Thread contenitore generico sugli USA

[alpha12000]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...n/73149323007/

Cameron Jones is a sophomore at Columbia University. He has family in Israel and has visited more than once, but he’s also a member of the college’s chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and a vocal opponent of Israel’s attacks on Gaza.
His family abroad doesn't know about the organizing he's done, nor do they know that he is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Columbia after the JVP chapter was suspended in November.
Since Hamas strikes prompted Israel to begin attacking Gaza on Oct. 7, Jones and other students – mostly queer people, people of color and women – have been organizing to demand Columbia divest from companies and institutions that support Israel.
“I feel as though I have more of a duty to stand up against what is wrong,” Jones told me during a recent phone call.
Almost 33,000 Palestinians have died in the past six months. The images and information coming out of the Gaza Strip, like the Israeli airstrike that killed seven aid workers last week, have been difficult to see.
Calling for an end to the conflict is important to the nation’s youngest voters, and President Joe Biden needs to take a firm stance on the issue ahead of the election. He is one of the most powerful men in the world; what he says can impact how Israel is seen by its peers. If Biden called for a cease-fire, even a short-term one, it would likely be taken seriously by Israel. Biden has come out against the dangers that civilians in the region are facing, but it's not enough.
If your social media feed is anything like mine, you’ve seen documentation of the catastrophe – of buildings after bombings, families in refugee camps and glimpses into the lives of people who have died. The cause has even reached dating apps, where users are specifying their stances on Gaza or simply including the Palestinian flag in their bios.
This social media campaign is probably why so many young voters are supporting Palestinians compared with previous flare-ups in the region.
In a New York Times/Siena poll from December, 55% of respondents ages 18-29 oppose the United States sending more aid to Israel. Another poll from Quinnipiac University in November found that 52% of voters under 35 are more sympathetic to the Palestinians.
However, not everyone in this demographic is on the same page. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll conducted in October shows that 48% of millennials and Generation Z think the country should publicly support Israel, while 12% of this group think that the United States should publicly criticize Israel.
A whole generation is coming of age, and some of us are questioning the years of funding our government has sent to Israel. The United States has given $130 billion worth of aid since Israel's founding after World War II.
Last year, we sent Israel $3.8 billion in military assistance. After the Hamas attacks, Biden requested an additional $14 billion for Israel.
We want to know why we are still sending money despite the horrific scenes playing out in front of us. We don’t want to be complicit in the human rights violations we are seeing on social media every day.
Layla Saliba is a graduate student at Columbia University and a Palestinian American. Multiple family members of hers have died in Gaza since Oct. 7.
She and Jones said they have been the targets of harassment because of their activism on behalf of Palestinians. Both told me they've appeared on Canary Mission, a website that exposes personal information of Gaza supporters. Saliba said she had to block one Columbia professor who harassed her on X, formerly Twitter.
Saliba, who grew up wary of talking about her Palestinian background, notes that she has seen more pro-Palestinian conversation in recent months than ever before.
“It’s the first time we’re seeing something like this on social media, on our phones, every day,” Saliba told me. “And I think the level of death and destruction we’re witnessing – I don’t think the human brain is designed to deal with that. And this is something that is being funded by our tax dollars.”
With no cease-fire in Gaza, Muslims like me struggle with guilt and rage this Ramadan
Jones, on the other hand, is one of many young Jewish Americans who have been organizing to support the Palestinian people and bring attention to the cause through acts of civil disobedience that have disrupted travel routes and daily routines.
Hundreds of young employees at Jewish organizations have signed a letter addressed to Biden and Congress demanding a cease-fire.
For Jones, the claim that criticizing Israel is antisemitic is “disheartening.” He noted that it makes it difficult to call out “actual” antisemitism in the process.
“People are going about calling ‘anti-Zionism’ antisemitism, wearing a (traditional Palestinian scarf) kaffiyeh antisemitic,” Jones told me. “All these things that really aren't antisemitism, but they’re painting it as that.”
Even as a person without direct ties to Israel or Gaza, conversations have been fraught. It's frustrating that some people won't engage in genuine conversation about the destruction we're seeing on a regular basis. It's draining to face the reality of war as it unfolds and upsetting to know that we have contributed to that suffering.
Biden and his campaign staff should be taking the call to action seriously. Voters in Michigan showed their disapproval of Biden’s inaction in the region by voting “uncommitted” in the state’s Democratic Primary. Since then, voters in other states have used the protest vote as a means of voicing their feelings on Gaza.
Gen Z progressives are also trying to get Biden’s attention. In March, a coalition of youth movements sent a letter to the president outlining the youth agenda. It included an ask of Biden to call for a cease-fire. Gen Z for Change, one of the groups involved, has also been helping voters email their elected officials in support of a cease-fire.
Gaza is redefining the Christian vote. Biden and Trump better listen.
Recently, the president acknowledged some pro-Palestinian protesters at a rally in North Carolina, saying that they “have a point” and that more care is needed in Gaza. Vice President Kamala Harris is on record supporting a six-week cease-fire. Both are steps in the right direction.
On the other hand, Biden is the sitting president of a world power. When he speaks, other leaders listen. Because of this, he needs to take an active stance in support of a cease-fire in the region. It isn’t enough to have Harris deliver the message.
We just want to know why our tax dollars are supporting this and how we can do something about all of the tragedy we are seeing in real time, day in and day out, since Oct. 7. The president could ensure more votes in the fall if he takes our concerns seriously.

