January 3, 2016

Donald Trump — on "Face the Nation" just now — talks about how he feels about getting used in terrorist propaganda.

Trump was excellent, I thought. Here. Watch the extended interview:


Sebastian said...

"Trump was excellent" Agreed. One of his best performances thus far.

Danno said...

Only watched the first five minutes, but he sounds very much like a man of reason in this interview.

Danno said...

I have now watched the remainder and concur that Trump was excellent.

Yancey Ward said...

I thought it was the best I have seen him. He may be starting the transition into a more serious candidate. One of the theories about his bombastic flair was that it is all show in order to get noticed and build a foundation of support, and that he would, if successful at the first level, move into a more serious and thoughtful mode to add to that base. I don't really much like him or what I see he might bring to the office as a President, still, but I am also quite sure a lot of people, especially in the media and in the Democratic Party, are vastly underestimating him. He is likely quite a bit smarter than they are.

Ann Althouse said...

I think Trump is looking better because the interviewer has come to accept that Trump really could be the next President. He's being treated with better respect and it is bringing out something positive in him.

But Trump got where he is by not being pushed back by interviewers who were sure his candidacy couldn't be serious and who sought to "Katie Couric" him.

And now Trump has his pick of the shows. He picked Face the Nation. And I bet Face the Nation gets much higher ratings than the other Sunday shows today.

traditionalguy said...

Donnie has lapped the field twice. But Fox still plasters their political coverage today with pretended serious interviews of hot candidates like Santorum and Huckaby.

What hath God wrought? It appears God has given up on the pious religious boys club and chosen a man with the demeanor of a John Knox. Scott Walker saw it coming first.

walter said...

Gee..doesn't give of that "Nazi" vibe I hear about...nor mention of Berno who the left keeps saying is nipping at Hil's heels.
I'm surprised he emerged from the women's issues terrain without being asked about "wage gap" or planned parenthood/abortion.

Jim Sweeney said...

I agree that Trump was excellent; solid. It is impossible to view this and say he is a "buffoon" or such as many have. He ought to play this interview as his ad.

The interviewer, whose name I don't know, was also better than others who have tried to trap Trump. Respectful as an earlier commentor wrote. I concur.

This Trump could easily be president...it is evident, like him or not.

EDH said...

What I noticed was that al Shabaab was fairer to Trump than the MSM in most cases because at least they presented Trump's "ban on Muslim immigration" statement uncut and in full context.

And yes I thought this CBS interviewer was fairer than most.

Limited blogger said...

He is no longer running for the Republican nomination.

He is running for president against Hillary Clinton.

And the arsenal of attacks he can wield against her is quite impressive, as he previewed there at the end of the interview.

Drago said...

I was impressed by how diligent CBS continues to be in making sure that Hillary's appearance in the islamist terrorist recruitment video (as well as Obama in previous videos)remains another of the great unmentionables by the democrats in the media.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Donald Trump today on Face the Nation came out in favor of (vastly) increased legal immigration, without saying that was what he was coming out in favor of. How long can he play both sides of that issue? It wasn't obvious that that's what he was coming out in favor of, because very few people know any numbers, and how things fit together, but that's what he was proposing.

He also said he was the only candidate that said Mexico should pay for the wall, and when asked well, the other candidates say this won't happen, he said it would happen because he's a good negotiator, and Mexico does a lot of trade with the United States.

I don't think he was asked about the claim he just made that Hillary Clinton had created ISIS, something with which he may be in agreement with Iran about, and maybe Russian propaganda.

He could make an argument like this maybe, except that some of the facts are probably wrong, but he didn't do it. He didn't elaborate.


"They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama," Trump said.

There is the argument out there that the United States armed ISIS, which is probably not true, although maybe the same thing cannot be said for Qatar and possibly Saudi Arabia.

This contains a more full quote and a also a follow-up quote:


Trump seems to weaken the accusation to bad policies and bad thinking, which still, can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

Donald Trump seems to specialize in saying things which a lot of people do not realize are wrong, or, when they are proposals, do not realize what's wrong with these proposals.

He goes where he is sure nobody will follow.

Then he half takes it back.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The political class is stupid, and they are not philosophers, and don't have deep background in anything, and Donald Trump knows that.

Quaestor said...

The second embedded media player displays a "content unavailable in your region" message.

Unavailable in my region, eh? More conformation that my distain for the MSM is well justified.

