I had never heard of the word "emophilia" until today when I read The Times newspaper. So I learned something today and I would like to pass it on as it might interest others. You might know of somebody who meets people and then quite soon afterwards declares that they are in love with that person. That the person is "the one".
And then they promptly split up and start all over again with somebody else. This person might be an emophiliac; a person who falls in the out of love a lot and enjoys the emotional rush of the process.
Until now, as far as I know, psychologists haven't put a label to this form of human behaviour. Now they have. Dr. Daniel Jones, associate professor of psychology at the University of Nevada coined the term "emophilia". He describes it as the tendency to fall in love fast and often.
It's possible that Shakespeare's Romeo may have been an emophiliac. He starts off by falling in love with Rosaline at the beginning of the play and declared that there was no one fairer than her. He then swiftly turns his affections to Juliet who also gets a similar compliment with the phrase "It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."
There is a spectrum of intensity when it comes to haemophilia. Some people are high on the scale while others are low on the scale. Most people are in the middle. Dr. Daniel Jones said that people who are highly emophilic repeatedly "seek the rush of romantic emotions, immediate romantic corrections, and the rapid development of romantic love."
It is a kind of addictive rush it seems to me. It's not that the similar it seems to a kind of drug; the drug of love and the emotions that flow from it. Dr. Jones added that for these people it's about want not need. Actually sex addiction comes to mind to which is also seeking a rush to temporarily brighten up one's life.
The predictable downside to this form of falling in love is that you don't give yourself time to ensure that you have connected with the right person. You don't have enough information about the person. It seems that you bypass the usual niceties and introductions and getting used to each other so that you know each other before falling truly in love.
Studies have found that people high in emophilia are more likely to lie and cover for their partner even if they have only known them for a short time. They are also more likely to be unfaithful.
Once emophiliacs get into a relationship they don't turn off their emophilic tendencies. They appear to go onto the next person.
"If someone did fall in love overnight and maintained that relationship faithfully with no other love interests until death, I would not classify that person as high in emophilia. Thus, although the development of a romantic connection must be fast for emophilia to be present, it must also be repeated."
His advice to people "suffering" from this form of addiction as I would call it is to be more patient and to give a chance to people who might seem boring at first. They might overlook people they consider to be boring because they can't get the rush that they desire. But these people are more genuine it seems because people who are very smooth and perform well on a first date may have an agenda and may be exploitative.
Dr. Jones added that it was wise to trust the advice of a friend or family member and perhaps a therapist and "remember that emotions and excitement can be easily manipulated but trust and companionship should not be rushed into and a good foundation is critical for a realistic chance to have a relationship work."
--------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Trump is a person who should NOT be the next President as he would be dangerous to humankind as he does not believe in climate change calling it a 'scam' and a 'hoax' of all things. He is going against hundreds of top scientists.
Here is some detail on why Trump cannot be the next president solely on the basis that he calls climate change a SCAM. The man wants to make lots of money for himself and his country and fixing climate change is hugely expensive and will stunt economic growth potentially. He wants to kick the problem into the long grass at the expense of future generations. He is behaving like the worst politicians: short term thinking and instant popularity while shunning reality.
From the perspective of climate change and its global implications, Donald Trump’s return to the presidency could be dangerous for humankind, especially considering his well-documented dismissal of climate science. By repeatedly calling climate change a "scam" and rolling back crucial environmental regulations during his presidency, Trump demonstrated a disregard for the scientific consensus that climate change is real, primarily human-caused, and a significant threat to the future of the planet.
Here are key reasons why Trump's denial of climate change poses serious risks:
1. Delaying Urgent Climate Action
Lost time: Climate change requires immediate action to mitigate its worst effects, and Trump's policies during his first term set back progress. His stance, if continued in a second term, would delay essential policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, further narrowing the window for effective action.
Regulatory rollbacks: Trump’s administration dismantled numerous environmental protections, from emissions standards to limits on pollution, exacerbating environmental damage and making it harder to reverse course.
