Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hugh Hewitt vs. Donald Trump — We debate

Hugh Hewitt vs. Donald Trump — We debate

Three takes on the “incident” from 3 Legal Insurrection authors

Thursday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Donald Trump.

Among other things, Hewitt asked Trump a handful of foreign policy questions. “Are you familiar with General Soleimani?” asked Hewitt. “Yessss. Go ahead, give me a little. Go ahead, tell me,” responded Trump.

Hewitt explained that Soleimani runs the Quds forces, which Trump confused with the Kurds, though Trump eventually remembered who Soleimani was. Hewitt was then complementary and reminisced of the time Trump “schooled the Senate” on real-estate, and then went on to explain that he’s looking for a Commander in Chief that knows who the players in the vast battlefield of Islamic terrorism.

“Do you know who the players are without a score card, Donald Trump?” Hewitt asked.

“I think by the time we get to office they’ll all be changed, they’ll be all gone, I knew you were gonna asks me things like this and there’s no reason because number one, I will hopefully find General Douglas McArthur in the PAC, I will find whoever it is that I’ll find, but they’re all changing, those are like history questions, do you know this one, do you know that one.”

“I don’t believe in gotcha questions, I’m not trying to quiz you,” retorted Hewitt.

“Well that is a gotcha question,” Trump accused. And then a media controversy was birthed.

A gotcha question? An unprepared candidate? A throwback to the time the media played “Can you name this international player” with Bush 43?

Trump supporters say he was duped, others see The Donald as being unprepared. Here’s what we think.

Kemberlee Kaye

As to Hewitt’s questions? I found them fair and well within the Foreign Policy 101 class. Which is part of why Trump’s ignorance on the matter is a bit concerning to me.

When Hewitt asked if Trump knew the players without a scorecard, Trump had an opportunity to say that though he wasn’t fully up to speed, he was doing his best to educate himself or something that would indicate he’s interested in familiarizing himself with America’s foreign threats. Unfortunately that’s not what happened. Instead, Trump took the opportunity to discuss the “good looking wall” he’d build along our southern border.

He then went on to claim he’d, “be so good at the military it will make your head spin.” Not exactly reassuring words from someone who is daily auditioning to lead our country. He’d hire experts, fine. That’s the smart thing to do. But to discern whether the counsel your advisors provide is wise or foolish, you must first have, at the very least, a rudimentary understanding of the landscape.

By the time the next president is sworn in, our country will be in a much graver, significantly weakened global position. We need someone who will take seriously what our current president has not.

At his very core Trump is a businessman. If the presidency is the job he’s seeking, he ought to be prepared for the interview.

Amy Miller

First of all, the Kurds/Quds mixup was just that—a mixup. This was a phone-in interview, and during phone-in interviews, these things happen. They pulled themselves together and moved on, and so will I.

Trump should have known immediately who Soleimani is. Soleimani is a key player, and someone who should be showing up in foreign policy briefing papers on a regular basis. That being said, the light came on 30 seconds later, so I’ll give him this one too.

I don’t believe that Hewitt’s questions about various world leaders and groups were “gotcha” questions; as I said, these are all things that could be compiled into short-form briefing papers, the use of which during campaigns is not uncommon. Still, it’s Trump’s attitude toward knowing who the major players are that I find worrisome:

“By the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed…they’ll be all gone. I knew you were going to ask me things like this and there’s no reason.”

The disingenuousness of this statement is almost unparalleled within the Annals of Trump. He goes on to claim that he’s going to find “absolutely great people” who can better answer questions like the ones Hewitt posed—but Trump’s gamble here becomes twofold.

Trump may be right. We may be dealing with different leaders and despots by the time January 2017 rolls around; but suggesting that current ignorance is justified by the prospect of future developments is beyond the pale. When Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact in 1938, Winston Churchill wasn’t sitting back with a pipe waiting on the Poles and the Czechs to sort themselves out; instead, he campaigned for rearmament because he’d been watching the power struggle within Germany and understood what “Chancellor Hitler” meant.

Fast forward to today. It’s impossible to understand the evolution and effects of the Arab Spring unless you understand the men and women behind the shuffle; or to understand Dmitry Medvedev’s strange tenure as Russia’s president without understanding the rise and influence of Vladimir Putin.

And on and on it goes.

Trump insists he will know the details. He will know the plan. The trouble is that the plan is already in motion. There’s no way for a presidential candidate to know everything a president needs to know—this is way above the entire field’s pay grade at this point—but Trump’s approach suggests that the foreign policy slate will be wiped clean on day one, which any student of history knows is the farthest thing from reality.

William Jacobson

My first reaction when I heard the conservative media’s snide reaction was Yes, Trump should know more.

But it also it reminded me too much of how the media peppered G.W. Bush with questions about the names of leaders around the world and then mocked him for not knowing.

I tweeted, Are we now in the “Who is the President of Uzbekistan” phase of the campaign?

https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/status/639792578184003585

I don’t think it’s as important as many are making it to be.  If anti-Trump folks want to ensure Trump’s success, keep trying to prove how much more book smarts you have than he does.

Being president isn’t an AP exam, it’s leadership and having the best people around you. And being willing to acknowledge what you don’t know.  Trump strikes me as a quick study.

We already have “the smartest president ever” in the White House, and it’s a disaster because he thinks he knows better than everyone else. And he’s not half as smart as he thinks he is, which is a really dangerous combination.

I don’t know what to make of Trump. I understand fully all the criticisms, both ideologically and of the man. I share a sentiment I heard — I think on radio or TV — from Laura Ingraham, that you can’t not watch him, and he is by far the most entertaining politician we’ve had in memory.

It’s the Greatest Show On Earth. And for the first time in my adult life, I feel it’s bigger than me at the moment.

That’s why I’ve been mostly an observer to the show. About 10 rows back from the center ring, just enjoying. I figure the folks will figure it out at the voting booth. I trust the people on this more than I trust the media.

I’m not for Trump, but I am Trump-curious.

This interview, though, didn’t make me any more or less curious.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Prof., I tend to agree more with the ladies. Sure, Trump is a quick study. But what “experts” will he consult, and what basic point of view will they hold? There are “experts” with widely varying ideas about foreign affairs, about tax policies, about immigration policies, about anything and everything. Trump isn’t giving me much of a feeling for what his bedrock assumptions and principles are, and to whom he would delegate.

    Estragon in reply to tarheelkate. | September 4, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    In seeking rational policies, the first lesson to be learned is: There are NO experts. No group of credentialed “experts” has EVER solved ANY public policy problem. It’s a leftist myth, used to justify the accumulation of power.

    These questions were not about obscure leaders or issues. They are the major players and hot spots in the world today. Not unfair by any notion to ask about current events.

    – –

    The most disturbing thing to me is not Trump’s lack of specific knowledge – that could be addressed. It is his reflexively hostile response to any question he can’t easily answer. His first instinct is a personal attack on the questioner. Every time.

    That’s not a sign of an emotionally stable person.

      gasper in reply to Estragon. | September 4, 2015 at 9:13 pm

      “His first instinct is a personal attack on the questioner. Every time.
      That’s not a sign of an emotionally stable person.”

      Sounds like you’re talking about Obama.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Estragon. | September 5, 2015 at 1:34 pm

      In all our towns and all our cities,
      there are no statues to committees.
      (And none to experts either!)

    Juba Doobai! in reply to tarheelkate. | September 4, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    I’m sure you heard him reference hard nosed negotiators like Carl Icahn, yes? He has also said he would get knowledgeable people in the field, likely military men. But that is not enough because, doncherknow, Trump is a businessman, not a politician, and we know our politicians are so wonderful that it is unimaginable replacing them with a lowly money-grubbing businessman.

    Besides, since when is a politician supposed to tell us who his cabinet is before he has won the presidency?

    ‘Trump Curious’ made me burst out laughing. So thanks for that Professor Jacobson!

A President leads on strategy, not tactics. The President does not need to know the details of an operation unless it will influence the outcome.

Also, the election is over one year away. How many candidates receive/received detailed briefings on foreign policy, etc.?

    Estragon in reply to n.n. | September 4, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    You don’t need a briefing to answer those questions, you just need to have been paying attention to the news in critical areas.

      inspectorudy in reply to Estragon. | September 5, 2015 at 8:49 am

      Oh you mean like you do everyday on the computer or your local newspaper? While you are doing that why don’t you run a multi billion dollar business that is all over the globe, go from city to city campaigning and then take a few interviews with hostile idiots like HH and then you will probably have most of it wrong. Is this what you think Trump should be doing? Yeah right!

        Why did Trump go on the Hugh Hewitt show without doing any basic research first? Hugh Hewitt did nothing he is not known for doing; he asked nothing he was not known for asking.

        Whoever Trump has advising him should have advised him of the kind of interviews Hewitt is known for doing and either briefed him on the facts he’d need to know, or told him not to bother going on because he’d probably be unable to answer the questions.

        And truly, the fact that you’re trying to claim that Trump is too busy to read the newspapers, too busy to follow current affairs, is just very sad. I don’t even know what else to say about that.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to n.n. | September 4, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    This is all pretty basic stuff about America’s sworn enemies. it also easily learned from reading only a couple of books about the war on terror.

    Even more significantly, Hewitt has been asking similar questions of those he interviews for over a decade now. Indeed, he once got MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to admit that O’Donnell’s major source of information on the war on terror was the dirt leaked from inside Colin Powell’s State Department.

    We keep hearing Trump brag that he hires the finest aides. So how come Trump’s hired help hadn’t briefed him on what to expect during an interview by Hewitt? Either the best aren’t willing to works for a blowhard or Trump has to much ego to listen to advice.

    Also, Trump’s lack of both patience and basic curiosity along with his thin skin for criticism suggests that for all his bluster about only hiring the best, Trump may have a tough time discerning the difference between real experts and glib sycophants. Celebrities often do,

    Exiliado in reply to n.n. | September 4, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    And how many of the other candidates have been asked that sort of question.

    —— ——— ———–
    Disclaimer: I am NOT pro-Trump.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Exiliado. | September 4, 2015 at 9:14 pm

      Just about anyone Hewitt interviews. Again, his tendency to grill people on these issues is not unknown.

      Carly Fiorina was and she answered the questions with no problem.

        Juba Doobai! in reply to genes. | September 4, 2015 at 11:29 pm

        She’s an Islamist symp so of course she knows the players. That she remains a symp in spite of knowing what these guys have done is unconscionable. Islamist symps are usually Jew-haters.

        ZurichMike in reply to genes. | September 5, 2015 at 12:37 am

        And perhaps she was give a tip-off in advance from Hewitt.

        Who cares? Anyone like Fiorina that stands with Jeb’s position on Amnesty, is for Cap and Trade, and Common Core is a corrupt US Chamber of Commerce candidate I’m not interested in.

        Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to genes. | September 5, 2015 at 4:33 pm

        You mean Carly (the 4 Per-center) was given the questions?

        Victoria in reply to genes. | September 5, 2015 at 11:19 pm

        I finally listened to the phone interview of Carly F. where she gets asked the same questions. First, she knew it was a test even if she didn’t know the questions. Second, she verbally stalled answering the question. She had more than enough time to google the name. The information would have popped up instantly. I wasn’t impressed. What skill did she show? Lying or dissembling, if you prefer a synonym with a less ugly connotation.

          MarlaHughes in reply to Victoria. | September 8, 2015 at 7:23 am

          So, why didn’t Trump, Mr. Brilliant Businessman who never loses a deal, he’s so good, do the same? Are you saying that Carley would trump Trump in a business deal because she knows how to Google?

hard to really get the applicable foreign policy briefings when you are not eligible to get the briefings.
damned of you do damned if you don’t.
my problem is hewitt went into the interview already saying he didn’t like trump (hell neither do I) and that gives a perception issue.

Hewitt called Fiorina, before the Trump interview aired, but after Trump had called these “gotcha” questions. There had been no social media, the controversy had not yet begun. Fiorina agreed to answer the questions, without knowing what they were. She added that she never knows what Hewitt will ask. She acquitted herself well.

Both interviews here:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/carly-fiorina-answers-donald-trump-gotcha/2015/09/03/id/673525/

Trump needs to hire John Bolton or Frank Gaffney to bring him up to speed on all of this, and be ready at debate time. He needs to save his complaint about “gotcha” questions for when Candy Crowley jumps into the debate on the side of the democrat candidate, like when she saved Obama’s tush.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to MathMom. | September 4, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    As I pointed out before, that’s carly’s schtick. She gives good interviews. Then when she gets the job she totally botches it. People like that are a dime a dozen in the tech industry. We call them consultants.

      Carly Fiorina’s watch at HP produced the best printer I have ever used. They fired her, and stopped supporting their products, yielding whole classes of disaffected customers.

      The carping about Fiorina is from failed management. I will never buy another HP product.

        Wrong!

        The person who HP hired to clean up FioRINO’s mess is credited with “pulling off one of the great rescue missions in American corporate history, refocusing the strife-ridden company and leading it to five years of revenue gains and a stock that soared 130 percent.”

        He delivered consistently stellar results at HP that continued for several quarters after his departure. He was widely lauded for his performance and praised particularly for bringing fiscal discipline to HP even while growing the business.

        He is presently the chief executive officer of Oracle Corporation and a member of the company’s board of directors.

        While Carly is still unemployed 5 years later.

        Facts are stubborn things.

      inspectorudy in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | September 5, 2015 at 1:04 am

      If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it. If you follow up on Carly’s time at HP you would find that because of her push for the merger with Compaq, HP is now the largest and most successful company of it’s kind in the world. Two of the members on the board of directors have come out and said that firing Fiorina was a mistake and that she had done the hard dirty job of kicking ass at a company that was over loaded with deadwood. There was no successful companies during that period, remember the dot.com bust?, and the fact that HP is now number one means that she did her job. Even Mr. Hewlet said firing her was a mistake.

        The business of the company is to make product. HP changed its product line for the better under Carly Fiorina, and has since utterly failed to keep up.

        Your ineptitude in argument, running toward the personal instead of the facts, possibly explains your inability to evaluate other business issues.

If it doesn’t give him an opening to talk about “The Great Wall of Trump” (as he put it once) or how the reason companies are going overseas is that foreigners are smart and Americans are too stupid to negotiate correctly, it’s a “gotcha” question. Well there are a few other things he wants to talk about, like how everyone else in the race are Koch puppets, but regardless, if you dare ti show him up, you are at best a hack or a “third rate radio announcer”.

MouseTheLuckyDog | September 4, 2015 at 9:14 pm

As the Professor has noted, this reminds me of the implications a pop quiz W was given when he was running. The implications at the time were that Al Gore would have passed the quiz. Looking back, what would have happened if Al Gore had won? We would all probably be speaking Arabic right now. So much for “smarts”.

As others have noted, it’s more important what experts a president surrounds himself with.So going back to something I said a while ago I would like to see what people each candidate is looking to put on his staff/cabinent. So far Trump has only named a few, but AFAIK the other candidates haven’t named any.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | September 4, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    None of the leaders GWB was asked about were considered mortal enemies of the United States in 2000.

    In addition, a similar question was not asked of other candidates. Hewitt has been consistent in questioning both politicians and self proclaimed policy experts on Middle Eastern affairs for years now. Finally neither Bush in 2000 or Reagan in 1980 for that matter ever felt compelled to engage in ad hominem attacks on those who interviewed him.

    Some people seem to be so desperate for an outspoken advocate that they have forgotten that he or she is supposed to be an advocate for conservatism. Instead they have settled for the pique of a prima donna celebrity egotism.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | September 4, 2015 at 11:54 pm

      What’s the point of a candidate being an advocate for conservatism when he’s running and a whipped dog after he’s won? Tall are dealing with some fantasy of a sweet and gentlemanly candidate. The country is so far gone because of those who have advocated conservatism but had done nothing conservative once in office.

      I don’t know if I will have to vote for Trump. He’s beating the hell out of my candidate right now, I do know that I want a fighter, down and dirty, willing to kick arse and take names, willing to make those who speak ill of him pay the price. Why? He will have the balls to cut off foreign aid to all the u grateful bastards who take American money and burn our flag, slaughter our citizens, and cheer when their people kill our people.

      Hugh Hewitt can take his smug establishment self and his silly questions and stuff it. When he asks serious questions that delve into why and how I’ll take notice. As for all of hall who are expecting Trump to be THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, good luck with that. Hall never had any problems holding your nose before for the assorted losers we put in office. Suck it up. Trump, if he’s the candidate, has more integrity than the jokers we’ve elected so far. They lied to us, and hall want ms, phd.

Trump is the candidate talking about the crime wave on America’s southern border. That’s what his current popularity in the polls is about. Pretty much everything else is noise—mere distraction—from our malignant press.

To people who think it a shame that the Federal government seems intent on fundamental transformation of the United States into a province of Mexico, exactly which variant of perpetual crisis is lowering property values in the Middle East is nowhere near the top of the future President’s “to do” list.

So, most foreign policy questions are of little account, either to Trump or the potential voters who think he might have something unique to offer. So are math, science, or pop culture questions. Yes, the details are important when one is trying to put together a practical and useful foreign policy for the country. Somebody working on a Middle East policy had better know who won the battle of Hattin in 1187 (hint—it was won by a Kurd, which is why it’s most important today), but it’s not obvious that there’s much value in the President himself being a master of such trivia.

“I don’t think it’s as important as many are making it to be.”

You are correct.

First, NOT a Trump fan. I consider myself pretty up on events, and got most of them correct, but until Soleimani was connected to Quds, I had a blank. It’s a gotcha – if you mention the names of their orgs, he’d have a response. Zawahiri and Nasrallah are a “should know” – they’ve been on the radar a long time. Al-Baghdadi is a new comer (and hopefully a soon-goer as he’s rumored injured in airstrikes every other week)

Whoa! Way to go Huge Hewlitt! That’s the End of the Donald you Hate. Hah hah, he didn’t even know who Abdullah-al-Derka Derka-al-Jihaditi was, but he thinks he can beat Rick Perry who knows two of the top three terrorists’ names by heart. And heck Carly knows ’em all, right up to and including Kim Davis.

But watch out! Settle down, the waves are starting to slap up against the sides of the teacup.

At this point, I would much rather find out Trump’s ideas on strategy and policy approaches in dealing with the various sociopathic entities, and who those entities are, in the Middle East than whether he knows the names of specific people.

Naturally the women are wrong and Jacobson is correct. The most important qualit8es of a president are leadership, character, and judgment. Whether a person has memoruzed various names is immaterial for 5he Job. Trump immediately knew that the way to fight ISIS was first to take out their oil fields and turn off their MONEY. Realizing the truth of these statements Fiorina has been copying Trump on this point.

Finally the bottom line is thatvas long as Trump is the only candidate promising to build the wall, deport ilegals, and enforce our laws NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. This is what the media and RINOs don’t understand.

Ah, Wm, mwuh! You’re why I keep on reading this blog. You’ve expressed the position of a lot of us in pin-point fashion with a wonderful neologism, “Trump-curious”. Plus, there’s the delight in watching him kick sand in the faces of the pols and the LSM. Priceless.

Like the professor, I’ve been watching and waiting re: Trump. To date, my thoughts, offered randomly, are these:

Trump begins at a great deficit with me, based on my dislike for the man’s persona as it has played out on TV the last twenty years. He has always struck me as a buffoonish carnival barker in expensive suits and bad toupees, more a salesman than a businessman, and one who knows the markeing value of hogging camera time by any means necessary. If Trump’s personality is anything like what I’ve seen of him on TV, I don’t like Donald Trump.

In political matters, Trump, having never held office, has no record of achievements to consider. We have only his past and present words. They vary wildly. Trump reminds me of Romney, another businessman with political aspirations who assumes whatever position or party suits him best at the moment. Like Romney, Trump has, over time, called himself a Democrat, a liberal, a Republican, and a conservative. Given time and motive, Trump may also claim to be black or Cherokee. We’ll see.

Trump has voiced support for several liberal positions, and not just in the past. More recently he has supported the idea of single-payer health insurance with that single payer being the federal government. This is worse than Obamacare itself. He has voiced support for abortion. For Hillary and Bill Clinton. For legalizing drugs. For increased gun control. He donated to Hillary in ’02, ’05, ’06, and ’07. Hillary Clinton sat in the front row at Trump’s wedding. Trump donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump was once a Republican, then registered Independent in 1999, then as a Democrat in 2001, then back to Republican in 2009. The man is a political wind sock, spinning round and round with the changing political winds.

Currently, Trump says all the things necessary to please the most people possible. I do not know if he is sincere or not – and neither could any one of his many supporters. They can believe it; they cannot know it. His spoken positions are a matter of record, however, and he’s held basically all positions in all political parties at one point or another. I have difficulty understanding what he could possibly say to help me overcome my distrust of the totality of his words, rather than just what he’s saying this year. When someone changes his politics this drastically this often, I think mistrust is warranted and ought to be overcome only by the surest of evidences of sincere change. Even then, the smart thing is to expect yet another change of policy positions, party affiliation, etc. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

I am assured by Trump supporters that he’s changed, he’s sincere, that we’re now seeing the real Donald Trump. I think it equally possible, likely even, in my opinion, that Trump is merely better at lying than recent GOP and Democrat politicians, better skilled at seeming sincere.

