Sarah Palin Interviews Donald Trump
Keeping connected to the base
Donald Trump may be at war with the mainstream media, but he seems to have found safe harbor with a smaller, conservative base-oriented network.
The One America News Network has about a tenth of the viewership of major mainstream outlets like Fox or CNN, but leading presidential contender Donald Trump made a point to stop by their “On Point” program, guest hosted by Sarah Palin, for ten minutes of conversation on everything from taxes to caring for veterans, and his troubles with the mainstream media.
Watch:
Seems a little…toned down, no?
But unlike Trump’s frequent public appearances, he was rather reserved in his responses to Palin’s questions.
Was the media playing a “gotcha” game in their questioning of the real estate mogul?
“I don’t know,” Trump told Palin.
Did he have any new insults to hurl at the media for the coverage of his spat with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos earlier this week?
No, Trump said. “The press was pretty good to me.”
Why has he been so successful as a presidential candidate?
“I’m having a lot of fun,” Trump said.
Other than an obligatory shot at Jorge Ramos—who earned it—Trump was remarkably low-key during the interview. Have we finally seen what happens when Donald Trump is confronted with a 100% friendly interviewer?
The Palin interview was by all accounts a softball; but then again, the network’s audience leans right, and maybe there’s value in landing an easy ten minutes with nothing to do but gain more exposure and build even more goodwill.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A Trump-Palin coalition. Palin had a lot of American support, before she was attacked and marginalized by the left-right establishment. Trump may well take over where Palin stopped, and he posses sufficient leverage to overcome the obstacles that removed her from contention.
The GOPE stuck all manner of knives in Gov. Palin’s back. I hope she works with Trump to destroy them.
Second that emotion.
” left-right establishment”
That is the best description of what we are dealing with. I always struggle finding a way to name them. Uni-party doesn’t express enough for me.
Today on a talk show I heard someone say that Trump has EXPOSED the left-right Congressional consensus to NOT build a wall. He sounded like he knew it all along just didn’t want to rock the uni-party boat by saying so.
Kind of reminds me of when all the democrats went up to visit Dukukis and tell him he could run for president but to shut up about the Saving and Loan scam they and the Bushes were pulling on us Patsys.
Here is his position paper on immigration.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
THAT is a remarkably CRAPPY paper.
I’ll be happy to elaborate, but generally, it’s a blueprint for a REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT that is fundamentally unnecessary to solve the problems, and WILL actually hurt the middle class.
Merely an opinion, biased, yet weak, as usual!
Get away from me, Brittany!
You’re not speaking to me. Remember?
More Blah Blah from Rag Brain
Illegal immigration costs the U.S. More than $500 Billion a YEAR.
Whatever it costs to secure the border is cheap compared to that:
http://www.rense.com/general94/whatif20.htm
Straw man, you lying POS troll.
Nobody said otherwise.
I suggest both of you are in jeopardy of losing your commenting privs here b/c taking it personal and name calling.
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t like to see either of you go down the commenting drain.
Given the asinine way you’re treating people who have a different opinion from yours, that’s changed. I hadn’t wanted to get into a flame war with you but your spoiled brat behavior means that you have to be swatted down when you go on your crazy binges. I referred to you as “Heathcliff” because you’re the “guy” who wouldn’t grow up. And, that’s an appropriate description of you, especially your behavior.
Get your own blog since that’s how you want to behave and stop leaving messes on LI; and I’m only speaking for myself as a frequent LI viewer and also comment frequently too.
OBTW: love that you’re so brave you hide behind a screenname referring to an 18th Century Revolutionary who failed to kill himself, so the good Citizen’s Committee did it for him. What a name choice? Your screenname says it all about you. What a Maroon!
You don’t like what I’m saying on this comment, fine with me! You want to reply, go ahead punk, I’ll ignore it; you’re not worth anyone’s time, perhaps even your own. “Fine” got it right about you.
https://legalinsurrection.com/focus/tips/comment-page-194/#comment-608523
Golly.
It appears that nobody can defend the T-rump paper, though I’ve offered my opinion and I’ve offered to illuminate my reasons that its a crappy paper.
But I DO seem to be attacked, and for no reason, by two trolls.
Huh…
I don’t mind a supportive interview from an acknowledged partisan, provided the information comes out, which it did, here.
“OBTW: love that you’re so brave you hide behind a screenname referring to an 18th Century Revolutionary who failed to kill himself, so the good Citizen’s Committee did it for him. What a name choice? Your screenname says it all about you. What a Maroon!”