2. Influencing Millions to Deny Climate Change
Amplifying denial: As a highly influential figure, Trump’s statements on climate change reinforce misinformation. Millions of Americans—and others around the world—look to him for guidance, and his denial of climate science sows confusion and distrust in factual information.
Undermining global consensus: In an era where global cooperation on climate change is crucial, Trump’s influence encourages division and skepticism, weakening efforts to build the broad-based support needed for effective climate policies.
3. Weakening Global Climate Leadership
U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement during his presidency sent a signal that the U.S., one of the largest carbon emitters, was stepping back from its leadership role in tackling climate change. This undermined global efforts to reduce emissions and gave cover to other nations considering scaling back their climate commitments.
Missed opportunities for cooperation: A president who denies climate change cannot effectively collaborate with other countries on climate solutions. This risks not only environmental harm but also damages U.S. diplomatic standing.
4. Promoting Fossil Fuel Dependence
Fossil fuel focus: Trump’s policies heavily favored the fossil fuel industry, promoting oil, gas, and coal production while undermining renewable energy investments. This approach ignores the long-term economic benefits of transitioning to clean energy and locks the U.S. into outdated, polluting technologies.
Worsening climate impacts: Continued dependence on fossil fuels would accelerate greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying the effects of climate change—more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to agriculture and water supplies—leading to catastrophic consequences for future generations.
5. Ignoring National Security Threats
Climate as a "threat multiplier": Trump’s dismissal of climate change overlooks the growing recognition within the U.S. military and intelligence communities that climate change is a major national security threat. Worsening climate conditions are expected to cause resource conflicts, mass migration, and political instability around the world, endangering global security.
Unpreparedness for disasters: Climate change increases the frequency and severity of natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts. Ignoring climate change means failing to adequately prepare for or mitigate these disasters, putting millions of lives and livelihoods at risk.
6. Economic Risks and Missed Opportunities
Missed green economy opportunities: The global economy is moving toward renewable energy and sustainable technologies. A president who ignores or downplays climate change could cause the U.S. to fall behind in developing these industries, missing out on job creation and economic growth in the green sector.
Cost of inaction: The economic costs of inaction on climate change—ranging from damage to infrastructure, agriculture losses, health impacts, and disaster recovery—far outweigh the costs of proactive mitigation. Trump’s policies would likely increase the financial burden on future generations.
7. Endangering Future Generations
Long-term impacts: Trump’s denial of climate change threatens the future of younger generations. Climate change will affect every aspect of life—access to clean air and water, health, food security, and economic stability. A president who fails to acknowledge this reality risks leaving a damaged planet for future generations to inherit.
Irreversible tipping points: Climate science warns of tipping points beyond which the effects of global warming could become irreversible. Trump’s policies would likely push us closer to these points, increasing the likelihood of severe and unmanageable climate impacts.
Conclusion: Why Trump Should Not Be the Next President
Given the existential threat that climate change poses to humankind, it is vital that the next president fully acknowledges the reality of the climate crisis and takes decisive action to address it. Trump’s denial of climate change and his policies favoring short-term economic interests over long-term sustainability make him a dangerous choice in this regard.
In a world where immediate, bold action is needed to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, a leader who calls it a "scam" is not only delaying essential progress but actively working against the survival and well-being of future generations. To protect both the U.S. and the global community, it is crucial to have leadership that understands the gravity of the climate crisis and is committed to solutions that prioritize the environment, public health, and long-term sustainability.
Is climate change a scam as Trump says?
No, climate change is not a scam. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, human-caused, and poses a significant threat to the environment, economies, and human health worldwide. This consensus is based on decades of research, data, and observations regarding rising global temperatures, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and the impacts on ecosystems, sea levels, and weather patterns.
Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about climate change, often referring to it as a "hoax" or "scam." However, his views are at odds with the scientific consensus. Major organizations, including NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have all affirmed that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming.
Here are a few key points:
1. Scientific Consensus: Studies show that over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is driven by human activities. This includes reputable bodies like the IPCC and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
2. Rising Temperatures: Data shows that global temperatures have increased by about 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, with the past decade being the warmest on record.
3. Climate Change Impacts: We are already seeing effects such as more extreme weather events, melting polar ice, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems and agriculture.
4. Economic and Security Risks: Ignoring climate change has economic, geopolitical, and health consequences. Military experts and economists view climate change as a "threat multiplier" due to its potential to exacerbate conflicts over resources and cause large-scale human migrations.
While political opinions on how to address climate change vary, the scientific evidence supporting the reality and seriousness of climate change is robust and clear.
----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
American men have an average lifespan of 76.33 years. UK men have an average lifespan of 80.70 years. Although there are many reasons for this difference, one is diet including fast food differences. Take a look at this picture and a fuller written picture below.
Update October 3, 2024: The Times newspaper reports that "Middle-aged Britons slimmer and healthier than US peers". That said, UK residents are also pretty unhealthy with an obesity epidemic! However, a study found that middle-aged Britons are slimmer, healthier and less likely to suffer heart problems than their peers in the US. British adults are less likely to be obese and also have lower rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. In the US, 40% were obese compared with 35% in the UK. 23% of Americans had high blood pressure and 11% had high cholesterol compared with rates of 19 and 8% respectively in the UK. There are many reasons for this, one of which is diet referred to on this page but there may also be an input from the health service available in the UK and in the USA. In my opinion, the problem is linked to obesity and overeating. That's the core of the problem because being obese carries with it numerous health problems. There is no doubt that it shortens life substantially on average.
Why do American men have a shorter lifespan than British men?
Note: below this section is one on diet which explores the facts in the image above.
The shorter lifespan of American men compared to British men can be attributed to several interrelated factors. Here are some of the key reasons:
1. Healthcare System
Access to healthcare: The U.S. has a more privatized healthcare system, which can create barriers to accessing medical care, especially for lower-income individuals. In contrast, the U.K. has the National Health Service (NHS), which provides universal healthcare free at the point of delivery, allowing more consistent and early access to healthcare services for the entire population.
Preventive care: Americans, particularly those without insurance, may delay or avoid seeking preventive care due to cost concerns. This can lead to the later detection of diseases and worse outcomes, which impacts life expectancy.
2. Obesity and Diet
Obesity rates: The U.S. has higher rates of obesity than the U.K. Obesity is a significant risk factor for various health issues, including heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers, all of which can shorten lifespan. Poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are more prevalent in the U.S.
Dietary differences: Processed and fast foods, which are often high in sugar, fat, and salt, are more widely consumed in the U.S., contributing to chronic health conditions.
3. Income Inequality and Poverty
Economic disparities: The U.S. has higher levels of income inequality than the U.K., which translates to disparities in access to healthcare, housing, nutrition, and other essentials. Economic stress and poorer living conditions can exacerbate health problems, increasing mortality rates.
Social safety nets: The U.K. has more robust social programs that reduce poverty and provide support, such as welfare and housing assistance. These programs can help mitigate the adverse health effects of poverty and provide stability, potentially extending life expectancy.
4. Gun Violence and Homicide Rates
Gun-related deaths: The U.S. has much higher rates of gun violence, including homicides and suicides, which disproportionately affect men. This contributes directly to lower life expectancy in American men, especially young and middle-aged men.
Homicide rates: The U.S. has a higher homicide rate than the U.K., and this violent crime disproportionately affects men.
5. Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Opioid crisis: The U.S. has faced a severe opioid crisis, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, primarily affecting men. Overdose deaths have significantly reduced life expectancy in certain regions of the U.S.
Mental health: Mental health care in the U.S. can be expensive and less accessible, leading to untreated conditions such as depression and anxiety. The combination of untreated mental health issues and easy access to firearms may explain higher suicide rates among American men compared to British men.
6. Work-life Balance and Stress
Work culture: Americans tend to work longer hours and take fewer vacations than their British counterparts, leading to higher levels of stress. Chronic stress is linked to many health issues, such as cardiovascular disease and weakened immune function.
Social determinants of health: Factors like job security, income, and social status all play a role in life expectancy. The American work culture may expose men to more work-related stress, which negatively affects overall health.