So, recognizing my bias against Trump from his cable TV star career and his news media gadfly history, I try to keep myself open to the fact that sometimes people really do change.

Even if Trump’s evolution is genuine, I do not like a lot of his positions anyway, particularly his current endorsement of Obama’s Iran nuke deal, saying he wouldn’t kill it or change it, just make sure it’s enforced, with nothing said about how among the chief criticisms of the Iran deal is that it is unenforceable. I do not like his endorsement of tariffs on imports, a big government action. I do not like his support of non-specific ‘tax the rich’ populism, also a big government action. Trump’s hearty endorsement and previous use (abuse) of eminent domain law is particularly irksome to me, something I cannot abide in my candidate. Now Hewitt has revealed for us that Trump doesn’t know enough about foreign policy to have viable policies and positions on that as yet.

I am most perturbed about this notion that Trump is an outsider to the DC crowd. Nothing could be further from the truth. A First Lady attended his wedding, sat in the front row. He has rubbed elbows with every DC bigwig of the past 30 years. Trump has been an active and constant crony capitalist for decades. Trump is a casino man – tell me he’s not rosy and cozy with Harry Reid of Nevada.

Maybe I’m not biased. Maybe there is much to justifiably doubt about Donald Trump. As this point I cannot support him, due to my distrust as to what he is. It is not nearly enough for me to simply believe. I need to know. I will know or I won’t vote for a candidate. We can thank the 2014 Republican campaign lies for that.

Can any Trump supporter explain to me how one knows Trump is now sincere, that his current cliams are genuine, as opposed to simply believing that he is?

It is my belief that Trump is going to break the hearts of a great many supporters in the next year.

    That was a lot of whining. None of it distinguished Trump from the current band of politicians, well, except that Trump has been successful outside of government, understands things like money as opposed to the DC political elite that just want to take everyone’s money; it doesn’t appear he’s ever had a contract or some sort of binding legal document and said he would just need to sign it before he reads it (unlike Pelosi’s ‘pass it before you can read it’); and it doesn’t appear he’s ever faced a bitter rival in a negotiation and caved in completely, handing everything to his foe while securing nothing for himself (unlike the current deal with Iran); and it appears that he has safeguarded his personal information and the IT environments of all of his business far better than Hillary with our most vital national secrets.

    Perhaps there’re a lot of his past actions that suggest he’ll be a big improvement over what’s in DC now.

      Ragspierre in reply to TtT. | September 5, 2015 at 10:52 am

      “…it doesn’t appear he’s ever faced a bitter rival in a negotiation and caved in completely, handing everything to his foe while securing nothing for himself (unlike the current deal with Iran)”

      Which, inexplicably, T-rump has stated he will “honor” and “make work”.

      This from the man who says his foreign policy WRT various U.S. allies (like Japan) is a “secret”.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to TtT. | September 5, 2015 at 12:52 pm

      “That was a lot of whining.”

      Ah, so you understand personal bias, good.

      “None of it distinguished Trump from the current band of politicians, well, except that Trump has been successful outside of government, understands things like money as opposed to the DC political elite that just want to take everyone’s money;”

      You’ve missed a crucial feature: Trump has been working with his own money. Neither you nor I have the slightest idea what Trump will do when he’s spending other people’s money, meanig tax money. This is no insult, just an acknowledgement that there is no way to know this because it has never happened with Trump. He’s never held office or managed a tax funded budget. Having nothing to measure Trump on this question, looking to human nature suggests a significant possibility Trump will be more cavalier when spending tax money. Unless you can suggest a better way to measure it.

      “it doesn’t appear he’s ever had a contract or some sort of binding legal document and said he would just need to sign it before he reads it (unlike Pelosi’s ‘pass it before you can read it’); and it doesn’t appear he’s ever faced a bitter rival in a negotiation and caved in completely, handing everything to his foe while securing nothing for himself (unlike the current deal with Iran); and it appears that he has safeguarded his personal information and the IT environments of all of his business far better than Hillary with our most vital national secrets.”

      So, Trump’s better than Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and Hillary Clinton. High praise indeed. You set a high bar, sir.

      “Perhaps there’re a lot of his past actions that suggest he’ll be a big improvement over what’s in DC now.”

      I’d be a big improvement over what’s in DC now. You’d be a big improvement over what’s in DC now. The Muppets on acid would be a big improvement over what’s in DC now. Raise your expectations, man! Yes, Trump might be better than what’s in DC now, but since he’s never held office, it’s sort of like Pelosi-speak: “To learn what Trump will do as president, and how well he will do it, you must first elect Trump to be president.”

      Of course we can identify candidates who would be better than what we have in DC now – 95% of LI commenters qualify, as does Trump. The logical next question is can we find candidates even better than 95% LI commenters or Donald Trump.

      Donald Trump is to the business world what Geraldo Rivera is to journalism and Keith Olbermann is to sports broadcasting.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 5, 2015 at 6:12 am

    I hear what you are saying. Again, immigration is THE existential issue.

    Trump is saying now, what he put in his 2011 book. Totally consistent.

    I hope that helps.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to CloseTheFed. | September 5, 2015 at 1:00 pm

      It is consistent since then, but two years before he wrote the book, Trump was a registered Democrat just two years before he published the book. Right now, it’s best for Trump to be a Republican again. This may or may not change yet again, but past tracking predicts it will.

      “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

      Trump speaks loudly and there is no ‘stick’ in that he has no experience in office at any level, that is, there is no record to check and Trump must be taken on faith. Me take Donald Trump on faith? Y-e-e-a-NO.

        All this gnashing of teeth proceeded former-progressive former-actor former DC Establishment Outsider Ronald Reagan’s metoric rise to take the white house by bi-partisan storm. He even carried Massachusetts following Carter’s abysmal left-wing implosion.

        The parallels are there, recorded in history. Trump is electable at this point and not just electable, rather, poised to repeat history the way DC Outsider Reagan did, at the outrage of the progressive GOP Establishment.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 2:46 pm

          “All this gnashing of teeth proceeded former-progressive former-actor former DC Establishment Outsider Ronald Reagan’s metoric rise to take the white house by bi-partisan storm. He even carried Massachusetts following Carter’s abysmal left-wing implosion. The parallels are there, recorded in history.”

          Reagan had held office before, as governor of California, of course. He had a two-term record for voters to consider. Reagan ran for the GOP nod twice, and in 1976 came within 117 delegates of winning the nomination away from incumbent Gerald Ford. Reagan had a long, verified record of demonstrable, inarguable conservatism. I see few parallels with Donald Trump.

          “Trump is electable at this point and not just electable, rather, poised to repeat history the way DC Outsider Reagan did, at the outrage of the progressive GOP Establishment.”

          At least four of the current GOP candidates are electable, by my reckoning, and we are a long way out still. The real campaigns start with the primaries. Where it’s ugly now will be much uglier soon. There will be casualties and it will seem mercilous because 12-13 will drop out in rapid sucession late winter and spring. If you’ll forgive a sports analogy, fans of all sports will understand the experience of watching a prized rookie doing great only to have him cost you a play-off game with some boneheaded rookie mistake. Fans have a saying, “live by the rookie, die by the rookie.” Trump is a political rookie currently doing great. However, having practically nothing in common with Reagan by way of history, Trump cannot repeat what Reagan did. Trump can win, but it will have few parallels with how Reagan did it, beyond upsetting the GOP leadership for not being one of their chosen and the luck of having a hated/inept outgoing Democrat president.

          I guess I would characterize Trump’s campaign as high-flying at the moment, but very possibly fragile, a bottle rocket – whoosh and then dead. As we speak opposition teams working for both the GOP leadership and the Democrat Party are working overtime completing files on Donald Trump. His having never run for anything, they will have started from essentiallly zero. Lord knows what might be found in the history of a billionaire who has focused on gambling casinos in Jersey, NYC, Las Vegas, etc. Speaking of history, it is loaded with examples of candidates who soared early only to crash. Rudy Guliani, for one. Pat Paulsen, for another.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 2:51 pm

          Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how they torture history, reality, and personalities.

          Reagan had been governor of one of the biggest states in the union, and involved in national politics for decades as a CONSERVATIVE.

          Indeed, in many respects as THE CONSERVATIVE. He was a known quantity, not a lose cannon.

          HE had diligently studied both wide and deep. HE knew his stuff. His foreign policy was NOT a “secret”. HE knew our allies, and how to treat them. HE knew market economics and respected it. HE also was a humble man who could be taught, and stepped up to his mistakes.

          Other CONSERVATIVES knew and respected him. And he returned that respect.

          This all distinguishes him from the narcissistic oligarch, T-rump, the New York crony.

          (And I COULD go on at length.)

        Let me join in the chorus of “welcome backs,” Mr. Hawkins!

        You could (and probably should) give lessons on how to combine wit with civility.

    snopercod in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 5, 2015 at 7:09 am

    That was good. Thanks.

    +100, Henry Hawkins.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Amy in FL. | September 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      Thank you, but I can’t make 100s every time.

        Last time I checked, a state governor who has never held federal DC office is a DC outsider.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 4:41 pm

          Such a governor would be a political outsider. Trump is a political outsider only by dint of having never run for anything. He is, however, as ‘insider’ as it gets with DC as a businessman, a crony capitalist. Mr. Smith, he is not.

        In the comment you replied to, I qualified the term “Outsider” as outsider to the DC Establishment. Gov Reagan was a DC Outsider just as Gov Walker is a comparable outsider. Right?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm

          Um, if you read my posts, yes, Reagan was a governor as opposed to senator and a state employee, never a federal employee, making him an outsider specifically to the DC establishment. However, Reagan certainly was no stranger to the establishment in DC. No governor is ever a stranger to the DC machine.

          You strain at gnats hoping for some petty victory only you understand. Very tiresome.

          Well, you certainly bristled up. Going to get pushy like Rags or keep it civil?

          No governor is immune to having to deal with the DC Establishment. That said, Reagan was not a part of that DC Establishment. Reagan was considered a wild card conservative renegade whom they deemed must be taken out. I think there is ground there for both of us.

          Additionally, you are arguing over my well-qualified statement that Reagan was an Outsider To The DC Establishment.

          I didn’t say he was an outsider to politics, did I?

          Ive read some of your posts over the years. I’ve been commenting on this blog beginning within a few months of the Professor starting this blog at BlogSpot and we’ve cross-posted each other’s posts while I was actively blogging. At that time we were both new to having our own individual blogs.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 12:57 pm

          zzzzzz

    Welcome back Henry. I wasn’t sure if a sinkhole had taken you from the face of the earth…

    I agree with your assessment of Trump.

