Latest news with #ElectoralCollege
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Slams Reporter on Camera Who Tells Him the Meaning of His 'TACO' Nickname: 'Don't Ever Say What You Said'
President Donald Trump snapped at a reporter during a live press conference on Wednesday, May 28. The reporter asked if he had a response to some Wall Street analysts dubbing his tariff plan "TACO trade," which stands for "Trump Always Chickens Out." "Don't ever say what you said," the president fired back. "That's a nasty question." President Donald Trump's temper flared while talking with the press at the White House on Wednesday, May 28. During a live press conference, the president fielded questions from the press corps, beginning with a female reporter who asked Trump about the new nickname his tariff plan has reportedly been given on Wall Street: "TACO trade." "They're saying 'Trump Always Chickens Out' on the tariff threats and that's why markets are higher this week," she informed him. "What's your response to that?" At first, Trump appeared a bit puzzled and said he hadn't heard that phrase yet, then he grew defensive of his unpredictable tariff negotiations with China and Europe. Originally, the White House had planned to enact 50% tariffs on imports from the European Union on June 1, but after European markets began to show signs of panic, Trump pushed the deadline for negotiations to July 9. "We have an end date of July 9. You call that chickening out?" he fired back at the reporter before continuing with a series of other claims about his economic actions. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "Six months ago, this country was stone-cold dead," Trump said. "We had a country, people didn't think it was gonna survive. And you ask a nasty question like that?" "Don't ever say what you said," he added. "That's a nasty question." The heated exchange on Wednesday was far from the first time Trump has had a contentious interaction with a member of the press. In April, while sitting down with ABC News' Terry Moran, Trump grew irate when asked about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador the month prior. When Moran pointed out that Trump had been using a Photoshopped image to show that Abrego Garcia had "MS-13" tattooed on his knuckles, Trump insisted he was wrong. 'Terry, you can't do that. They've given you the big break of a lifetime," the president said. 'I picked you because... Frankly, I had never heard of you, but that's okay. But I picked you, Terry, but you're not being very nice." "This is why people no longer believe the news, because it's fake news," he continued. "You do such a disservice. Why don't you just say, 'Yes, he does,' and you know, go on to something else?' The outbursts toward reporters were common in Trump's first term as president as well. One memorable exchange came after the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. When asked by Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason if he would accept the Electoral College results, Trump avoided the question, repeating his insistence that the election had been a "fraud." When Mason asked again, the president snapped. "Don't talk to me that way. You're just a lightweight. Don't talk to me that way," Trump said. "Don't talk to — I'm the president of the United States. Don't ever talk to the president that way." Read the original article on People
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
From Biden to RBG, Democrats feel the anguish of age
The Democratic Party is feeling the anguish of age. The deaths of three House Democrats since March has dispirited the caucus and given GOP leaders a little more cushion to move their legislative priorities through Congress. A new vacancy for ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has revived the dispute over the wisdom of a long-honored seniority system that's helped to prevent the ascension of younger members. And new revelations about the deteriorating health of former President Biden, including a newly announced cancer diagnosis, has rekindled the bitter debate over his initial decision to seek reelection in 2024 — a move many in the party say paved the way for President Trump's return to office. 'This is a problem, and it's a real conversation that we have to have in our party,' said David Hogg, a 25-year-old vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 'What we need to be thinking about are the millions of people who are now paying the price for not having those conversations.' At the heart of those talks is an examination of what went wrong in the 2024 election — when Democrats had warned of an existential threat to democracy if Trump won a second term — and how to rebuild their party in the wake of Trump's resounding Electoral College victory. But the questions of age, health and party image that have emerged as recurring themes in that autopsy are hardly new to Democrats. The party has been grappling with generational tensions for years in the House, where former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 85, retained her grip on power for two decades; in the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), 74, has led the party for almost a decade; and in the Supreme Court, where former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death in 2020 at age 87 raised questions about whether she should have retired sooner to allow former President Obama to fill the vacancy. Between Biden and Ginsburg, some Democrats see a recurring theme of aging officeholders on the left hanging on until it is too late and costing the party the White House and a critical seat on the Supreme Court that could pay dividends for conservatives for decades. It's not that Republicans don't have their own age- and health-related controversies. Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), 83, served as the top Senate Republican for 18 years before stepping aside last January amid concerns about failing health. And Trump, 78, is the oldest president to be elected in the country's history. Still, the saga surrounding Biden's health — both during his presidency and afterward — has been the most conspicuous illustration of a broader controversy, putting Democratic leaders on the defensive and exacerbating internal clashes as the party seeks a delicate balance that melds the experience and knowledge of veteran lawmakers with the energy and communications savvy of younger members. And it's hardly the only one. The deaths of six Democratic lawmakers in the last 16 months — including three this year — have further intensified the conversation around the age and health of lawmakers. The most recent was Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, whose death last week of esophageal cancer is likely to spark a tough contest to fill the seat, pitting senior members of the panel against a younger group clamoring for more influence within the caucus. The wave of deaths has played to the advantage of House Republicans, whose razor-thin majority has been padded by the vacancies, allowing GOP leaders to absorb more defections on difficult votes. Those math dynamics were under a microscope last week, when the House narrowly passed Trump's domestic policy bill by a vote of 215 to 214. In the hours after the dramatic vote, Democrats began to air their grievances on how things might have gone differently. 'Imagine if one of the older and sicker Dems would've retired instead of died in office and what that would've meant for millions of people,' Rebecca Katz, the veteran Democratic strategist, wrote on social platform X after the vote. Katz's assessment is highly debatable: Two Republicans who missed the vote said later that they would have supported the bill, and a third who voted present said he would not have blocked it. With that in mind, the Democratic vacancies were practically insignificant. Still, other Democrats said focusing merely on the outcome of the vote seemed too granular. 'Whether or not Gerry Connolly or Raúl Grijalva could have practically stopped this vote is besides the point. The margins are so thin right now that every member we have in office is a point of leverage,' said Amanda Litman, the president of Run for Something and the author of 'When We're in Charge: The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership.' And Democratic strategist Jim Manley, an aide to the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that after years of pushing back on the notion that fresh blood was needed in the ecosystem of the Democratic Party, he's come to agree that change is necessary. 'For many years, I was a strong supporter of the seniority system,' Manley said. 'I resented the idea that people underestimated the knowledge that comes from seniority. 'But after a couple different incidents over the past couple of years including the former president, I believe there's got to be change,' he said. Hogg is among those who agree, and he's stirring plenty of controversy at the DNC for his effort to recruit younger progressive candidates, even if it means challenging sitting Democratic incumbents. His campaign has sparked an uproar, and the DNC is set to vote in June on whether to redo his election. But Hogg remains unapologetic, saying Democrats' failure to confront questions of Biden's health more directly was a 'major strategic problem' — one that's alienated younger voters at the expense of the party's future. A more honest conversation, he said, 'may have helped change people's minds.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
From Biden to RBG, Democrats feel the anguish of age
The Democratic Party is feeling the anguish of age. The deaths of three House Democrats since March has dispirited the caucus and given GOP leaders a little more cushion to move their legislative priorities through Congress. A new vacancy for ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has revived the dispute over the wisdom of a long-honored seniority system that's helped to prevent the ascension of younger members. And new revelations about the deteriorating health of former President Biden, including a newly announced cancer diagnosis, has rekindled the bitter debate over his initial decision to seek reelection in 2024 — a move many in the party say paved the way for President Trump's return to office. 'This is a problem, and it's a real conversation that we have to have in our party,' said David Hogg, a 25-year-old vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 'What we need to be thinking about are the millions of people who are now paying the price for not having those conversations.' At the heart of those talks is an examination of what went wrong in the 2024 election — when Democrats had warned of an existential threat to democracy if Trump won a second term — and how to rebuild their party in the wake of Trump's resounding Electoral College victory. But the questions of age, health and party image that have emerged as recurring themes in that autopsy are hardly new to Democrats. The party has been grappling with generational tensions for years in the House, where former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 85, retained her grip on power for two decades; in the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), 74, has led the party for almost a decade; and in the Supreme Court, where former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death in 2020 at age 87 raised questions about whether she should have retired sooner to allow former President Obama to fill the vacancy. Between Biden and Ginsburg, some Democrats see a recurring theme of aging officeholders on the left hanging on until it is too late and costing the party the White House and a critical seat on the Supreme Court that could pay dividends for conservatives for decades. It's not that Republicans don't have their own age- and health-related controversies. Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), 83, served as the top Senate Republican for 18 years before stepping aside last January amid concerns about failing health. And Trump, 78, is the oldest president to be elected in the country's history. Still, the saga surrounding Biden's health — both during his presidency and afterward — has been the most conspicuous illustration of a broader controversy, putting Democratic leaders on the defensive and exacerbating internal clashes as the party seeks a delicate balance that melds the experience and knowledge of veteran lawmakers with the energy and communications savvy of younger members. And it's hardly the only one. The deaths of six Democratic lawmakers in the last 16 months — including three this year — have further intensified the conversation around the age and health of lawmakers. The most recent was Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, whose death last week of esophageal cancer is likely to spark a tough contest to fill the seat, pitting senior members of the panel against a younger group clamoring for more influence within the caucus. The wave of deaths has played to the advantage of House Republicans, whose razor-thin majority has been padded by the vacancies, allowing GOP leaders to absorb more defections on difficult votes. Those math dynamics were under a microscope last week, when the House narrowly passed Trump's domestic policy bill by a vote of 215 to 214. In the hours after the dramatic vote, Democrats began to air their grievances on how things might have gone differently. 'Imagine if one of the older and sicker Dems would've retired instead of died in office and what that would've meant for millions of people,' Rebecca Katz, the veteran Democratic strategist, wrote on social platform X after the vote. Katz's assessment is highly debatable: Two Republicans who missed the vote said later that they would have supported the bill, and a third who voted present said he would not have blocked it. With that in mind, the Democratic vacancies were practically insignificant. Still, other Democrats said focusing merely on the outcome of the vote seemed too granular. 'Whether or not Gerry Connolly or Raúl Grijalva could have practically stopped this vote is besides the point. The margins are so thin right now that every member we have in office is a point of leverage,' said Amanda Litman, the president of Run for Something and the author of 'When We're in Charge: The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership.' And Democratic strategist Jim Manley, an aide to the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that after years of pushing back on the notion that fresh blood was needed in the ecosystem of the Democratic Party, he's come to agree that change is necessary. 'For many years, I was a strong supporter of the seniority system,' Manley said. 'I resented the idea that people underestimated the knowledge that comes from seniority. 'But after a couple different incidents over the past couple of years including the former president, I believe there's got to be change,' he said. Hogg is among those who agree, and he's stirring plenty of controversy at the DNC for his effort to recruit younger progressive candidates, even if it means challenging sitting Democratic incumbents. His campaign has sparked an uproar, and the DNC is set to vote in June on whether to redo his election. But Hogg remains unapologetic, saying Democrats' failure to confront questions of Biden's health more directly was a 'major strategic problem' — one that's alienated younger voters at the expense of the party's future. A more honest conversation, he said, 'may have helped change people's minds.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - How a fictional Vice President Trump could become reality
Last week, I speculated about the possibility of Donald Trump seeking a de facto third term by running as vice president with a puppet as president. I received a flurry of responses citing the Constitution's 12th Amendment as making that likelihood impossible and illegal. A constitutional debate can be dry and arcane. So let's put this possibility into fictional terms, such as the movies 'Advise and Consent,' or even 'Seven Days in May.' Assume, for fictional purposes, the main character has served two terms as president and will not give up power easily. A coup like the one in 'Seven Days in May' is not possible. So, the president brings together a legal team to present a plan that allows the president to run as vice president and circumvent these prohibitions. The last sentence of the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, reads: 'But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.' The 22nd Amendment, approved in 1951, states in part that: 'No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.' Can these two apparently conflicting amendments be resolved? The president's lawyers show how he can run for vice president. The 12th Amendment applied the same requirements for the president to the vice president because that person could assume the presidency if it became vacant. They must be at least 35 years of age, native born, be a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and win a majority of the Electoral College. The 22nd Amendment was passed 147 years later. Clearly, the two–term limit should not be applicable retroactively. If the president left office before the end of the term, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is next in line, would assume the office. The president is disqualified by the 22nd Amendment. The lawyers also lay out the opposite case that the 22nd Amendment takes precedence, meaning no president can serve more than two terms, in order to strategize how to beat this counterargument. The answer should be obvious: Let the courts decide. For purposes of this story, the president has appointed enough conservative Supreme Court associate judges to give himself an apparent 7-2 majority. Hence, as this case would go to the court, the president almost certainly would win. Of course, the consequences of this decision would be the equivalent of a political nuclear explosion. In this movie, the lawyers would review the most contested and controversial elections, which took place in 1876 and 2000. On Nov. 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden led Hayes by more than 260,000 popular votes. As the Electoral College met to determine the president, Tilden had 184 electoral votes, one less than needed to win the election. Hayes had only 165. However, 19 electoral votes were in doubt. How was this constitutional stalemate resolved? With no supporting case for precedence, the U.S. Congress formed an Electoral Commission. After considerable and heated debate, in early March 1877, the commission awarded the 20 contested electoral votes to Hayes. Thus, while losing the popular vote, Hayes won the election 185-184. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush. But despite ongoing recounts in Florida, whose electoral votes would determine the winner, the Supreme Court ordered that the recount be halted. Bush was in the lead and was elected president. The election of 2028 in this plot could make these two cases seem tame. Graphic riots and violence would be the likely outcome. But in 2000, the story rested in the Supreme Court, where one angry judge halted the proceedings, throwing the election into chaos. Originally, presidents were inaugurated on March 20 because of slow-paced horse and carriage transportation. Inauguration Day in this era is Jan. 20. Moving from fiction to reality and the possibility that Trump would actually seek the vice presidency, the lesson is clear for Democrats: Winning the House in 2028 is vital. But what a story the alternative brings! Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are working on a forthcoming book. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
How a fictional Vice President Trump could become reality
Last week, I speculated about the possibility of Donald Trump seeking a de facto third term by running as vice president with a puppet as president. I received a flurry of responses citing the Constitution's 12th Amendment as making that likelihood impossible and illegal. A constitutional debate can be dry and arcane. So let's put this possibility into fictional terms, such as the movies 'Advise and Consent,' or even 'Seven Days in May.' Assume, for fictional purposes, the main character has served two terms as president and will not give up power easily. A coup like the one in 'Seven Days in May' is not possible. So, the president brings together a legal team to present a plan that allows the president to run as vice president and circumvent these prohibitions. The last sentence of the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, reads: 'But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.' The 22nd Amendment, approved in 1951, states in part that: 'No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.' Can these two apparently conflicting amendments be resolved? The president's lawyers show how he can run for vice president. The 12th Amendment applied the same requirements for the president to the vice president because that person could assume the presidency if it became vacant. They must be at least 35 years of age, native born, be a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and win a majority of the Electoral College. The 22nd Amendment was passed 147 years later. Clearly, the two–term limit should not be applicable retroactively. If the president left office before the end of the term, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is next in line, would assume the office. The president is disqualified by the 22nd Amendment. The lawyers also lay out the opposite case that the 22nd Amendment takes precedence, meaning no president can serve more than two terms, in order to strategize how to beat this counterargument. The answer should be obvious: Let the courts decide. For purposes of this story, the president has appointed enough conservative Supreme Court associate judges to give himself an apparent 7-2 majority. Hence, as this case would go to the court, the president almost certainly would win. Of course, the consequences of this decision would be the equivalent of a political nuclear explosion. In this movie, the lawyers would review the most contested and controversial elections, which took place in 1876 and 2000. On Nov. 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden led Hayes by more than 260,000 popular votes. As the Electoral College met to determine the president, Tilden had 184 electoral votes, one less than needed to win the election. Hayes had only 165. However, 19 electoral votes were in doubt. How was this constitutional stalemate resolved? With no supporting case for precedence, the U.S. Congress formed an Electoral Commission. After considerable and heated debate, in early March 1877, the commission awarded the 20 contested electoral votes to Hayes. Thus, while losing the popular vote, Hayes won the election 185-184. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush. But despite ongoing recounts in Florida, whose electoral votes would determine the winner, the Supreme Court ordered that the recount be halted. Bush was in the lead and was elected president. The election of 2028 in this plot could make these two cases seem tame. Graphic riots and violence would be the likely outcome. But in 2000, the story rested in the Supreme Court, where one angry judge halted the proceedings, throwing the election into chaos. Originally, presidents were inaugurated on March 20 because of slow-paced horse and carriage transportation. Inauguration Day in this era is Jan. 20. Moving from fiction to reality and the possibility that Trump would actually seek the vice presidency, the lesson is clear for Democrats: Winning the House in 2028 is vital. But what a story the alternative brings! Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are working on a forthcoming book.
