The S&P 500 ended 0.7% higher after having been down 0.5% in the early going. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also recovered from an early slide to eke out a 0.2% gain. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite rose 1%. Gains in technology and communications stocks accounted for much of the gains, outweighing losses in consumer goods companies and elsewhere in the market. Semiconductor giant Nvidia, whose enormous valuation gives it an outsize influence on indexes, rose 3.7%. Broadcom climbed 5.5% to also help support the broader market. Walmart fell 2% and PepsiCo slid 1%. Japanese automakers Honda and Nissan said they are talking about combining in a deal that might also include Mitsubishi Motors. U.S.-listed shares in Honda jumped 12.7%, while Nissan ended flat. Eli Lilly rose 3.7% after announcing that regulators approved Zepbound as the first and only prescription medicine for adults with sleep apnea. Department store Nordstrom fell 1.5% after it agreed to be taken private by Nordstrom family members and a Mexican retail group in a $6.25 billion deal. All told, the S&P 500 rose 43.22 points to 5,974.07. The Dow gained 66.69 points to 42,906.95. The Nasdaq rose 192.29 points to 19,764.89. Traders got a look at new snapshot of U.S. consumer confidence Monday. The Conference Board said that consumer confidence slipped in December. Its consumer confidence index fell back to 104.7 from 112.8 in November. Wall Street was expecting a reading of 113.8. The unexpectedly weak consumer confidence update follows several generally strong economic reports last week. One report showed the overall economy grew at a 3.1% annualized rate during the summer, faster than earlier thought. The latest report on unemployment benefit applications showed that the job market remains solid. A report on Friday said a measure of inflation the Federal Reserve likes to use was slightly lower last month than economists expected. Worries about inflation edging higher again had been weighing on Wall Street and the Fed. The central bank just delivered its third cut to interest rates this year, but inflation has been hovering stubbornly above its target of 2%. It has signaled that it could deliver fewer cuts to interest rates next year than it earlier anticipated because of concerns over inflation. Expectations for more interest rate cuts have helped drive a roughly 25% gain for the S&P 500 in 2024. That drive included 57 all-time highs this year. Inflation concerns have added to uncertainties heading into 2025, which include the labor market's path ahead and shifting economic policies under an incoming President Donald Trump. "Put simply, much of the strong market performance prior to last week was driven by expectations that a best-case scenario was the base case for 2025," said Brent Schutte, chief investment officer at Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company Treasury yields rose in the bond market. The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 4.59% from 4.53% late Friday. European markets closed mostly lower, while markets in Asia gained ground. Wall Street has several other economic reports to look forward to this week. On Tuesday, the U.S. will release its November report for sales of newly constructed homes. A weekly update on unemployment benefits is expected on Thursday. Markets in the U.S. will close at 1 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday for Christmas Eve and will remain closed on Wednesday for Christmas.
The discussions in the West about authorizing long-range missile strikes on Russia are profoundly dishonest and misleading. The political-media elites present deeply flawed arguments to support the conclusion that attacking Russia with these weapons doesn’t cross the line between proxy war and direct war. NATO may be successful in deluding itself, yet for Moscow there is no doubt that this is an act of war. The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself as a justification for NATO to authorize long-range strikes into Russia is very manipulative. The public is pulled in with a very reasonable premise, based on the universal acceptance of the right to self-defense. Once people have accepted this, then it’s presented as a foregone conclusion that Ukraine should be supplied with long-range missiles to attack Russia. The extent of NATO’s involvement in the war, as the main issue, is subsequently eliminated entirely from the argument. The point of departure in an honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between proxy war and direct war crossed? These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on American intelligence and targeting. They will be operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites. Launching them from Ukraine does not make it any less of a direct American attack on Russia. Washington didn’t use these weapons against Russia for three years as it knew it would amount to a direct attack, yet now the media is attempting to sell the narrative of this merely being uncontroversial military aid to enable Ukraine to defend itself. The US and some of its NATO allies have decided to attack Russia directly, and