    We as a people should elect a whole person. We should not elect a flamboyant personality with a multiplicity of grudges and without a true north compass-IOW, Obama-like.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to jennifer a johnson. | September 5, 2015 at 11:45 am

      I certainly agree on who we “SHOULD” elect. But with the McConnell/Boehner team building so much distrust, it is difficult to say what we have left, for building coalitions to defeat the Hillary or whomever.

      I still hope for Cruz or Walker to ride in as Trump crashes and burns, but we are “not in Kansas anymore”, but somewhere over the rainbow coalition world of social media and Soros funded propaganda. Carson is number two and he’s not exactly conservative either.

      We will see.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jennifer a johnson. | September 5, 2015 at 1:10 pm

      Well, thank you for that kind welcome. I went to WAshington DC to stage a political protest where I ceremonially resigned my commission as Obama’s appointed Breakfast Pastry Czar, aka ‘The Doughnut Czar’, and burned the offical appointment document.

      We had a LOT of people at the protest, my gosh, there was my brother-in-law Donnie, his boy Kevin, and Pam, Kevin’s wife, and Tank Eller from the Possum Holler Lions was there, I mean, there were times when over a dozen folks were with us. It was awsome, and now I am free of entanglement with the Obama administration. Of course, there is no freedom from the responsibilities of the position because government jobs appointed by Obama have no responsibilities.

      I dunno. Whenever I see Trump I get Geraldo Rivera vibes.

    But ‘Enry ‘Awkins, his hair is real! He had someone come on stage and check it out!

      Henry Hawkins in reply to JoAnne. | September 5, 2015 at 2:49 pm

      So are Bruce Jenner’s boobs.

        I’ve missed you!

        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 5, 2015 at 3:28 pm

        The Cherokee wants to know just HOW you know this…

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 4:48 pm

          Well, if you’re referring to Mrs. Hawkins as opposed to Elizabeth Warren, my general rule is the lkess she knows of what I know the better off I am. Reassure her that I don’t ‘know’ in the scientific sense (nor Biblical), but it is safe, I think, to assume Bruce Jenner has boobs. I mean, hell, I’ve got boobs. Lots of men have boobs. All God’s chirruns got boobs. Nipples, anyway. Better yet, if Mrs. Hawkins calls with questions, just mumble something vaguely Spanish and hang up. You don’t know me, capice?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 6:19 pm

          Got it. Mammary’s the word!

          No. THAT’S no right… Mum’s…mum’s the word! (Why do “mums” sound kinda interesting all of a sudden…?)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 6, 2015 at 2:13 am

    Outstanding post, Henry. You’ve saved me from my ongoing struggle to find the words needed to explain what is so wrong about Donald Trump’s candidacy.

    I intend to purloin excerpts from your post for future use if you don’t mind, of course with due credit given to “A real smart guy at LI named Henry”, because you’ve captured my thoughts exactly and completely on the subject.

Some of my favorite questions over the years to ask my kids when they were practicing for Academic Team or whatever (just to prove how much insignificant data my mine is cluttered with) were:
“What is the Capital of Albania?”
“Who is Enver Hoxha?”
“Who is Mehmet Shehu?”
Unwittingly I had evidently been a Graduate of the Hugh Hewitt School of Really Important Questions!
LOL

“Trump-Curious”

You have come halfway, professor.

Why are Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz & Donald Trump so cozy? …one might ask oneself.

Was it coincidence Ann Coulter’s book came out at a perfect springboard moment for Trump?

How ironic is it that Mark Leven was prepared to explain the 14th amendment as soon as the liberal media clutched at ‘the 14th amendment would half to be amended’ ( which doesn’t)?

Isn’t it amazing Trump’s position paper stunned his critics & friends alike?

Wasn’t it remarkable Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter were at the ready to run with the ball on the opinion shows as soon as this border plan was presented?

Didn’t Trump stress he knows how to pull a team of experts into a powerful team?

What else has he up his sleeve to spring at a predetermined time?

I am enjoying myself immensely watching and analyzing this chapter of American history as it unfolds.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 12:05 am

    Palin-Cruz-Trump is the question I’ve been pondering also.

    Indeed! And I am enjoying the thought of President Trump appointing Ted Cruz, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter to the next vacancies that arise on the SCOTUS. To say nothing our own WAJ of course.

    The cherry on then icing on the cake will be watching Andrea Mitchell, Jerry Rivers, and Jorge Ramos et alia reporting on the new makeup of the court.

      CloseTheFed in reply to DaMav. | September 5, 2015 at 6:14 am

      Uh, nice try. :^))) That would be GEORGE Ramos to you, ma’am.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to DaMav. | September 5, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      Did you mean “Andrea Mitchell, Jerry Rivers, and Jorge Ramos et alia reporting” from inside their long-term prison cells?

      Snark snark!

    snopercod in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 7:40 am

    I am enjoying myself immensely watching and analyzing this chapter of American history as it unfolds.

    I am too, and it bothers me; Having read Wm. Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” I have to admit that there are caution lights flashing in the back of my head. I can’t help but notice similarities between the political and cultural chaos in Germany in the early thirties and what’s going on in America today. The economy of Germany was declining, the Country had been humiliated at Versailles, and there was political paralysis. Nobody could get anything done. Eventually, the people demanded “strong leader” and they got their wish – good and hard. I’m certainly not comparing Trump with Hitler, but the hair comes up on the back of my neck when the people clamor for a strong leader who will “make America great again”. We should all be careful what we wish for. From Shirer’s book:

    As the year of 1931 ran its uneasy course, with five million wage earners out of work, the middle classes facing ruin, the farmers unable to meet their mortgage payments, the Parliament paralyzed, the government floundering, the eighty-four-year-old President fast sinking into the befuddlement of senility, a confidence mounted in the breasts of the Nazi”

      Your analysis would be spot on if you were comparing Obama & Hitler.

      It’s a far stretch to compare Trump & Hitler.

      Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | September 5, 2015 at 1:11 pm

      But the POINT was not a comparison of T-rump to Hitler.

      Was it?

      It was a note of caution about periods where people…frightened by actual and imaginary stuff…might look to a “strong man” in pursuit of a delusional fix.

      Spot on.

        snopercod in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 1:45 pm

        Exactly my point. Thanks. If I could recommend another book on the subject of “What made an Adolph Hitler possible?”, it would be The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America by Leonard Peikoff. In short, the root cause was the philosophy that had been drummed into the German people for decades: Emotionalism, Mysticism, Irrationalism, and Statism. After years of being steeped in those destructive ideas, they were ready to vote someone like Hitler into power.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to snopercod. | September 5, 2015 at 4:47 pm

          But to me that sounds more like how we got Obama, with New Age Oprah saying he may be “the one”. The root religion of the PC left is more atheist Marxism, but it can dress up as black liberation theology, or even as social justice Christianity.

          There are REAL problems today that are papered over … soaring unfunded liabilities, wide open borders with sanctuary cities, IRS attacking the free elections, the WH encouraging riot while building distrust for police, Obama acting against the interests of the country, etc.

          But while those thing loom, they really are not manifest as actual pain. Markets are high, we run up the debt without default, and Iran promises not to nuke us till Obama is out of office. Dancing with the Stars is high priority for most of the comfortably numb.

          The Trumpettes love that he tears down encamped establishment figures, as congress has 11% favorability. But on the left, where the PC Marxists reside, they will vote “Hitlery”, or maniac Biden.

          The madness of crowds is still interesting … and partly explains why they want Trump over Cruz or Walker, at the moment. But the central control commies are still on the Democrat side, with Hollywood and the MSM.

        Oh. Sorta like when Reagan was elected by a total landslide… Gotcha. 😉

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 2:10 pm

        Sorry. You’ll find that a lot of thinking people find any comparison between T-rump and Reagan just nuts.

        Reagan was Reagan for many years.

        T-rump as we see him is freshly minted every day, and isn’t even consistent with the previous day’s version.

        Although that is not entirely true. He IS an American oligarch, and a bred-in-the-bone crony capitalist.

        On THAT you can rely, as the old song goes…

          A lot of narrow-minded establishment nay-saying sheeple… right…. just like when Reagan ran for president.

          I am enjoying this primary, so far, more than any since Reagan ran against progressive Bush Sr for president.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 3:11 pm

          Now, now. Remember the “stern warning” nonsense you posted.

          “…narrow-minded establishment nay-saying sheeple…” sounds like an ad hominem attack, rather than a reasoned argument, an observation, or an opinion.

          I’d SO hate to lose you as a commenter, dear.

        A generalization of unnamed individuals, including Megyn Kelly, Jorge Ramos, Rich Wilson, Erick Erickson, Hugh Hewitt, Megahan McCain, her Father John, and who knows how many 10s of thousands of lofo voters, is not a personal attack on a commenter here, dear.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to snopercod. | September 5, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      “the hair comes up on the back of my neck when the people clamor for a strong leader who will “make America great again”.”

      Some version of “make America great again!” has been part and parcel of every presidential campaign since King George. If you are a candidate from the incumbent party, the formulation is “keep America great!” If you are a candidate from the out party, the formulation is “make America great again!”

        That’s what Rubio says… If he is not busy championing illegal alien amnesty.

        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 5, 2015 at 4:51 pm

        Which is a total rational disjunction from Hawkins observation.

        But, since you mentioned it, how DO you feel about T-rump’s “touch-back” amnesty?

          Well, since you asked, I have several thoughts about that…

          Trump is polling extremely well (as he predicted) with every major race minority as compared to McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012, and every other GOP candidate he is running against. So there’s that.

          Additionally, every savy deal maker knows to dangle a sweetener to bring in their opponent closer to the deal intended at the onset.

          If he filters out every illegal with a felony, who’s going to protest? Answer: The losers like Ramos, Obama, Debbie, and assorted RINOs.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 5:46 pm

          Object, Your Honor. Non-responsive. Move to strike.

          Well, in addition to being beeee-zare…

          So, based on your avoidance, you are cool with RE-admitting “all the good ones”? Like the New York Times?

          Seems someone is well into happy hour….mmmm.

        snopercod in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 5, 2015 at 6:01 pm

        How does Trump intend to “make America great”. That’s what I want to know.

You know…. I’d rather have a President who knows what it takes to build and operate a successful business than a community organizer or policy wonk.

Knowing the name of an Iranian General isn’t nearly as important as knowing what you’ll do to him and having the will to do it if he crosses a line.

Steve Wynn now Trump Campaign Advisor

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/09/03/steve-wynn-now-trump-campaign-adviser/

Trump’s other billionaire advisor is another long time pal, Mark Cuban.
Cuban says Trump’s major weakness is understanding technology, but that’s one of Cuban’s strong points. If Trump gets elected his private email will probably be on microchips in Cuban’s hidden vault.

Did Hewitt ask Trump about the State-establishment of a pro-choice cult that has overseen the normalization or promotion of selective-child, harvesting, and trafficking?