[alpha12000]

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/08/p...024/index.html


Former President Donald Trump said Monday that abortion rights should be left to the states, offering his clearest stance yet on one of the most delicate and contentious issues in American politics.
“My view is now that we have abortion where everyone wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state,” Trump said in a video posted to his Truth Social account.
“Many states will be different,” Trump continued. “Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be. At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people.”
Trump had previously suggested he could support a 15-week federal ban with exceptions in the cases of incest, rape and when the life of the mother is in danger. However, his ultimate decision to punt the politically fraught issue to the states and not back a national ban was swiftly denounced by a major anti-abortion rights organization, which said his position did not go far enough.
In Monday’s video, Trump said he was “proudly the person responsible” for the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, which he said took the issue “out of the federal hands and brought it into the hearts, minds, and vote of the people in each state.”
The former president did not indicate the number of weeks during a pregnancy at which he thought it would be appropriate to ban abortion but reiterated his support for certain exceptions. He previously publicly derided six-week state abortion bans as “terrible” and acknowledged that the debate over the procedure has plagued Republicans at the ballot box since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision eliminated federal abortion protections.
Trump told reporters last week that he would be making a “statement” on abortion when pressed about Florida’s six-week abortion ban, which is set to become law after a recent state Supreme Court ruling.
Trump’s video Monday garnered immediate backlash from leading anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which set a 15-week national ban as its standard for Republican candidates in the presidential primary.
“We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position. Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections and national advocacy from the brutality of the abortion industry. The Dobbs decision clearly allows both states and Congress to act,” the group’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said.
Trump also falsely claimed in his video that “all legal scholars, both sides” wanted Roe v. Wade terminated and that we now have “abortion where everybody wanted it, from a legal standpoint.” Many scholars who support abortion rights, as well as a clear majority of Americans in opinion polls, did not support the overturning of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure nationwide.
Trump’s contortions around abortion go back to his earliest forays into politics. After announcing a presidential exploratory committee in 1999, Trump called himself “very pro-choice” during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I hate the concept of abortion. … But still, I just believe in choice,” he said.
As he marched toward the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, Trump strained to distance himself from the remark to assuage conservatives and skeptical anti-abortion leaders. He vowed to install conservative justices on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. In one notable exchange during the Republican primary, Trump said that if abortion were outlawed, women who undergo the procedure should face “some form of punishment.” His campaign quickly walked back the remark amid swift backlash, only to have Trump then say that doctors, not women, should be “legally responsible” in that scenario.
Trump’s latest attempt to clarify his stance will do little to stop Democrats from tying the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to a wave of anti-abortion laws passed in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision – a watershed ruling made possible by the former president making good on his pledge to overhaul the Supreme Court. (Trump appointed three of the justices who voted with the majority to overturn Roe.)
“Donald Trump made it clear once again today that he is – more than anyone in America – the person responsible for ending Roe v. Wade,” President Joe Biden said in a campaign statement Monday. “He is – more than anyone in America – responsible for creating the cruelty and the chaos that has enveloped America since the Dobbs decision.”
Abortion is banned in most cases in 14 states – including Texas, the second-most populous state in the country. Another seven states have restrictions that prevent abortion between six and 18 weeks into a pregnancy. That includes Trump’s home state of Florida, where a six-week abortion ban will take effect in a matter of weeks.
Though Trump reiterated his support for some abortion exceptions Monday, he stopped short of suggesting national legislation to ensure access to the procedure for victims of rape and incest or when a mother’s life is in danger. Many states with abortion bans do not allow for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. Even some that do require victims to prove their assaults by tracking down police reports.
Nor are there ubiquitous regulations for determining when a woman’s health is at danger. Doctors in many states with new abortion restrictions have strained to parse vague statutes while risking their medical licenses and even jail time if they run afoul of the law.
“Because of Donald Trump, one in three women in America already live under extreme and dangerous bans that put their lives at risk and threaten doctors with prosecution for doing their jobs. And that is only going to get worse,” Biden said Monday.
Against this landscape, abortion rights advocates are pressing to get ballot measures in states across the country this fall to enshrine access to the procedure in state constitutions. Trump in his statement Monday acknowledged that voters will ultimately decide the fate of abortion access in some states.
However, Trump has yet to say how he would vote on an abortion access measure that will appear on his own Florida ballot this November.