they should be honest about this intention. Attempts to present it as merely giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself constitute an irresponsible effort to shame any dissent and avoid a serious discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power. It is imperative to place oneself in the shoes of opponents and ask how we would interpret a situation and what we would do if the situation were reversed. The US and NATO have invaded many countries over the years, so we do not need to delve too deep into our imagination to set up a hypothetical scenario. How would we have reacted if Moscow had sent long-range missiles, dependent on Russian intelligence and targeting, operated by Russian soldiers and guided by Russian satellites, to attack NATO countries under the guise of merely helping Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen of another country to defend itself? We are deluding ourselves if we pretend that this would not have been interpreted as a direct attack, and despite the great risks involved, we would be compelled to retaliate to restore our deterrent. President Putin warned in September 2024 that Russia would interpret this as a direct attack and the beginning of a NATO-Russia War, and Putin argued that Russia would respond accordingly. The clarity in his language makes it nearly impossible to walk back the commitment to strike back at NATO, which is a deliberate tactic in the game of chicken, as Russia cannot swirl away. Stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine or Kursk are used to legitimize the attack on Russia. This is most likely NATO war propaganda as there would be some evidence if thousands of North Korean soldiers were fighting. The North Koreans allegedly training in Russia are likely intended as a deterrent in case NATO would go to war against Russia. However, even if North Koreans involve themselves in the fighting, it does not make NATO any less of a participant in the war by attacking Russia. The reluctance by Moscow in the past to sufficiently retaliate against NATO’s incremental escalations has been presented as evidence for the false conclusion that it wouldn’t dare respond. There is no doubt that Russia’s restraints have emboldened NATO. President Biden once argued that sending F-16s would result in a Third World War, such warnings now are denounced as ”Russian propaganda”. Russia’s failure to respond when the US crossed that line meant that the US could argue it did not amount to a direct attack. The rules of proxy war subsequently changed. Russia’s dilemma over the past three years has been to either respond at the risk of triggering a Third World War, or to gradually abandon its deterrent and embolden the US. With every NATO escalation, Russia is facing an ever-higher price for its restraint. Russia has been under pressure to set a final red line, and NATO attacking Russia directly is simply too dangerous to go unanswered. How will Russia respond? There are several more steps on the escalation ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, possibly introduce North Korean troops, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centers in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves. Russia’s response will also depend on how these missiles are used. The New York Times has suggested that the use of these missiles would be limited and primarily used to assist Ukraine with the occupation of Kursk, which also makes the US an even more involved participant in the occupation of Russian territory. However, Russia must respond forcefully to any breach of its red lines to counter NATO’s incrementalism – salami tactics that aim to chop away at its deterrent. The purpose of such incrementalism is to avoid an excessive response from Russia. The US will predictably impose restrictions on how these weapons can be used as it engages in direct attacks on Russia, but gradually these restrictions will be removed. The extent of Russia’s response will depend on the extent to which these weapons are effective. The war is evidently being won by Russia, which is why Moscow is cautious about any escalations, as it only needs time. However, if these weapons would actually turn the tide of the war, then Russia would consider itself compelled to launch a powerful attack on NATO as Moscow considers this to be a war for its survival. NATO should therefore hope that these weapons are not effective, which undermines the reasoning for using them at all. The war has already been lost, and Washington previously admitted that these long-range missiles would not be a game changer. There are two reasons for escalating the war at this point, to further bleed Russia and to sabotage Trump’s objective to end the fighting. There is overwhelming evidence that the overarching objective in sabotaging all paths to peace and fighting the proxy war in Ukraine has been to weaken Russia as a strategic rival. Even Vladimir Zelensky recognized in March 2022 that some Western states wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia: ”There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” Both Israeli and Turkish mediators have confirmed