I believe one of the abortion industry leaders was a Cecile from Planned Parenthood, that has overseen the indiscriminate killing of over 300,000 Americans annually; approximately one-fourth of the total American lives lost in the abortion theater. A number far greater than has been lost in any terrorist action or war in recent memory. A serious threat, absent excessive and illegal immigration, to the viability of America.

    MathMom in reply to n.n. | September 5, 2015 at 8:37 am

    Respectfully, Hewitt would probably have gotten to that if Trump hadn’t spent all his time accusing Hewitt of “gotcha” questions. Trump could have said that he didn’t know, but would get up to speed on General Soleimani. Hewitt, a man who is strongly pro-life, might have had time to get to baby harvesting.

    Hewitt asked a similar Middle East question of Dr. Carson a few months ago. Carson was clearly out of his depth. Every time I hear Carson, he’s better at the details. He’s studying. Trump should study, too.

Why does a presidential candidate need to know these details, which are likely to change before he is president-elect, and before he is in office?

What person will grade him, not based on a successful strategy, but on tactical knowledge?

Well, other than countering friendly fire.

This isn’t a game show. Besides, there will be plenty of time to play gotcha when someone is in office. It’s one of our favorite political pastimes.

That said, the Republicans need to focus. There are plenty of positions in government, including for people with tactical knowledge. This doesn’t need to be a zero-sum campaign.

Failing that, there is room behind the bleachers to welcome the next Democrat President.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to n.n. | September 5, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    You mean it’d be like requiring a PhD applicant to pass their oral exams on their dissertation – before they are even admitted into the program?

    Well no one ever accused “egg heads” (media and all else) of having any intelligence.

    Snark Snark

I was watching The Five on Fox earlier and Geraldo pretty much came out and said that Hewitt has a reputation for asking “Gotcha” questions. I don’t know how true that is, but hopefully one of the LI staff or the Professor can answer this.

    Geraldo is a person who has a history of reporting from Iraq and pretending like he’s under fire, but his cameraman stands there filming him without flinching. I make it a habit to change the channel whenever I hear that Geraldo will be speaking.

    As to Hewitt, I have listened to him for years. Every time he has on a foreign policy interviewee, he asks them if they have read “The Looming Tower”. When he interviews, he asks a short, open-ended question, and then doesn’t interrupt while the person answers. If he gets someone who dodges and weaves and won’t answer, he uses his expertise as a litigator to nail jello to the wall.

    He does not ask “gotcha” questions, in my opinion. If he were asked to help in Senate hearings, he would not do those 4-minute questions in which most Senators talk about themselves or try to look learned. He would ask questions and keep asking them, and actually get some information. I wish he had been the questioner when Hillary said “At this point, what difference does it make?” He would not have been caught flat-footed with that answer, nor would he have been fooled by Hillary’s “puffer fish” act.

    I invite you to listen to the Trump interview, and then the Fiorina interview in which he asks her the same questions. He explained that the Trump interview had been pre-recorded, and no one knew that Trump had accused him of using “gotcha” questions. Fiorina had no knowledge of the questions in advance, either. I posted a link above, but for your convenience, here is it again:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/carly-fiorina-answers-donald-trump-gotcha/2015/09/03/id/673525/

    I didn’t like Trump when he started, but he is growing on me. If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him. But I am very concerned about radical Islam and the Iranian bomb, and Trump needs to learn that is serious stuff, and you have to know what the job requires before you can hire the right experts.

    I knew the answers to Hewitt’s questions. I lived in the Middle East the day the Ayatollah returned from Paris and began to dismantle the wonderful country of Iran, with the blessing of The Father of the Iranian Revolution, Jimmah Cahtuh. I lived across the Persian Gulf from Iran while the radicalism spread. I was there during the Iran-Iraq war. These questions raised by Hewitt are actually rooted in 1979, when Islam started its march to 9/11. It’s important.

    It would be better for Trump to awaken to the possibility that he should start studying before the next debate, and hire John Bolton or Frank Gaffney to lock him in a room and bring him up to speed on the fact that Muslims play the long game. They have never changed their focus of a worldwide caliphate, since they started their world conquest from Arabia in the 7th century.

    It’s Istanbul, not Constantinople, you know. And the reason for that is Islam. The Quds force will make lots more Constantinoples into Istanbuls, unless they are understood and stopped.

    Time for some oppo research on Hugh Hewitt. Rumers are Hewitt is a RINO open borders Jeb hugger. If true, Hewitt is a GOP establishment hitman.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to CandidateDavid. | September 6, 2015 at 3:32 am

    The “Gotcha!” question aspect is mostly in the mind of the failing respondent. If you know the answer, it’s not a “Gotcha!” question. I listened to Hewitt for years. He’s an extremely sharp, intelligent lawyer. He’s not a frivolous man and he doesn’t ask questions to make a fool out of somebody. He asks pointed questions of candidates to test the depth of their claimed conservative sincerity, to demonstrate their mental agility or lack thereof, and their temperament.

    Chris Wallace asked Trump about Iranian Gen. Sulieman’s breaking UN travel sanctions by going to Moscow to meet with Putin to discuss an arms purchase deal during the Fox debate. This was a YUUUUGGE breach by Iran. Trump DID NOT have a clue. He totally flat-lined – panic in his eyes. He answered by babbling about unrelated issues. I knew about it, and I’m sure most members here knew about it. But Trump didn’t. I think it’s pretty arrogant and obastardesque for him to STILL not have bothered to learn about this event. And as far as his claim that the present major leaders will be gone in a year and a half, does he think the Ayatollah is going somewhere? Sulieman has been around a long time. So has Putin. So has Jinping, groomed for and worked his way into power over 15 years.

    Sure, there are a few goons who will be dead or ousted by the time we have a new president, but most of the heavyweights will still be where they are now.

    So Trump was just blowing smoke….again. He didn’t know the answer so he dismissed the validity of the question and then belittled the interviewer. Another class act from the circus barker.

      Actually… characterizations of Hewitt’s ‘name the terrorists,’ questions are considered gotcha questions by a large number of people whether or not you would or will agree with them.

      For example…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ban2ZTIAmWM

      If you oppose Trump, most would say they are not gotcha questions. If you support Trump, most would say they are gotcha questions.

      If you are unbiased you would have to go to Hugh Hewitt’s track record which includes his alleged opposition to Trump.

      In any event, so long as it is debatable, it’s not an issue to his candidacy, in my view.

“Trump, rather boorish, makes things up as he goes along.

Trump is the ad hoc Hegelian Vizzini.”

-Buttercup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2y40U2LvKY

Professor- I’m sitting with you – ten rows back, and smiling.
A business executive has sustained success because of his/her (ze?) ability to synthesize information, analyze outcomes and risk and make informed decisions. The policy wonks and lawyers (sorry) that you need for advice rarely make good leaders. Leading in business is a process; analyze, ACT, review, revise, ACT. Look at the records of our “smartest” presidents – Carter and Obama. Don’t act swiftly or decisively, don’t review data and adjust decisions. Trump’s surprising success at zeroing in on the issue – illegal immigration – that exemplifies everything false and incompetent about the ruling class tells me he gets it. He had me at “Jeff Sessions”.

Pro-tips for Mr. Establishment—

1. Don’t lie. “And by the way, when you say Quds vs. Kurds, I thought he said Kurds, this third-rate radio announcer that I did the show [for]. It was like ‘gotcha, gotcha.’ Every question was, do I know this one and that one. You know, he worked hard on that. I thought he said Kurds,” Trump said.

This just makes you appear weak and dishonest. Anyone listening to the interview knows the Kurds/Quds thing was immediately clarified, and was not the reason for your answers.

2. People who ask you questions you find difficult are not “enemies”. In fact, they will often be your friends, if you learn to learn. Do not attack them. It makes you look like a narcissist.

3. Saying, “I don’t know” or some variation on that is not weakness.

4. After bragging so much about how you find “great people”, you really should have a “conservative media” person who can brief you on people you’ve never heard of before, like Hugh Hewitt, because you are not a conservative. They can prepare you for things like his love of the book “The Looming Towers”, and that he considers Islamism an existential threat to the U.S.

    Exiliado in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 10:31 am

    It makes you look like a narcissist.

    EVERYTHING the Donald does or says makes him look like a narcissist. That’s because he IS a narcissist.
    And I don’t know what most Americans think, but another narcissist is NOT exactly what this country needs.

    So the question arises:
    What to do if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination?

    Stay at home on Election Day?
    Vote for Hitlary? Gulp !!! Aghhhh !!*&#*&!!

    When are we going to have real Third Party ??
    When will “neither Republican nor Democrat” become an actual choice ? We need that.

      Ragspierre in reply to Exiliado. | September 5, 2015 at 10:44 am

      “Stay at home on Election Day?
      Vote for Hitlary? Gulp !!! Aghhhh !!*&#*&!!”

      Decidedly neither! You have LOTS of options.

      Certainly go to vote! You have down-ticket people who need and deserve your support on every level of government. Provide it!

      IF T-rump or Jeb! (or any of the “lites” or frauds) is the GOP nominee, I’ll either just pass on voting for POTUS or write in someone I CAN support.

        Exiliado in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 11:05 am

        It was just rhetorical.
        Of course I will go vote !!
        Besides what you said, there’s another reason: It’s going to be my FIRST time voting for a President.

        And if it comes down to Hitlary vs. The Trump, I will vote for the trump. Lesser of two evils.
        I wish there was another REAL option.

Look all the candidates mess up on the campaign – heck Obama thought there were 57 states.

So now we’re in September and all the Super PAC money will be flowing into the campaigns (well so to speak). If they cannot knock Trump off frontrunner status, then he’s going to march to the nomination. He is leading in Iowa, NH, and South Carolina – all are proportionate delegate allocation states. The real prize is Florida – the first winner take all state. He is leading there because Bush and Rubio are splitting their home state vote. But then you have all the southern states and Trump is leading there too. Those are all winner-take-all primaries. He needs to win 8 states. Right now he is the only candidate positioned to do so.

So the challenge for the Trump campaign is to minimize errors, do better in debates, continue to issue white papers and withstand the wave of negative Super PAC advertising that is going to hit after Labor Day. Like I said, if he can cansolidate his lead in the polls after that, then the nomination will be right in front of him.

Dave Brat showed people how to knock off the elephant and Trump is following in his footsteps.

I am neither for or against Mr. Trump at this point. I have time. I confess I do like Ms. Fiorina’s willingness to fight.

That said, for those who say that Mr. Trump solves the apparent knowledge problem by hiring experts and advisors: sure, that’s what CEOs and presidents do. They have to; they can’t know everything.

But remember this: you then are captive to those experts.

