Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Donald Trump in New Hampshire focuses on Joe Biden, ignores … – USA TODAY

What does Donald Trump's indictment mean? Here's what we know.

Will Donald Trump still run for president despite his indictment? Here's how the New York case impacts Trump's 2024 campaign.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

MANCHESTER, N.H. Nearly a month after being indicted anda day after a woman in a courtroom accused him of rape, Donald Trump met a more-than-receptive crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire in his first public event in the Granite State since leaving office.

But in remarks that lasted longer than an hour, Trump zeroed in on attacking President Joe Biden and his potential 2024 opponents. The former president did not mention his myriad legal troubles at all and the crowd did not seem to care.

At the DoubleTree by Hilton hotel, hundreds of Trump's most avid supporters were eager to met him in a packed room along with hundreds of others outside in overflow.The welcome was so warm, attendees booed and jeered at New Hampshire Republican state legislators when the event kicked off, chanting "We want Trump!"

"Next year we're going to make history together. We're going to win the New Hampshire primary for the third straight time," Trump said to raucous applause from the crowd.

Stay in the conversation on politics: Sign up for the OnPolitics newslette

Trump also visited New Hampshire two days after Bidenformally declared his bid for re-election next year. His stump largely centered on attacking the current commander-in-chief.

In mocking both the announcement and the Biden presidency, Trump said "we are going to crush Joe Biden at the ballot box, and we are going to settle our unfinished business."

"The choice in this election is now between strengthor weakness, between successor failure, between safetyor anarchy, between peaceor conflict, and prosperityor catastrophe," Trump said.

Biden has repeatedly criticized Trump as a threat to democracy given his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and repeated false claims of election fraud. Before his strongest supporters, Trump argued it was Biden instead who was the threat, making unsubstantiated accusations against the president.

Related: President Biden wants to repeat his 2020 formula in 2024 reelection bid. It won't be easy.

"It's Biden who poses the threat to democracy because he is grossly incompetent, has no idea what's he's doing and basically he doesn't have a clue." Trump said.

Trump also claimed he left Biden with a "booming economy" that he promptly "blew to shreds" after he took office, taking credit for low gas prices and championing the Trump administration's various trade wars.

In response to Donald Trumps attempts to rewrite his economic record in New Hampshire, Democratic National Committeespokesperson Ammar Moussa released the following statement:

Trumps lies wont change the fact he holds the worst jobs record of any president since the Great Depression and rigged the economy for the ultra-wealthy and biggest corporations. Trumps stewardship of the economy was an abject disaster, in stark contrast to the over 12 million jobs the Biden-Harris administration has helped deliver for America in just two years.

Will Biden win?: 3 clues to track and his approval rating isn't one of them

Trump traveled to New Hampshire just days after he suggested he might boycott Republican debates, claiming he is too far ahead to participate.

When youre way up, you dont do debates,"he told New York-based WABC radio.

Trump reiterated his skepticism of the debates in Manchester and questioned why he would debate with his potential opponents who are polling behind him, including "DeSanctus" and "Sloppy Chris Christie," referring to the former New Jersey governor currently mulling a bid.

Trump spoke as DeSantis prepared to wrap up a four-day foreign trip designed in part to burnish foreign policy plans.

Trump spoke at the Doubletree by Hilton hotel in Manchester, a common venue choice for presidential aspirants. But the setting was notable for a candidate that was in the same room not much earlier: DeSantis.

DeSantis made his first stop in the Granite State in April, headlining the state GOPs biggest annual fundraising gala filled with New Hampshire-based political donors and insiders a stark contrast to Trumps event that packed the hotel with his most diehard supporters from all around the New England area.

The former president did not take aim at DeSantis, but touted his lead in the polls compared to multiple of his competitors.

Trump also went after GOP New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, one of the most popular governors in the country and a potential opponent in the 2024 race, calling him "a nasty guy" to boos and jeers from the crowd.

Sununu has been one of Trump's most vocal critics within the Republican party and he has on multiple times argued Trump could not win a general election.

"He should stop being a nasty guy and telling people that I won't win in the general election, which I will," Trump said.

Who is Chris Sununu?: New Hampshire GOP governor considers run for president in 2024

Some of the New Hampshire Republicans who attended the rally said they are sticking with Trump because they find the allegations to be politically motivated.

Jackie Bellanti, 80, who said she is dead-set on voting for Trump in the 2024 primary elections, said Trump is not completely innocent," but she added that "I dont think hes a crooked man.

Bellanti also said there is no other option for her.Who else? Who else is out that we can really trust? Bellanti said, adding that she admires what she calls Trumps honesty and confrontational style.

Roger Heon, 54, from Belmont, New Hampshire, said he could envision voting for DeSantis, but he has already decided on voting for Trump.

He doesnt hold back, Heon said.

Related: New poll shows many Democrats prefer someone else over Biden

See original here:
Donald Trump in New Hampshire focuses on Joe Biden, ignores ... - USA TODAY

New research shows how feelings of hate and love for Donald … – PsyPost

Political polarization inhibits cooperativeness with others, according to new research that examined the behavioral consequences of feelings of hate and love for Donald J. Trump. The findings have been published in Management Science.

Given the ongoing political polarization in the United States, I wanted to explore the factors that influence the way people think and behave when it comes to political identities, explained Eugen Dimant, the author of the study and an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

I was particularly interested in understanding how social norms, or the unwritten rules that guide our behavior, can contribute to or help reduce polarization. By studying this topic, I hope to provide valuable insights that can help bring people together and create a more unified society.

The study investigated the extent to which political polarization affects social interactions and explored possible solutions from a behavioral science perspective. The study involved a total of 15 preregistered experiments with 8,647 participants conducted between the summer of 2020 and early 2021.

The study used two economic decision-making games the Dictator Game and Public Goods Game to study altruism, cooperativeness, and norm perceptions.

The Dictator Game involves two people: the person who is in charge (called the dictator) and the person who receives something from the dictator (called the recipient). In the usual game, the dictator gets some money or other resources, and has to decide how much to give to the recipient, if any at all. The recipient doesnt get to make any decisions.

But in the version used in this study, both the dictator and the recipient start with some money. The dictator still has the option to give some or all of their money to the recipient, but they also have an extra option: they can take some or all of the recipients money away. This allowed the researcher to assess both when people choose to share their resources (prosocial behavior), and when people choose to take away someone elses resources (antisocial behavior).

In the Public Goods Game, each player starts with $10 and can choose to keep the money for themselves or contribute some or all of it to a shared public good. The amount contributed by each player is multiplied by 1.5 and then split equally between the two players, regardless of their individual contributions. In the game, players benefits the most when they both fully contribute to the public good. However, a player can get more for themselves by not contributing anything and letting the other player contribute.

The study employed various experimental conditions, including Trump Prime, Minimal Group Prime, Biden Prime, Sports Prime, Default Nudge and Information Nudge, to examine how political polarization impacted peoples behavior in these two games.

In the Trump Prime, participants were asked about their feelings towards Donald Trump. They were paired with another participant who either loved or hated Trump, and were asked to choose how close they felt to that person using a standard tool in social psychology called the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale.

In the Minimal Group Prime, participants were asked to rate their opinion of Trump. They were asked to indicate their preference for different paintings and were paired with another participant based on their painting preferences.

The Biden Prime and Sports Prime reflected the Trump Prime and the Minimal Group Prime, with Biden replacing Trump and sports preferences replacing art preferences, respectively.

In the Default Nudge, when participants had to decide how much money to give to their partner, the option to give $2.5 was already selected for them. This was important because it was the only option that resulted in an equal split between the giver and receiver. In the Information Nudge, participants were informed that many others had been generous in previous games and had achieved an equal split by giving $2.5, even if their partner had a different opinion of Trump.

The study provided evidence that political polarization causes people to see others as either part of their group (ingroup) or not part of their group (outgroup). This differentiation was only observed in the Trump Prime condition and not in the Minimal Group Paradigm condition. In the Trump Prime condition, participants felt closer to those who shared their views of Trump and were more likely to be cooperative with them.

The paper demonstrates that political polarization affects social preferences and can lead to outgroup-hate, which means disliking people from opposing political groups, Dimant told PsyPost. Differentiating between the types of existing polarization, such as ingroup-love and outgroup-hate, is crucial for designing more targeted and effective interventions.

The participants were less cooperative with people in the outgroup. The researchers found that this was not because the participants were unwilling to cooperate with others from different groups, but rather because they expected those people to be unwilling to cooperate with them. The findings were not limited to attitudes towards Trump, but also applied to opinions on Biden and sports fandom.

Social norms play a significant role in influencing peoples behavior, and understanding the impact of these norms can help design interventions to reduce polarization, Dimant said.

The two nudges tested in the study improved participants willingness to cooperate, but did not reduce the polarization gap between groups, suggesting that nudges have a limited impact in highly polarized contexts.

Norm nudges, or interventions that use social norms to encourage behavior change, can be effective in addressing political polarization, but their success depends on the clarity of the norm message. The study highlights the need for combining light-touch behavioral interventions with more forceful strategies, like education and inter-group contact, to effectively reduce political polarization, Dimant said.

The study provides insights into the negative effects of political polarization on social interactions and suggests possible solutions from a behavioral science perspective. The findings may be useful for policymakers and individuals seeking to promote cooperation and reduce polarization. As with any study, however, the research includes some limitations.

In terms of caveats, this study focused on two stylized (though potent) decision-environments at the time of Trumps failed re-election, Dimant told PsyPost. To really understand the multifacetedness of polarization, one has to test across various contexts and different points in time. In terms of next steps, the effectiveness of interventions that combine light-touch behavioral interventions with more forceful strategies in reducing polarization is an empirical question that future research can hopefully address.

Tackling political polarization requires using many different approaches that combine small changes in behavior with larger, more powerful actions, the researcher added. This can include education, creating opportunities for people from different political groups to interact, and making sure there are safe places for people to share their opinions. By understanding the many factors that contribute to political polarization, we can produce better ways to address this challenging issue.

The study, Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences, was published February 24, 2023.

See the original post here:
New research shows how feelings of hate and love for Donald ... - PsyPost

Ivanka Trump shows her true colors: Ditches Donald Trump and both of her brothers – Marca English

Ever since she was helping out her father during the presidency, Ivanka Trump repeatedly expressed her wish to have a political career that could give her a certain level of success. But as soon as the problems started coming, we could all see how she slowly started distancing herself from former president Donald Trump. Currently, Donald, Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump are facing an upcoming civil lawsuit. All four of them and the Trump Organization were named in a major $250 million fraud civil lawsuit. New York Attorney General Letitia James is actively looking to permanently bar all four Trumps from officiating or directing any businesses in the state of New York. The family-s real estate company and many of their top executives have been accused of inflating property value in order to secure cheaper loans.

Ivanka Trump is very aware that if she wants to have a fruitful political career, she can-t have bad publicity like this by associating herself with her father and two brothers. As a result of this, Ivanka made the decision to switch legal representation and bring her own team to defend her name during the trial. Needless to say, all four members of the Trump family are denying these allegations. But Ivanka's latest move proves she no longer truts her own family and wants to move away from all the problems they have to worry about. The lawsuit was presented in September, which prompted the Trump brothers to hire Clifford Robert and Michael Farina to represent them during this legal procecure.

But Ivanka decided to bring two of her own lawyers from Washington DC, who are Reid Figel and Michael Kellogg. Both of them recently withdrew from the case and Ivanka acted quickly. She brought Bennet Moskowitz as her only legal counsel. To those who aren't aware, Moskowitz is the lawyer who represented Jeffrey Epstein during his trial. Even though other families have opted to get different representation, the timing of Ivanka's decision does seem specifically odd. This could also mean Ivanka Trump doesn't have high hopes for what the other two lawyers can do for the Trump family in this case.

View original post here:
Ivanka Trump shows her true colors: Ditches Donald Trump and both of her brothers - Marca English

Cancel culture: Were Donald Trump and Bud Light canceled? – Deseret News

Although cancel culture has been making headlines for years, some people still struggle to define it, and others insist that it doesnt exist. For them, Evan Nierman is here to help.

The founder and CEO of a company that helps individuals and businesses weather crises, Nierman became interested in cancel culture several years ago after helping several clients withstand cancellation, which he compared to a modern-day witch hunt. The subject became a passion project for him, and now, with Mark Sachs, Nierman has written what he hopes will be the definitive book, The Cancel Culture Curse: From Rage to Redemption in a World Gone Mad.

Cancel culture is real, Nierman says, and targets people on both of sides of Americas ideological divide. Theres a misconception that its mainly conservatives decrying cancel culture, and hes experienced that when talking about the book. People have wrongly assumed that hes approaching the subject from the right, when in fact, hes politically independent and not motivated by partisanship but by his concern about what cancel culture is doing to our country particularly to ordinary Americans who dont have the ability to fight back like politicians and celebrities do.

And trying to end cancel culture is definitely not part of his business, given that his company, Red Banyan, gets new clients when an internet mob sets out to destroy a business or an individuals life.

Nierman, a father of two who lives in Florida, spoke with the Deseret News recently about the least cancellable person on the planet and what has to happen for cancel culture to end. He also talked about what he sees as the most interesting attempt at cancellation happening right now and how it differs from other cases in the past.

The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Deseret News: Although people have been writing about cancel culture for years, it seems theres not one definition accepted by everyone. What went into coming up with your definition, which is The use of intimidation by a morally absolute coalition to isolate and disproportionately punish an alleged transgressor?

Evan Nierman: Before you can defeat it, you first have to define it. Ive been reading about cancel culture for years without ever seeing a clear articulation of what it was. So much of what was happening felt like political witch hunts ... people turning on each other with little evidence, or no evidence, and enacting mob justice. So we identified six core elements of cancel culture, which enabled us to come up with a definition we thought captured it.

The elements are in the acronym CANDEM: Crime committed against a collective; arises and accelerates quickly; nature of the offense is trivial or fabricated; disproportionate response; everyone afraid to get involved; and moral absolutism by those doing the canceling.

DN: You talk in the book about how people behave differently online than they do in real life. The ability to be anonymous has something to do with this, but are there other factors involved?

EN: You can do things online that you would never endeavor to do in real life since you can hide behind a pseudonym. But also so much of our online activity has to do with attracting attention. We see the research showing that people are seeking approval and validation based on how many likes or views their content gets. If they post something and it only gets a handful of likes, their (sense of) self-worth plummets. That dynamic leads people to say outrageous things as a way of getting attention, or to weigh in on a hot topic of the day. Many times they jump into that trendingstory and theres a villain in that story whether they deserve to be a villain or not. Then you end up with an internet pile-on by these cancel vultures. Not only do they not really care about the person who is attacked, but in the next couple of days, they fly off to their next outrage.

DN: Some people say that cancel culture is simply accountability. How does it differ from justice?

EN: Social media is the great equalizer. For the first time in our lives, a Hollywood A-list celebrity, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and an unemployed guy who lives in his moms basement all can use the same communications tools and reach a global audience. And so you have people who have may have never been empowered in their lives, and all of a sudden, theyre able to weigh in on all sorts of topics, to have opinions and feel powerful. And for a lot of people who participate in cancel culture, they tell themselves what theyre doing is OK because its in the greater good of society. Some truly do feel that they are campaigning for justice, but what they dont understand is that theyre not allowing due process to play out, and they dont have the information they need in order to make a rational decision.

DN: Can you talk about how Gen Z entering college in 2013 played into the development of cancel culture? How much blame does this generation bear?

EN: Its not about assigning blame, but in the book, weve identified the perfect storm of elements that came together to create cancel culture. Gen Z going to college marks a pivotal moment related the upbringing that they had. College campuses have become echo chambers and are not driving debate but indoctrinating students, reducing their exposure to multiple viewpoints. Combine that with the 24-7 news cycle, instant access to the internet, ability to access a global community, people seeking attention, that generation wanting to feel empowered and wanting to take an active role in pursuing social justice you take all these elements and throw them into one big cauldron and it cooks up cancel culture.

DN: You say in the book that former President Donald Trump is the least cancellable person on the planet. But you also say politicians as a group have a way to fend off these attacks in a way that ordinary people dont. Is there anything ordinary Americans can learn from Donald Trump, or this protected class in general? Is there a playbook we can get from them?

EN: Donald Trump has his own entirely different set of rules that hes allowed to play by. Thats not a partisan statement its not an endorsement or a condemnation its an observation of fact. Other people who have been subjected to all of the scrutiny that he has, and have been embroiled in even a fraction of the controversy, their professional careers would have been over decades before. But for whatever reason, theres something so unique about Donald Trump and his irreverence and utter lack of shame that makes him his own creature entirely. It would be a mistake for other people to try to model themselves on Donald Trump. Some have tried and failed.

For the average person (threatened with cancellation), their family and friends are scared to defend them, because theyll attract the cancel vultures to themselves. With politicians, though, theyve got a built-in tribe, a network of people who will defend them to the hilt. They have a built-in defense system; its very hard to cancel politicians, but I do tell the story of (former Minnesota Sen.) Al Franken, which was a fascinating case study. Al Franken was canceled. But the reason Al Franken had to resign was because his own tribe turned on him. If the Democrats hadnt canceled Al Franken, hed probably still be in the Senate today.

DN: Included in the advice you give in the book is Refuse to be canceled. How can a person refuse to be canceled? Did Al Franken refuse to be canceled?

EN: In the case of Franken, no. He has been quoted as saying he should have fought it harder. And some of his colleagues have rued the fact that they were so quick to cancel him. Franken went into seclusion when he was canceled. With other people, who refused to be canceled, they find other avenues to be in public view and pursue other opportunities.

Look at Peter Boghossian. He was a professor who got canceled, and now theres a whole critical mass of people who hold him up as a hero and celebrate him; he has more influence today, more people who pay attention to his philosophy and what he thinks, than if hed never become a public figure, and he became a public figure when he was canceled. Look at Bari Weiss. At The New York Times, she was a very impressive journalist, but she was one of a whole stable of journalists. Now she has much more control over her career, and shes involved in so many initiatives and shes not hamstrung by the constraints that exist in working for The New York Times. Shes gone on to flourish and have an exponentially larger impact on society.