that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in order to pit Russia against the Ukrainians, while interviews with top American and British diplomats have revealed that the weakening of Russia and regime change in Moscow was the only acceptable outcome. The timing of Washington’s decision is also suspicious and appears to aim at sabotaging Trump’s massive mandate to end the proxy war. By comparison, Obama similarly threw a wrench into US-Russia relations in late 2016 as he was handing the White House over to Trump. The anti-Russian sanctions and expulsion of Russian diplomats were intended to sabotage Trump’s promise to get along with Russia. Biden appears to be following the same playbook by risking a Third World War to prevent peace from breaking out in Ukraine. Biden was too cognitively impaired to run for re-election, yet he is supposedly mentally fit enough to attack Russia as he prepares to leave the White House. The world today is more dangerous than at any other time in history. The US decision to attack the world’s largest nuclear power is a desperate effort to restore global primacy. What makes this situation even more dangerous is the absurd self-deception across the West that results in us sleepwalking towards nuclear war. The public should be presented with more honest arguments when making the case for risking a third world war and nuclear annihilation. This piece was first published on Glenn Diesen’s Substack and edited by the RT team.2025: a year of innovation, and how to make the most of itPHOENIX (AP) — As Washington heaved over the possibility of a partial government shutdown, leading far-right figures gathered with thousands of Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters and, for the most part, gloried in splintering the president-elect’s party. Speakers and attendees at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest 2024 hailed Trump and billionaire Elon Musk for initially scuttling a bipartisan agreement to keep government open. They jeered House Speaker Mike Johnson and his willingness to engage with Democrats, disregarding Johnson’s close alliance with Trump and frequent appearances at his side. “The political class is infected with a malignant cancer. The cancer is bipartisanship,” boomed Steve Bannon, the Trump adviser who perhaps more than any other reflects and stokes the president-elect’s pugilistic populism. “We don’t need partisanship,” Bannon continued, as he called for Johnson’s ouster. “We need hyper-partisanship.” The president-elect has wide latitude with his core supporters and is in turn responsive to their demands. That dynamic fuels the unpredictability put on display in last week’s budget fight and sets up inevitable future conflicts within Trump’s broadened Republican coalition. That Trump failed to achieve his central goals — with 38 Republicans voting against a plan backed by Trump and Musk — seemed unimportant to Bannon and others who welcomed Trump to the conference’s Sunday finale. The fight itself, and the incoming president being at the center of it, was the point. “Thank you, God, for sending us Donald Trump,” said Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk as Trump took the stage. Thousands roared and held their cell phones aloft to capture the moment. Interviews with people at AmericaFest and arguments from speakers illustrated that, beyond fealty to Trump, the new right in America is defined philosophically by anti-establishment sentiment, staunchly conservative social mores and vocal declarations of patriotism — not a uniform policy consensus. “I just want everything Trump said he was going to do,” said Andrew Graves, a 39-year-old former Disney employee who now works as an Arizona organizer for Turning Point. “It doesn’t matter how as long as we get it done.” Pressed on what “it” is, Graves mentioned “what’s going on in education” and “keeping women out of men’s sports.” He talked about Trump’s signature promises – tariffs on foreign imports, a hardline immigration crackdown – only when prompted. Jennifer Pacheco, a 20-year-old student from Southern California, said she embraced Turning Point because she likes Kirk’s unapologetic Christianity and believes “we need to have God be more present in this country.” In Trump, Pacheco sees a transformative figure. “It’s just everything that’s off track, and I think we will see things get fixed,” she said, talking about the economy and cultural values. When asked, Pacheco said she does sometimes worry about national debt levels. But she said she did not closely follow the week’s maneuvers in Washington and was unfamiliar with Trump’s call to essentially eliminate the nation’s debt ceiling through the entirety of his upcoming term. Alexander Sjorgen, a 26-year-old from Berks County, Pennsylvania, volunteered a more detailed list of policy priorities: addressing structural deficits, goosing domestic energy production, launching a mass deportation program, curtailing “the transgender rights” agenda, rethinking how involved the U.S. is in international affairs. “For the most part, we all just want to see the country strong again and feel like its ours again,” he said. That ethos permeated convention halls and meeting rooms awash in Trump paraphernalia – the “Make America Great Again” hats, T-shirts emblazoned with the bloodied candidate after Trump survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Among the throngs, there was the occasional fully costumed “Uncle Sam” or Revolutionary War figure. Top speakers seized on the atmosphere, being greeted as celebrities and drawing roars of approval on everything from demanding confirmation of Trump’s Cabinet picks to imprisoning members of Congress who investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. “It feels good to win back our country,” Kirk told the opening assembly. But, he added, “the transformation of the Republican Party is not yet complete.” He threatened primaries against any GOP senator who votes against a Trump nominee, warnings that have already affected Capitol Hill. Bannon praised the assembled activists as “the vanguard of a revolutionary movement” and compared Trump’s election to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 realignment of working-class Americans behind Democrats. Bannon skewered Johnson and other establishment Republicans in “the imperial capital,” his derisive quip for Washington. “President Trump came back from the political dead,” Bannon said, framing Trump’s sweep of seven battleground states as a landslide. “We have nothing else to discuss. It’s only about the execution of President Trump’s agenda.” During 75 minutes at the podium on Sunday, Trump ticked through many of his usual pledges and policy ideas. But he did not acknowledge his unsuccessful venture on Capitol Hill last week or continued questions about whether he will try to unseat Johnson. Summing up his intentions, Trump opted for politically fuzzy rhetoric. “Last month, the American people voted for change,” he said, touting a ”common-sense” agenda and promising a “golden age” for the country. Kirk, Bannon and other influencers discussed the Trump agenda in more detail than most attendees, sometimes even acknowledging discrepancies and complexity. Bannon conceded Trump did not get his way on the debt ceiling vote but said he eventually would. But he also insisted that doesn’t mean Trump won’t cut spending. “He’s got a plan. ... But you’ve got to line everything up,” he said, spotlighting billionaires Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and their “government efficiency” commission. Ben Shapiro, another commentator, offered assurances that Trump would rethink tariffs if they “are in fact inflationary.” Further, Shapiro tried to reconcile Trump’s staunch support for U.S. aid to Israel and conservatives’ disdain for foreign aid, including for Ukraine in its war against its invading Russian neighbors. Israel’s fight against Hamas, Shapiro argued, is “existential,” suggesting that Ukraine’s defensive posture is not. Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, a firebrand forced out of Trump’s first White House who Trump has suggested he would bring back once in office, insisted conservatives are not isolationist even as he assailed the Pentagon footprint around the world. “I’m not anti-war,” Flynn said from the main podium. “I’m anti-stupid war.” Kirk, meanwhile, tried to frame any differences across Trump’s coalition as reconcilable. “Maybe you are a parents-rights advocate. Maybe you are here as a Second Amendment enthusiast. ... Maybe you are a pastor. Maybe you are a ‘Make America Healthy Again’ advocate,” Kirk said. “Whatever focus group you have, as long we can agree on the big stuff ... we need to combine forces and defeat the incumbent regime. Welcome aboard. We are going to make America great again.”
One of Donald Trump’s closing campaign arguments was that he would deliver a new “golden age” for America. Last week, he announced that this Trump-powered golden age has already begun. That’s fitting insofar as Trump has rapidly eclipsed the current president, Joe Biden, in setting expectations and even an agenda for America at home and abroad. It feels as if the clock on the second Trump administration has already started. So has the usual fight over who should get the credit — or blame — for the economy the next president inherits. This happens to some extent with every new president, regardless of party and not just on the subject of the economy. Ronald Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, inherited his economy, but Bush’s aides were quick to note that he also inherited an inevitable recession and a savings and loan crisis from the Gipper. In the closing days of this year’s election, Barack Obama complained that Trump had inherited his economic successes in 2017. Trump has reason to jump the gun on taking credit for the economy now: It’s doing amazingly well. That’s not to minimize the pain of many Americans or ignore economic problems such as skyrocketing debt, inflation and dislocations in some regions and industries. Even amid a macroeconomic boom, people live in microeconomic circumstances. The U.S. economy is nevertheless the envy of the world. Don’t take my word for it: The cover of a special issue of the Economist in October described the American economy as just that, the “Envy of the World,” noting that the United