Quaestor said...

Althouse wrote: ...Trump got where he is by not being pushed back by interviewers who were sure his candidacy couldn't be serious and who sought to "Katie Couric" him.

Very perceptive. I think Sarah Palin's fatal mistake was being fooled by Katie Couric's plastic smile. Trump, on the other hand, has had to deal with plastic smiles through his entire career. Seeing through such pretense is a vital to the Art of the Deal, as he has famously put it. I wouldn't want sit across a poker table with Trump, even if I were holding aces.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

And prior to the morning shows he had already commanded attention with his provocative tweets regarding Bill and Hillary. He doesn't need campaign commercials. The media whores hate him but will put him on 24/7 anyway. Because they are whores. Mostly, I think it's funny.

walter said...

Blogger Sammy Finkelman said.
He goes where he is sure nobody will follow.
Then he half takes it back.
Supposedly his SOP in biz negotiations.
In the err...ISIS appropriated clip, it looks like he's reading his statement...which is NOT his SOP.
What was the context there? Was he referring to an article?
Meanwhile, Bernie is trying to dodge the "career politician" label.
It would seem even Hil has a more diverse "career".

Alex said...

The media is spreading their legs open for Trump.

Michael K said...

The stuff that is going on now is kind of scary. That standoff at the federal building in Oregon is international news.

An armed militia have taken over a federal building in the US state of Oregon, vowing to occupy the outpost for years to protest the federal government's treatment of a pair of ranchers facing prison time.
The occupation of a portion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge nearly 50 kilometres south-east of Burns, Oregon, followed a peaceful march for ranchers Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, who are scheduled to report to federal prison in San Pedro, California, on Monday after being convicted of arson, according to the Oregonian.

They were convicted as "terrorists" for burning of brush that was a fire hazard. This is getting world-wide attention.

The occupiers of college administrative buildings and invaders of Baker Library at Dartmouth where students trying to study were terrorized, is not considered criminal or even outside the limits of normal for colleges.

The last time people were this angry at the US government, Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building because of the Waco massacre.

Joe said...

Way to hit the straw man Sammy.

Stopping illegal immigration while increasing the efficiency of legal immigration is a very common sense approach. Closing the "if you're a refugee you get a free pass" loophole is also common sense.

As for ISIS, Trump is simply saying that without the 2003 Iraq war, which Hillary voted for, and the US involvement in Libyan, which was strongly supported by Hillary, ISIS wouldn't exist. He's right.

Putting the 2003 Iraq war aside, Hillary clearly supported the draw down in troops from Iraq, which also involved leaving quite a bit of military materials behind. ISIS stepped into the power vacuum and used these military stores.

Even more damning for Obama and Hillary is the lack of support for the Kurds. (Hillary Clinton now claims that the US should support the Kurds, but she had a chance to push this position as Secretary of State and didn't.)

(The real irony of the Iraq situation is that Dick Cheney pretty much nailed the analysis of what would happen with a "liberated Iraq" back in the early 90s. Too bad he didn't listen to himself.)

Joe said...

BTW, on New Year's Eve, I had a conversation with several people who turned out to be conservative (in this circle of acquaintances, we generally avoid politics.) Every one agreed that 1) Trump was mad as a hatter and 2) he was still less slimy than everyone else running for president.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Stopping illegal immigration while increasing the efficiency of legal immigration is a very common sense approach.

He didn't say efficiency.

There is a big campaign to limit absolute numbers. Trump said nothing about that. He certainly implied more numbers.

Perhaps nobody knows what he meant.

This is what he said:


DICKERSON: You said that Senator Cruz appeared to be kind of copying your immigration plan. Your plan, as I understand it, is deportations, and then you will let the good ones back in once they have left the country. His plan...

TRUMP: Yes. Well, they have to go through a process.

DICKERSON: They go through a process.

His plan is just deportation.


DICKERSON: So, is he stricter on undocumented...

TRUMP: No. Well, first of all, his plan just happened, OK?

In fact, I was watching the other day, and I was watching Ted talk, and he said, we will build a wall, the first time I have ever heard him say it.

And my wife, who was sitting next to me, said, "Oh, look, he's copying what you have been saying for a long period of time."

No, no. I'm talking about deportation. And people can come back into the country, not just that group, but other people can come back. But everybody has to come into our country legally. And I want a strong border. And I'm the one that came up with it.

So Donald Trump is for letting peiople come back who were deported years ago.


DICKERSON: You said that the good ones would come back on an expedited basis. Wouldn't Senator Cruz say, well, that's amnesty?

TRUMP: I think that the good ones will be coming back. And I would say that we want to have them back. But we want to have lot of other people.

We have one problem. We have millions of people waiting on lists that have gone through a legal process and they can't get into the country. We have to take care of them. I want people to come in. They just have to come back legally.

So listen to what Donald Trump said:

" we want to have lot of other people

"We have millions of people waiting on lists...We have to take care of them. I want people to come in. "

I wonder what Senator Sessions would say about that?

Sammy Finkelman said...

In the intervoew somehow the audience did not get notified taht ted Cruz is not a Catholic.

Donald Trump maded an argument that he was, but in fact he isn't.

DICKERSON: When you say about Senator Cruz not too many evangelicals come out of the Cuba, what does that mean?

TRUMP: Well, it just means that Cuba, generally speaking, is a Catholic country. And you don't equate evangelicals with Cuba. I don't.

I think of evangelicals, and I have a -- I guess I am. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Protestant. But I don't see it as coming out of Cuba.

DICKERSON: But you're not questioning whether -- as far as you know, he could be more devout than you are.

TRUMP: It's possible. Certainly, it's possible. I'm not questioning. And I say it in a somewhat smiling manner, but there's a little truth to it.

Amexpat said...

Yes, he was very good in the interview. I think a low key Donald is a more viable candidate in the long run.

pm317 said...

Alright.. when Althouse starts to say Trump is excellent which she has done in a few posts now (and she was making fun of him in the beginning), Hillary may be doomed. Especially, when Trump attacks her as being responsible for many, many deaths, thousands. How can she respond? -- 'you will too when and if you become the president and have to make those hard decisions?'

Jim said...

An excellent interview. Trump has changed quite a bit from the start of his campaign. Much more focused. I never knew much about him, or watched him on tv in the past.
But what he is saying, particularly about PC culture, loving this country, and wanting competence in government is spot on, at least for me.
His recent speech in Mississippi, I think it was, really showed his ability to speak without notes, or script. I find that refreshing, especially after listening to hillary and obama. they both have no idea how to kibitz, to talk about events, using your own passions and beliefs.
Thinking about it now, I can see that trump is from New York, the way he speaks, expressions he uses. I find it enjoyable to listen to him.
I cannot stand to listen to hillary. She is so structured, repressed and fake. Same with obama.

traditionalguy said...

Trump's nuanced statement that, "not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba" as a heritage raises a basic Governance Style preference.

The Empire of Spain Administered from Havanna had always been the extension of the Roman Empire's hierarchical governance method through The Roman Church and its approved Devine Right kings governing the lands granted the Kings by the Vicar of Christ.

Evangelicals came here straight out of the crucible of the Protestant Reformation where faithful men claimed an unalienable RIGHT to chose by election their own government the same way they hired their own Pastor in their own community, but the Kingly system of wholey owned clerical appointment churches, whether they be The only legal Church of England, France, Portugal, Italy or Spain, were forbidden as criminal enterprises in 10 of the 13 original States although mostly tolerated.

So the Cruz family may be smoothly speaking in the Evangelical faith buzz words to voters of Texas and now Iowa, but will they later smoothly prefer a more familiar Hierarchical church governance style from Devine Right.

John said...

No reall comments about content except to say that I agree. He sounded more presidential and seems to be pivoting to compete with Hilary! rather than the other Repos.

I found his statement that he would be spending $35mm in the coming months on ads interesting. That will buy him a lot of favorability with the MSM. Say what you like, they can be bought.

One thing that really jumped out at me was the setting for the interview. I am assuming that this is a Trump room not a CBS room. It put me in mind of the oval office. Nothing specific but the entire tone. Especially that big seal in the background. The fireplace with fire was also a nice touch.

I think he will convince some people with this. As someone else said, he should just buy 18 minute spots and run this interview.

John Henry

John said...

I don't know exactly what Trump has in mind when he says Mexico will pay for the wall. It would be interesting to know his reasoning a bit better.

Scott Adams discussed this a while ago. He suggested that if the US passed a law that said, in effect: "Every Mexican citizen with a college degree and/or a usable skill is welcome in the US. Come here and we will give you all permanent residency and citizenship if you meet the requirements for naturalization. All others, here illegally, will be rounded up and deported as fast as we can. No courts, hearings, due process needed. If you can't prove you are here legally, out you go."

This would cause a gigantic brain drain for Mexico and cause them severe problems with their own work force. They would build the equivalent of the Berlin wall and for the same reasons.

I think it would be a horrible idea for a lot of reasons but it would get Mexico to secure the border and foot the bill for doing so.

John Henry

Original Mike said...

"What hath God wrought? It appears God has given up on the pious religious boys club and chosen a man with the demeanor of a John Knox."

God chose Donald Trump?

John said...

A bit off topic but I am currently watching the Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts. In 1912 Teddy R ran as a 3rd party candidate. They has some comments by George Will supporting this. "There comes a time when the major parties become irrelevant and a 3rd party is necessary." (Quote very approximate)

Yet in re Trump, Will has been saying precisely the opposite. There is never a reason for a 3rd party, its disruptive and so on.

I've long thought that Will was basically just a political whore.

As for all those convinced that Trump would run 3rd party? Nyah, Nyah, Nyah I told you so. Never gonna happen unless the Repos do something so egregious as to be unimaginable to me at this point in time.

I highly recommend the series. Available streaming on Netflix.

John Henry

wildswan said...

I am beginning to think Trump could beat Hillary. They've been trying to make him look like a nut but when he comes across as serious as in this show then he looks very good which plays into a general dislike of Hillary plus Rahm failure plus DeBlasio failure plus more Ferguson-effect murders plus ISIS success + Bill the raptor in the White House again (Trigger warning: "Trigger is in the building" = "Go to your safe space - which is not the women's bathroom anymore - and don't bring your young daughter to work - ever"), well, all this a possible path for the Donald.

Hillary isn't even going to try to keep us safe. Remember the Ambassador? That's us.

BN said...

"In 1912 Teddy R ran as a 3rd party candidate."

I think I remember hearing about that somewhere. How'd that turn out?

BN said...

Teddy Roosevelt isn't the "cause" of all the bad shit (i.e., "progressivism, fascism, socialism, communism") of the 20th century, but he was a big part of it.

But I'm sure Trump is a different sort of populism. It'll probably work out this time. We are different now after all.

p.s., it's cute how the Perfesser is starting to like him now. It's been interesting to watch. From Obama to Walker to Trump. Is anyone taking notes? It'll make a good story someday.

grackle said...

(The real irony of the Iraq situation is that Dick Cheney pretty much nailed the analysis of what would happen with a "liberated Iraq" back in the early 90s. Too bad he didn't listen to himself.)

Lacking a URL to some sort of justification for the above statement I’m not convinced of its accuracy. Lots of stuff has been claimed about Cheney that’s myth. I’m sure of one thing – that Cheney did not believe that any POTUS would ever be so stupid as to leave a recently defeated country in the ME without an occupying force to keep the inevitable insurgents in line. Thus ISIS, thus Iraq as a puppet state of Iran.

Another comment:

As for all those convinced that Trump would run 3rd party?

Exactly. Trump doesn’t need a third party – he’s got the GOP. It’s his. He owns it. But it’s barely possible the GOP elite might try to back a third party to stop Trump.

George Will’s stagnant elitist bubble is about to burst and it is causing extreme consternation among the “intellectual” pundits like Will and Krauthammer. Trump’s blunt and emotional campaign technique causes them to have the pundit equivalent of fainting spells.

For me Will’s attitude was no surprise; he didn’t like Bush, jr. for much the same reason – too uncultured, too cockily Paul Newman-ish or something. But I’m a little disappointed in Krauthammer – one of my favorite pundits.

Sammy Finkelman said...

walter said...

In the err...ISIS appropriated clip, it looks like he's reading his statement...

That's exactly what he did when he came out with his proposal to ban all Muslims - temporarily - from the United States. It was different than what he usually did.

The obvious reason would be that he didn't want to deviate from carefully chosen words, unless the idea was to make it more official so as to make sure it got covered.

For all that he may have wanted to be careful with his words, he hadn't worked out the details.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"In 1912 Teddy R ran as a 3rd party candidate."

BN said...

I think I remember hearing about that somewhere. How'd that turn out?

He came in second. The President, William Howard Taft, who had originally been Theodore Roosevelt's annointed successor, came in third.

An incumbent president coming in third was almost about to happen again in 1992.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Woodrow Wilson, who was Governor of New Jersey, and is listed in almanacs as being born in Virginia, was elected president in 1912.

Wilson had actually grown up in the Deep South (Georgia - and don't believe that Jimmy Carter didn't know this) during and after the Civil War and had all the racial attitudes and philosophy of an...Atticus Finch I guess. High-minded belief in the unsuitability of giving equal rights for blacks. Northerners just didn't understand.

Most people also don't know that Princeton University drew a lot of its students from the south.

Things went very bad for blacks working for the federal government.

Wilson also had complicated ideas about just about everything - I guess you could say he was an egghead - that were not necessarily consistent with each other. He was not much of a believer in democracy, but agreed with self-determination. Lenin probably set up his system in Russia (with elections and all) to fool Woodrow Wilson.

Although fake elections had taken place in Mexico during the rule of Porfirio Diaz

Michael K said...

"He is no longer running for the Republican nomination.

He is running for president against Hillary Clinton."

I agree. I sense the change,

"In 1912 Teddy R ran as a 3rd party candidate."

That was a disaster and due only to egotism. Taft had been a good president but not as "Progressive" as Roosevelt.

So, we got Wilson and the fascist tradition of the Democrats. Harding and Coolidge staved it off for 20 years but Hoover brought it back with his Progressive ineptitude.

wildswan said...

He said: "Ban until we can vet them". He didn't say "Ban". Who supports letting them in without vetting?

Sammy Finkelman said...

Ted Cruz is actually a Southern Baptist, Trump's "reasoning" to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Marco Rubio is indeed a Catholic, but he spent a period of time during his boyhood as a Mormon, when his family moved to Utah and he persuaded his entire family to convert. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, and Jeb Bush is a Catholic. Trump says because he is Presbyterian he qualifies as an evangelical.

Rick Santorum is Catholic so I guess that leaves Huckabee as the evangelical alternative to Trump.

But evangelicals vote when they vote on such a basis, not on denominations, but social values: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, sanctity of marriage, no same sex marriage etc. Santorum did quite well with them in 2012.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Ted Cruz is a Catholic the way Barack Obama is a Moslem.

narciso said...

an irony, I pointed out before, re the 'deradicalization' program in Minneapolis,


Joe said...

Good Lord Sammy, are you being intentionally dense? Increasing the efficiency of immigration will increase immigration. Even if legal immigration increased by 1000 percent, it will be better than the situation we have now.

To be very clear, being against ILLEGAL immigration does not mean one is anti-immigration.

Joe said...

PS. There is NOT "a big campaign to limit absolute numbers of [legal] immigration." There is a campaign to limit H1B visas, but that is NOT legal immigration; it's a guest worker program which is seriously abused. Even that isn't a big campaign--it's pretty much a non-issue to everyone.

madAsHell said...

I've been watching Trump interviews on YouTube....Leno, Letterman, et al. The guy has been running for President for at least 20 years, and nobody knew.

For years, I thought he was some bombastic buffoon that papered over everything with money. No more. Now, I'm thinking this guy should be President.

Yancey Ward said...

He is no longer running for the Republican nomination. He is running for president against Hillary Clinton.

Yes, this is definitely true, and he started this a few weeks back. And it is extremely smart politics at this point- it foresees the narrowing of the field after New Hampshire, and I think he now fully expects to be part of that narrower Republican field- something he couldn't really expect even in October.

eric said...

I like the way the Donald stays on message. He is very good about staying on message. Ever since he first came out and said that he was going to build a big, beautiful, wall, he has been saying he will deport all of the illegals and then bring them back in through the legal process.

I made an argument on HotAir many months ago, during just one debate about Trump, before he had "Staying power" that it's a beautiful plan. It's brilliant.

Think about it. The government is terrible at doing everything. What are the chances we'll be able to identify and bring back in the "Good ones?"

Slim to none. Really. Our immigration system is so complicated already it causes nothing but headaches.

Whereas, in the past, we had Reagan and we had amnesty with promised border protection that never came, we have the exact opposite with Trump. We have deportation with promised immigration that will never come.

Let's do it.

Paul said...

Nice to see people waking up to that which was apparent to some of us a long time ago. I'm always surprised how difficult it is for most people to accurately read someone's true character. I know some of it is prejudice and bigotry, but beyond that so many people just can't see, or intuit, the real man.

Dude1394 said...