7. Environmental Factors
Air pollution: While both the U.S. and U.K. experience pollution, certain areas of the U.S. have higher levels of pollution, particularly in urban centers. Poor air quality is linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, which can shorten life expectancy.
Climate and geography: Some regions of the U.S. are more prone to extreme weather, such as heatwaves, which can be fatal, especially for vulnerable populations.
8. Lifestyle and Cultural Differences
Smoking and alcohol consumption: While smoking rates have declined in both countries, the U.S. has higher alcohol consumption and binge drinking rates, which can lead to liver disease, accidents, and other health issues.
Physical activity: Americans generally engage in less physical activity compared to British men, contributing to higher rates of obesity and associated diseases.
9. Maternal Mortality and Infant Health
Infant and maternal mortality: The U.S. has a higher infant and maternal mortality rate than the U.K., which is indicative of broader healthcare system issues and negatively impacts overall life expectancy figures.
In summary, while both American and British men face many similar health challenges, systemic factors like the healthcare system, higher rates of obesity and substance abuse, more violence, and greater economic inequality contribute to the shorter lifespan of American men compared to British men.
The American Big Mac burger contains more calories, more fat and more salt and additives than the British version. Is this an indication of the underlying differences in diet?
Yes, the differences in the composition of the American and British Big Mac are indicative of broader dietary trends and food culture between the two countries. The fact that the American Big Mac contains more calories, fat, salt, and additives compared to its British counterpart reflects key underlying differences in diet and food standards that could impact health and life expectancy.
Here are some ways in which the difference between these two versions of the Big Mac highlights broader dietary contrasts:
1. Food Standards and Regulations
Ingredient regulations: The U.K. and European Union (which governed U.K. food laws until Brexit) have stricter regulations on food additives, preservatives, and artificial ingredients. This can lead to lower levels of unhealthy additives in processed foods in the U.K. compared to the U.S., where food industry standards are more lenient.
Trans fats: The U.S. historically allowed higher levels of trans fats, which contribute to heart disease, though these have been increasingly regulated in recent years. In the U.K., trans fats were banned earlier, reflecting a difference in public health priorities.
2. Portion Sizes
Larger portions in the U.S.: In general, portion sizes tend to be larger in the U.S. than in the U.K., especially for fast food. The higher calorie content of the American Big Mac could be reflective of a cultural trend towards supersized portions, which contributes to higher caloric intake and obesity rates.
Perception of value: U.S. fast food culture often equates larger portions with better value, which encourages overconsumption, while the U.K. typically favors smaller, more controlled portions.
3. Salt and Sugar Intake
Higher salt and sugar levels: The American Big Mac contains more salt, which reflects broader dietary trends in the U.S. where high-sodium processed foods are more common. Excessive salt consumption is linked to hypertension and heart disease, which are more prevalent in the U.S.
Hidden sugars: Processed foods in the U.S. often contain more added sugars, even in savory items. This has been linked to the rise in obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome in the U.S.
4. Obesity Rates and Health Outcomes
Higher obesity rates in the U.S.: The U.S. has a significantly higher obesity rate than the U.K., with almost 40% of American adults classified as obese compared to about 27% in the U.K. The nutritional composition of fast foods like the Big Mac plays a role in these differences. The higher fat, calorie, and sodium content in American fast food reflects a broader trend toward energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, contributing to obesity and related diseases.
Chronic diseases: The high fat and calorie content of processed foods in the U.S. is a major factor in the higher prevalence of heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions, which are key contributors to the shorter lifespan of American men compared to British men.
5. Cultural Attitudes Toward Food
Convenience and fast food culture: In the U.S., fast food is a staple of the diet for many, often consumed more frequently than in the U.K. Americans tend to have a more fast-paced lifestyle, which encourages the consumption of quick, convenient, and often unhealthy meals. In contrast, while fast food is popular in the U.K., there is a stronger cultural emphasis on home-cooked meals and a more traditional approach to meal times.
Food marketing: The fast food industry in the U.S. is highly competitive and promotes value meals and larger portions aggressively. This is less of a focus in the U.K., where there has been more public pressure on the food industry to promote healthier options.