States “has left other rich countries in the dust.” The Financial Times reached the same conclusion this month. It’s a stark contrast to the 1990s, when many expected Europe’s economies to leave ours in the dust. In 2008, the European Union’s economy was 10% bigger than that of the United States. By 2022, it was 23% smaller. The EU grew 21% during this period, but the American economy grew 72%. Today, the U.S. economy generates about a quarter of global output. U.S. stocks account for 65% of global equities while Japan, China and the United Kingdom combined account for just more than 10%. If Britain were an American state, it would barely edge out Mississippi— our poorest state — in per capita gross domestic product. There are many reasons for this. Americans simply work harder than citizens of other rich countries. Our productivity has outstripped the eurozone’s by more than 3 to 1 since 2008. Our business culture is different too: We are the most entrepreneurial country in the world, and we regard business failure not as a cause for shame but as useful experience for the next attempt. America is also better at assimilating immigrants than most countries, and the immigrants we tend to attract generally work very hard. I could go on. The point is that we have had different presidents with very different policies and even more different rhetoric over the past 30 years. But U.S. economic trends — with the usual dips and spikes — have been largely positive through all of those presidencies. As the Manhattan Institute’s Brian Riedl put it in National Affairs, “The notion that there is a simple partisan pattern to the health of the economy is an extension of the exaggerated politicization of our understanding of contemporary American life.” Recent dissatisfaction with the economy, spurred by inflation, fueled the idea that America was doing especially awful under Biden. Again, we live in microeconomies, so it’s understandable that many people had that view. But we’ve still been doing better than pretty much everyone else. Trump’s focus on the economic downside was typical for a presidential challenger and fair enough. But he was wrong to suggest that our competitors were eating our lunch. None of this is to suggest that presidents and their economic policies don’t matter. It’s just that they don’t matter as much as presidents and their partisans claim they do. Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast.The incoming chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is sending a stern message to the owners of television stations and networks. And he is using ABC’s recent settlement with President-elect Donald Trump as a news peg of sorts. Brendan Carr, a Trump-appointed commissioner who will become chairman next month, wrote to Disney CEO Bob Iger over the weekend about the Disney-owned ABC network’s negotiations with its affiliated stations across the United States. Carr used that narrow issue to advance some broad points about the state of the industry and to signal that he intends to wield a heavy hand in the top FCC role — taking a very different approach than his predecessors. The letter, which was obtained by CNN, begins, “Dear Mr. Iger, Americans no longer trust the national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly.” Carr cites polling data and says, “ABC’s own conduct has certainly contributed to this erosion in public trust. For instance, ABC News recently agreed to pay $15 million to President Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum and an additional $1 million in attorney fees to settle a defamation case.” Carr then delineates between national networks and local stations (which are licensed by the FCC), saying, “Americans largely hold positive views of their local media outlets.” He indicates support for more local programming — hardly a controversial idea. But his emphasis on the national media’s trust deficit — and his choice to write to Iger — shows that Carr, a commissioner since 2017, has different priorities than Republican and Democratic chairs in the past. Instead of, say, the digital divide, Carr has highlighted Republican allegations of Big Tech censorship. And now he has advanced Trump’s criticism of ABC — albeit in a much more polite way. He seems happy to accept criticism for using his FCC position and X profile as a bully pulpit. Disney may respectfully shrug off the commissioner’s letter, but he cites multiple areas where the media giant is subject to FCC regulation, including station licensing. Television station license renewals are pro forma — licenses are rarely contested and essentially never denied — but during the presidential campaign Trump said he wanted ABC and other broadcasters to lose their licenses . The FCC also oversees a process called retransmission consent, whereby cable distributors pay local stations for the right to retransmit their signals. When Disney-owned channels disappeared from DirecTV lineups for two weeks in September, retransmission consent was a key part of the dispute. Most stations with ABC shows aren’t actually owned by the network; they are owned by other companies that strike affiliation agreements with ABC. “The approach