How interesting that Trump is arguably the most viable peace candidate in the race. Hillary is already on record of the Iraq war, destabilizing Libya and Syria. Drawing down from Iraq was will be noted as one of the most damaging moves in modern history.

Hillary definitely has a more hair-trigger both personally and politically I expect than Trump does.

Very interesting to see the GOP candidate also as the peace candidate while showing strength.

walter said...

madAsHell said...The guy has been running for President for at least 20 years, and nobody knew.
And does your research suggest the flip flopping spectrum swinging Trump some accuse him of being?

Chuck said...

More stupid comments from Trump. So much stupid you can't keep up.

Nobody is talking about the Second Amendment, Donald. The President isn't talking about changing it. Nobody is talking about altering it. In no real sense is it a Second Amendment question. Obama is probably considering things that are so limited and so officious that they would be designed to not trigger any serious Second Amendment review.

The real question is whether these are appropriate executive orders. They are certainly a heavy-handed extension of executive power. Which is laughable, when a question about excessive executive branch power comes out of the mouth of Trump.

I'm a pro-gun Republican. I'll be voting for a Republican candidate in the primary, and it will not be Trump. Without a doubt it will not be Trump. I pray that Trump's name is not on any ballot in November. I do not wish to see Republicans go down to a 49- or 50- state general election loss in what ought to be a winnable year.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse, what in the world was so "excellent" about this interview? I can't think of a single interesting policy statement, not a single clever phrase, not one memorable thing about this waste of my time.

If there was anything curiously interesting about the whole thing, it was John Dickerson's apparent determination to ask Trump not a single challenging question. Questions like the ones raised by conservative writers Charles C.W. Cooke in the National Review:


Or by Aaron Goldstein in The American Spectator:


Or here, by Aaron Goldstein again:


There are about sixty good questions for Trump based on his usual bombast in just the last 72 hours, particularly in relation to the Clintons, and John Dickerson didn't ask a single one.

walter said...

Chuck said..
Nobody is talking about the Second Amendment, Donald.
Oh..you mean other than general voters.

Chuck said...


I imagine that dumb and barely-literate general voters might be talking about the Second Amendment, because that is all that they know. Just like it appears that "Second Amendment" is the only thing that Donald Trump has to say about guns. Dumb poll-respondents do seem to be attracted to their dumb candidate, Trump.

But the proper question from John Dickerson should have been to cut Trump short and say, "Wait, what change is being proposed to the Second Amendment? The president is deliberately choosing strategies that skirt the Second Amendment." Dickerson did indeed follow up with a question aimed at pushing Trump on his own apparent predilections in the area of abusive executive orders. But he did it in a remarkably weak way that let Trump off the hook on a highly salient question.

I think, walter, that you understand that I am in no way defending Obama. I can't wait for the Obama years to end. I am a loyal Republican. And I have no respect for Obama's silly goals in the gun control debate. But the serious process question this week is whether he can effectively legislate gun policy by executive order. And when pushed on that point, Trump came up with a weird but revealing answer; Trump said he'd work it out "in a room" with Congressional leaders. Sounds like what they've been doing in Washington since... well, since about 1789.

Saint Croix said...

Nice to see a reporter suddenly worried about executive orders. Nothing like a dictatorial personality to make liberals wake up to how awesome our Constitution is.

It's sort of like Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama arranging this arrest. I can easily imagine Trump wanting to arrest some Islamic filmmaker for making a bad film. And who set the precedent for that, shitheels?

See also Hillary and Bill silencing a movie that dared to criticize them. Not a peep from liberals, with a few honorable exceptions. Thank you, Mr. Oliver Stone, and a salute to you, sir. Liberals treat our Constitution like rubbish and then it's, oh shit, executive orders!

walter said...

I get you Chuck. Both sides appear to be capitalizing on the issue at somewhat surface levels. But that doesn't make either one "dumb"...it's "smart" politics.
But although much is made about executive orders being immediately reversible..I don't have a sense how often reversals happen.

Drago said...

Chuck: "I am a loyal Republican."

If Trump is the republican nominee, will you utilize your loyal republican appendages to actually vote for him??

Drago said...

Chuck: "walter:

I imagine that dumb and barely-literate general voters might be talking about the Second Amendment,..."

Yes, only dumb and barely-literate general voters might be talking about the second amendment.


Just them.

And for no real reason!

You've got it all figured out Chuck. Thank goodness and just in time!