Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Morning Joe Trashes Trump Mex Trip: ‘Fringe, Alt-Right Candidate’ Who ‘Choked’

Morning Joe Trashes Trump Mex Trip: ‘Fringe, Alt-Right Candidate’ Who ‘Choked’

Scarborough Also Censors Nicolle Wallace for Referring to Trump as a ‘Leader’

UPDATE: Looks like Scarborough was parroting a Clinton campaign talking point. John Podesta, chair of the Hillary for America PAC, had put out a press release entitled “Trump Choked,” and repeating that c-word a couple of times in the release. Maybe Morning Joe can cut out the middleman, dispense with hosts, and just run a looping feed of Clinton campaign press releases.

Like Bulgarian and Ukrainian Olympic judges back in Soviet Union days who gave American ice skaters a crummy score after a strong performance, on today’s Morning Joe Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough totally trashed Donald Trump on his visit with the Mexican president.

For not raising the issue of who would pay for the wall, Scarborough screamed “he choked! I can’t stand people that choke under pressure!” Brzezinski was reluctant to discuss the trip at all, dismissing Trump as a “fringe, alt-right Republican candidate . . . let’s not pretend this is some sort of foreign policy discussion.”

Scarborough even censored a panelist who used a respectful term to describe Trump. Trying to explain why the issue of who pays for the wall didn’t come up at the meeting, Nicolle Wallace explained that “there were some issues that were pre-wired before this meeting and that was one of them. And that happens in meetings with leaders all the time.” Interrupted Scarborough: “with people. Don’t say leaders.” Wallace meekly went along: “with people,” she revised.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: In joint remarks in a press availability after the meeting, Donald Trump said he and the Mexican president did not discuss his promise to make Mexico pay for the wall.

DONALD TRUMP: We didn’t discuss that. We didn’t discuss who pays for the wall. We didn’t discuss. We did discuss the wall, we didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That will be for a later date. This was a very preliminary meeting. I think it was an excellent meeting.

. . .

JOE SCARBOROUGH: If that’s the center of your campaign, how do you not get the job done when you’re there?

MIKE BARNICLE: He said that six hours later

WILLIE GEIST: He did, he showed up, and for anyone who doubted it because of what he did in Mexico City he went to Phoenix and said it about ten times. 100% they’ll pay for the wall.

JOE: Exactly! But he was just there a couple hours earlier and he had the guy in front of him across the table. And you know what he was doing? [makes gestures of nervously shaking]

MIKA: Oh my God. Can you guys just stop?

JOE: He choked! No, he choked! No, no, no. I can’t stand people that choke under pressure.

MIKA: And you think about the Brent Scowcrofts and the Bob Gates and the Kissingers of the world and the meetings that we’ve covered and this is a joke. We’re trying to make this into something it’s not. Can we please just get it over with. I’m going to continue.

JOE: Get what over with? What are you talking about?

MIKA: This stupidity. This ridiculous session a fringe alt-right Republican candidate had with the president of Mexico about a wall that’s never going to happen. Please, let’s not pretend this is some sort of foreign policy discussion. This is stupidity.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“I couldn’t understand what the Mexican president was say with all the cocaine coming out his mouth.”- Dana Loesch

Looks like the phrase “Alt-Right” is the new hate-term for all of the leftists to liberally (sorry) apply to anybody they disagree with, regardless if they’re radically conservative or… Trump. I suspect we’re in for two more months of absolute *hammering* the term.

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | September 1, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Yep, “alt-right” is about to become a meaningless term of abuse, like “fascist” did by about 1940, and “racist” did by the ’80s. Which means the actual alt-right will have to come up with a different term for themselves.

    MattMusson in reply to georgfelis. | September 1, 2016 at 9:21 am

    They got nowhere attacking Trump. So, they returned to attacking his supporters.

    I prefer the term Galt-right. Who is John Galt?

      Ragspierre in reply to MattMusson. | September 1, 2016 at 11:05 am

      One thing that Galt was not, but the alt-right certainly IS, was a racial bigot.

      Time to learn some stuff, Matt.

      And to George, the alt-right are no part “conservatives”, much less “radical” ones. They expressly hate, loath, and despise conservatives, and seek to destroy the movement. I’m a radical conservative, in that I think about root causes of problems and seek means to assault them.

        Demosthenes in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2016 at 11:11 am

        Thank you for Correcting The Record (TM).

        $.50 has been deposited in your account.

        I’m sorry, but the “Conservative Movement” is at best ineffectual and, at worst, irrelevant. It failed to deliver a win for Barry Goldwater over Ronald Reagan, who was at best a conservative moderate. It failed to produce a viable alternative to H.G.W.Bush and essentially handed the Presidency to Bill Clinton. It failed to produce an answer to the arch liberals Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney. Its lukewarm support for the moderate G.W.Bush allowed the liberal moonbat Al Gore to garner more popular votes than Bush and the anti-American John Kerry to make it a close contest. And, the Conservative Movement failed to stop NAFTA, Obamacare, and most other major legislation which it disapproves of, even though a Republican Congress was in session.

        There are a lot of conservatives, but no effective Conservative Movement. Sorry.

          MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | September 1, 2016 at 1:12 pm

          My guess is that Jacobin Rags can’t accept the fact that us conservatives out here have by failed by his likes (as you nicely stated),thus has grabbed on the the liberals “Alt-Right”label to mean anyone that disagrees with him. I suggest that we declare anyone that does not have our views about “failed” conservative moment be called “Boneheads”.

          This will be our attempt to stop the misdirection of Boneheads from using the term alt-right as someone who supports Trump or is against Hillary.

          Maybe the Boneheads will realize that they are being used as a tool for the liberals.

          This I hope will stop the bonehead Jacobin (aka BJ Rags) from making sweeping generalizations who we actually are. But then cry babies are really hard to stop.

          BYW, Cruz lost the primary, at least one given Presidential lost possible averted. Mac45 says it, Boneheads don’t have much of a record to support their positions.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 1, 2016 at 3:28 pm

          1) Goldwater didn’t run against Reagan.
          2) Why on earth would conservatives oppose NAFTA?

    Mark Finkelstein in reply to georgfelis. | September 1, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Great point!

    Zachary in reply to georgfelis. | September 1, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Regardless of its accuracy, Trump owns that term by pandering to them and making their media enabler the CEO of his campaign. (Since when did campaigns have CEO’s?)

    Much like the #nevertrumpers are the boogeymen for Trump supporters, the alt right is a convenient whipping boy. Although the alt right does deserve every bit of criticism. White euro-nationalism? They’re just racist identity politicking progressives. Yuck.

    Ragspierre in reply to georgfelis. | September 1, 2016 at 10:24 am

    For those of us who are conservatives, it falls on us mainly to make sure we use “alt-right” correctly, and try to oblige others to do so, as well.

    This provides a very good discussion on the matter.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/31/hewitt-goldberg-core-alt-right-needs-driven-conservative-ranks/

      mailman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2016 at 10:30 am

      Spare me the crocodile tears (insert rolling eyes).

      Funny how suddenly EEEEEEEEENYONE who disagrees with liberals is from this dangerous radical race hating fringe that NEVER existed prior to Hillary proclaiming they existed (hmmmm does that mean Hillary is responsible for creating two hate groups now? ISIS AND the Alt Right?).

      Look, get over yourself. Spare us the outrageously outragety outrage. Its not our fault your Democrat candidate is quite literally on life support, propped up by the lame mfm and a ton of life support where ever she goes (probably explains why she couldn’t make it to Mehico…that and the fact they couldn’t put a seat with fluffy pillows on the stage for the press conference).

      Oh…had Hillary gone to Mehico then would it not look someone bad for her that the ONLY press conference she has done in living memory was outside America? 🙂

      Regards

      Mailman

        Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | September 1, 2016 at 10:42 am

        You excel at being an ignorant, slavering anti-American. You could have made yourself at least aware of reality by watching a few minutes of the discussion.

        Zachary in reply to mailman. | September 1, 2016 at 10:44 am

        What post were you replying to? You addressed exactly zero of Rags actual post and went on another “principled conservatives bad, gonna give us Hillary” rants.

        jack burns in reply to mailman. | September 1, 2016 at 11:28 am

        You got it right, ‘liberals’. Over-playing the ‘real’ conservation card with screeching and feigned outrage.

    The “ALT-Right” has been on computer keyboards for years.

I used to pride myself in my intestinal fortitude, able to watch Morning Joe while eating breakfast. It wasn’t easy but I managed – that is, until Joe jumped the shark. Whether it is devotion to Mika or his own wish to become some Twitter star, his hatred of Trump was enough to make me leave the show. I have yet to find a replacement. CNN is worse. Fox and Friends is all kittens and children who call 911. That leaves HGTV. House Hunters goes better with eggs than Joe and Mika.

I did not read the post. This is why:

I do not watch Morning Joe because it’s already clear to me that they have nothing productive to offer. I value my time, and want to use it wisely.
For all I care, Legal Insurrection can just put “They said something stupid again in Morning Joe” in the top banner and save the trouble of writing a whole article about it.
I appreciate the effort, but this kind of material is not what I come looking for in this blog. There’s plenty of serious topics, and I am sure there are plenty of serious analyst with valid points for or against Donald Trump.

Of course, I am saying this only on behalf of myself.

The meeting with Pena was an absolute flank to Trump’s enemies. The speech in AZ was great. I expect positive poll movement from yesterday.

Pardon the crass language. He totally blew Clinton the f*** out.

While I love the smell of Weltschmerz in the morning as much as anyone, I have to wonder why there’s a market for rubbish like Morning Joe. Is it some shock to the somatic system people use to get themselves up & going in the morning? Like pouring a bucket of water over the head, or listening to Sousa marches, or inhaling a big whiff of Raid before tackling the morning commute?

    Zachary in reply to tom swift. | September 1, 2016 at 10:47 am

    We don’t agree on much, Tom, but I’m with you 110% on this one. Finkelstein has far more tolerance for inanity than I can muster.

thalesofmiletus | September 1, 2016 at 11:10 am

Why is this vapid prog given ink on this site? There’s plenty of outrage porn material to be had without scrapping the bottom of that barrel…

“When we say America is exceptional … it means that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress,” Clinton told the veterans. “When America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum.”

Clinton pwn3d Obama

Splody-head time for the anti-Trump factions.

Trump gets invited to meet with the President of Los Estados Unidos de Mexico and goes there and meets with him. After the meeting the two men have a joint mini-press conference and essentially agree that the US-Mexico border must be secured, that illegal immigration must be stopped, that smuggling of dangerous substances, arms and people must be stopped and that each country is solely responsible for controlling who enters and remains in their respective countries. So, the President of Mexico agreed to the Trump immigration agenda, in principle, except for the point of Mexico paying for building a wall. And, the President of Mexico agrees, publicly, that NAFTA is unfair to the US, as written, and should be renegotiated. Big win for Trump. And, he looks Presidential while he does it.

Now about Mexico paying for building The Wall. There are many ways for Mexico to end up paying for construction on The Wall. They could pay for it directly. This is unlikely to happen because of internal politics in Mexico. They could end up paying for it indirectly, through tariffs and other fees and taxes on goods entering the US or money leaving the US. Mexicans living in the US send $25 billion to relatives in Mexico every year.

As to the claims of the media that Trump was softening his stance on immigration, I believe that I mentioned that I thought his musings two weeks ago were merely a trial balloon floated to gauge whether doing so would garner a positive increase in his total support. From his speech last night, it appears that the internal poll showed just the opposite.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 1, 2016 at 11:48 am

    “And, the President of Mexico agrees, publicly, that NAFTA is unfair to the US, as written, and should be renegotiated.”

    I read what he said, and that’s bullshit.

    “They could end up paying for it indirectly, through tariffs and other fees and taxes on goods entering the US or money leaving the US.”

    You haven’t any idea of economics, do you? American consumers would be paying for the “wall” in that case, and via a hidden and insidious tax.

      So, exactly WHAT did the President of Mexico say, about NAFTA?

      As to my understanding of economics, there you are incorrect. The US is the major trading partner of Mexico. This give the US tremendous leverage in any discussion between the two countries. NAFTA made it possible for many US based manufacturing companies to move their manufacturing operations to Mexico and avoid tariffs and import quotas. If that changes, then many of those companies have no incentive to maintain their operations in Mexico. There is a realistic ceiling on how much a company can charge for any particular item being sold to the American consumer. With the collapse of oil prices, the main source of foreign income, in Mexico, is from manufacturing exports. The second is narco-trafficing, the third is remittance to relatives in Mexico from Mexican nationals living in the US and the fourth is petroleum exports. So, shut down narco-trafficiing, curtail remittances and manufactured exports and the Mexican economy is in serious trouble. And, the USA largely controls all of those aspects of the Mexican economy.

      You might hate Trump. But, he knows business and economics and, as President, can bring a lot of pressure to bear on the Mexican economy.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 1, 2016 at 1:12 pm

        “There is a realistic ceiling on how much a company can charge for any particular item being sold to the American consumer.”

        I’m not allowed to call you an idiot any more. But just damn…

        Mexico is also a WONDERFULLY important export market for American goods. That can all end.

        Jeebus, some of you people are amazingly stupid.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2016 at 1:57 pm

      “As far as commercial issues, I shared with Mr. Trump my conviction that the free trade of North America has done a lot of good to both the U.S. as well as Mexico. U.S. exports to Mexico are close to $200 billion a year. And according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than six million jobs in the U.S. rely on the exports to Mexico,” he said.

      “…I don’t think that commerce must be considered a zero-sum game, so that only one wins and the other one loses. On the contrary, it must be seen as an effort that generates value to both parts and makes our North American region the most competitive and innovative in the world.”

      Which neatly gives the lie to Mac45’s assertion.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to Mac45. | September 1, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    The US gives in foreign aid to Mexico about four times annually what it would take to complete the wall. “Making Mexico pay for it” should be trivial.

    jack burns in reply to Mac45. | September 1, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    I live in AZ. Hell, we’ll build it. A labor of love.

Well I guess we’ll have to wait for the likes of Guccifer to hang the Muppett and his ventriloquist’s dummy. But then again liberals (real, principled conservatives?) can’t see the truth if its placed on the bridge of their noses. They are too blinded by those nice cheap margins derived from cheap labor.