POTUS is the most captive person in the world: he has very little time of his own to explore, ask questions, read, study, make calls, fly somewhere to find a new expert, etc. He depends almost completely on the people who can get into his office: and it’s his staff who decides who gets in.

Obama is captive to Jarrett. Bush was captive to Rove. And so on going all the way back for quite a while.

Mr. Trump and the other candidates don’t need to tell us yet who their staffers and advisors are going to be; that’s something they sort out when they’ve won. But if you really want to understand what kind of president Trump would be, it would help to look at who he is surrounding himself with now.

Again, I’m not backing anyone officially at this point. Like the professor, I’m Trump-curious. What I want to see from Mr. Trump is more on how he makes decisions. That’s what jumps out at me with the Hewitt interview.

Trump is a wild card … his public persona has revolved around ego and ratings, and now we try to figure out how he would “rule” as the leader of the free world.

To win, he can look at polls and say anything, and try to bone up on real issues enough to at least pass these interviews without sounding dumb. It’s great to smash the PC mold, but being antidisestablishmentarianistically opposed to PC is not enough. (yes, I just thought it would be fun to throw that word in there, but it kind of fits, unless I have one anti or dis too many 😉 )

Trump does seem to have the capacity to do what it takes to “fight for America”. That talk counters the globalist views “we” hear is inevitable. He swims in the dirty world of politics and media, and has mostly come out ahead. That’s a feature, but the bug is we can’t really know what he would do as president. But that’s been true even for SCOTUS judges we get for life, who flip on “us”.

Perhaps if he lays out enough plans, gets up to speed and says the right things, and makes a new “contract with America”, he’ll end up the best hope. Some names like Giuliani and Mark Cuban might give a little more confidence in Trump’s inner character, and expand the voting/fan base. But it will take more time to see what direction his more detailed policies go.

I’m willing to listen and even hope (given he has so much energy and fame), but as Henry notes, there are many “questions”, at best. Trump’s temperament might be an issue, but lack of some fiery temperament could also be an issue. Those acting excited while beholden to the donor class are perhaps a bigger issue.

We will see.

    Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 5, 2015 at 11:40 am

    Mark Cuban:

    While leaning towards libertarianism, Cuban posted an entry on his blog claiming paying more taxes to be the most patriotic thing someone can do.[110]

    Cuban has donated $7,000 to political campaigns, $6,000 going to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. $1,000 went to Democratic California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.[111]

    On February 8, 2008, Cuban voiced his support for the draft movement attempting to convince New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run in the U.S. presidential election of 2008 on his blog. Cuban concluded a post lamenting the current state of U.S. politics: “Are you listening, Mayor Bloomberg? For less than the cost of opening a tent pole movie, you can change the status quo.”[112] He eventually voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.[113]

    In response to Donald Trump offering President Barack Obama $5 million to a charity of President Obama’s choosing if he released passport applications and college transcripts to the public, Cuban has offered Trump $1 million to a charity of Trump’s choosing if Trump shaves his head.[114]

    Wow. THERE’S a confidence-booster…

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 12:10 pm

      yeah idk, but that’s why I said “expand the fan base”. It’s a popularity contest. I’m thinkin’ Trump may be the first pres’ candidate ever to hire cheerleaders, short skirts, pom poms … why not?

        PhillyGuy in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 5, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        I don’t know about cheerleaders and pom-poms but all he has to do is ask his wife to show up in a short skirt, a tight top and heels and he will gain 1% in the polls. If he’s elected, she would be the best looking first lady in history.

See, this doesn’t say, “Sane” to me.

https://twitter.com/MarlonBateman/status/640148329284800512

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Alright, “down-thumbers”, tell us all how that looks SANE to you.

    Go ahead.

    Marlon Bateman fell for the bait too…

    Trump made a show of coming to the Hewitt interview with praise for the RINO hitman prior to Hewitt’s attack in order to substantiate, thus justify, counter-punching.

    Trump is systematically targeting Establishment’s media hitmen one by one.

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      Trouble with temporal reality is a sign of dementia, dear.

      As you’ll note in your more lucid moments, T-rump’s note was clearly written AFTER his interview with a real conservative, who has been that for decades.

      Sorry to have to be the messenger…

        There he goes again… Always with the personal attacks.

          By bleating that Rags’ response to you in this case was “a personal attack” (and therefore something you hope to get him banned for), you sound exactly like any number of female SJWs using confected “outrage” to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

          I was called a spelled-out-in-full c*nt in LI comments a while back, and I’ve been spoken to pretty harshly (including by Rags) both before and since, and I never demanded that anyone be banned. If you’re even 1/10th a thinking, sentient woman, you counter words you don’t like with more words; you don’t demand that the speaker be silenced, as though you’re some pitiful child who needs Daddy to save her from the Mean People Who Say Things I Don’t Like.

          Amy I don’t give a tinkers damn about you supposed mind reading capabilities or your opinions, just so you know.

          I would like to see some decorum return here. Yeah, I’ve been called the c-word though not here. Now that you mention it you remind me of pious smug SJWs.

          I want Rags to back the F. Off from personal attacks and I will call him on it as I deem necessary. I don’t care if you don’t like it. Your approval is neither wanted nor sought. So, bite me Trump hater.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 9:31 am

          I’ll reiterate my observation…

          1. it IS a sign of dementia to lose the ability to keep temporal relationships straight

          2. your response to T-rump’s thank you to the Hewitt show AFTER the interview reflected an inability to keep temporal events in proper relationship

          3. there’s nothing “personal attack” about any of that

          4. and I genuinely DO feel sorry for you. Anyone who could contrive that Gary Kasparov projection onto T-rump, grand master, in order to alibi that note is beyond too far gone, and somewhere I thought only the Obama voters could go.

          Rags, you can say what ever comes into your head, I don’t care.

          You are as obsessed as left wing Palin haters with respect to your aggressive, pushy, obnoxious attitude towards those who support Trump running for president. That is a fact. Amy is a little more civil but you take the prize.

          Now, I suggest you seek an intervention because I will not stop supporting Trump’s Constitution bid for office.

          Now… As I told Amy this morning, you too can bite me, Trump hater.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 10:35 am

          Actually, nothing of the kind, dear, and you are inverting things, not uncommonly.

          I’ve never tried to get you to shut up.

          What I have done, and will do, is oppose what I consider to be a really dangerous candidacy by a fraud. I won’t be silenced by you or anyone else. When you post something with which I disagree, I will push back. I know you feel you should have a freehold on propagandizing for Mr. Establishment, and resent that I…and others…won’t let you do it without opposition. You need to get over that.

          As to biting you, have no concerns there. I have a fear of fur balls…

          Differing in opinions invites debate. Your recorded track record here is a testament to your aggression and efforts to dominate, suppress, and attack anyone who supports Trump’s Constitutional bid for office.

          You have toned it down since the Professor layed down the law but it didn’t seem to change your mind about it.

          My advice, stop viewing those supporting Trump’s Constitutional bid for office as the enemy unless you are a left-wing ‘concern troll.’

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 11:14 am

          There it is…!!!

          The SAME tactic used by the SJW ThoughtPolice.

          “Watch it, prole, or you will be branded!”

          Won’t work with me, dear. You should know that by now.

          And, for the record, I don’t consider people on the opposite end of an argument “enemies”. Trolls are an exception, because they ARE…by their nature…enemies who only appear here to do damage. You are not my enemy.

          T-rump is not someone I care a fig about, in his proper sphere. HE is my enemy when he runs for POTUS under a false flag, which he is doing.

          What part of my repeated statement “I don’t care what you think” are you having a problem understanding?

          If wholesale flaming people with whom you disagree was acceptable, why did the Professor lay down the law? Because he is enforcing thought police laws?

          Your argument is hot air, IMO.

          Here is a question for you… Why do my two heroes, Sarah Palin & Ted Cruz, support Donald Trump’s presidential bid as I do?

          I will also add, I am an undecided voter who likes what I hear from Trump and especially likes seeing him upend the Liberal & RINO media and the DC establishment more than I can convey with words.

          Since Trump is Conservative enough for Palin & Cruz & Mark Levin & Rush Limbaugh & Laura Ingraham, he is Conservative enough for me.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 11:52 am

          “Why do my two heroes, Sarah Palin & Ted Cruz, support Donald Trump’s presidential bid as I do?”

          They don’t. In fact one of them is running in opposition to Mr. Establishment.

          “Since Trump is Conservative enough for Palin & Cruz & Mark Levin & Rush Limbaugh & Laura Ingraham, he is Conservative enough for me.”

          Well, see, that’s what you get when you only hear what reinforces your POV. Not one of those people have endorsed Mr. Establishment (I don’t listen to Ingraham, so she might have). In fact, Rush made EXACTLY the same observation of T-rump supporters I’ve made in almost the same words; they are projecting on him like Obama voters have. Look it up.

          “I will also add, I am an undecided voter…”

          Oh, yes. We ALLLLLL believe that one…!!! Please, dear!

          But what others say, even those I respect, doesn’t decide what I think. And rationally no Conservative can support BIG GOVERNMENT loving, crony capitalist, Mr. Establishment. Read his crappy immigration paper. I have. It is ALL about BIG GOVERNMENT, and nothing else.

          Rags? You are in denial & wearing blinders.

          Supporting a candidate’s Constitution right to run for president is something all Constitutional Conservatives support.

          Cruz is competing with Trump & he supports Trump’s rght to run for office and shares many of his positions as POTUS candidate.

          If you can’t wrap your mind around that, I don’t know what else to tell you.

          If you are unaware of the support Laura Ingraham has been providing for Trump’s positions, you are not as informed as you think you are.

          Did you not see Laura go toe to toe with Geraldo on Trump’s immigration plan? It is highly enlighting and showed Geraldo’s fear when Laura challenged his statement that without supporting Obama’s illegal amnesty , no Republican can won this election.

          If you want to see it I will get you the YouTube link for it. Let me know or not, your choice.

          As for your assertion that Palin does not support Trump’s Constitutional right to have a candidacy & many of his positions, you are provably uninformed.

          Just this morning Sarah Palin was interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN.

          I only got a snippet of the interview but what I observed was Sarah being asked if she would accept a cabinet position in a Trump administration and if so, which position. She replied in the affirmative and expressed great interest in running the dept of energy.

          That will surely go on YouTube if it is not already there.

          Are you inquisitive enough to find it or would you like me to find it and post it here?

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm

          “Supporting a candidate’s Constitution right to run for president is something all Constitutional Conservatives support.”

          See, this is combining a “red herring” with a “straw man”.

          The “straw man” is erected where you evoke “all Constitutional Conservatives support”. Actually, they don’t, and you don’t speak for them.

          But NOBODY denied T-rump “the right” to run for POTUS. He has no RIGHT to run as the fraud he is, however.

          The “red herring” is where you drag the concept of “supporting” a right across your previous BS about various famous people “supporting T-rump”.

          I don’t listen to Ingraham because her program conflicts with another I DO listen to. Sue me.

          No. I don’t care how she drubbed, dribbled, and de-balled Geraldo (who you linked to as part of The Five). I would be astonished to learn anything else had happened.

          BTW, NOW would be a good time to respond to my question about how you feel about T-rump’s amnesty program for “the good ones”.

          Step up.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 12:42 pm

          “As for your assertion that Palin does not support Trump’s Constitutional right to have a candidacy & many of his positions, you are provably uninformed.”

          Except that is never what I said, so you are being dishonest. And you know it.

          “Just this morning Sarah Palin was interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN.

          I only got a snippet of the interview but what I observed was Sarah being asked if she would accept a cabinet position in a Trump administration and if so, which position. She replied in the affirmative and expressed great interest in running the dept of energy.”

          No, you’re just aping Jim Hoft’s lie about what WAS said.

          I listened to Gov. Palin.

          Hoft has taken to outright lying about T-rump as an enthralled fan boi.

          The other day he report a poll on immigration as being in support of Trump, which it was NOT. It was a poll manifestly in favor of controlling immigration, and made no mention of T-rump.

          Rags, if someone does not support a candidate’s Constitutional right to run for office, they are, by definition, opposing the US Constitution and therefore not a Constitution Conservative.

          As for the list above of people I cited as supporting Trump’s Constitutional right to run for office and supporting much of his candidacy positions, not one of them is officially endorsing anyone at this time. There is way too much time left before actual endorsements will start coming. That usually happens when the number of candidates have been whittled down to the top several.

          Now… how about those videos I offer for you to watch?
          Yes or No or Silence… what is your response?

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 1:10 pm

          “Rags, if someone does not support a candidate’s Constitutional right to run for office, they are, by definition, opposing the US Constitution and therefore not a Constitution Conservative.”

          You’re being dishonest again. There are C-Cons who assert that Rubio or Cruz can’t run.

          No, dear. I don’t need to watch a video I could write.

          How about you answer my question on T-rump’s plan to “bring back the good ones”?

          Or do you want to deflect with more dishonesty and dissembling?

          There he goes with the unfounded assumptions again telling me what I did, without so much as a clue of where I got that information about the interview of Sarah by Jake Tapper. You must be a supposed mind reader like Amy is a supposed mind reader. *roll eyes*

          There is an article at Gateway Pundit on the Tapper Palin Interview this morning? Didn’t know that…

          I saw it live on TV… just a snippit of it though.

          You are now of the opinion that Jim Hoft is also an enemy of yours? b/c supports Trump’s Constitutional right to run for office and many of his positions?

          If so, you are not a happy man. Jim Hoft is the epitome of a Conservative.

          Rags: “Hoft has taken to outright lying about T-rump as an enthralled fan boi.”

          I would certainly enjoy seeing you say that to Jim Hoft’s face. Particularly so since you are implying by “boi” that Jim is a transgender or gay.

          From UD:

          BOI, definition:

          1. in the lesbian community, a young transgendered/androgynous/masculine person who is biologically female and presents themselves in a young, boyish way; a boidyke; often also identifies as genderqueer.

          2. in the gay community, a young gay man;

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boi

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 1:18 pm

          Jim Hoft is NOT my enemy.

          HE IS a pathic T-rump fan boi.

          He is NOT “the epitome of a conservative” if he ceases to think. Which he HAS. Conservatives are not liars. Which he has become.

          Now, deal with my question about T-rump’s amnesty program, which is one endorsed by the New York Times.

          I put this reply on the wrong thread… so here it is hopefully on the correct thread:

          We, you and me, have discussing Trump’s Constitutional right to have a candidacy for POTUS.

          We have not not been discussing Cruz & Rubio till you just brought them up.

          I question both Rubio & Cruz on the subject of Constitutional qualification pertaining to validity of citizenship per the Constitution.

          Not being a Constitutional Scholar myself, I look for answers to those questions from the majority of the best constitutional scholars who are conservative.

          Since Obama is arguably a “Constitutional Scholar,” I reject what ever he has to say on the subject, for obvious reasons.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 1:45 pm

          Nope. See my response to your falsehood, below.

          Rags: “Jim Hoft is NOT my enemy.

          HE IS a pathic T-rump fan boi.

          He is NOT “the epitome of a conservative” if he ceases to think. Which he HAS. Conservatives are not liars. Which he has become.

          Now, deal with my question about T-rump’s amnesty program, which is one endorsed by the New York Times.”

          There you are folks… if you dont agree with Rags, he will declare you a “liar” and slur you with homosexual name calling.

          Way to go, Rags.

          As for your question…

          I support legal immigration. I support deportation of anyone who is in this country illegally. No exceptions.

          I support giving deported illegals the opportunity to apply for legal immigration so long as they can demonstrate they can and will support themselves and their family and not be a welfare burden on tax payers. There are many grounds for not granting legal immigration including, but not limited to, having a criminal record.

          There is also the matter of an annual immigration quota which must not be inflated or increased for political reasons.

          Ragspierre | September 6, 2015 at 1:45 pm

          Nope. See my response to your falsehood, below.

          Nope. Post to this thread to maintain continuity and context else dont bother.

          Ya know something? People I have known in real life who, when presented with a truthful statement by someone and has nothing to say except declare them a liar, is themselves a liar. That is a typical response of someone who has exceeded their intellectual capacity. It’s a crutch.

          Calling someone a liar in a debate is the act of a defeated debater. Now… Factually Proving them to have made a false statement is a whole different matter.

          Have I defeated you Rags? By your actions, you are defeated.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 2:22 pm

          Well, honey, people CAN read, and I invite them to read the thread.

          When they do…and they should…they’ll see the point at which you began to relate falsehoods and try to cheat.

          I’m always willing to let people find out for themselves, rather than falsely “declaring victory”, as you like doing.

          Can’t answer the T-rump amnesty question, I see. Well, no surprises there.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 2:36 pm

          “There you are folks… if you dont agree with Rags, he will declare you a “liar” and slur you with homosexual name calling.”

          No, dear. That would be YOU slurring ME with name-calling.

          Your “homosexual” crap is your own. Hoft simply has made himself a T-rump fan boi. Not as VotingFe-mal-le (rhymes with tamale) has tried to impose, but as I use the term.

          Hoft is a demonstrable liar, and anyone with a brain and any character can see it for themselves. Do NOT take my word for it. Read his headlines.

          I call liars “liars”. See? And I do whether you agree with me or not.

          Here is the Jake Tapper interview of Sarah Palin that I saw a snippet of on live TV this morning citing Sarah Palin as willing to join the Trump administration as Energy Secretary.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j59SrJm6B0g

          I stand by my statements in this thread, Rags.
          You can characterize them any ole way you want to… but they speak for themselves.

          BTW, time marker 13:25 is the beginning of the snippet I saw part of this morning regarding Sarah’s stance on joining a Trump administration.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 3:12 pm

          See below. Or don’t.

          Rags said: “No, dear. That would be YOU slurring ME with name-calling.

          Your “homosexual” crap is your own. Hoft simply has made himself a T-rump fan boi.”

          I showed you the definition of the word “boi” in this thread with a link citation. Dont be dishonest when I can absolutely prove you were told what “boi” means.

          A copy paste from above…

          VotingFemale | September 6, 2015 at 1:17 pm

          Rags: “Hoft has taken to outright lying about T-rump as an enthralled fan boi.”

          I would certainly enjoy seeing you say that to Jim Hoft’s face. Particularly so since you are implying by “boi” that Jim is a transgender or gay.

          From UD:

          BOI, definition:

          1. in the lesbian community, a young transgendered/androgynous/masculine person who is biologically female and presents themselves in a young, boyish way; a boidyke; often also identifies as genderqueer.

          2. in the gay community, a young gay man;

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boi

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 3:22 pm

          See below. Or don’t.

          Rags… you are hopeless. I can see that now. You can’t debate without personal attacks… your pearl clutching is astonishing… and your temper is indisputable.

          I have done what I set out to do… to give you a chance of redemption for your personal attacking mode and you obviously are not interested in being civil.

          So carry on with what ever you think you must do to defeat Trump by attacking those who support his constitutional right to run for office and/or those who plan to vote for him and/or those who support his platform.

          Frankly, no matter what either of us says or does will not make one iota of difference to the outcome of Trump’s candidacy or the outcome of the 2016 election.

          I have not “endorsed” any candidate or committed to vote for any candidate but I do support the candidacies of both Cruz & Trump and look forward to the rest of this election cycle.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2015 at 4:58 pm

        How was that a “personal attack”? I observed you had a “spell” where you lost track of temporal relationships explicit in T-rump’s note, and noted it with pity.

        I really, genuinely feel sorry for you, dear.

      We, you and me, have discussing Trump’s Constitutional right to have a candidacy for POTUS.

      We have not not been discussing Cruz & Rubio till you just brought them up.

      I question both Rubio & Cruz on the subject of Constitutional qualification pertaining to validity of citizenship per the Constitution.

      Not being a Constitutional Scholar myself, I look for answers to those questions from the majority of the best constitutional scholars who are conservative.

      Since Obama is arguably a “Constitutional Scholar,” I reject what ever he has to say on the subject, for obvious reasons.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 1:35 pm

        “We, you and me, have discussing Trump’s Constitutional right to have a candidacy for POTUS.”

        No. That is a falsehood totally of YOUR fabrication.

        You drug that red herring out, and supported it with straw men.

        Because this is how you roll. When you can’t stay in the game by fair means, you revert to foul.

        Now, let’s hear your DIRECT answer to my question on T-rump’s amnesty.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 2:44 pm

        Oh, and piss on your orders!

        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/sarah-palin-recommends-herself-for-energy-secretary-under-president-trump-video/

        See if you find anything that supports Hoft’s lie about “President Trump”.

        See? Lying fan boi.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 3:14 pm

          Jake Tapper: When you look at the cabinet is there a particular area that lines up with your strengths, a position you’d want to serve in?

          Sarah Palin: That’s a great question. I think a lot about the Departement of Energy. Energy is my baby. Oil and gas and minerals are things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly nations for us to import their resources.

          From Hoft, in his piece.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 2:52 pm

        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/the-trump-bump-stock-markets-surge-75-points-as-donald-trump-speaks-to-press/

        Who has that kind of delusional “cause-effect” relationship BUT a T-rump fan boi?

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm

        “Rags… you are hopeless. I can see that now. You can’t debate without personal attacks… your pearl clutching is astonishing… and your temper is indisputable.”

        Which is pure self parody on your part, dear.

