Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

GOP scramble is on to succeed Donald Trump in 2024 – POLITICO

Pence, meanwhile, took time out from overseeing the administrations response to the coronavirus outbreak to address the conference Thursday afternoon.

It is no accident that CPAC has become a stomping ground for those with presidential ambitions: Many believe the confab helped to catapult Trump to the White House. The New York businessman first started attending the event in 2011, long before he was taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Trump became a regular, bringing a large entourage and a celebrity aura that over time helped turn him into a conservative favorite.

Trump was just the latest in a long line of Republican figures who made presidential forays at CPAC. Then-California Governor Ronald Reagan made his first appearance at the conference in 1974, and as president more than a decade later, he would remark that returning to the conference was an opportunity to dance with the one that brung ya.

Andy Surabian, a Republican strategist who worked on Trumps 2016 campaign, said the conference gives potential future candidates a rare opportunity to make a lasting impression on the GOP base.

Just ask President Donald Trump, Surabian added.

When Trump first started showing up at the conference, it seemed like a novelty act," said Seat, the former George W. Bush aide. But here we are. Hes not Mr. Trump. Hes President Donald J. Trump and it started here at CPAC.

The early 2024 activity hasnt been limited to CPAC. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton is set to headline a New Hampshire political dinner in May. Pence has made several trips to South Carolina over the past year, even though the state has scrapped its 2020 Republican presidential primary and wont have another one until 2024.

And before last months Iowa caucuses, Florida Sen. Rick Scott raised eyebrows when he ran an unusual face-to-camera TV ad in the state in which he savaged Joe Biden and defended Trump.

Matt Mowers, a Republican congressional candidate from New Hampshire making the rounds at CPAC, said hes been in touch with some potential 2024 contenders. He said he wouldnt be surprised if early-state activity ramps up soon after the 2020 election.

Mowers, a longtime operative in the state who for a time served in the Trump administration, said his advice to would-be candidates is to focus on the presidents reelection first.

But he added: Its never too early to make friends.

Former Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, a conservative radio show host who waged a short-lived 2012 White House bid, offered a word of caution for those making the 2024 rounds. You dont want to look too eager while a sitting president is still running for reelection, he said.

The former congressman recalled some advice he once heard from a friend.

If youre gonna campaign, he said, dont look like youre campaigning.

Read more from the original source:
GOP scramble is on to succeed Donald Trump in 2024 - POLITICO

Donald Trumps Anti-Globalist Response to a Global Coronavirus – The New Yorker

Donald Trump may be the most erratic and intemperate man ever to occupy the Presidency, but, when it comes to protecting the public health of Americans, his actions have been unfailingly consistent. Since the day he took office, Trump has worked tirelessly to limit funding, dismantle teams of experts, and interrupt nearly any strategic-planning initiative necessary to defend the country against the type of inevitable biological assault that we now face.

Viruses are infinitely more abundant than humans; they have no interest in politics or geography, nor do they have any respect for Trumps assertions of American exceptionalism or his desire to build walls. Sharply limiting our ability to inhibit the spread of organisms that first appeared on earth at least a billion years ago, and that, collectively, have always presented the most persistent threat to humanity, can most generously be described as an act of radical myopia. (Most estimates suggest that smallpox, the only human virus that we have eradicated, killed up to half a billion people in the twentieth century alone.)

The President knows so little about infectious disease that, on Wednesday, during a news conference in which he named Vice-President Mike Pence as his coronavirus czar, Trump acknowledged that he was shocked to learn that influenza kills between roughly thirty to seventy thousand people a year in the United States. Trump said that in public, while standing next to Anthony S. Fauci, who, for decades, as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been the governments most prominent and reliable authority on subjects ranging from AIDS to SARS, Ebola, and influenza. Fauci is a discreet man, but the look on his face could not hide his shock at hearing the President, a self-described germaphobe, brag that he knows nothing about the diseases that constantly threaten the people he was elected to lead. (Always a calm but honest spokesman, Fauci was booked to appear this Sunday on all the major television news shows. On Friday, Pences office told him to withdraw from each of them. In response to a question at a press conference on Saturday, Fauci said that he had resubmitted for clearance, and could now go on the shows.)

Neither warnings about future biological threats or evidence of those that we have already faced, such as SARS, MERS, and influenza, have limited the Trump Administrations compulsion to end health programs designed to protect the public. Less than a month ago, and weeks after COVID-19 had been recognized as a virus with pandemic potential, the Administration proposed a budget that called for the Department of Health and Human Services to cut twenty-five million dollars from the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, and also eighteen million dollars from the Hospital Preparedness Program.

