Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why It’s Hard to Explain Joe Biden’s Unpopularity

      by

      Joe Biden is one of the most unpopular presidents in modern American history. In Gallup polling, his approval ratings are lower than those of any president embarking on a re-election campaign, from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump.Yet an air of mystery hangs around his lousy polling numbers. As The Washington Free Beacon’s Joe Simonson noted recently, just surfing around most American media and pop culture, you probably wouldn’t realize that Biden’s job approval ratings are quite so historically terrible, worse by far than Trump’s at the same point in his first term.Apart from anxiety about his age, there isn’t a chattering-class consensus or common shorthand for why his presidency is such a political flop. Which is why, perhaps, there was a rush to declare his State of the Union address a rip-roaring success, as though all Biden needs to do to right things is to talk loudly through more than an hour of prepared remarks.When things went south for other recent chief executives, there was usually a clearer theory of what was happening. Trump’s unpopularity was understood to reflect his chaos and craziness and authoritarian forays. The story of George W. Bush’s descending polls was all about Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. When Barack Obama was at his polling nadir, most observers blamed the unemployment rate and the Obamacare backlash, and when Bill Clinton struggled through his first two years, there was a clear media narrative about his lack of discipline and White House scandals.With Biden, it has been different. Attempts to reduce his struggles to the inflation rate are usually met with vehement rebuttals, there’s a strong market for “bad vibes” explanations of his troubles, a lot of blame gets placed on partisan polarization even though Biden won a clear popular majority not so long ago, and even the age issue has taken center stage only in the past few months.Some of this mystification reflects liberal media bias accentuated by contemporary conditions — an unwillingness to look closely at issues like immigration and the border, a hesitation to speak ill of a president who’s the only bulwark against Trumpism.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Address Showed Biden Seeking Tricky Balance on Immigration

      by

      The president used his State of the Union speech to try to demonstrate that he could be tough on the border without demonizing immigrants.Confronting the fraught politics of immigration, President Biden wants to focus attention on the decision by Republicans in Congress, egged on by former President Donald J. Trump, to block a bipartisan deal that would provide an infusion of money for border security and allow the president to close off the border to asylum seekers.On the defensive, Republicans have escalated their longstanding effort to tie migrants to heinous crimes.Both strategies were on full display on Thursday night as Mr. Biden delivered his State of the Union address. He made his case that it is Republicans who are now responsible for the problems at the border, while Republicans portrayed his policies as responsible for the death of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was killed in February, allegedly by a Venezuelan migrant.The dynamic has Mr. Biden, who heading into the general election campaign has signaled a harder line on immigration, walking a careful path, as his clash with Republicans on Thursday night demonstrated. He at once promised to bring back “order” at the border while also vowing not to assail migrants in the manner of Mr. Trump and his allies.“I will not demonize immigrants saying they are poison in the blood of our country,” Mr. Biden said in his address before a joint session of Congress, referring to statements by Mr. Trump that have echoes of white supremacy.“Unlike my predecessor, I know who we are as Americans, and we’re the only nation in the world with the heart and soul that draws from old and new,” Mr. Biden said. “Home to Native Americans whose ancestors have been here for thousands of years, home to people from every place on Earth.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutors Charge Man With Firing Shots Outside the Capitol on Jan. 6