6. Public Health Campaigns
Health awareness: In the U.K., there have been stronger public health campaigns aimed at reducing sugar and salt consumption, particularly through government regulation and media. Initiatives like the sugar tax on soft drinks and clearer food labeling are more prominent in the U.K. These measures encourage healthier consumer choices, which are less emphasized in the U.S. until more recently.
7. Culinary Traditions
Traditional diets: In the U.K., while fast food is available, traditional British meals, particularly home-cooked meals, are typically lower in calories and fat compared to the average American diet. The Mediterranean influence on European diets also emphasizes healthier fats (like olive oil) and more fresh produce.
Processed foods: In contrast, the American diet often incorporates more highly processed foods, including ready-made meals and snacks, which tend to be higher in calories, unhealthy fats, and preservatives.
8. Pricing and Accessibility
Cheap, unhealthy food: In the U.S., highly processed, calorie-dense foods are often cheaper and more accessible than healthier, fresh options. Fast food is often seen as a cost-effective option for many families, contributing to poorer dietary habits overall.
Healthier alternatives: In the U.K., while price disparities exist, there has been a push toward making healthier food more affordable and accessible through government initiatives and market changes.
Conclusion
The nutritional differences between the American and British versions of the Big Mac are a microcosm of broader dietary patterns in each country. The U.S. diet tends to be higher in calories, fat, salt, and additives, which contributes to obesity, heart disease, and other health issues that reduce life expectancy. In contrast,
----------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
NEWS AND COMMENT, UK: Of course this is my opinion. Share yours please. Many will disagree with me and they will be wrong. 😱 Britain has temporarily become Russia under Putin: a repressive state with a mindless, establishment judge hammering a couple of courageous protesters campaigning under the Just Stop Oil banner by imprisoning them for two years in the case of one protester and 18 months for the other for throwing Heinz soup over a Vincent van Gogh sunflower painting protected by glass in the National Gallery.
They knew that the painting was protected by glass. The prosecution argument is that the soup MAY have damaged the 17th-century frame. We don't know whether it was or wasn't. I doubt whether it was damaged. We should know.
So what they did was entirely visual. It was a visual statement and it worked in that sense. It has received lots of publicity but this government wants to stamp on perfectly respectful protests. Protests about climate change, which presents an extensional threat to the planet.
It is the young people of today who are nervous about the future because of climate change and other developments. The two women jailed for this extortionate amount of time for an entirely non-violent protest on a critical matter of importance to the survival of humankind are Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland. Plummer told the hearing at which she was sentenced to 2 years in prison that she will take the punishment on the chin and smile.
Want to know the real story behind Just Stop Oil and the people who support the campaign? Crowdfunding for Everything Is Fine is now live! Donate here: https://t.co/PT88vg3pNahttps://t.co/0wVefZr3Pw
Given the existential threat of global warming, the actions of the Just Stop Oil protestors can be seen as just and proper, even if they broke the law in doing so. Their protest caused no physical damage, did not lead to disorder, and was motivated by a genuine concern for the future of the planet. Rather than being punished, these activists should be recognized for their role in raising awareness of a global crisis that demands urgent attention. Praising rather than punishing them would not only acknowledge the gravity of the climate crisis, but also send a message that civil disobedience in the name of a just cause is a vital tool for driving social and political change.
Lousy judge
I think she's a wonderful person. As is Anna Holland. The horrible judge, part of the establishment, who I would totally disrespect because of this unwarranted punishment, is Judge Christopher Hehir. He signalled beforehand that he would punish them severely and he has. A ghastly man. He is taking orders from the government, I would allege which is illegal.
He appears to have justified the punishment in saying the following. They crossed the line from "concerned campaigner to fanatic". In addition he said that the "cultural treasure" could have been "seriously damaged or even destroy".
That is entirely incorrect. This judge, I think, is showing his hatred for these protesters. He is allowing his emotions to affect his judgement which should be an objective process, a fair process. Yes, this couple of young women should be punished for causing minor, very minor criminal damage I would argue in the cause of a great protest but it should be a very mild punishment (a small fine) because their cause is critical to the survival of the planet.