Most notably, the Administration is also attempting to cut more than eighty-five million dollars in funding for the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19, SARS, and MERS are caused by viruses that jump from animals to humans. Novel viruses are particularly threatening because we have no antibodies to defend against them. This week, I asked three senior public-health officials about the cuts to these programs. None would speak on the record, for fear of retribution, but each readily agreed that the programs are both essential and already severely underfunded. Even on those occasions when the White House has earmarked small amounts of money for global health security, it has taken those funds from other essential programs. (In 2019, for example, the Administration cut fifty-eight million dollars from the basic U.S. AIDS funding mechanism, the Ryan White program, to add funds for the opioid epidemic.)

Fighting epidemics is not a zero-sum game; you cannot ignore one to defend against another. Such a response is dangerous but, from this Administration, not unusual. In 2018, as Laurie Garrett points out in an informative essay in the current issue of Foreign Policy, the Trump Administration fired the governments entire pandemic-response chain of command, including the White House management staff. In fact, one of John Boltons first acts, upon becoming the national-security adviser, wasto dismissthe National Security Councils global health team, led by Rear Admiral Timothy Ziemer, a widely respected public-health expert. A new outbreak of Ebola was declared in Congo on May 8, 2018, his last day in office. He has not been replaced.

That same year, the Trump Administration began to tear down a foreign-disease-surveillance program that the Obama Administration had established in response to outbreaks of Ebola in Africa. That program serves as an early-warning system for detecting global pandemic threats, and it helped limit the extent of the 2017 Ebola outbreak in Congo, which, along with China, was one of the countries that the Trump Administration decided its no longer necessary to monitor. As with many public-health programs, preparedness requires policymakers to focus on the future. Naturally, such investments do not generate immediate returns or obvious results. But neither do missile-defense systems. Nonethelessand this does not apply solely to the current Administrationwe are continually caught between our theoretical need to protect against future risks and our very real indifference to things that do not seem to threaten us now.

The Trump Administrations response has been both remarkable and unsurprising. Vice-President Pence, the man now in charge, has a well-documented history of scientific denialism. The public-health action that he is best known for occurred in 2015, when he was the governor of Indiana. Facing the worst H.I.V. outbreak in that states history, which was being spread by intravenous-drug users, Pence rejected federal health officials advice to introduce a clean-needle exchange program. It wasnt until more than two months later, during which time the epidemic became more serious, that he finally authorized a program.

On Friday, in a particularly callous act of political indifference to the epidemic in our midst, the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, characterized the medias reporting on the coronavirus as an attempt to bring down the President. At some point, a member of the Trump Administration will have to acknowledge that scientific factssuch as the number of people infected, sick, or dyingare not the creation of a media cabal. Until then, and as long as Trump and his team continue to lie about our ability to contain a virus that we do not yet even fully understand, the number of people who fall ill and die can only grow.

This piece has been updated to include Faucis comment at a press conference on Saturday.

Read more here:
Donald Trumps Anti-Globalist Response to a Global Coronavirus - The New Yorker

Donald Trump fans blast ‘rude and mean’ Gordon Ramsay for refusing to cook for him – Newshub

According to the Daily Record, Ramsay said "thank you but no thank you" to an invitation to prepare a banquet during an official visit to the UK earlier this year.

In response, Trump supporters have slammed the silver-tongued chef online, calling him a "f**king idiot" for turning down the opportunity.

"This guy is rude and mean," wrote one Facebook user.

"Why would the president or any president want him at the White House? I wouldn't want this foul mouth at my home."

Trump is infamous for using coarse language himself, both before and after he became US president. There are easily found videos online of the former Celebrity Apprentice host using the C-word and F-word, along with the notorious audio of him bragging about grabbing women by their genitals.

But it's not just Ramsay's language Trump fans have lashed out at. Another upset commenter attacked his culinary skills, saying: "Chef Ramsey [sic] refuses to cook a steak passed [sic] medium-rare."

"So he will never cook for me I will not eat his trashy raw meat. He does have the right to refuse to serve any but that should also be with a good reason."

Some three years ago, Ramsay proclaimed he would like to cook dinner for Trump's then-political rival, Hilary Clinton.

One self-proclaimed chef and "anti-feminist" on Twitter wrote of Ramsay: "Such a shame and disappointment".

"I still respect his status as a chef, but as a person.. I just can't anymore... anyone who believes Hillary is a more worthy person to serve food to than our great president, or anyone for that matter, is a f**king idiot."

Meanwhile, fans of the Kitchen Nightmares star have praised the decision, claiming Trump would "rather have McDonald's than have a gourmet meal made by a world-class chef".

"I knew I liked his foul mouth for more than one reason," one tweet read.