4th armored div | September 1, 2016 at 11:40 am

MSNBC Viewers Dump Morning Joe As Scarborough Is Lowest Rated Cable Morning News Show

MSNBC viewers have spoken loudly as Morning Joe’s ratings continue to slide. The conservative talker is now the lowest rated morning show on cable news.
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/15667422-msnbc-viewers-dump-morning-joe-as-scarborough-is-lowest-rated-cable-morning-news-show-

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hispanic-leaders-arizona-immigration-227615

Welp, Der Donald is learning that Hispandering is a double-edged sword.

Heh…!!!

Back to being a nation of laws, the horror, the horror.

I am a conservative. I am certain that adherence to the Constitution is the only sure way to attain and maintain a free and prosperous nation. I would like to see government shrink. I would like to see the Constitution honored with Congress and the courts doing their constitutional duty and reining in executive overreach. I would like to see the liberties expressed in the Bill of Rights affirmed and the threats to those liberties obliterated. I have come to the conclusion that what I would like is not at the top of the list of what the majority of Americans or even the majority of Republicans consider important. Decades of miseducation have led the American public away from understanding the logic and beauty of our founding documents and the primacy of the individual. I now believe that the American public is predominantly moderate but not conservative. I do not believe there will be a conservative renaissance if Trump is defeated or that conservatism will suffer a setback if he is elected. When evaluating who I should vote for in November I have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is by far the best of the candidates in contention and that he has more respect for the Constitution and for the American people than any of the others. Also, importantly, he will take steps to protect our country that has been so weakened and debased by the current administration and, surely, protecting and defending the country is the most important job of the President. Therefore, I will enthusiastically vote for Donald Trump in November. I see no other choice.

Ragspierre, what do you think is the best possible outcome of this election?

    Ragspierre in reply to TPHobbit. | September 1, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    That voters send a clear message by their LACK of support for either Collectivist thug that they will not tolerate a primary process that hands us a shit sandwich…your choice of wheat or rye.

    AND that any POTUS elected comes to office with NO “mandate” they can claim…in political reality. Either of these thugs will TRY, of course, but reality will assert itself.

So, “fringe, alt-right” is pro-native in America, Mexico, and beyond. A wall, a refugee crisis, etc. will become superfluous after defeating the anti-native factions (e.g. social justice adventurists, class diversity mongers, abortion rites activists).

It seems to me that Trump has done it again. First it was Jeb!. When Jeb! responded to Trump’s accusations of being low energy, he did so in a way that caused people to think of him as low energy.

Then he went on to little Marco, and got Marco to respond ina way that made him look little. ( BTW there are rumors out there that Hillary’s debate prep is working on ways to work in Trumps little hands. Would they be doing that if she weren’t rattled. )

Then he went on to lying Ted Cruz. He got Cruz to respond in a way that made him seem like a lowlife. Not exactly focusing lying, but a general scuzziness.

Now he hasn’t taken on Hillary directly yet. I don’t know if he has to. but there was another er obstacle. The MSM.

Make no mistake. No matter who the Republican candidate was they would have the same trouble with the media, but Trump has stripped the media bare.

By getting the media to speculate that he was going to swerve left, and how that was bad, now that they are screaming that his sticking to his guns they have been laid bare for all to see.

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | September 1, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    “…his sticking to his guns they have been laid bare for all to see.”

    Really? Where’s the “mass deportation”?

    Only a true T-rump sucker could see this as “sticking to his guns”.

      NBC News “Trump Recommits to Mass Deportation in Fiery Immigration Speech

      http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-recommits-mass-deportation-fiery-immigration-speech-n641016

      Rags is Mass disinformation.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 2, 2016 at 6:52 am

        I read his speech. You and NBC are lying, Barry.

          There you go with your “lying’ words again. There is a psychological pathology in that.

          I did not make any assertion with respect to the mass deportation. Just reported that some see it differently than you, a mass disinformation provider.

          I do not believe we will deport a huge mass of illegals that are law abiding and stay out of the eyes of the law. Nor do I think that is the trump plan. He stated very clearly what his plan is. He did not state what the outcome would be for the illegals who break no other laws. One could read into his plan that those sucking from the teat of the state will also be subject to deportation, and they should be as they are breaking the law.

          The plan is near perfection and well thought out. Any true conservative would comment on that fact. But some people are so deranged that even when a plan is 95%+ what they would support, they can only talk about the 5%. Check your mirror.

    Zachary in reply to RodFC. | September 1, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    I’m glad I don’t have to live in your head. Doesn’t seem like it would be fun,

Morning Rino is not even worthy of discussion.

Immediately after Trump’s Arizona immigration speech so many supporters were logging on to donate that it crashed the donate money page for a while.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend