Category Archives: Donald Trump

To the editor:

There is one thing I know for sure about Donald Trump. History will remember him as the worst president of the United States. Unless of course a worst one comes along in the future.

How do I know this? Its because historians look at what the subjects contemporaries have written about him.

Is there a person who has been closely associated with Trump who has not written a book that puts him in a very bad light?

Yes, there may be a few, but you can bet most of them will soon write about their time with Trump, too; and it wont be pretty.

Historians will have a trove of information to choose from. An embarrassment of riches, if you will. And, because they will not quite understand the emotions of our time, they will wonder how it was possible for him to win in the first place, and how close he came to winning a second time. That, I think will be the focus of historians.

How the people with the best standard of living the world had ever known up to that time, could feel so downtrodden (do you see the dont tread on me flags along with the Trump ones?) that they would want such a freak of nature to be their president.

They will wonder how that human wrecking ball (just take a look at all his business failings, and the squandering of his inheritance) could possibly be thought of as a builder of a greater America. There is a saying When the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Trump and his chum, (Russian President) Vladimir Putin, see the world that way; a nail that sticks up and needs to be hammered down.

And heres another prediction. Joe Biden will be known as the most consequential,one-term president the U.S. will see. The man who came along too late to run for a second term, but just in the nick of time to save America, and perhaps the world, from a new age of despotic darkness.

Dominic Cuc

North Attleboro

Original post:

Historians will have the final say on Donald Trump - The Sun Chronicle

Republicans must protect some challenging districts as well, with 15 GOP members in President Joe Biden-won seats, and any Democratic path to another majority involves picking off a number of those.

But the new midterm math of the House landscape shows Democrats are in a much tougher spot, grappling with a potentially lethal brew of factors including a contracting battlefield and a diminished president. The sitting presidents party has gotten wiped out of most of their crossover districts along with plenty of others where the previous presidential race was close in each recent midterm election. And a net loss of just five seats will be enough to flip the House.

Its hard to run away from an unpopular president, especially in the midterm, said Democratic Rep. Ron Kind, who is retiring from a rural southwestern Wisconsin seat Trump won by 5 points. And so the presidents numbers have to get healthier going into the fall, or there will be a lot of Democrats struggling this year.

So far redistricting has shrunk the number of truly competitive seats those decided by less than 5 points at the presidential level in 2020 down to just 31, according to a POLITICO analysis. (Before the redraws, there were about 50 seats decided by that margin.) Democrats have bolstered a number of incumbents districts, but they have also seen potential offensive targets disappear, leaving them with less room for error.

With Bidens approval in the low 40s, Republicans expect their swing-seat incumbents will need less outside help, freeing up party resources and time to target Democratic incumbents in blue-leaning districts and potentially catch them sleeping.

There really are not very many swing seats left, said Dan Conston, the president of the Congressional Leadership Fund, the chief House GOP super PAC. That is forcing us to look at many more Democrat-leaning districts. But the political environment is good enough that we should be able to compete in traditional Democrat territory that we couldnt in a normal election cycle.

Outside of redistricting-created problems, theres not going to be a lot of defense that will need to be played, he added.

Thanks to redistricting, retirements and increased polarization and a decline in ticket splitting, the number of members in a district carried by the opposite partys presidential nominee is relatively low. But if history is any indication, its also possible that Republicans could take back the House by sweeping away all the Democrats in Trump districts.

When Democrats won control of the House in 2006, 10 of the 18 Republicans lost reelection in districts carried by John Kerry in 2004. When the GOP wrested back the gavel in 2010, 36 of the 48 Democrats in John McCain-won seats were defeated. And four years ago, victorious House Democrats captured all but three of the 25 Republicans districts Hillary Clinton carried.

That gives the Trump-district Democrats the look of an endangered species heading into November 2022. The list of those running consists of: Reps. Tom OHalleran of Arizona, Jared Golden of Maine, Cindy Axne of Iowa, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania.

Cartwright has a special distinction of being the only Democrat to win in a Trump district in 2016, 2018 and 2020. The rest lost, retired or were not in a Trump seat for all of the past three elections.

Itll be four times if Im able to pull it off, Cartwright said, referencing his previous wins since Trumps 2016 victory. Part of his strategy: I know why people voted for Trump in my district and I have never condemned them for doing it.

And even though Bidens numbers are sagging, Cartwright said he is still upbeat about his chances against the same GOP candidate he beat in 2020.

What was different about Donald Trump was that he was refreshing, Cartwright said. He didnt speak like other candidates. Its a very difficult act to replicate and when they run garden-variety Republicans against me, they cant do it.

Trump notched a 3-point win Carthwrights northeastern Pennsylvania seat. OHalleran was redrawn into a rural Arizona seat that Trump won by 8 points. Kaptur, meanwhile, saw her northern Ohio seat swing from one of the bluest in the country to one of the most competitive. (There is still a chance Ohios map could change due to a court challenge.) They could be joined by Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, a state that has not yet completed redistricting.

The number of open, Trump-won seats speaks to the difficulty Democratic incumbents face in 2022. Kind retired rather than run again. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) and Andy Levin (D-Mich.) both abandoned districts Trump carried narrowly to run in neighboring seats. (Levin will have to beat a fellow Democrat incumbent, Rep. Haley Stevens, to return next year.)

GOP legislatures also transformed districts in Georgia and Tennessee into deep red seats and automatic pickups that forced Democratic incumbents to retire or run elsewhere.

But Democrats will have to defend members in Biden-won seats too especially those in the 14 districts the president carried by 5 points or less. That group includes: Reps. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Elaine Luria (D-Va.) and Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).

Its mostly about winning in those Biden seats, but not always, not exclusively, Tim Persico, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of the Democratic strategy this cycle. And we have really, really strong candidates across the country in districts that the president won by a million and districts that the president lost.

Still, Democrats have signaled that they will be selective about offensive opportunities. When the DCCC named a dozen challengers to its Red to Blue program for top-tier candidates, the committee only added two candidates in Trump-won districts, both in swingy Iowa seats.

They are most focused on picking off the 15 Republicans who were drawn into Biden-won districts. Three of those seats are open because Reps. Lee Zeldin and John Katko are not seeking reelection in New York and Rep. Rodney Davis decided to run in a redder neighboring district in Illinois.

Three other top targets Reps. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) all hold seats Biden carried by double digits.

The DCCC also hopes to oust Reps. Andy Harris (R-Md.), David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.), Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), Young Kim (R-Calif.), Michelle Steel (R-Calif.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Steve Chabot (R-Ohio). All hold seats Biden won in 2020, but his current standing will determine just how tough their reelections will be.

I dont think hes particularly popular there now, Chabot said of his Cincinnati district, which backed Biden by nearly 9 points. Although that can always be in flux. But I think if you look at his policies, theyve been pretty disastrous for the community.

The remaining four maps could change these numbers slightly, especially Florida which has not yet finalized its 28 congressional seats. New Hampshire, Louisiana and Missouri have also not completed redistricting.

Democrats have done a decent job recruiting challengers to take on the Biden Republicans, though they notably lack a well-funded candidate against Fitzpatrick in the Philadelphia suburbs. But the GOPs strength is that theyve landed solid candidates across the map, from the easily won districts to the tougher ones.

Theres Jeremy Hunt, a Black Army veteran challenging Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.); former La Porte Mayor Blair Milo, a Navy veteran running against Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.); Tanya Wheeless, a former Phoenix Suns executive competing against Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.); and George Logan, an ex-state senator challenging Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.).

GOP strategists believe they can contest seats Biden carried by low double-digit margins if the current environment holds. And Democrats are bracing for the worst-case scenario.

I think the general feeling right now is: Its better to be prepared to go to battle in a larger numbers of districts and not have to do it, said Dan Sena, a former DCCC executive director. And if those are not competitive races, youre still prepared for a fight.

See original here:

The new midterm math: How redistricting, Biden and Trump shaped the battle for the House - POLITICO

WASHINGTON

The last time (and maybe the first time) most Americans heard of Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president was at the center of a scandal that would lead to the impeachment of then-President Trump.

Trump in 2019 threatened to hold up weapons deliveries to Ukraine caught even then in a simmering war with Russian proxies unless Zelensky helped him dig up political dirt on rival Joe Biden.

Today, the shadow of that scandal lingers. How much did Trumps toying with Ukraine, cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin and, ultimately, Trumps acquittal on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress influence Putins decision to invade Ukraine?

Putin had already bitten off bits of Ukraine with the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, and a swath of neighboring Georgia six years earlier. But nothing compared with the massive attack he launched across Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, on Feb. 24.

Numerous experts and current and former officials say Putin was emboldened by the Trump years. The former KGB officer turned president ably manipulated Trump into publicly backing his denials of having interfered to Trumps benefit in U.S. elections. And, according to former aides, Putin convinced Trump to accept his claim that Ukraine was part of Russia.

It is impossible to know all of Putins thinking as he launched the ferocious war that has already claimed thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives and obliterated parts of the fledgling democracy that sought to strengthen ties with the West.

By most accounts, Putin stewed in grievances for years the expansion of NATO farther east into his sphere of influence, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and a post-Cold War world order that marginalized Russia waiting for an opportunity to build back his vision of a grand Russian superpower empire.

He sensed that opportunity with the election of cynical, norms-busting Trump, who at one point declared the North Atlantic Treaty Organization obsolete and has repeatedly, to this day, praised the Russian leader.

I think Putin saw how Trump viewed Ukraine as a pawn, Marie Yovanovitch, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who testified against Trump in the impeachment trial, said in a recent TV appearance. Putin saw that we had an administration that was willing to trade our national security for personal and political gain.

Fiona Hill, a highly regarded Russia expert who served on Trumps National Security Council and also testified during the impeachment trial, said the former administration did take steps against Moscow on other issues, expelling diplomats and imposing sanctions. But at a critical period, when Ukraine was fighting Russia and needed weapons, Trump had his own political future in mind.

It sent a message to Putin that Ukraine is a plaything for him and for the United States. And that nobodys really serious about protecting Ukraine, Hill added. And that was ultimately a sign of weakness.

It was not Trump alone. During the Obama administration, Putin invaded parts of eastern Ukraine, annexing the Crimean peninsula and installing Russian proxies to fight Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region with minimal U.S. or international rebuke.

Trump supporters and some Republicans say President Biden has to share in the blame. The ugly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in the summer last year, ending a 20-year war but sacrificing that nation to chaos, also illustrated an administration unable to lead, they say.

Putin watched the United States do just about everything it could to undermine alliances and partnerships under Donald Trump, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder said in a recent conference sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Then, Daalder added, Biden took over and talked about America being back and yet struggled, initially, to rebuild those alliances.

Still, Trumps actions, and the lack of significant consequences he faced, represented a unique opening, a bright green light for Putin in Ukraine.

Trumps impeachment the first of two began in the Democratic-led House on Dec. 18, 2019, and ended with a trial and acquittal in the GOP-controlled Senate on Feb. 5, 2020. It stemmed from an infamous call on July 25, 2019, that the then-president made to Zelensky, a fellow novice politician, who had just been elected.

In the call, a transcript of which the White House released after a whistleblower complaint, Zelensky pleaded for more military weaponry including the Javelin missile systems that are now helping to stall Russian advances on Ukrainian cities. Trump agreed but said that first, he wanted Zelensky to do us a favor.

The favor involved investigating Bidens son Hunter and his lucrative position with the Ukrainian oil conglomerate Burisma. Zelensky resisted, with his staff insisting on a formal request for an investigation if the U.S. wanted one. His staff also emphasized to State Department officials that Zelensky was leery about getting involved in U.S. politics.

Trump had already frozen the aid, a $391-million package of military equipment and other assistance that had been approved by Congress with bipartisan support. At least 25 Ukrainians died in fighting in the east in the weeks that followed, according to an investigation at the time by the Los Angeles Times, although a direct link is impossible to prove.

Only after members of Congress on both sides of the aisle learned about the halt in aid was it finally released on Sept. 11, 2019. It was the first time the U.S. provided lethal military aid to Ukraine, an important, albeit delayed, milestone.

That chapter, which resulted in the president, former presidents, impeachment, sadly was an encouragement to Putin and weakened Ukraine even in this fight, said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who led the first Trump impeachment inquiry.

What Americans need to understand about that sordid chapter of our history is Ukraine was even then at war with Russia ... Ukrainians were even then dying every week, sometimes every day, Schiff said.

What that told Putin, tragically, is the United States doesnt care about Ukraine, it doesnt care about its people, it doesnt care about its democratic aspirations. It doesnt care if Ukrainians get killed by Russians. I think thats the message Trumps conduct sent, that we would use Ukraine as a political plaything.

Schiff added that Putin anticipated if he started a broader invasion of Ukraine, he could count on Trump either to praise him or to criticize Biden.

Trump has done both.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that Putin was more influenced by Biden.

I think Putin has wanted Ukraine for a long time. He was waiting for an opportunity where he thought America was in retreat, pulling back from the rest of the world, McConnell told PBS NewsHour. There was a vivid picture of the evacuation of Afghanistan for everybody in the world to see that America was coming home and pulling in our horns and not inclined to take the forward position we have in the past. It was like a green light to Vladimir Putin.

But Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who has been critical of Trump, said it was absurd to excuse the former president or think his presence in the White House would have deterred Putins invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin, [North Koreas] Kim Jong Un, Xi [Jinping] of China were getting everything they wanted with Trump, Kinzinger told CNN on Thursday.

Link:

News Analysis: Trump delayed weapons to Ukraine and praised Putin. Did that trigger war? - Los Angeles Times

Weeks after the 2020 election, at least one Trump White House aide was named as secretly producing a report that alleged Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden because of Dominion Voting Systems research that formed the basis of the former presidents wider efforts to overturn the election.

The Dominion report, subtitled OVERVIEW 12/2/20 History, Executives, Vote Manipulation Ability and Design, Foreign Ties, was initially prepared so that it could be sent to legislatures in states where the Trump White House was trying to have Bidens win reversed.

But top Trump officials would also use the research that stemmed from the White House aide-produced report to weigh other options to return Trump to the presidency, including having the former president sign off on executive orders to authorize sweeping emergency powers.

The previously unreported involvement of the Trump White House aide in the preparation of the Dominion report raises the extraordinary situation of at least one administration official being among the original sources of Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The publicly available version of the Dominion report, which first surfaced in early December 2020 on the conservative outlet the Gateway Pundit, names on the cover and in metadata as its author Katherine Friess, a volunteer on the Trump post-election legal team.

But the Dominion report was in fact produced by the senior Trump White House policy aide Joanna Miller, according to the original version of the document reviewed by the Guardian and a source familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The original version of the Dominion report named Miller - who worked for the senior Trump adviser Peter Navarro as the author on the cover page, until her name was abruptly replaced with that of Friess before the document was to be released publicly, the source said.

The involvement of a number of other Trump White House aides who worked in Navarros office was also scrubbed around that time, the source said. Friess has told the Daily Beast that she had nothing to do with the report and did not know how her name came to be on the document.

It was not clear why Millers name was removed from the report, which was sent to Trumps former attorney Rudy Giuliani on 29 November 2020, or why the White House aides involvement was obfuscated in the final 2 December version.

Miller did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Dominion report made a number of unsubstantiated allegations that claimed Dominion Voting Systems corruptly ensured there could be technology glitches which resulted in thousands of votes being added to Joe Bidens total ballot count.

Citing unnamed Venezuelan officials, the report also pushed the conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems used software from the election company Smartmatic and had ties to state-run Venezuelan software and telecommunications companies.

After the Dominion report became public, Navarro incorporated the claims into his own three-part report, produced with assistance from his aides at the White House, including Miller and another policy aide, Garrett Ziegler, the source said.

Ziegler has also said on a rightwing podcast that he and others in Navarros office seemingly referring to Trump White House aides Christopher Abbott and Hannah Robertson started working on Navarros report about two weeks before the 2020 election took place.

Two weeks before the election, we were doing those reports hoping that we would pepper the swing states with those, Ziegler said of the three-part Navarro report in an appearance last July on The Professors Record with David K Clements.

The research in the Dominion report also formed the backbone of foreign election interference claims by the former Trump lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell, who argued Trump could, as a result, assume emergency presidential powers and suspend normal law.

That included Trumps executive order 13848, which authorized sweeping powers in the event of foreign election interference, as well as a draft executive order that would have authorized the seizure of voting machines, the Guardian has previously reported.

The claims about Venezuela in the Dominion report appear to have spurred Powell to ask Trump at a 18 December 2020 meeting at the White House coincidentally facilitated by Ziegler that she be appointed special counsel to investigate election fraud.

Millers authorship of the Dominion report was not the last time the Trump White House, or individuals in the administration, prepared materials to advance the former presidents claims about a stolen election and efforts to return himself to office.

The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack revealed last year it had found evidence the White House Communications Agency produced a letter for the Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark to use to pressure states to decertify Bidens election win.

Link:

Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push big lie - The Guardian

It looks like exhausted news consumers battered by polarized cable channels that elevate opinion over facts are finally being heard.

Piece by piece, a post-Trump media world is starting to take shape. It looks something like a universe where resentment and resistance are pushed to the side and straight news steps back into the spotlight.

In just the past few weeks, several high-profile developments point to an emerging correction in journalism:

Spectrum, a cable distributor which operates more than 30 local newsrooms around the country, has announced it will soon launch a national newscast, headed up by a former executive producer of NBC Nightly News. The move comes, Spectrum says, after a survey of 10,000 viewers showed a high level of trust in the companys local newscasts.

At the same time, cable outlet NewsNation said it would continue to expand the number of newscasts on the service reaching 21 hours a day by June. NewsNation, owned by The Hills parent company Nexstar Media Group, was launched in 2020 with a mission to deliver straight news.

And it is now apparent that CNNs new bosses will move quickly to bring the network back to the journalistic center. David Zaslav, who takes over as CEO of CNNs parent company later this spring, has said that overall wed probably be better off if we just had news networks in America rather than partisan opinion. To head CNN, Zaslav has tapped CBS producer Chris Licht, someone he calls a true news person.

Zaslav also labelled competitor Fox News much more of an advocacy network than a news network.

All of this is a tacit acknowledgement that journalism and cable news especially lost its way during the Trump years, when blatant calls to tribal instincts became the easiest pathway to ratings success.

But, just like the politics that placed Donald TrumpDonald TrumpNow is the time to rebuild America's refugee resettlement program Is a post-Trump media world beginning to take shape? Major government surveillance revelations fail to make a big splash MORE in the White House, that media development didnt appear out of thin air. It began slowly during George W. Bushs administration, when figures like MSNBCs Keith Olbermann and FOXs Bill OReilly came to dominate their networks and appeal to distinct political factions. The Tea Party revolt during the Obama years raised the stakes elevating additional star commentators like Glenn Beck and Rachel MaddowRachel Anne MaddowIs a post-Trump media world beginning to take shape? Ukraine proves cable can still do news, but does it really want to? Journalist: Rachel Maddow's hiatus from MSNBC could leave working class audience behind MORE.

Still, the opinion gloves truly came off during the Trump administration. Even CNN felt compelled to join the fray or suffer the ratings consequences. Bare-knuckled competition for tribal loyalty led to deep extremes, places in mass media where authoritarians are praised and a discredited dossier stays in the headlines far longer than it should.

The shift now underway includes a reassessment from top business leaders. Former Disney chief Bob Iger last week asserted theres a problem of profiting from, I call it inaccuracy, from opinion and from presenting things in an inaccurate fashion. Too many viewers, he said think of news in the wrong way, not how we knew it when we were growing up and we were taught news should be. Cable chieftain John Malone has talked about returning the industry to actual journalism.

Thats important. It could signal that certain titans of television may be willing to sit through some softening of revenue as key parts of the news environment readjust.

The most crucial unknown in this incipient shift is, as always in media, the audience. Too often, viewers tell researchers they want news sources they can trust, they want balance but dont follow through with their content choices. For these viewers, trust means loud voices I agree with, and balance means just the facts that bolster my views.

But some evidence does point to the existence of an exhausted majority. They will need to get off the sidelines and seek out news posts and programming that deliver what they say they want. Media leaders and investors are starting to make big bets on those viewers and readers. Its up to them to respond.

Just-the-facts journalism is important to a functioning democracy. People tired of where weve been are now being given an opportunity to vote with their time and attention and maybe help change where were going.

Joe Ferullo is an award-winning media executive, producer and journalist and former executive vice president of programming for CBS Television Distribution. He was a news executive for NBC, a writer-producer for Dateline NBC and worked for ABC News. Follow him on Twitter@ironworker1.

See original here:

Is a post-Trump media world beginning to take shape? | TheHill - The Hill

Also running is Kathy Barnette, a political commentator who has written a book about being Black and conservative and has raised more than $1 million.

Limited public polling shows a wide-open contest. A Fox News survey in early March showed Mr. McCormick leading, with 24 percent, and Dr. Oz at 15 percent, but many voters were undecided. The Democratic field includes Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, Representative Conor Lamb and Malcolm Kenyatta, a state representative.

The pro-Trump label can be an awkward fit for both Mr. McCormick and Dr. Oz.

Mr. McCormick is the former chief executive of the Bridgewater hedge fund and served in the Treasury Department of the second Bush administration. His career arc from West Point graduate to the financial world more neatly fits the traditional Republican establishment mold, and he said last year that the riot on Jan. 6 at the Capitol was a dark chapter in American history.

For his part, Dr. Oz first found fame as a regular guest on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and clips showing him dancing with Michelle Obama have made their way into ads attacking him. He previously supported key elements of the Affordable Care Act and, while he calls himself pro-life, he struggled in a Fox News interview to articulate when he believes life begins.

Mr. Trump, according to advisers, has tracked the race closely but appears content for now to sit on the sidelines. He jealously guards his endorsement record and was already burned by his early backing of Mr. Parnell. Facing the possible defeat of candidates he is backing in other states, Mr. Trump has turned at least temporarily more cautious in some key Senate races.

Just as he is doing in two other crowded Republican primaries, in Ohio and Missouri, Mr. Trump is not picking sides while the field remains muddled. In both those states, he has also met with multiple candidates vying for his backing.

Rob Gleason, a former chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said a Trump endorsement in the states race could be the tipping point in a close election.

Hes just very important in Republican circles, he said. He still is.

Read the original post:

Dr. Ozs Heritage Is Targeted as Rivals Vie for Trump Backing - The New York Times

In September 2015, Dawn carried my op-ed article, Pakistans Donald Trump. This was 16 months before Trump became president of the United States and about three years before Imran Khan became prime minister of Pakistan. It generated much commentary both ways. Days later, Washington-based analyst Michael Kugelman published his riposte, also in Dawn, dismissing my comparisons as merely superficial. He concluded that Naya Pakistan may be nave, but it is neither nasty nor nefarious.

Seven years is an eternity in the world of politics. What has Naya Pakistan come to mean? Since 2015, much has happened: Trump narrowly won the presidency but failed at re-election. Since then, he has not stopped trying to claw his way back to power. Khan was the winner in the controlled elections of 2018 and has had nearly four years for selling Naya Pakistan. His fate presently rests upon the no-confidence motion before parliament.

To redo the Trump-Khan comparison is timely. Certainly, some similarities I had alluded to earlier remain unaltered. Then, as now, the political toolkits of both men include abundant use of abusive language for firing up supportive mobs. So is making promises which, even if unfulfillable, help generate fantasies in their followers.

The first time around these tools, together with practised theatrics, worked well. Once installed in power, the orange-skinned president cultivated an ecosystem of sycophants, sellers of snake oil and white extremists. In a blizzard of disinformation, his political opponents were blamed for all failures of governance and economic mismanagement. The Washington Post says Trumps false or misleading claims total 30,573 over four years. Impressive!

But Americans soon realised that although Trump was brilliant before the cameras, on governance he was clueless. The economy, race matters and foreign relations headed south. Relations with European allies plummeted even as the Putin-Trump personal rapport grew stronger. When voters rejected Trump for a second term, this was incomprehensible to a man who adored himself beyond limit.

To reverse the election results he tried everything but, unfortunately for him, American democracy proved too robust. The Department of Justice and the military flatly rejected his proposal to seize voting machines and redo the elections. The siege of Capitol Hill in a country with 200 years of democracy shocked the world.

While places, times, and people are obviously different for Pakistan, many similarities are startlingly close and growing closer. Khan is already concocting an explanation for his possible ouster: he is being punished by the West for his independent foreign policy and jihad against Islamophobia. He threatens to unleash hell upon turncoat members of his own party and, of course, the opposition.

On March 27 D-Day at Islamabads D-Chowk PTI is mobilising party and state resources for holding what it says will be the biggest rally in Pakistans history. The goal: to message parliamentarians, both PTI and opposition, that they must not enter parliament to vote on the no-confidence motion.

One significant difference separates Capitol Hill from D-Chowk. Whereas Trump brought out his supporters with winks and nods, nothing has been left to the imagination here. Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry says all parliamentarians arriving to vote on that day would have to pass through a million Khan supporters on their way to the National Assembly and even more significantly on their way back as well. There they will face a lynch mob.

How violent it all gets on D-Day, and the final outcome, cannot be presently known. The siege of the Capitol left American democracy hanging by a thread. Nevertheless, the system was robust enough to blunt the worse. In Pakistan, what lies ahead may or may not end with Khans ouster. But what will be his legacy when he does finally go?

On democracy: depriving parliamentarians of their right to vote is a slap in the face to democracy and decency. That this violates the Constitution is clear as day. But, to be honest, worse has happened before. Four martial laws have trampled the Constitution under the boot. And, even without overt constitutional violations, crooked politicians and generals have stuffed their pockets for decades and parked their assets in unreachable places.

On the economy: todays galloping inflation, repeated returns to the IMF, more whitewashing of black money, dramatic fall of the rupee, and performance levels well below that of India and Bangladesh, are significant negatives. But dont blame PTI alone. Pakistans systemic economic weaknesses stem from overspending on defence, elite capture of national wealth, and a hopelessly under-skilled workforce. Thats why CPECs new infrastructure led to insignificant industrialisation. The same would have happened in a PML-N or PPP government.

On foreign relations: the world noticed PM Khan hailing Osama bin Laden a martyr; calling the Taliban liberators; shaking hands with Putin just before the Ukraine war; wantonly spiting the EU although it is one of Pakistans economic props; and sending relations with Saudi Arabia crashing down. Still, these are reversible. A new prime minister can set things right.

On education: Khans toxic legacy will be nearly irreversible. While madressahs do exactly today what they have done for decades and centuries, Punjabs regular schools now function more as madressahs and less as schools. Even the super-rich are only partly exempted. The kind of mixed-up, confused and ignorant generations that the so-called Single National Curriculum will produce is absolutely terrifying. On the higher education front, Khan has disembowelled the HEC and made it a hotbed of intrigue.

When Khan proclaimed Naya Pakistan would be Riyasat-i-Madina, most people thought it was a metaphor for a cleaner, more equitable Pakistan. Our friend from Washington can be forgiven for thinking this as neither nasty nor nefarious. Almost everyone failed to see the hidden text: the head of any religious state must claim divine sanction in some form. With near-daily fiery pontifications on his ideas of moral behaviour and proper dress, Khans high vision is fully before us. And, just in case you are unsure whether Naya Pakistans head should stay or go, please remember that only animals can be neutral.

The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and author.

This article was first published in Dawn on 19 March 2022 and it has been republished here with permission.

Read the rest here:

Imran Khan is another Donald Trump. But real danger is that Pakistan isnt another US - ThePrint

Lies destroy. Hitler lied about Jews, stoked hate, controlled the press, gained popular support, and launched WWII.

Donald Trump lies. He lied about Soviet intervention in his election, and his withholding of funds to Ukraine - attempting to coerce Zelensky into investigating Bidens sons. He continues to lie and make assertions of a fraudulent election. He lied about his attempts to coerce or replace election officials hoping to overturn results. He lied about his attempts to have Pence throw out vote counts, and he lies about instigating the insurrection at the Capitol.

I mention these particular lies in context of their severe undermining of the democratic process, which can only survive on truth, honesty and respect for the law.

These totalitarian-type behaviors didnt discourage nearly 40% of voters who still support Trump.

Whats happening in Ukraine is a world showdown between democracy and totalitarianism. Putin falsely claims he invaded Ukraine to eradicate Nazis. He falsely claims Ukraine manufactures biological and chemical weapons, opening the door for his use of them in the future. Sadly, another anti-democracy country, China, agrees with Putins assertions. These two countries are no friends of democracy and would like nothing more than to weaken the United States by seizing upon our vulnerability to lies.

With complacency and much maligning by autocrats and conspiracy theorists, the legitimate free press continues to be our last hope for truth. Let us educate ourselves with facts then make our personal decisions based on truth.

Pat Mazza

Easton

More here:

Want the kind of government practiced in Russia? Keep listening to Trumps lies. | Letter - lehighvalleylive.com

The renowned stand-up comedian and UFC commentator Joe Rogan has made a name for himself for voicing his opinions. In his podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, the comedian candidly discusses a various array of topics with his guests. Unfortunately, Rogan has also attracted controversies in the past.

ADVERTISEMENT

Article continues below this ad

Since the controversies, Rogan has unwantedly pulled a lot of undesirable attention and speculation. And that also gives room to baseless rumors. In a recent episode of his podcast, Rogan cleared one such rumor. The Rumour was that former United States President Donald Trump will come on as a guest on his popular podcast.

ADVERTISEMENT

Article continues below this ad

Its been a whole thing where a hundred people, at least, have texted me and sent me emails and contacted friends because they heard [Donald] Trump was coming on my podcast. The source of it is a fake Trump account on Twitter. Its Trumps face, and its a fake account that said, Im going on the Joe Rogan podcast soon,' said Rogan.

Watch This Story: Everything You Need To Know About Paddy Pimblett And His Fiance, Laura Gregory

The 54-year-old said that he doesnt want to take any political stand on his show, during episode #1793 of the Joe Rogan Experience. Speaking with former CIA officer Mike Baker, Rogan clearly wants to abstain from leaning towards any political candidate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Article continues below this ad

During the show, Rogan also talked about YouTube, removal of an episode of the NELK Boys Podcast where the former president Donald Trump was their guest. They pulled the podcast, which is one of the craziest things you could do, said Rogan.

While talking about being apolitical, Rogan said, I have decided that I am very apolitical when it comes to the future in like political candidates, I dont wanna have that kind of influence I wanna be someone who can watch and observe dont wanna be someone whos actually affecting this.

ADVERTISEMENT

Article continues below this ad

DIVE DEEPER

Conor McGregor vs Joe Rogan Net Worth Comparison: Is Conor McGregor Richer ThanJoe Rogan?

4 days ago

What do you make of what Joe Rogan had to say about being apolitical and his views on NELK Boys podcasts Donald Trump episode being taken down? Let us know below in the comments.

Enjoyed reading this article? Download our exclusive app to get 24x7 coverage, latest memes and social media banter. Click here to download.

Continue reading here:

Joe Rogan Clears the Rumor of Donald Trump Appearing on His Podcast - EssentiallySports

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he was surprised that Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

I thought he was negotiating when he sent his troops to the border, Trump told the Washington Examiner. I thought he was negotiating.

The president appeared to qualify his widely condemned praise of Putin last month as pretty smart and a genius for his troop buildup before the onslaught.

I thought it was a tough way to negotiate but a smart way to negotiate, Trump told the conservative outlet.

Trump said he believed Putins tactics were aimed at striking some sort of deal with the United States. The U.S., he claimed, never made a good trade with the Russians until I came along.

And then he went in and I think hes changed, Trump said. I think hes changed. Its a very sad thing for the world. Hes very much changed.

Trumps admiration for the Russian dictator has been an issue, even for some supporters.

In a recent interview with Fox News Sean Hannity as Russias attack on Ukraine intensified, Trump refused to call Putin evil, despite the Trump-supporting hosts prompts. And he stumbled to walk back his gushing over Putins strategy, dwelling on semantics instead.

In his interview with the Examiner, Trump retreated to his hollow claim that hed been very, very tough on Putin.

I get a bad rap on that, Trump insisted. At the same time, I got along with him very well. But I got along with most [world leaders] very well.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Says He's 'Surprised' That Vladimir Putin ...