[alpha12000]

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/be...0-653b62da332c

Under my leadership, the Republican Party will always support the creation of strong, thriving, and healthy American families. We want to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies, not harder. That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.

Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, including the vast majority of Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and pro-life Americans, I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby. What could be more beautiful or better than that?

Today, I'm pleased that the Alabama legislature has acted very quickly, and passed legislation that preserves the availability of IVF in Alabama, they really did a great and fast job. The Republican Party should always be on the side of the miracle of life and the side of mothers, father, their beautiful babies. And that's what we are.

IVF is an important part of that and our great Republican Party will always be with you in your quest for the ultimate joy in life. Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights, especially since I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.

It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth. And that's exactly what it is. The baby is born, the baby is executed after birth is unacceptable. And almost everyone agrees with that.

My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state. Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that's what they will be.

At the end of the day. This is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart or in many cases, your religion or your faith. Do what's right for your family and do what's right for yourself. Do what's right for your children, do what's right for our country, and vote; so important to vote. At the end of the day. It's all about will of the people. That's where we are right now. And that's what we want, the will of the people.

I want to thank the six justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch, incredible people, for having the courage to allow this long-term, hard-fought battle to finally end.

This 50-year battle over Roe v. Wade took it out of the federal hands and brought it into the hearts, minds, and vote of the people in each state, it was really something. Now, it's up to the states to do the right thing.

Like Ronald Reagan, I am strongly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. You must follow your heart on this issue. But remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture and in fact, to save our country, which is currently and very sadly, a nation in decline.

Our nation needs help. It needs unity. It needs us all to work closely together. Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, everyone. We have to work together. We have to bring our nation back from the brink and that's where it is. It's at the brink and we will, we will do it. I promise you. We will do it.

Always go by your heart. But we must win. We have to win. We are a failing nation. But we can be a failing nation no longer. We will make our nation great. We will make our nation greater than ever before. Thank you very much.