Last week, reports surfaced claiming Trump had cauliflower hidden in his mashed potatoes according to the doctor who used to be charged with his health.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump fans blast 'rude and mean' Gordon Ramsay for refusing to cook for him - Newshub

Democratic Congressman Threatens Donald Trump Jr. With ‘Serious Altercation’ On Live TV – HuffPost

Rep.John Garamendi(D-Calif.) on Friday threatened a serious altercation if he came face to face with Donald Trump Jr. after the presidents son suggested Democrats wanted the coronavirus to kill millions of Americans to end his fathers streak of winning.

He should not be near me when he says that. There would be a serious altercation, Garamendi told MSNBCs Hallie Jackson.That is just totally outrageous. That is totally outrageous. I can assure you theres not a Democrat or Republican in Congress that wants anybody to be sick.

What we are concerned about is the administrations response to this illness, Garamendi explained, before criticizing the messy way in which the Trump White House has handled the developing crisis.

Don Jr. better not get anyplace close to me. It would not be a healthy situation, concluded Garamendi, whose district reportedly contains what health officials believe isthe first so-called community spread example of the virus in America. The virus causes the flu-like respiratory disease COVID-19.

Andy Surabian, a spokesman for Trump Jr., condemned Garamendis comments, describing them to Fox News as outrageous and beyond the pale, also criticizing Jacksons lack of pushback or condemnation.

By threatening Don Jr. with physical violence on national TV, Congressman Garamendi made clear to everyone watching that he is better suited to represent Antifa than the people of Californias 3rd Congressional District, Surabian added, demanding an immediate apology from the lawmaker.

Garamendi later clarified his comments on Twitter, saying there is no threat of physical violence but he can expect a strong verbal altercation.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

More:
Democratic Congressman Threatens Donald Trump Jr. With 'Serious Altercation' On Live TV - HuffPost

‘Dark Towers’ Is A Cautionary Tale Of Deutsche Bank Pursuing Profits At Any Cost – NPR

Some of the world's largest and most powerful banks spent the past decade mired in scandal, but none descended as far into ignominy as Germany's Deutsche Bank. Its rap sheet includes a staggering array of ethical and legal lapses, including money laundering, tax fraud and sanctions violations not to mention mysterious ties to President Trump that federal investigators are even now looking into.

How this plodding, conservative bank from a country famous for diligence and thrift turned into the most infamous casino on Wall Street is the subject of David Enrich's excellent, deeply reported book Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction.

It is by now a familiar story. "This proud national icon was seduced by the siren song of Wall Street riches," Enrich writes. Thanks partly to deregulation, big firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch were coming up with tantalizing new ways to make money, and by 1994 Deutsche Bank wanted a piece of the action.

It started by recruiting Edson Mitchell, an American executive from Merrill, who believed Deutsche Bank's "stubborn Germanness was the main impediment to unleashing its full animal spirits." Mitchell set about building a global markets operation, not at the bank's Frankfurt headquarters but in London, where he could function more independently. He hired a staff of "bloodthirsty piranhas" from Wall Street who knew how to push boundaries, as Enrich's tale tells.

Among them was Bill Broeksmit, a risk management genius who subsequently killed himself as regulators were moving in on the bank and whose death is the mystery Enrich uses to frame the story.

Mitchell died early in a plane crash, but the machinery he built kept chugging along. Enrich tells the story of its rise and fall in the careful style of a good newspaper reporter (he is an editor at The New York Times) but allows the complicated material to unfold like a good novel.

Over time, he writes, Deutsche Bank became less German and more global, so much so that the bank had to post a sign in its London lobby explaining how to say "Deutsche." Too many of the American traders were pronouncing it "douche bank."

With the piranhas in charge, Deutsche Bank eventually became the biggest bank in the world, with 90,000 employees and some $2 trillion in assets almost the size of the German economy, Enrich notes. Despite that, it was a clumsily managed place. The bank's antiquated computer system made it difficult for senior management to monitor London's activities, even if they'd wanted to and it's not clear they did. Management tended to look the other way when employees broke the rules, even when they did business with dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin and their friends. "Even by the amoral standards of Wall Street, Deutsche exhibited a jarring lack of interest in its clients' reputations," Enrich writes.

Just how disconnected the bank became can be seen in its ongoing relationship with a then New York real estate developer named Donald Trump, whose multiple bankruptcies had made him a pariah in the banking world. One part of Deutsche Bank turned down Trump's request for a loan. But the private banking division, which catered to the rich and famous, arranged the loan anyway and then, when Trump stopped making payments, arranged another one.

Trump's murky relationship with Deutsche Bank is still under congressional investigation, so Enrich's story is necessarily incomplete. Still, the book has enough detail to make its case that Deutsche Bank was more than just one more rogue bank; it is a cautionary tale of what happens when a bank pursues profits at any cost, without being weighed down by pesky moral scruples.

Read the original here:
'Dark Towers' Is A Cautionary Tale Of Deutsche Bank Pursuing Profits At Any Cost - NPR