that ABC is apparently taking in these negotiations concerns me,” Carr says in the letter to Iger. “My understanding is that ABC is attempting to extract onerous financial and operational concessions from local broadcast TV stations under the threat of terminating long-held affiliations, which could result in blackouts and other harms to local consumers of broadcast news and content.” He also raises a concern about Disney prioritizing its global streaming services at the expense of local and freely accessible stations. Similar criticisms could theoretically be lodged against other major media companies. “The fact that a massive trust divide has emerged between local news outlets and national programmers like ABC only increases the importance of retransmission consent revenues remaining available for local broadcast TV stations to invest in their local news operations and content that serves their communities,” Carr writes. In effect, he is positioning himself as a friend to local media — and an antagonist to corporate owners. An ABC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Carr concludes the letter stating that he will be “monitoring the outcome” of the ABC negotiations “to ensure that those negotiations enable local broadcast TV stations to meet their federal obligations and serve the needs of their local communities.” The FCC has historically had little ability to shape the programming and conduct of American media companies — but Carr seems ready to try.
SAN ANTONIO , Nov. 22, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz XRT has been named the Compact Truck of Texas at the Texas Auto Writers Association (TAWA) annual Truck Rodeo held Sept. 26-27, 2024 . The TAWA Texas Truck Rodeo is a prominent annual event where top automotive media evaluate new vehicles based on performance, value, and overall appeal. Competing against strong contenders, the updated 2025 Santa Cruz XRT impressed judges with its rugged design, advanced technology, and enhanced off-road capability. "We are thrilled to see the 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz XRT recognized as the 'Compact Truck of Texas .' This award reflects our commitment to offering customers a versatile, fun-to-drive vehicle that is not only capable off-road but also packed with cutting-edge technology and design," said Ricky Lao , director of product planning, Hyundai Motor North America. "The Santa Cruz XRT brings together rugged capability with advanced safety features, making it the perfect choice for adventure-minded consumers seeking the best of both worlds." "The Texas Truck Rodeo is a premier event where vehicles are put to the test by seasoned automotive journalists, and the competition this year was fierce. The 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz XRT stood out for its impressive blend of rugged off-road capability, cutting-edge technology, and unique design," said Cory Fourniquet , president, Texas Auto Writers Association. "This recognition as the 'Compact Truck of Texas' is well-deserved and highlights Hyundai's commitment to delivering versatile and innovative vehicles that meet the needs of Texas drivers." The 2025 Santa Cruz XRT, featuring a new aggressive front design, XRT-exclusive enhancements including front tow hooks, all-terrain tires, and wrench-inspired wheels, sets a new standard. The model's updated interior boasts a panoramic curved display with an available 12.3-inch driver information cluster and infotainment touchscreen display, alongside standard wireless Apple CarPlay® and Android AutoTM, providing an intuitivedriving experience. Hyundai Motor America Hyundai Motor America offers U.S. consumers a technology-rich lineup of cars, SUVs, and electrified vehicles, while supporting Hyundai Motor Company's Progress for Humanity vision. Hyundai has significant operations in the U.S., including its North American headquarters in California , the Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama assembly plant, the all-new Hyundai Motor Group Metaplant America, and several cutting-edge R&D facilities. These operations, combined with those of Hyundai's 835 independent dealers, contribute $20.1 billion annually and 190,000 jobs to the U.S. economy, according to a recent economic impact report . For more information, visit www.hyundainews.com . Hyundai Motor America on Twitter | YouTube | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | TikTok View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2025-hyundai-santa-cruz-xrt-named-compact-truck-of-texas-at-texas-auto-writers-associations-truck-rodeo-302314024.html SOURCE HyundaiARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — The roof at the home of the Dallas Cowboys opened without incident and will stay that way for a Monday night meeting with the Cincinnati Bengals. It was to be the first game with the roof open at AT&T Stadium since Oct. 30, 2022, a 49-29 Dallas victory over Chicago. The roof was supposed to be open three weeks ago for Houston's 34-10 victory on another Monday night, but a large piece of metal and other debris fell roughly 300 feet to the field as the retractable roof was opening about three hours before kickoff. The Cowboys decided to close the roof after the incident, and it remained that way for the game. There were no injuries, and the start of the game wasn't delayed. The club said at the time it would investigate the cause with a plan to reopen the roof when it was deemed safe. Wind was cited as a cause for the falling debris. There were gusts of at least 30 mph in the afternoon before the meeting with the Texans. It was sunny with a high in the 70s Monday in the Dallas area, and winds were in the 10 mph range. ___ AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL Copyright 2024 The Associated Press . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Inventus Mining Commences 80-Hole Drill Program at Pardo Receives OJEP Funding Support and Grants Stock OptionsGas Turbine Market: Powering Global Energy Solutions North America 3.9% CAGR By US, Canada
Romania's pro-European Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu was leading in the first round of presidential elections Sunday according to exit polls, with the far right not yet assured of a place in the second round, despite a breakthrough in support. With 25 percent of the vote according to two exit polls, Ciolacu appeared to be well ahead of far-right challengers looking to capitalise on this EU member's concerns about inflation and the war in neighbouring Ukraine. The same exit polls gave second place to centre-right former journalist turned small-town mayor Elena Lasconi at 18 percent, with two far-right candidates scoring 15 and 16 percent. In the absence of an outright winner in the first round -- scoring more than 50 percent -- the top two candidates go through to a second-round run-off in the poor NATO member on December 8. Ciolacu, a Social Democrat, is leading a field of 13 contenders in the race to take over from President Klaus Iohannis in the largely ceremonial post. He welcomed the exit polls putting him in the lead, but said all the votes would have to be counted before he knew who he would face in the second round. Lasconi too, was cautious. "The scores are very tight, it's not yet time to celebrate," said the 52-year-old politician. Far-right leader George Simion, 38, who some had forecast might take second place, is for the moment in fourth. Exit polls put him just behind the 62-year-old pro-Russian candidate Calin Georgescu. But Simion said Sunday evening: "We'll see the results of the ballot boxes at 11:00 pm (2100 GMT)." Ciolacu's party has shaped Romania's politics for more than three decades, and as he voted Sunday he promised stability and a "decent" standard of living. But political analyst Cristian Parvulescu told AFP: "The far right is by far the big winner of this election." Simion saw his popularity surge by tapping into voter anger over record inflation while promising more affordable housing. Looking for a new election breakthrough for European far-right parties, Simion warned of possible "fraud" and "foreign interference" when voting. But he added: "I am happy that we are giving Romanians hope and the prospect of a better future." The stakes are high for Romania, which has a 650-kilometre (400-mile) border with Ukraine and has become more important since Russia invaded its neighbour in 2022. The Black Sea nation now plays a "vital strategic role" for NATO -- as it is a base for more than 5,000 soldiers -- and the transit of Ukrainian grain, the New Strategy Center think tank said. Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election has further "complicated" Romania's choice, political analyst Cristian Pirvulescu told AFP. Known for his fiery speeches, Simion is a Trump fan who sometimes dons a red cap in appreciation of his idol. Simion opposes sending military aid to Ukraine, wants a "more patriotic Romania" and frequently lashes out against what he calls the "greedy corrupt bubble" running the European Union. Having campaigned hard to win over Romania's large diaspora working abroad, he said the country had only "minions and cowards as leaders". Pirvulescu predicted that if Simion reached the second round his AUR party would get a boost in the December parliamentary election. "Romanian democracy is in danger for the first time since the fall of communism in 1989," he said. "I'm really afraid we'll end up with Simion in the second round," 36-year-old IT worker Oana Diaconu told AFP, expressing concern about the far-right leader's unpredictable nature and attacks on the European Union. The campaign was marked by controversy and personal attacks, with Simion facing accusations of meeting with Russian spies -- a claim he has denied. Ciolacu has been criticised for his use of private jets. Some observers had tipped Lasconi, now mayor of the small town of Campulung and head of a centre-right opposition party, as a surprise package. Sunday's exit polls appeared to suggest they were right. During campaigning, she had said she wanted a future "where no one has to pack their suitcases and leave" the country and for "institutions that work". bur/js-jj/InfosecTrain's CSR Initiative Raises Cyber Awareness with Nukkad-Natak 'Jaago Cyber Jaago'S&P Dow Jones Indices Float Adjusted Liquidity Ratio Clarification for Certain U.S. Indices