[alpha12000]

[animal]

Philadelphia live stream

[alpha12000]

https://www.theamericanconservative....s-speakership/

Under a rapidly approaching April 19 deadline, the Republican controlled-House is taking another crack at a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization bill.
Section 702 of FISA, which was originally intended to permit the foreign surveillance of foreign persons overseas, is the specific provision of FISA set to expire in just over a week’s time. House Speaker Mike Johnson, under immense pressure from the right of his conference given Georgia’s Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene already has a motion to vacate waiting in the hopper, will need to thread the needle between yet another divide between the House GOP to get this piece of legislation across the finish line.
FISA has come under increasing scrutiny from the right wing of the GOP conference as it was an integral player in the Russiagate hoax and the Biden administration’s investigations into Americans at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Nevertheless, Section 702 still has its defenders among the House GOP ranks.
The dynamic at play across the conference is well encapsulated by the two House committees warring over what a FISA reauthorization bill might entail. The House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio wants few reforms if any and has the backing of the intelligence and national security agencies. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee, headed by a different Ohioan, Rep. Jim Jordan, wants to seize the rare opportunity to reform FISA in its renewal.
The House Rules Committee is scheduled to mark up a version of Rep. Laurel Lee’s FISA reauthorization bill on Tuesday, where Rules Committee members hope to bridge the gap between Intelligence and Judiciary.
The Lee legislation would reauthorize FISA for several years in exchange for several reforms. Currently, Lee’s FISA reauthorization bill would require the Attorney General to elevate accuracy standards in new FISA applications. And those who go beyond the authorities granted in FISA to gather more intelligence information will meet new heightened penalties. The bill would also increase reporting and transparency requirements of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to Congress as part of Congress’s oversight authority.
“FISA is an indispensable tool that protects us from national security threats within the United States and abroad,” Lee said in a press release touting her legislation. “[The bill] will bring meaningful change to surveillance operations that protects us against adversarial threats in addition to safeguarding our civil liberties. This bill also increases transparency in surveillance applications and will hold government employees accountable who violate the authorities in FISA.”
On Johnson’s part, moving forward to consider Lee’s bill is a smart play. Lee is a member of the Judiciary, which placates the committee somewhat—it’s their bill with the best chance of passing. To get Turner and the Intelligence Committee, a provision, sought mainly by Rep. Warren Davidson, that would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing American’s information from private data companies has been scrapped from the legislation. In February, though the Speaker hinted he supported the Davidson provision, Lee’s bill failed to go anywhere because the House Intelligence Committee drew a red line on the issue.
“FISA is about surveillance of foreigners abroad—the issues of Americans’ privacy and data are unrelated to our spying on foreigners,” Turner said of the Davidson provision. “The parliamentarian has ruled that it was not germane to this issue. And individuals who try to make it related to FISA are just being disingenuous and untruthful,” the Intelligence Committee chair told POLITICO.
Davidson is predictably unhappy with this development, especially the Speaker. “It’s disappointing to watch Speaker Johnson, who was a strong defender of essentially the same bills.… When he was a member of the Judiciary Committee, now as speaker essentially has crossed all the way over to the intel point of view,” Davidson told POLITICO.
Freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed. It looks like the plan has shifted to further infringe the right to privacy – under the guise of #FISA reform. Shameful. https://t.co/5Q8RBn7X0O
— Warren Davidson ���� (@WarrenDavidson) April 8, 2024
The Rules Committee, however, is expected to make some tweaks to the legislation. At the beginning of the 118th Congress, conservatives negotiated substantial representation on the Rules Committee with former Rep. Kevin McCarthy in exchange for the speakership. The conservatives appointed to the Rules Committee include Reps. Chip Roy, Thomas Massie, and Ralph Norman, with Roy and Massie repeatedly vocalizing their support for strong FISA reforms.
Therefore, Rules is set to consider an amendment proposed by Judiciary to require national security agencies to obtain a warrant for obtaining information on U.S. persons involved in activities the government is surveilling. The push has mainly come from the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support—Jordan and Ranking Member Jerry Nadler have worked together for the inclusion of warrant requirements. Both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees are reportedly in favor of this amendment and will vote for its inclusion. Other curious bipartisan efforts have cropped up around the issue of FISA warrants—Davidson has been pushing for warrant requirements with progressive Rep. Zoe Lofgren on Capitol Hill.
“There is a strong bipartisan coalition advocating for privacy protections,” Davidson told The American Conservative in an email. “These privacy provisions for American citizens should be included if FISA is allowed to continue.”
Turner has used the aforementioned bipartisan efforts in an attempt to undermine the addition of warrants. “This is not a ‘conservative’ issue,” Turner told POLITICO. Referring to the Davidson-Lofgren partnership specifically, Turner called it a “left-wing bill.”
How this dynamic might impact the final vote tally remains to be seen. Obviously, if Turner has his way, he’d like to see the amendment, and if need be the bill, fail.
“They will lose because the only way that you would vote for a warrant to spy on foreigners abroad is if you are confused and believe false rhetoric,” Turner told POLITICO, though that’s not what the amendment would do. Turner also told Politico that any suggestion of FISA has been used to target Americans is “false,” which is demonstrably untrue as FISA has been abused to spy on thousands of Americans.
“Representative Turner is well aware of the fact that FISA section 702 is used to spy on American citizens,” Davidson told TAC. “According to their own reporting, the FBI searched for 119,383 unique query terms associated with U.S. persons. In fact, Darin LaHood, a member of HPSCI, was subject to an illegal search in 2020.”
Hardly anyone, even supporters of clean FISA reauthorization on Capitol Hill, believe this to be true beyond Turner. Nevertheless, he persisted: such proposals “significantly destroys our ability to keep America safe,” Turner claimed.
Though Turner’s position is fringe on Capitol Hill, he has a number of allies on the right and left trying to sink some of Judiciary’s proposals. Intel-community friendly representatives on the right are appealing to former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to apply pressure, along with former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. Meanwhile, security hawks in the Democratic ranks are working closely with the Biden administration to prevent the warrant provision. Administration officials from the CIA, FBI, and other agencies are scheduled to brief House members on FISA Wednesday.
Some conservatives are suggesting Turner’s effort has already been successful, though there hasn’t been a vote yet. “Turner fully sabotaged everything, so he must feel pretty happy,” Davidson claimed.
If Turner’s effort to kill the proposed FISA reforms succeeds, the options left on the table for Johnson might lead to the end of his tenure as Speaker of the House. Johnson could either let FISA expire, which is highly unlikely, or bring a clean FISA reauthorization to the floor under suspension of the rules. Bringing a clean FISA reauthorization would likely pass, but conservatives like Davidson who are upset with the Speaker’s handling of FISA renewal might tell Greene it’s time to take the motion to vacate out of the hopper.

