to in the film, these people can’t even define the terms that they’re constantly repeating. That’s the main reason I’m excited about the streaming release of “Am I Racist.” As you may have heard, my new film is coming to DailyWire+ on Monday. We’ll be able to show the film to people who, for one reason or another, weren’t able to see it in theaters. We’ll be exposing the DEI grift to an audience of millions more people. And when it comes to DEI, exposure is fatal. Mockery is intolerable, too. And we do a lot of both in this film. Thanks to everyone who’s supported us in theaters, we produced the top documentary of the decade. We showed how some of the biggest names in the industry are complete and total frauds. And we had a lot of fun doing it. I hope you’ll support us. If you’re not subscribed to Daily Wire and you want to watch the film, you should do that today. We didn’t start this particular “culture war.” But because of your support, it’s very clear that we’re now winning it.

Episode Description Today’s solutions-news: Arielle dives into a surprising community-focused solution that solves many problems at once. Then, Karissa shares the uplifting news that over 800 veterans who were previously removed under the now-repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy have had their discharge statuses upgraded to honorable. The Optimist Daily is a project of The World Business Academy. Donate link: https://www.optimistdaily.com/donate-to-support-the-optimist-daily/?gift=Y%20http://   Transcript:   Theme music Arielle:  Hello and welcome to The Optimist Daily’s weekly roundup. I’m Arielle.  Karissa:  And I’m Karissa, and we’re working hard to put solutions in view and optimism in movement.  Arielle:  Alright, we’re back after a little break with another episode of our podcast to share the solutions from The Optimist Daily this week. So, Karissa, how were the past two weeks for you?  Karissa:  Pretty chill for the most part, starting to trickle into some fall activities—finally went to the pumpkin patch and got some cooler weather here in the Central Valley of California. But yeah, it was nice to take a little break and heal from my long cough that was happening.  Arielle:  Yeah! You sound a lot better.  Karissa:  Yeah, I finally feel better, and I don’t have to cough on the podcast, even though we cut it out.  Both:  (Laugh)  Karissa:   How about you, Arielle? How’ve the past two weeks been?  Arielle:  Everything’s been going really well! The weather here has been amazing in Amsterdam, and actually just in our little part of the world because when I was in London last week, it was also gorgeous fall weather, so I’m definitely thankful for that. And, yeah, just been really enjoying our Changemaker Series that we have going on until Thanksgiving. Yeah, we didn’t get to mention which change makers were highlighted the weeks before. So I guess we’ll go ahead and tell you about them.  Last week, we highlighted the Coalition for Compassion and Justice, which is offering life-changing programs and housing solutions for homelessness. So, love that. And we also highlighted the Fish Reef Project, a nonprofit dedicated to building artificial reefs to provide essential habitats for fish, turtles, corals and other marine creatures.  Karissa:  Yeah, and this week we’re covering the Lahaina Restoration Foundation. Their mission is to protect and share Lahaina’s cultural heritage, which is especially important now after the devastating fires in August 2023 which dealt a severe blow to the historic town, with many cherished landmarks destroyed or damaged. The Lahaina Restoration Foundation spearheads efforts to rebuild these landmarks and help the community heal.  Arielle:  That was part of the Maui fires, right?   Karissa:  Yeah.  Arielle:  Lahaina’s located in that region.   Karissa:  Glad to see the community stepping in. Also in another community, the Montana Institute offers a refreshing and solutions focused approach to community health and safety that is rooted in their science of the positive framework. Definitely go read more about these changemakers and thank you again for submitting your stories to us and letting us share with the rest of the Optimist Daily community.  Arielle:  Yes, it’s really been amazing. And actually, speaking of solutions for a happy and healthy community, today I’m going to be talking about a unique solutions-focused strategy that tackles two big problems at once which are food insecurity and food waste. So do you mind if I actually just jump into my solution of the week?  Karissa:  Yeah, let’s talk about it!  Arielle:  Alright, so, the title of the article is “How Donating Expiring Food Boosts Supermarket Profits While Tackling Food Insecurity.” Yeah, we’re basically diving into how donating food that’s approaching its expiry date has become a win-win for both supermarkets and communities in need, and it’s pretty amazing to me how this simple act can benefit so many layers of society.  Karissa:  Wait, so how does it work? Are we talking about supermarkets just handing out food about to go bad —wouldn’t that hurt their business?  Arielle:  You’d think so, but in fact it’s quite the opposite. Big retailers like Kroger, Walmart, and Costco have been stepping up and donating food that’s approaching its expiration date to food banks. And here’s the unexpected benefit — this actually ends up boosting their profits, not hurting them. In 2022 alone,  supermarkets donated about 2 billion pounds of food, worth $3.5 billion.   Karissa:  Wow, that’s a lot of food! But how does giving it away help their profits?  Arielle:  Yeah, that’s a great question. So basically, it boils down to a couple of key financial benefits. First off, supermarkets can get tax breaks for these donations, which lowers their overall operational costs, but there’s more pros that are less obvious. So, when stores remove expiring items from shelves and donate them, they free up valuable space for fresher, more appealing products. So, this “preemptive removal” which is what researchers like John Lowrey from Northeastern University call it, actually leads to an increase in sales and improves the store’s image with fresher inventory on display.  Karissa:  Yeah. So, they’re basically swapping out the not-so-fresh food for stuff that’s in better shape. And that helps boost their image and profits, right?  Arielle:  Exactly. According to the researchers, when customers see fresher, higher-quality products, they’re more likely to shop there again and spend even more. Lowrey’s team even found that this practice increased average food prices by 1%, leading to a 33% increase in profit margins. And by the way, supermarkets typically operate on margins of less than 3%, so that 33% bump is huge.  Karissa:  So, it’s not just about generosity—it’s smart business. But what about discounting food? Wouldn’t selling expiring products at a lower price be a better way for stores to make money?  Arielle:  Actually, discounting isn’t always the best option. Discounted items still take up precious shelf space that could be used for fresh products, and on top of that, when customers see items that are obviously close to expiring—think bruised fruit or nearly expired milk—it can hurt the store’s overall image. Lowrey pointed out that consumers tend to judge the entire store’s quality based on the state of its products, so displaying aging food can actually make shoppers question the freshness of everything else on the shelves.  Karissa:  Oh yeah, totally. That makes sense. If I see old bananas next to fresh ones, I’d start wondering about everything else in the store.  Arielle:  Mmhm, yeah. But when stores donate expiring food instead, they kill two birds with one stone. They clear out space for fresh inventory and help their brand image while doing some good for the community. And of course, the donated food doesn’t go to waste. It goes to people who really need it. In America alone, there are actually millions of people suffering from food insecurity.  Karissa:  It sounds like such a seamless solution—reducing food waste, helping people, and boosting profits. Well, so kind of three benefits I guess, but I bet there still are some challenges with this, right, especially around the logistics of all of it.  Arielle:  Mmhm. That is one of the biggest challenges while donating food is great in theory, making it happen consistently can be tricky. There are transportation issues like getting that perishable food to food banks in time before it actually goes bad. And then there’s the fact that not all stores donate all types of food. For example, some may focus only on items like meat or baked goods, while other perishables might still end up getting wasted.  Karissa:  So even though this strategy is working, there still has to be room for improvement.   Arielle:  Yeah. The good news is that despite the logistical hurdles, this method is still one of the most effective ways to fight food insecurity and reduce waste. As more stores embrace consistent donation routines and partner more efficiently with food banks, we’ll see even more benefits. So, it’s all about building those partnerships and the more food they can donate, the more communities they’ll be able to help.  Karissa:  Yeah, it’s just so incredible how one solution can address multiple issues from food insecurity, food waste, brand image, and even store profits.  Arielle:  Totally! And it’s a great example of how businesses and communities can work together for mutual benefit. In a world facing hunger and waste, these kinds of solutions are exactly what we need—ones that acknowledge the interconnectedness of our food systems, environment, and economy.  Karissa:  Yes! I love, love, love these localized solutions. And also, I love the role of business in you know, providing for our communities and our world too, because, as we’ve mentioned before, our parent organization, the World Business Academy, really focuses on that role of businesses serving their communities.  Arielle:  Mmhm. Karissa:  Well, this is awesome, Arielle. Thank you so much for walking us through this really awesome concept. Such a win-win for supermarkets, food banks and communities. And I hope that more retailers will hop on board. Arielle:  Yeah. And I mean it is getting to the holiday season, so maybe now is a really good time for stores to start thinking about not just a seasonal approach to donating but making it a mainstay of their… I don’t know. Overall business plans. Yeah, cause apparently, it’s good for profits as well. So, here’s hoping more stores adopt this approach and just keep the cycle of good going.  Karissa:  Yeah! Well, I have a solution that doesn’t really have a graceful segue, but it’s definitely some good news that I was really happy to see this week. So, do you mind if I switch over to my solution?  Arielle:  Go for it.  Karissa:  All right, so my solution is titled Hundreds of veterans obtain honorable discharges following the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Review.  Karissa:  The United States Department of Defense announced that over 800 veterans who were previously removed under the now-repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have had their discharge statuses upgraded to honorable. This historic action finally begins to address the harms caused by the discriminatory policy.  Arielle:  Wow.  Karissa:  This investigation comes more than a decade after the policy was revoked.   Arielle:  Oh, wow. This is such a watershed moment for LGBTQ+ veterans in the United States.  Karissa:  Absolutely. Like Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, brave LGBTQ+ Americans have long volunteered to serve the country they love. He emphasized the long-overdue efforts to rectify the injustices experienced by these service personnel. A recent study focused on 851 instances, with 96.8% qualifying for relief, resulting in honorable discharges for the great majority of veterans involved.  