For the sake of historicity, ROBESpierre was the evil French Revolutionary, and the father of a lot of Collectivist theory and practice who presided over the Reign Of Terror.
Those who are not thumping historical ignoramuses know that.
Ergo, my nom d’keyboard…RAGSpierre…(“Rags” being sort of the opposite of “Robes”) puts me as his antithesis (which means I’m not like him, for the morons among us).
La!!!
I have been bothered b a question about interviewers ever since Donald Trump successfully complained about the question Megyn Kelly asked him about how he avoids the War on Women characterization, given his past statements.
If it isn’t legitimate to ask Donald Trump about his past statements of the type that have tanked other politicians, how does anybody from FOX ask Hillary Clinton any questions at all?
And when Hillary Clinton says (which she has) essentially that Donald Trump has a crappy paper on immigration, who besides FOX is going to ask her the follow-up question?
These are not hypothetical questions. These are the election in a nutshell.
I have to wonder how many “conservatives” have…
1. read the T-rump paper
2. with any critical thought.
It strikes me as being EXTREMELY vulnerable to real criticism from an actual conservative POV. It is a recipe for BIG GOVERNMENT, and a body-blow to the middle-class. I’m not talking about making some body of LEOs bigger, but about whole new agencies that would have to be given sweeping powers…and STILL could not do what the paper pretends! Do they see that it calls for increases in “minimum wages”? More and MORE “social engineering”?
People aren’t thinking. That hardly scratches the surface of that crappy paper.
Among people who aren’t thinking, you’re at the top of the list.
You failed to calculate in the offsetting SAVINGS, including the many bureaucracies that would be REDUCED if the illegal alien population was reduced: like the Prison bureaucracy, the Legal bureaucracy, the Public School bureaucracy and its attendant Free Breakfast and Lunch and Library bureaucracies. And the Highway and Road bureaucracies. And the Health Care bureaucracy. And the Social Security bureaucracy (less Anchor babies born; less automatic Social Security numbers and paperwork). And Public Sanitation, and Government Printing bureaucracies, ETC ETC ETC!
Get it? Probably not, I doubt you can add numbers correctly.
No, troll. You characteristically avoid the points, first.
Second, what bureaucracies can you name that SHRINK in response to a fall in demand?
Why don’t you take a minute and tell us how T-rump will police remittances WITHOUT new BIG GOVERNMENT, and how you think that will actually be effective?
Who BESIDES BIG GOVERNMENT launches a trade war with other nations? As a free market advocate, I know that THOSE always hurt the middle class, and pretty much exclusively.
Government bureaucracies don’t shrink from reduced demand for service?
Ever hear of the U.S. Postal Service?
In 1990 they had 783,000 employees.
In 2014 they had 485,000 employees.
From Wikipedia:
“First Class mail volume peaked in 2001[51] and has declined 29% from 1998 to 2008, due to the increasing use of email and the World Wide Web for correspondence and business transactions.[52]
FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) directly compete with USPS Express Mail and package delivery services, making nationwide deliveries of urgent letters and packages.”
And going forward I expect you to refer to me as Mr Troll – or didn’t you get the memo?
Correction: in 2000 they had 783,000 employees.
The USPS employed 617,254 workers (as of February 2015).
See, you can’t manage to tell the truth about anything.
I used the USPS site for my numbers, here:
https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/employees-since-1926.pdf
Where did you get your number? Link, please?
The yearly numbers at my link only go up to 2014.
Why would you insinuate I’d lie about a yearly number that hasn’t been included there yet?
If you look at the chart you’ll see a long continuous employee drop. IN other words, a bureaucracy shrinking from falling demand for its service.
The USPS employed 617,254 workers (as of February 2015) and operated 211,264 vehicles in 2014. The USPS is the operator of the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world.[2]
and
The United States Postal Service employs some 617,000 workers, making it the third-largest civilian employer in the United States behind the federal government and Wal-Mart.[37]
Same place you got it. But I can read, as well as count.
And you’ll find in several places that the reduction is attributed to automation and cut-backs in service, not a response to demand.
But this is all one of your deflections. As I well know, troll.
Well no you didn’t get the figures from the same place I did.
You got different figures from Wikipedia then the figures I linked to on the USPS site.
Did you look at the the USPS chart?
Did you read the explanation at the bottom, which would help you understand the difference between the figures?
The number you quoted includes part time and non-career workers.
The USPS numbers only include career employees.
Now, if you construct a chart for the same time frame WITH non-career and part time workers included you would see the same steep reduction in total employment over those years.
If you insist on believing that large drop in demand for postal services wasn’t the main cause of the worker reductions you’re mistaken.
From Wikipedia:
“First Class mail volume peaked in 2001[51] and has declined 29% from 1998 to 2008, due to the increasing use of email and the World Wide Web for correspondence and business transactions.[52]
FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) directly compete with USPS Express Mail and package delivery services, making nationwide deliveries of urgent letters and packages.”
See? You can’t help but lie.
“Second, what bureaucracies can you name that SHRINK in response to a fall in demand?”
Was my question, which you distorted to…
“Government bureaucracies don’t shrink from reduced demand for service?”
Which was intentional.
Now, name bureaucracies (PLURAL, and the USPS is NOT one) that shrank in response to a fall in demand.
Or you could just stop diverting and answer the question about remittances.
(Not.)
Mr Ragspierre:
Your 2 examples, First Class Mail declining, and FedEx and UPS directly competing with the Postal Service, ARE explanations of a DEMAND DROP for the postal service.
Don’t you see that?
Where am I ‘lying’?’
I’m BBQing now and don’t have time for more examples of agency shrinking, but I’ll look into it later and get back to you.
Respectfully Trolling. JJ66
It would appear that blog flame wars will continue, albeit without so much vitriol.
Opinions matter not! Facts matter slightly! That, instead, strict orthodoxy, of political views, are what matters; just like those long ago days of Animal Farm, where some pigs were more equal. The only opinion, or point of view, or reader of facts, allowed is that of an infallible pope!
Take on a rational question instead of trolling.
How is the remittance plan of Mr. Establishment going to….
1. NOT require new BIG GOVERNMENT?
2. work?
You’re both as bad as each other. Maybe we should just get you a room and let you work whatever-this-is out in private 😉
Valerie, the “war on women” is a phony construct by the Left; its only purpose is to disqualify anyone on the Right who tries to answer it.
It was also an underhanded question; lots of “opposition research” went into finding something- anything!- that would put Trump in a bad light. If he had tried to play their game, on their playing field with their ball & bat, there’s no way he could have avoided being tarnished. The result would have been a trio of gloating assassins, who would have taken great delight in successfully slandering Donald Trump. They would have been acclaimed by their colleagues in the “unbiased, objective” media!
Another attack was tried earlier by Megyn Crowley; on her program she brought up “dirt” from Trump’s previous divorce from Ivana. Megyn didn’t vet that information either; that attack was routed by Ivana herself, who said publicly that it was all a lie and that she supported Donald Trump. Ivana further said that in her opinion, Donald Trump would make a great President!
Check over at The Conservative Treehouse for lots more information, of which this link is only a small part:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/28/donald-trump-masterfully-exposed-the-bias-of-megyn-kelly/
Oh, sorry; it isn’t “Megyn Crowley.” Candy Crowley was another biased “reporter” and I got them mixed up; hard to tell ’em apart! 😉
Sarah Palin interviewed several people and elicited lots of wonderful information on everything from the fight against Planned Parenthood in Congress with Rep Diane Black and CWA Penny Nace to the Shia/Sunni Turkey/Syria situation with a CIA head during her week-long guest spot on OANN.
On the night she interviewed Trump (Friday, her last night), she also interviewed Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Orrin Hatch. On Thursday, she did a joint interview with James Carville and Mary Matalin from New Orleans.
I highly recommend watching all the interviews. Here is a link to a looped video from OANN of 19 of her segments:
https://youtu.be/WOxEKd8L9Xw?list=PLM_tVXBx-AANvcAIwJmkmxIw4IWQTRqCa
Palin interviewing Trump – that must have been a hard hitting interview. And you thought that Greta. Fox & Friends, and Hannity were the only ones who toss soft balls his way.
Every once in a while it’s nice to have an interview that isn’t only a series of gotcha! questions, meant only to slander, degrade and destroy. That’s more PC rubbish that I can do without. I’m sorry to see this gutter “journalism” at Fox, but not surprised. The big Establishment money isn’t behind Trump, or Cruz, or Carson; there’s a reason for that.
BTW- I’ve noticed that Trump only attacks people that have attacked him first; what a thought, huh! Radical!
Ever notice how Mr. Establish considers any criticism an “attack”?
Ever notice how his world is divided into friends and enemies?
And how very often, he claims that his enemies came to him for money, and only attack him because he turned them down?
Like the pro-market, pro-small government Club For Growth, who he calls “…a pack of thieves”?
Were you aware that kind of conduct is characteristic of a narcissist?
You should be.