      by

      The charges once again laid bare one of the most persistent myths about the attack promoted by pro-Trump politicians and media figures: that none of the rioters were armed.A Trump supporter who prosecutors say fired a pistol into the air on the grounds of the Capitol as a mob stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021, was charged on Friday with firearm offenses, trespassing and interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder.The man, John Banuelos, fired at least two shots into the air while standing above the crowd on scaffolding on the west side of the Capitol, according to a criminal complaint unsealed in Federal District Court in Washington. It does not appear that Mr. Banuelos entered the Capitol. But before the shots were fired, prosecutors say, he posed for a photo wearing a “Trump 2020” cowboy hat and showing off a pistol tucked into his waistband.One of the most persistent lies about the Capitol attack — often made by Republican politicians and right-wing media figures — is that none of the hundreds of rioters who stormed the building had guns. On Thursday night, former President Donald J. Trump repeated the false claim on social media while responding to remarks about Jan. 6 that President Biden had made during his State of the Union address.“The so-called ‘Insurrectionists’ that he talks about had no guns,” Mr. Trump wrote. “They only had a Rigged Election.”But the Justice Department’s sprawling investigation of Jan. 6 has revealed that several people at the Capitol were carrying firearms that day. Altogether, more than 1,300 rioters have been charged in connection with the attack and arrests continue almost daily.A photo used in a Justice Department criminal complaint, showing a Jan. 6 rioter prosecutors identified as John Banuelos with a gun in his waistband.Justice DepartmentGuy Wesley Reffitt, a militiaman from Texas, was wearing a pistol on his hip when he led a charge of rioters up a staircase on the west side of the Capitol, according to testimony at his trial — the first of dozens to have taken place in Washington connected to the events of Jan. 6. Mr. Reffitt was ultimately convicted of a gun charge and other felonies and was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.Among the other rioters who were carrying firearms on Jan. 6 are Christopher Alberts, a former Virginia National Guard member who charged the police outside the Capitol with a loaded 9-millimeter pistol, prosecutors say. Mr. Alberts was convicted of multiple felony charges and sentenced to seven years in prison.A rioter named Mark Mazza brought two guns to the Capitol — a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol and a Taurus revolver loaded with shotgun shells and hollow-point bullets, prosecutors say. Mr. Mazza was sentenced to five years in prison.Prosecutors did not identify what type of pistol Mr. Banuelos was carrying on Jan. 6, but they said in their complaint that he was not licensed to have it. Among the charges he faces are carrying and discharging a firearm on the Capitol grounds.After firing the shots, prosecutors said, Mr. Banuelos slipped the weapon back into his waistband, climbed down from the scaffolding and rejoined the crowd. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ronny Jackson, Former White House Physician, Was Demoted by the Navy

      by

      Now a Republican member of the House and a Trump ally, his previously unpublicized demotion from rear admiral to captain came after a Pentagon investigation found misconduct on the job.In a report completed three years ago, the Pentagon found that Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson had mistreated subordinates while serving as the White House physician and drank and took sleeping pills on the job. The report recommended that he face discipline.Now it turns out that the Navy quietly punished him the next year. Though he had retired from the military in 2019, he was demoted to captain — a sanction that he has not publicly acknowledged.Mr. Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas and an outspoken ally of former President Donald J. Trump, whose care he supervised in the White House, still refers to himself as a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral on his congressional website.According to a former defense official and a current military official, Mr. Jackson was demoted from rear admiral to captain in the summer of 2022. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Jackson could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Stanley Woodward, declined to comment.In a statement on Thursday, a Navy official said only that the findings led the Navy to take administrative actions against him. The official would not say what those actions were.The findings of the internal investigation into Mr. Jackson “are not in keeping with the standards the Navy requires of its leaders,” the Navy said in a statement on Thursday. “And, as such, the secretary of the Navy took administrative action in July 2022.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Should Either of These People Have Sole Authority on Nuclear Weapons?

      by

      A large majority of Americans say they don’t trust a government run by the opposition party. So we must ask ourselves: Is it moral, just and wise to vest the ability to end other nations in the hands of one person?“As president, I carried no wallet, no money, no driver’s license, no keys in my pockets — only secret codes that were capable of bringing about the annihilation of much of the world as we knew it,” Ronald Reagan wrote in his autobiography.That’s right. President Biden this very minute could unilaterally decide to launch a devastating nuclear strike anywhere in the world in minutes — without a requirement to consult Congress or the courts. The missiles would be in flight before even the most plugged-in Americans knew they’d been launched.This is an enormous amount of power to grant any single person. That’s doubly true in undemocratic nations, several of which have nuclear arsenals of their own.It is time to explore what alternatives to the president’s sole nuclear authority could be, and that’s what my colleague W.J. Hennigan does in the latest installment of our series “At the Brink,” published this morning.Last year, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Ted Lieu of California introduced legislation that would prevent any American president from launching a first nuclear strike without congressional approval. Passing this bill or one like it is an obvious step.Yet the American public is owed a bigger plan on how countries around the globe can work together to reduce nuclear threats. Today nuclear weapons loom over international politics in ways not seen since the Cold War — a dynamic Times Opinion explored in the first installment of the series earlier this week.The phrase “serious debate” is often tossed around in campaign season. It’s a way to insist on talking about something, even if in a nebulous way. Fortunately, there are chances for a substantive public discussion of nuclear weapons, and we invite the country and the world to join in the conversation. Americans might be surprised to hear what those in other nations think.Times Opinion has invited President Biden and President Trump to explain in our pages what their next administrations would do to reduce these risks. We hope they will do so. We also hope this will be a subject in the upcoming presidential debates. Reporters covering the president and his competitor should press them on their policies and thinking around sole authority and other nuclear policies.Though Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden “will have to confront questions from voters about their mental acuity, competence and stamina to take on another four-year term,” as Hennigan writes today, “regardless of who wins this election or the next one, the American president’s nuclear sole authority is a product of another era, and must be revisited in our new nuclear age.”That should be something that most Americans can agree on. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      New Trump Super PAC Ad Attacks Biden Over His Age

      by

      The ad, which aired on MSNBC on Thursday morning, asks, “Can Biden even survive until 2029?” The super PAC supporting Donald J. Trump for president is airing a blistering television ad before the State of the Union address, mocking President Biden’s halting response to questions about his memory and even questioning his life span, in a preview of the tenor of the general election ahead. The ad, titled “Jugular,” aired on MSNBC on Thursday morning during one of Mr. Biden’s favorite shows, “Morning Joe” in the 6 a.m. hour. It will air nationally through the day and Friday morning on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and Newsmax, according to the super PAC, Make America Great Again Inc. The size of the two-day ad buy was not immediately clear. The spot appeared designed to try to get under Mr. Biden’s skin at a pivotal moment, as he prepares to give the State of the Union and faces low job approval ratings against his predecessor, Mr. Trump. The ad focuses on a topic that Mr. Biden and his allies have shown frustration about — questions over his age. At the age of 81, Mr. Biden is America’s oldest president. Mr. Trump is 77.A Biden campaign spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A report by the special counsel, Robert Hur, who was investigating Mr. Biden’s possession of classified documents at his home after he served as vice president, infuriated the president’s allies with what they called gratuitous descriptions of his difficulty recalling certain events and details. Among them, according to Mr. Hur, was when Mr. Biden’s eldest son, Beau, passed away, a statement Mr. Biden’s allies pushed back on. The ad uses footage of Mr. Biden responding to that report at a White House news conference, during which he at times seemed visibly angry and flustered. The ad says that people understand Mr. Biden’s “weakness” and adds, “Can Biden even survive until 2029?” It then asks, over footage of Vice President Kamala Harris laughing and Mr. Biden falling on the stairs while boarding Air Force One, “Can we?” The tactic of airing ads in order to be seen by a president was used to reach Mr. Trump, particularly when opponents were hoping to force him to react. Among those who used the tactic was the Lincoln Project, the group of anti-Trump Republicans. And Trump has had his own verbal stumbles, including confusing the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley, his erstwhile primary rival, and calling Mr. Biden “Obama” in recent speeches. But this particular spot focuses on what has been raised by Democrats, some of Mr. Biden’s allies and a number of voters as a concern, as Mr. Trump seeks to set the terms of the general election for voters as one of “strength” versus “weakness.” “Biden is weak, and America is suffering because of it,” said Taylor Budowich, the chief executive of MAGA Inc. “Tonight’s State of the Union will not silence those waiting in the wings from laughing every time Joe Biden stumbles or bumbles.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump domina el Partido Republicano, y eso afecta a todos los estadounidenses

      by

      Con las victorias de Donald Trump el martes, está cerca de conseguir los 1215 delegados necesarios para ganar la nominación presidencial del Partido Republicano. Lo que queda es una formalidad. El partido se ha convertido en un instrumento para las ambiciones de Trump y, con la salida de Nikki Haley, es casi seguro que será su abanderado por tercera vez.Es una tragedia para el Partido Republicano y para el país al que pretende servir.En una democracia sana, los partidos políticos son organizaciones consagradas a elegir políticos que comparten un conjunto de valores y aspiraciones legislativas. Funcionan como parte de la maquinaria de la política, trabajan con los funcionarios electos y las autoridades para que se celebren las elecciones. Sus integrantes externan sus diferencias al interior del partido para reforzar y afinar sus posturas. En la democracia bipartidista estadounidense, republicanos y demócratas se han alternado periódicamente la Casa Blanca y han compartido el poder en el Congreso, un sistema que se ha mantenido estable por más de un siglo.El Partido Republicano está renunciando a todas esas responsabilidades y, en su lugar, se ha convertido en una organización cuyo objetivo es la elección de una persona a expensas de cualquier otra cosa, incluida la integridad, los principios, la política y el patriotismo. Como individuo, Trump ha demostrado un desdén por la Constitución y el Estado de derecho que hace que no sea apto para ocupar la presidencia. Pero cuando todo un partido político, en particular uno de los dos principales partidos de un país tan poderoso como Estados Unidos, se convierte en una herramienta de esa persona y de sus ideas más peligrosas, el daño afecta a todos.La capacidad de Trump para consolidar el control del Partido Republicano y derrotar con rapidez a sus contrincantes para la nominación se debe en parte al fervor de una base de partidarios que le han dado victorias sustanciales en casi todas las primarias celebradas hasta ahora. Sin embargo, su ventaja más importante tal vez sea que quedan pocos líderes en el Partido Republicano que parezcan dispuestos a defender una visión alternativa del futuro del partido. Quienes siguen oponiéndose a Trump de manera abierta son, en su mayoría, aquellos que han dejado sus cargos. Algunas de esas personas han dicho que temían hablar porque se enfrentaban a amenazas de violencia y represalias.En unas primarias presidenciales tradicionales, la victoria indica un mandato democrático: el el ganador disfruta de la legitimidad popular, conferida por los electores del partido, pero también admite que los rivales derrotados y sus opiniones encontradas tengan espacio en el partido. Trump ya no lo tiene, pues ha utilizado las primarias como una herramienta para purgar la disidencia del partido. Los aspirantes republicanos que salieron de la contienda han tenido que demostrar su lealtad a él o arriesgarse a ser marginados. Su última rival republicana, Haley, es una dirigente con una trayectoria conservadora de décadas y quien formó parte del gabinete de Trump en su primer mandato. Ahora la ha aislado. “Esencialmente es una demócrata”, dijo el expresidente el día antes de su derrota en Carolina del Sur. “Creo que probablemente debería cambiar de partido”.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Donald Trump’s Super Tuesday Speech

      by

      After racking up a series of wins that cleared the field, former President Donald J. Trump moved to a general election message. Here’s a fact check.Former President Donald J. Trump moved another step closer to becoming the 2024 Republican nominee for president Tuesday, sweeping up delegates and prompting his last remaining rival, Nikki Haley, to suspend her campaign. The results all but guarantee a November rematch against President Biden.But in his 20-minute victory remarks, which offered a grim view of the United States under his successor, Mr. Trump resorted to a string of false and misleading claims — on immigration, economics, energy and more — some of which were variations on familiar assertions.Here’s a fact check.WHAT WAS SAID“They flew 325,000 migrants — flew ’em in, over the borders, into our country. So that really tells you where they’re coming from, they want open borders.”This is misleading. Mr. Trump appeared to be referring to reports about documents obtained by a group that pushes for restricting immigration. The group reported that the documents showed some 320,000 migrants were flown into the United States in 2023 by receiving authorization by using a mobile app started by Customs and Border Protection.But this is not a secretive effort, contrary to Mr. Trump’s characterization, and the migrants came through programs that authorize their arrival and require them to arrange for their travel on commercial flights.The app in question, CBP One, was introduced last year to require migrants to secure an appointment at a port of entry in order to submit an asylum application. However, the app is also used to support the processing of migrants seeking to enter the United States through other programs, said Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More