Arielle:  This is amazing news. Can you rewind a little bit and share more history on what the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was?  Karissa:  Yeah, so between 1994 and 2011, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy prevented openly gay and lesbian military personnel from serving, which resulted in the dismissal of over 13,000 people simply for their sexual orientation.  Arielle:  Hmm.  Karissa:  Yeah, and while the program was overturned in 2011, the consequences of those discharges persisted, with many veterans still receiving discharge classifications that denied them full military benefits. Defense Secretary Austin underscored the importance of correcting these errors, adding that 96% of those individuals now have an honorable discharge. This critical shift allows them to receive benefits that were previously denied. Although veterans discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could apply for an upgrade to honorable discharge after the policy was repealed, many were unaware of this possibility.  Arielle:  What did the military do to make sure these individuals were no longer left behind?  Karissa:  The Pentagon’s year-long, proactive investigation helped in this situation. According to Christa A. Specht, a legal policy director at the Defense Department, about 2,000 veterans were separated with less than honorable characterizations, and this review sought to right those wrongs.  Karissa:  This study served as a stark reminder of the decades-long prejudice that LGBTQ+ military personnel have suffered. Between World War II and 2011, historians estimate that over 100,000 service members were forced to leave the military because of their actual or perceived sexuality.  Arielle:  100,000—that’s a huge number. These upgrades to honorable discharges are such an important step in addressing this troubling legacy.  Karissa:  Yeah, and for many veterans, this shift not only restores their dignity but also allows them to receive all the military benefits they were previously denied. Honorable discharges are required for benefits like healthcare, education support, and housing loans from the Department of Veterans Affairs. With this upgrade, LGBTQ+ veterans can now fully enjoy the benefits they earned while serving, which are certainly well deserved.  Arielle:  Yeah, most definitely well-deserved. And I’m guessing this move is receiving a lot of appreciation.  Karissa:  Absolutely. LGBTQ+ organizations have largely hailed the Pentagon’s move and view it as a significant step towards justice for veterans wrongly dismissed under the policy. While this assessment provides some closure for those affected, it also highlights the ongoing need for advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights and recognition in the military. A little righting of the wrongs is definitely great to see.  Arielle:  Mm-hmm. Yeah, and it shows how far we’ve come. Obviously, we still have a lot of work to do as a society, but it’s good to see some progress.  Karissa:  I hope that you know, in any country where you serve, this can be similarly… um… I guess…   Arielle:  Implemented.  Karissa:  Implemented. Yeah.  Arielle:  Well, this is really great news. I’m feeling quite positive and optimistic, and yeah, going into a stressful week, this will be needed, all the good feels are needed (laughs).  Karissa:  Yeah, definitely.  Arielle:  That was a great roundup of solutions. We’ve got some other great solutions from this week that you can find on our website, optimistdaily.com, and they include…  Karissa:  Everything you need to know for voting in the 2024 election—next week is the election, so definitely check out this article. Make sure you’re registered to vote in the United States and get out there and vote—it’s so important.  Karissa:  We also have an article on a new cervical cancer treatment that brings risk and mortality down by 40%, From pollution to progress—the recovery of the Cuyahoga River—and How to determine your productivity style and maximize your workflow. What else do we have, Arielle?  Arielle:  We have an article titled It’s never too late—quitting smoking at any age can add years to your life, study finds,” Halloween isn’t the only spooky celebration—8 fascinating festivals from all across the world, This revolutionary ADHD headset and game identifies cases with 95% accuracy,” and of course, our local changemakers of the week: the Lahaina Restoration Foundation and the Montana Institute.  Karissa:  And if you want to start your day off right, make sure to subscribe to our free daily newsletter to get our solutions straight to your inbox.  Arielle:  We also have a lot more on our social channels. You can find us @OptimistDaily on all platforms, including Threads and Pinterest. The only different one is on X—on there, we’re known as @OdeToOptimism.  Karissa:  We are a small team of optimists working hard to bring you positive news. If you want to support our mission of putting optimism into the world, click on the link in the show notes to find out how.  Arielle:  And remember that support doesn’t always have to be financial. Just recommending our podcast to a friend, leaving a positive review on Apple or Spotify, forwarding a link, or sharing a solution on your socials—anything like that would be a big help for us.  Karissa:  We’ll be back next week with more solutions. I’m looking forward to it.  Arielle:  Yeah, me too. Until then, I hope everyone has a relaxing weekend and a good week ahead.   Karissa:  Bye, everyone!   The post Podcast Transcript October 25, 2024: How Donating Food Boosts Supermarket Profits and LGBTQ+ veterans get the honorable discharge they deserve first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

'It's how the game is'

Whether it's meant to create this pretext or not

Will probably take election workers several days