DN: In the book, you say that todays parents have the power to end cancel culture by what they are teaching their children. Can you elaborate on that?

EN: Not all cyberbullying is cancel culture. But all cancel culture is a form of bullying. If parents speak with their children about cancel culture, they can perhaps help them not be canceled in the future. But I also want them to talk to their children so they can stop them from participating as future cancel vultures. If parents help their kids understand the human impact behind their actions, they can help, and it really does come back to the golden rule, treating others how you would want to be treated.

As parents, we have to teach our kids the difference between accountability and cancellation. Our society has always had mechanisms for dealing with bad behavior. Some of that is in the legal arena; there are also mechanisms built into our workplaces. Thats why we have human resources professionals and most organizations have codes of conduct and processes in place to address things.

Also, and I think our children understand this, every child makes mistakes. Every person makes mistakes. So when were teaching our kids, we need to remind them of this. The problem with cancel culture is, no one is ever allowed to make a mistake and your punishment is permanent.

DN: Whats the most interesting thing going on in cancel culture today?

EN: The Bud Light controversy is fascinating. It didnt start as cancel culture; it started as a boycott. Boycotts have existed forever. Sanctions are boycotts. But what happens with a boycott? Youre trying to effect a policy change using economic means. And when that policy change happens, the boycott ends. But cancel culture isnt necessarily abouta policy change; its about vengeance. Even if you apologize, it doesnt matter, youre still canceled, youre permanently deplatformed.

And in the caseof Bud Light,it morphed into cancel culture. It became less about whether Bud Light believed one thing, and it became, lets rally together and drive a stake into their heart and use it as a way to put other companies on notice that if you cross us, were coming for you next. It was meant to have a chilling effect. Theres a rallying cry on the right now: Go woke, go broke. But there are people on the left who say cancel culture doesnt exist; its a figment of our imagination. But all you have to do is read the first chapter of the book, about Lisa Alexander (a San Francisco woman who confronted a man stenciling Black Lives Matter on the front of his house), to know that it is very real and very dangerous.

DN: Id like to give you a few names and you tell me if their cases were cancel culture, as alleged. Lets start with J.K. Rowling. Has she been canceled?

EN: They tried, but they failed.

DN: Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator?

EN: He was canceled, yes.

DN: Joe Rogan?

EN: Absolutely not, theyve tried to cancel Joe Rogan, and they cant. Hes too big to cancel, and he refuses to be canceled. And hes done a really good job, when he was forced to apologize, he gave an apology from a position of strength, but hes still at the top of his game. Not canceled.

DN: Will Smith?

EN: He suffered consequences of his actions (punching Chris Rock at the Oscars), but he committed assault on live, international TV. That is not cancel culture. He committed a crime against a person, and I dont think it was a disproportionate response.

DN: Ye, or Kanye West?

EN: He canceled himself. It was a self-immolation, Kanye West.

DN: Any parting words?

EN: I was not afraid to write this book; I didnt think that I would be canceled for it. But I have been surprised about misperceptions that have been circulating about me. There have been numerous media outlets that have declined to talk about my book or have me on because they falsely presume Im a hard-right political figure. Im an independent. Ive supported Democrats; Ive voted for Republicans. Im the perfect example of a swing voter. Im not a devotee to any political party.

But just the title of the book describing cancel culture as a curse has led people to prejudge me and make false assumptions about me. I find that surprising, and disappointing. This underscores how important it is to get this book and its messages out in the world.

Read the original:
Cancel culture: Were Donald Trump and Bud Light canceled? - Deseret News

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg released from jail – NBC News

Former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg was released from jail on Wednesday, according to New York City Department of Correction records.

Weisselberg was sent to New Yorks Rikers Island jail on January 10 for helping engineer a wide-ranging 15-year tax fraud scheme at former president Donald Trumps family business.

He was sentenced to five months behind bars but was eligible for release after 100 days with time off for good behavior.

Weisselberg, 75, pleaded guilty last year in connection with the long-running scheme. He and other executives received bonuses and perks in ways that cheated tax authorities and saved the company money. He evaded taxes on $1.76 million of income.

As part of his plea deal, Weisselberg testified at last years trial of the Trump Organization, which also was charged with the tax fraud scheme. The company was found guilty and fined $1.6 million, the maximum allowed.

A lawyer for Weisselberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Go here to read the rest:
Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg released from jail - NBC News