[alpha12000]

https://www.ilpost.it/2024/04/09/bid...o-studentesco/

Lunedì il presidente degli Stati Uniti Joe Biden ha annunciato un nuovo programma per ridurre il debito studentesco, ossia l’insieme dei prestiti contratti da una buona parte della popolazione per permettersi gli studi e da ripagare poi negli anni successivi, con interessi più o meno alti. È un problema annoso: alla fine del 2023 il valore complessivo del debito studentesco aveva superato i 1.700 miliardi di dollari, una cifra enorme anche per il robusto sistema economico e finanziario degli Stati Uniti.
Il piano proposto da Biden prevede di ridurre il valore degli interessi accumulati su questi debiti fino a un massimo di 20mila dollari per le persone che di fatto non li hanno mai pagati, e che quindi oggi dovrebbero restituire una cifra molto più alta di quella ricevuta inizialmente. Alcune categorie di debitori, per esempio quelli che guadagnano meno di 120mila dollari all’anno, potranno essere esonerati completamente dal pagamento degli interessi.
Il piano eliminerebbe inoltre la parte rimanente dei debiti di persone che stanno ripagando i prestiti contratti per frequentare corsi universitari undergraduate (equivalenti alla laurea triennale in Italia) da più di vent’anni, oppure corsi graduate (quelli di secondo livello, per esempio i master) da almeno 25 anni. Sono previste anche agevolazioni per i debitori che si trovano in una situazione di difficoltà economica, per esempio perché hanno contratto debiti eccessivamente alti oppure devono sostenere altre spese, tra cui quelle legate ai figli.
Secondo l’amministrazione Biden, complessivamente quasi 30 milioni di persone potranno beneficiare di queste agevolazioni. Le misure dovrebbero entrare in vigore tra il prossimo autunno e l’estate del 2025.
Il piano è un’alternativa alla proposta presentata dall’amministrazione Biden nel 2022, ma bloccata poi dalla Corte Suprema, il più importante tribunale federale degli Stati Uniti. La misura avrebbe dovuto cancellare 430 miliardi di dollari di debiti in prestiti studenteschi, ma secondo i giudici andava oltre i poteri concessi al dipartimento dell’Istruzione. È possibile che anche il nuovo piano annunciato lunedì venga contestato e coinvolto in controversie legali, che potrebbero rallentarne l’entrata in vigore.
Fin dalla campagna elettorale per le elezioni presidenziali del 2020, Biden ha sempre sostenuto la necessità di ridurre il debito studentesco. «Oggi troppi americani, soprattutto giovani, sono alle prese con debiti insostenibili contratti per ottenere un diploma universitario», ha detto lunedì durante un comizio in un’università di Madison, in Wisconsin. «La capacità di ripagare i debiti per i lavoratori e le persone di classe media è diventata un problema al punto che molti non riescono a saldarli nemmeno decenni dopo aver completato gli studi».
I prestiti studenteschi iniziarono a diffondersi negli Stati Uniti intorno agli anni Sessanta, e nel tempo il loro valore è cresciuto in modo allarmante anche a causa di un aumento parallelo dell’inflazione e delle rette universitarie, che anche nelle scuole meno prestigiose possono costare decine di migliaia di dollari all’anno. Più di recente sono state approvate varie iniziative per ridurre almeno in parte i debiti, ma finora nessuna amministrazione è riuscita a risolvere il problema. Si stima che oggi più di 43 milioni di statunitensi abbiano contratto un qualche tipo di debito per pagarsi gli studi, per un valore medio per ciascuna persona di quasi 40mila dollari.

[alpha12000]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports...s/73253123007/

The women’s national championship game that pitted South Carolina against Iowa Sunday smashed a TV ratings record for the most-watched women’s basketball game ever, according to ESPN, which along with ABC televised the game and cited Nielsen Fast Nationals.

The number of viewers peaked at 24 million and drew an average of 18.7 million viewers during a game in which South Carolina prevailed over Caitlin Clark and Iowa, 87-75, at Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse in Cleveland.

ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro called it "a fitting finale" to the most-viewed ever NCAA women’s basketball tournament.

"These exceptional athletes, coaches and teams captured our attention in unprecedented ways and it’s incumbent on all of us to keep the incredible momentum going," Pitaro said. "I’m also very proud of our talented and committed employees for how they presented this historic event."

The previous record for the most-watched women’s basketball game was set two days earlier during the Final Four semifinal game between Iowa and Connecticut. That game averaged 14.2 million viewers, according to ESPN, which televised the game during a historic women’s NCAA Tournament for TV ratings.

The Iowa-UConn game broke a record set in the prior round, with the Iowa-LSU game in the Elite Eight having averaged 12.3 million viewers.

With Clark pitted against undefeated South Carolina on Sunday, the game was the most-watched sporting event since 2019, with the exception of football and the Olympics, according to ESPN. It also was the most watched basketball game of any level since 2019, according to ESPN.

Additionally, the South Carolina-Iowa game became the second most-watched non-Olympic sporting event ever on U.S. television behind the women's World Cup Final in 2015, when the United States beat Japan,

[Marximiliano]

Come già in altri thread in passato devo chiedere, nel caso in cui si vogliano postare più articoli consecutivamente nel breve periodo, di fare singoli post con diversi link all'interno, e senza mettere l'intero testo dell'articolo ma magari due righe riassuntive

[alpha12000]

Come già in altri thread in passato devo chiedere, nel caso in cui si vogliano postare più articoli consecutivamente nel breve periodo, fare singoli post con diversi link all'interno, e senza mettere l'intero testo dell'articolo ma magari due righe riassuntive

Va bene, grazie per il chiarimento