        You can’t do this fair and square, and that reflects on your little yellow god. Which, I think can have a persuasive effect on people who read your…stuff.

        Resorting to falsehoods and slurs against me personally here as before is all you are left with at the end of any day.

        Maybe you can console yourself by biting Nick Searcy’s ankles…or someone else whose name you can drop.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Where was Carly in that poll? Is she still polling around 2%?

    Oh my! Get a load of what the “little” people are saying over there. Oh my(clutching pearls to throat)!

    “Nothing can stop Trump. The Commies and RIN0’s are going to have to deal with the “year of Trump.”

    Hotlanta Mike

    Oh the agony…for the political and media elites!

    Hotlanta Mike mg4us • 6 hours ago

    A new classic…Obots to be dismayed.

If this keeps up, Trump will be president despite those pitiful few who get all wee-weed up by the mere mention of his name.

Who might those poor folks be? The ones who personally attack fellow voters for not agreeing with them on a daily basis while ignoring the Professor’s stern warning what would happen if it persists.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Now, now, dear. Don’t get all wee-weed up just because someone dissents from your rumor mongering in defense of your little yellow god.

    Remember, honey, used the term “rumor”. And it was apt.

      That’s better… dont let that temper get you suspended from commenting… I want to enjoy this primary to the fullest which includes various and sundry meltdowns of those of a certain Trump hating persuasion.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 3:03 pm

        Ah, “melt-down moments, the double album”.

        I recall you calling another poster a “communist” for suggesting that Putin could whip Mr. Establishment’s ass. So sweet. And me a “RINO”. All because I dared commit heresy against your little yellow god.

        But all that’s past, as you like to pretend. Heh!

        Love and kisses, one of the “pitiful” few who insist on thinking.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 5, 2015 at 4:35 pm

        Exactly. ThoughtPolicing. Keeping the heretics at the stake when they depart from your dogma of the little yellow god, T-rump.

        Glad to see you admit it.

I’m just glad Trump has forced a debate on illegal immigration.

    PhillyGuy in reply to JoAnne. | September 5, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Really it’s a game changer because Trump has framed it directly in economic terms – how it affects pay and jobs. It crosses the political spectrum too. Everyone I talk to is talking about Trump. Plus with Hillary lurching around trying to find likeability, he is getting almost all the attention.

    Ragspierre in reply to JoAnne. | September 5, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    Wow. Welcome to the waking world, nappers…

    Estragon in reply to JoAnne. | September 6, 2015 at 4:31 am

    Every declared Republican candidate had been talking about it. Are you incapable of paying attention without the Kardashians in the story?

      JoAnne in reply to Estragon. | September 6, 2015 at 1:43 pm

      That was nasty and uncalled for. Didn’t your mama teach you that you can disagree without being disagreeable? No one would have been doing more than giving lip service to illegal immigration if Trump hadn’t pushed the issue. As I said before, I am no Trump supporter but welcome the debate he has stirred up.

I Agree with Mr. Jacobson. I happen to enjoy Hugh Hewitt, but this minutia questioning makes me weary. He can ask what he wants and Mr. Trump can answer how he does. Maybe it’s because I’m over 40, but I don’t think this amounts to anything either way.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | September 5, 2015 at 4:45 pm

This sure explains a lot.

We all knew something was WRONG with the “Heinz 57” GOP candidates “entering” the race.

Just one example explained there: “Rubio’s goal on behalf of the RNC/GOPe plan was/is to split the Florida electorate away from a more conservative ‘non-jeb’ candidate. Florida polling has shown this strategy is largely successful, sans the unanticipated popularity of Donald Trump.

As a one-term senator with no accumulated wealth, a family and two small children, Rubio cannot run for re-election and also run as a presidential candidate. This highlights one of the ‘tells’. Why would a young, one-term senator give up losing his political career with a long-shot presidential bid? The answer is a Jeb Bush/Tom Donohue golden parachute.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/09/03/donald-trump-crushes-gop-field-in-latest-national-poll-full-poll-data-pdf-included-gope-splitters-expanded/

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Not A Member of Any Organized Political. | September 5, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    hmmmmmm…….. (Same source as above.)

    “SUMMARY – This team strategy was assembled by party apparatus, party loyalists, and those who benefit from the goals of the Mitch McConnell/John Boehner Republican party. This strategy began mid-summer 2014. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply a group of like-minded professionals all within the same organization working on behalf of their individual best interests.
    In 2014 during the planning phase, the “non-Jeb” candidates were expected to be: • Ted Cruz, • Scott Walker and • Rand Paul (with other outliers possible).
    Ben Carson and Bobby Jindal were irrelevant, Donald Trump was never anticipated.”

    We all knew something was WRONG with the “Heinz 57″ GOP candidates “entering” the race.

    Could you explain what you mean by that phrase?

    But it all goes back to Rockefeller, right? and the Illuminati before him, connected by the Rothschilds? Who could have foreseen such a devilish scheme that took centuries to realize, only to have it thwarted by the Noble Hero, Sir Donald of Trump?

    Whew! Close call!

In case of interest, the video clip from TheFive of Friday’s discussion on the Trump interview gotcha questions by Hugh Hewitt. Good back and forth…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ban2ZTIAmWM

Trump stumbled, and will stumble again and again. His followers will either abandon him or, like Obama bots, ignore, rationalize, and/or forgive his ignorance and unfamiliarity with the issues. I suspect the latter.

    Why are you people so obsessed with Trump’s supporters?

    Good grief, man, get a grip.

      I have a good grip – on reality. You should try going there sometime.

        Seems we have at least 4 new would-be blog owners of Legal Insurrection by virtue of their asinine contempt towards Trump supporters in the comment section…

        gasper
        Ragspierre
        Estragon
        Amy in FL

        There may be others but these four stand out above the crowd.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 5:24 pm

          That’s a personal attack.

          STOP IT!

          It is called an opinion – you have one and I have one. Wouldn’t this be a dull world if we all thought the same? I’m stating my opinion and you attack. That is very leftish behavior.

          Seems we have at least 4 new would-be blog owners of Legal Insurrection by virtue of their asinine contempt towards Trump supporters in the comment section…

          gasper
          Ragspierre
          Estragon
          Amy in FL

          There may be others but these four stand out above the crowd.

          Well bless your heart! Thank you so much for noticing me! Do go ahead and “report” me to our kind host, and be sure to include examples of my heinously uncivil tone which deserves to get me banned! Get Professor Jacobson to deem “Contempt Of Trump” a crime, lèse-majesté style! Why put up with dissent when you can just have those in authority ban it?

          This is all so “Lives of Others” … So East Germany. I love the fact that I’m being placed on a list of Heretics Who Have Questioned Authority The Donald And Must Be Silenced.

          What next, will you lobby Oligarch-Emperor Trump to have the government seize my property via eminent domain, Zimbabwe-style, and hand it over to you? Oh, you precious thing.

          MarlaHughes in reply to VotingFemale. | September 8, 2015 at 8:04 am

          I feel left out. Does upvoting every single comment that draws attention to the fact that Trump is not nor ever has been a conservative count?

“Why do my two heroes, Sarah Palin & Ted Cruz, support Donald Trump’s presidential bid as I do?”

They don’t. In fact one of them is running in opposition to Mr. Establishment.

“Since Trump is Conservative enough for Palin & Cruz & Mark Levin & Rush Limbaugh & Laura Ingraham, he is Conservative enough for me.”

Well, see, that’s what you get when you only hear what reinforces your POV. Not one of those people have endorsed Mr. Establishment (I don’t listen to Ingraham, so she might have). In fact, Rush made EXACTLY the same observation of T-rump supporters I’ve made in almost the same words; they are projecting on him like Obama voters have. Look it up.

“I will also add, I am an undecided voter…”

Oh, yes. We ALLLLLL believe that one…!!! Please, dear!

But what others say, even those I respect, doesn’t decide what I think. And rationally no Conservative can support BIG GOVERNMENT loving, crony capitalist, Mr. Establishment. Read his crappy immigration paper. I have. It is ALL about BIG GOVERNMENT, and nothing else.

I will reply to you on the thread we have been commenting on unless you want me to copy and paste it all here so there is continuity.

You posted this same comment over there first.

See you over there.

Laura Ingraham weighs in on Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Donald Trump and the subject of Gotcha Questions…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfCnzbb7Z7Q

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    “He’s more of a Bush guy than he would be a Buchanan person.”

    Do you even understand that juxtaposition?

    Do you understand how her previous statement about being more libertarian contradicts that?

    Did Hewitt somehow make T-rump lie about the Kurds/Quds thing?

    OR his handwritten and signed note about what an honor it was to be on the show?

    I dunno, but I think first hand stuff is WAY more telling than what someone says on the radio the next day.

    How ’bout you?

      You ask me a question and here is my reply.

      I had to wait until I could provide meaningful citation concerning my views on Hugh Hewitt.

      Here it is as of today’s date, September 8, 2015:

      This is the new information from a leading national conservative news & opinion site Brietbart.com regarding the RINO-GOP/RNC’s war to keep them in control and examining whom/what in the media are their political attack dogs.

      Hugh Hewitt’s GOP/RNC Establishment upper echelon role is discussed in detail, and it is *damning,* imo.

      I urge everyone who agrees or disagrees with my POVs to read it… it’s just that damning.

      Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/08/hugh-hewitt-gop-debate-questioner-sides-with-establishment-not-voters/

      Excerpt:

      Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.

      “No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.

      The next debate takes place Sept. 16 at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, but Hewitt is already doing his best to rough-up Trump.

      Trump sat for a Sept. 3 interview on Hewitt’s radio show. While the title of the audio file posted on Hewitt’s website suggests that the interview was presented to Trump as an opportunity to answer why he “took the [GOP] pledge,” yet Hewitt’s first mention of Trump’s GOP pledge did not come until 20 minutes and 32 seconds into the interview—an interview which was a grand total of 20 minutes at 47 seconds long.
      .
      .
      .
      Hewitt is the media darling of establishment Republicans and GOP leadership. For instance, in June of this year both Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)and House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)separately appeared on Hewitt’s show to sell the Republican plan to grant Obama authority to pass globalist wage-reducing trade deals, and earlier this year, Mitt Romney decided to allow Hewitt to be the first to report that Romney would not be running for president.

      Thus the talk radio host, who was handpicked to participate in the debates as part of the Republican National Committee’s plan to provide balance to “Establishment” media outlets, is himself an establishment media figure in an election where outsiders and voters are jointly slashing at the bipartisan establishment that has run Washington since at least 1988.

      ——

      The above excerpt is only a part of a comprehensive evaluation of Hugh Hewitt’s activities supporting the GOP/RNC Establishment’s agenda and particular websites steered by them which runs opposite of the best interests of most voters.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend