The mastermind behind Donald Trump’s muddle in Ukraine is now nailing the paddle into presidential debates this fall. The former New York mayor-turned-presidential repairman has been nominated by Trump to fuel more than the three traditional debates between the party’s top two candidates before the election.
The presidential debates have been sponsored for years by a non-profit commission under the supervision of both parties. They tend to be fairly stable issues, in part due to all the conditions typically imposed by each campaign. It’s pretty obvious that Trump believes Biden has missed a step, an impression he believes he can convey to Americans with his scorched earth debate strategy. But Biden is not a bad polemicist, although he never reached peak form during the Democratic campaign debates, he performed well in vice-presidential debates while on the Barack Obama fine.
Trump’s gambit poses an interesting challenge for Biden. If he refuses a series of debates, Trump will claim that Biden cannot bear the heat and wants to stay in his basement until November. But why should Biden’s camp deal with Giuliani, his former ex-rival, who incited Ukraine to investigate false corruption allegations against him? And tactically, why give Trump more opportunities to reach a level?
If Trump wanted to play fair, he would not have chosen Giuliani. Enlisting the pro-Trump street fighter suggests the goal is less to embrace a traditional public exercise of democracy, and more like another backroom scheme to make Biden look bad.
Do you have the impression that the Supreme Court did not like me?
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects hundreds of thousands of people who were illegally brought to the United States as children from deportation. The crucial vote in the ruling of five and four was cast by the Conservative Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wrote the opinion. “We do not decide whether DACA or its termination are sound policies,” wrote Roberts. “‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is not our concern.’ We only address whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation of its action.”
But Trump, who was recently disappointed by another SCOTUS decision against discrimination in hiring LGBTQ people, seemed to take it personally. “Do you have the impression that the Supreme Court did not like me?” tweeted Thursday.
The deadliest clash between Indian and Chinese troops since 1975 took place this week in a remote valley in the Himalayas. As of last week, both countries appeared to be trying to reduce tensions along the disputed border in the area. But Monday’s gruesome fight between border soldiers shows how quickly unresolved problems between neighboring giants can become lethal.
It all started with a tent, a source from the Indian Armed Forces tells me. Chinese troops had erected the disputed shelter on land, and Indian soldiers and a commanding officer dismantled it, the source said, adding that the Chinese troops left, but returned later that day with reinforcements, armed with stones and Bamboo studs riddled with nails. Chinese or Indian troops do not carry firearms along the China-India border.
They fought for at least four hours, the source says, in a bloody fight that killed 20 Indian soldiers. A statement from the Indian army mentions victims on both sides, although China has not admitted any deaths on its part. (CNN has not independently confirmed the details of the confrontation.)
For 36 hours later, India’s populist prime minister, Narendra Modi, did not publicly protest. “Why is the prime minister silent? Why is he hiding? Enough is enough. We need to know what has happened,” Rahul Gandhi, a senior member of India’s leading opposition party, tweeted. But on Wednesday afternoon, Modi drew a line in the sand: “India wants peace,” he said, “but is capable of giving an adequate response when provoked.” The sacrifice of the Indian soldiers would not be in vain, he added.
Here is Modi’s dilemma: Taking bold diplomatic or economic action against China could derail border talks, but little or no action could encourage China’s foray attempts and further disrupt Modi’s internal support.
Here in New Delhi, 60 people, including army veterans, protested in front of the Chinese embassy. Posters and effigies of the Chinese president were burned in some parts of the country. Since Wednesday #BoycottChina and #GoChina have been in vogue on Twitter in India. There is a growing demand to avoid Chinese applications and products. And there are strong murmurs of terminating Chinese contracts in the telecommunications and rail sector. Blinded by nationalist sentiments, the basic fact that China is one of India’s largest trading partners is being ignored by the outraged.
Countering China’s relentless attempts at regional hegemony is now one of the biggest challenges Modi faces in his second term, especially after informal summits with Xi Jinping in Wuhan and southern India failed to overcome the confidence deficit. on the border shared by the two nuclear powers. – CNN’s Vedika Sud writes to Meanwhile from New Delhi