The lawyer representing the couple said that they knew there was glass over the painting and therefore the painting would not be damaged. The judge got this entirely wrong.
New copy protest
And remarkably, three new Just Stop Oil protesters have now been arrested on suspicion of criminal damage after they threw some more soup over two versions of Vincent van Gogh's sunflowers at the National Gallery. This is a fresh protest in protest over the overly harsh sentencing of the couple of young women now languishing in jail.
This recent development is a great one. Judges can't go on imprisoning protesters and campaigners against the continued burning of oil and gas, exacerbating climate change, in the UK because firstly there are not enough spaces in prison to imprison these people because of a lack of prison construction over the years.
Madness of imprisonment
And secondly, this government has decided that imprisonment is not a good form of punishment. They recently released over 1,500 prisoners. These were men who committed real crimes. This government is releasing genuine criminals, often harden criminals, who are in and out of jail all the time and imprisoning people who are fighting for the survival of humankind! It is totally bonkers.
This new group of three Just Stop Oil activists been arrested and they made a good point. Their spokesperson, Phil Green, said that the 25 supporters of their group now currently in jail would be regarded by future generations as being "prisoners of conscience" and on the right side of history.
In future years we will look back at the imprisonment of these activists has wholly incorrect and unwarranted. We will look back at the madness of it. These people are doing something good. This should be praised. They have been forced into carrying out these dramatic protests in order to get the attention of the media and the government. If the government was doing something about global warming they'd be no protests. Just Stop Oil wouldn't exist if governments worldwide were doing their job and making genuine progress on protecting the planet.
The suffragettes’ struggle is an excellent analogy for today’s climate activism. Like the suffragettes, climate activists are working for a just and necessary cause in the face of institutional inertia and societal resistance. The harsh punishments they face today may one day be seen, as the suffragettes’ punishments are now, as unjust responses to moral bravery. Just as we now honor the suffragettes for their role in advancing human rights, future generations may honor today's environmental activists for their role in protecting the planet.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
This is another sort of conspiracy theory swirling around the high-profile story of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio eating pet cats which has now been totally debunked by the way. There is good hard evidence of it but a social media influencer and self-proclaimed investigative journalists, Laura Loomer, travelled with Donald Trump on his plane as I understand it before the debate that he had with Kamala Harris and this points to the possibility that she influenced him to bring up the Haitian immigrant pet eating story.
Laura Loomer (right) traveled with ex-President Donald Trump (left) this week to the debate and a 9/11 memorial ceremony (Picture: X/@LauraLoomer).
To support this, she tweeted to her 1.2 million followers before the debate about "disturbing reports came out this weekend about Haitian immigrants eating people's pets in Ohio".
Disturbing reports came out this weekend about Haitian immigrants eating people’s pets in Ohio where Democrats like @SenSherrodBrown and the Biden-Harris regime imported over 20,000 cannibalistic Haitians who are now killing people’s pets and hunting domestic animals on the… https://t.co/TKReL5HEkN
So she appears to have believed it before it was debunked and she's close to Donald Trump and has been for some time and as mentioned sometimes travels with him and so the theory is that she influenced him to utter those fatal words because Donald Trump had no evidence to support what he said about Haitian immigrants feeding pets but he went ahead and did it claiming that it was on television!
He looked like a fool and he had egg on his face the days afterwards. A source close to the Trump campaign expressed 100% concern around her closeness to the former president. This person who's unnamed believes that the relationship isn't working. However, another anonymous source said that Loomer did not participate in this debate preparations and that overall she was a positive person to be around for Trump.
Loomer was born in Arizona and she's worked as a commentator for the far-rate activist group Project Veritas. She ran unsuccessfully as a Congressional candidate in the sunshine state twice including in central California and 2022.
Loomer also accompanied Donald Trump to an event the next day (the day after the debate) commemorating the 9/11 attacks. And she has also attended numerous events at Trump's Mar-a-Largo home.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
