Here’s an interview with Donald Trump from December 9th. It keeps getting deleted and popping up elsewhere. There are less than a thousand views of this new iteration. I watched it when it first came out and planned to pass it on to y’all before it disappeared. Now it’s up again.
Watch it while you can.
Opinions are welcome as long as they’re within our usual guidelines. With that proviso, we’re both quite interested in what our readers, Americans and Europeans think of this man (whose mother came here from Scotland but Scotland has made sure that all of us know that they disown him).
Enjoy.
Am at the 10-minute mark.
Thank you so much, Dymphna; I hadn’t yet seen this.
(He’s my guy, btw.)
Now back to the interview 🙂
I know, that stupid benighted quine Sturgeon and her sugar daddy Big Alex have ‘disowned’ the Donald, boy are they going to have egg on their faces after he becomes President of America.
Mind you, the possibility of that happening is the only reason why Gorgeous George and Dynamite Dave down in Englandshire haven’t done to him what they have already done to Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and Michael Savage. They would do, but they know that they could end up in a bit of a pickle if the Donald pulls it off and becomes Pres.
Like I said, that quine Sturgeon can’t think that far ahead – typical socialist mindset, unable to comprehend long term consequences.
I’m guessing he would receive ‘diplomatic immunity’ as President, not sure if that would invalidate a ban to enter the No-longer-quite-so-Great Caliphate of Albion.
Don’t think he’s losing much sleep over it.
Mr. Sturgeon may just be trying to avoid having a fatwa put on his head……
The Donald makes an excellent point, and the main point that should be made, over and over again – the primary duty of the state is to ensure the safety of its people. That is what a state is for, that is one of the reasons given for us not living in a ‘state of nature’ without a state.
If we were in the ‘state of nature’ it would be, so it is argued, a war of all against all, and life would be nasty, brutish and short (Hobbes). So it is good to have a state, in order to have a safe, secure and orderly life. The Yanks are failing in this primary duty – they aren’t keeping their own citizens safe.
And they’re trying to stop them from taking up the slack and defending themselves, should they be attacked by rampant jihadists yelling out the takbir as they go on a killing spree. Something that is becoming ever more likely. That just makes their failure to protect American citizens even worse.
It’s almost as if the American authorities have sold their souls to the devil and are enjoying seeing people die, while they stop them from defending themselves and bring in even more killers.
As Rick Santorum said the other night, not all Muslims are jihadists, but all jihadists are Muslims. So if you bring in loads of Muslims and don’t vet them properly, if you can’t vet them properly, then you are knowingly bringing in at least some jihadists who are inevitably going to kill and murder American citizens.
If someone puts a rattlesnake in your bed, it’s not the snake that gets charged with murder – it’s the person who put it there, waiting for you to go to sleep.
Jihad is a “communal obligation” on ALL muslims.
(Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller” o9.1).
You are, indeed, bringing in jihadists.
That is the only rationale for having a state: one gives up a degree of one’s sovereignty to the state in exchange for the state assuming responsibility for one’s security. The social contract.
In France and elsewhere, this contract is being repudiated by the state. If two or three concertgoers at the Bataclan Theatre had a handgun and knew how to use it: mass murder would likely have been avoided. The French state and the city government of Paris have super-strict gun ownership laws, so ….
A Hobbesian “Leviathan” state may not be such a bad thing.
You can’t let people with guns into night clubs. That’s a recipe for disaster, jihadists or no jihadists.
The basic failure was much, much earlier: when France began letting large numbers of Muslims (mostly Algerians at first) into the country.
Of course you are correct regarding the basic failure.
And perhaps I wrote in haste: nightclub patrons should not be permitted to bring in handguns. Nightclub proprietors, managers and security staff, however, should be able to conceal-carry handguns. Not permissible in Paris or in my hometown, Sydney, Australia. So the Lebanese Muslim thugs such as the Ibrahim brothers, whose henchmen do carry guns, have been able to strong-arm their way into controlling our nightclub districts.
BTW The Bataclan was Jewish-owned and managed. That fact is never mentioned in the media. One has to be able to read French to find that out on the web, or did in the first week following the shooting.
The ownership of the Bataclan was well-known among the terrorist troublemakers. In fact, I’m sure its regular customers would have been aware of Jewish ownership because of the various fund-raisers done by the owners.
We posted a video made in 2008 (filmed by the bullies, it seems) of a Bataclan manager being publicly threatened by a group of thugs wearing their keffiyehs. The offense was having held several fund-raising events for Jewish causes.
The video is here:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2015/11/last-night-the-other-shoe-dropped-at-the-bataclan/
The family who owned Bataclan had sold it by the time of the massacre but I’m not sure of the new ownership.
Even if they are “vetted,” that still does not guarantee that they will not become radicalised at some point in the future. Neither will it guarantee that their children will not grow up to despise their country of birth, something that has happened and is happening all over Europe. I believe the citizens of the US and Europe deserve more assurances than mere vetting can provide. We need cast-iron guarantees that newcomers aren’t going to kill us. As nobody can provide such a guarantee, the ONLY answer to this problem is to halt immigration from developing countries immediately.
We need a purging of the State Department, and many other agencies infiltrated by the MB.
Who would represent not foreign/globalist interests but American interests at the head of State? Trump needs to be thinking about that, given the present trajectory of his campaign.
I think you’ll wear that Make America Great Again hat now eh Dymphna?
I have to say that he comes across as very different in certain respects that his portrayal in the media. He doesn’t back down or let people put words in his mouth if he can help it, but I didn’t think that he came across as particularly arrogant. On the other hand, he is on his third wife, which doesn’t say much about his ability to keep commitments.
When you’re that rich and that surrounded by women…meh. Look at Bill Clinton and his devoted ONLY wife.
His children appear devoted to him and to their mother. So good job.
Serial marriage in this culture is almost impossible to avoid.
You’d have to judge his ability to serve well by his record on business negotiations, on how well he keeps his word to those with whom he collaborates, and whether or not he adds value to his environment. He is a religious man – grew up going to one church and when he attends that is where he goes.
Devoted to his parents, and revered his mother. That’s why the golf course in Scotland, where she’s from. And yes, it’s causing a LOT of controversy. But that’s what he does.
You do have a point. In any case, the video changed my perception of Trump from “Heaven help us if he wins!” to ” I need to look at him again more carefully.” I have to say that the way he kept his cool and did his best to stay on topic in the face of considerable provocation from the interviewer impressed me favorably.
Yes, he’s very good at keeping his cool when he chooses to. He can’t be gored unless he decides to let it happen. I don’t care if he builds that Wall out of marble, landscapes it, and creates fountains along the base. I don’t care if he has moats with piranha fish in it. I don’t care if he emblazons his name the length and breadth of it. Just as long as it gets done.
And, btw, he has plans to make Israel give a little to get what they want. Can’t wait to see that.
“In any case, the video changed my perception of Trump from “Heaven help us if he wins!” to ” I need to look at him again more carefully.” I have to say that the way he kept his cool and did his best to stay on topic in the face of considerable provocation from the interviewer impressed me favorably.”
My reaction too. Did you see Putin’s praise for him and his responses to it?
The real key to judging the character of a thrice married man in relation to him having been married three times is: how do his former wives regard him? All other things being equal , eg former wife is not a psychotic or drug addict, the question is: Do they enjoy a civilized relationship with him? Two of my ex-wives lunch with me regularly, send birthday wishes (reciprocated), commiserate over adverse turns of events with me (reciprocated). I will attend their funerals and weep for them, they will attend mine and do likewise, depending on which of us goes first.
My younger brother and his first wife married far too young and she simply outgrew him: he knew it and within a short space of time accepted it. She maintained a close relationship with her former parents-in-law until each died.
It is a cheap and stupid shot for anybody to criticize Trump for having been married three times. The current wife: a Slovenian born, former architecture student turned model, is no bimbo. It certainly looks to be a healthier marriage than JFK’s to Jacqueline’s. At least Trump’s father isn’t paying his son’s current wife $100M (inflation-adjusted) to stay married to him for appearances sake!
Or theirs?
If Trump were to win, a lot of held assumptions will be discredited.
Would you be willing to name the “held assumptions”? That could be an informative list.
Dymphna, here are a few that quickly come to mind:
1)An outsider does not stand a chance – Trump goes so far as to fund his own campaign
2)As whites become a minority, so will the Republican Party
3)A Republican cannot win the presidency without placating to minorities
4)The Republican Party has to change, meaning to look more like the Democrat Party
5)The Republican Party needs to be softer and gentler
6)A candidate does not attack the party establishment and survive
7)Having an anti-immigration stance is a death sentence politically
Yes, he’s a blowhard. And not a true conservative, and a populist.
To his critics I say, so what? Could he be any worse than the current occupier of the White House? Unlikely, and I know that Trump loves this country, unlike You Know Who.
I find The Donald’s arrogance rather charming, for it is born of real accomplishment and knowing who he is and not being afraid to put it out there.
Trump is an Alpha male in a nation where betas have ruled in recent times. He is a lightning rod.
People with real accomplishments aren’t obliged to keep telling us how great they believe they are; how they’re the most this, the best that; etc.
Everyone already knows that Trump is a wealthy businessman. Does he think we need to be reminded? Or does he feel some need to keep reminding himself that he’s successful — just as he’s been said to begin his day by reading media about himself (rather than about, say, the national-defense question that he already flubbed once and didn’t bother to look up); just as photos of his Manhattan home show a gaudy display of extravagance as if to remind himself: “I’m really rich!”
When Trump was questioned whether he had ever asked (or prayed) for forgiveness, his answer was: No, but if he ever did anything that required forgiveness, he would. Some might think he was joking, but I have doubts. He doesn’t tend to joke about himself.
As for the “better than Obama” argument: 1) he’s not running against Obama; 2) that’s an awfully low standard for selecting a president; 3) at least some of his primary rivals love this country just as much, and few if any are as fixated on their own sense of greatness.
Regarding “betas [who] have ruled in recent times”: Presidents aren’t supposed to “rule” us. One of the complaints against Obama is that ruling is precisely how he sees the office. And while he’s beta toward foreign powers, he’s managed to make Republicans give him pretty near everything he wants.
Many Trump fans apparently do want him to “rule” — to smash up the system and repair everything with his own strong hand. It often sounds more like a superhero fantasy than the presidency of a constitutional republic, and I doubt that Trump would have been cast in that role if he weren’t already a familiar TV celebrity.
Radegunda you are spot-on. I may agree with some of what Trump says, especially on the subject of Muslim immigration. But he’s so self-absorbed, and not self-confident at all. It’s like he has to keep reassuring himself that he’s the boss, even if he has to imagine people saying things to him to prove it. I know people who have this pathological need to talk about how great they are all the time, and they can’t be trusted. They actually are betas pretending to be alphas as someone here said. And I think they are dangerous. Not someone you want to have with their finger on the nuclear button.
The problem with Trump is that everything with him is a personal insult. I don’t want the President of the United States to declare war or screw up our diplomacy just because he feels offended — and Trump is offended by pretty much everything. Half of it is in his own crazy head. That’s the kind of childish conduct you expect of Putin, or Kim Jong Il maybe. Not the President of the United States.
Putting Trump in the Presidency would be like letting your 8-year-old kid drive you to work on the freeway. It would be funny, you might even live through it, but there’s also a good enough chance that it would be so catastrophic that it’s not worth trying the experiment.
So says an American.
I don’t need a lecture on how presidents aren’t supposed to “rule” us, I’m well versed on the Constitution. Surely you don’t still think we actually have a republic anymore? And Republicans are just as bad as Democrats in ignoring what the people want, to line their own pockets and increase their control over the populace. There are notable exceptions, of course.
And this is why Trump is popular. He is not whom most would choose in different times, people are angry, frustrated, ignored. As an aside, I’m not yet sure if I will be voting for Trump, I really wish there was a true conservative running (Cruz comes close) but I stand by my assessment of him. I ignore the bluster, though it can be annoying.
Kathleen, I agree with everything you say, especially about the ‘arrogance’ part.
I actually never once thought he was arrogant. My father was called arrogant a lot. My father too, was an extremely successful business man. But I figured out early on that what people thought was his arrogance, was in reality his impatience with [foolishness].
If you’re sure of yourself and you know what you’re talking about, you often come across as ‘arrogant’ – at least to those who are not sure of themselves and only pretend to know what you’re talking about.
I agree with Radegunda about the celebrity part, here’s nothing Americans LOVELOVELOVE more than celebrities, and that’s precisely what’s going to put him over the top with the voters who know nothing about any issues and will vote for the rock star with the loudest megaphone. In the last 2 elections, that was Obama.
On that merit alone, he might actually win states otherwise outside the reach of any non-Democrat, such as NY or even CA.
The word arrogant is a little bit like ahistorical or asexual; the root of it is “rog” from which “regent” and “regal” stem. It is related to the recognition or not of another’s power and status. Thus it was “arrogant” of a peasant to not doff his cap at his master as the latter rode by on his steed. That is, said peasant did not know his proper place and act accordingly.
The word has morphed over the last half century to come to mean, according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, “aggressively conceited” (I looked it up a couple of decades ago because I was intrigued by the circumstances in which it was used, by whom and against whom) . It is used generally, however, by anybody who doesn’t like being told something by somebody who knows what they are actually talking about, often someone who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. I recall a medical specialist being called arrogant because he had stated that plastic surgeons are primarily doctors who are “good sewers”. His interlocutor protested at that notion, the medical specialist stated calmly: “I’ve studied medicine for x years and practised it for y years, so I think I’m in a better informed position that you on the subject, wouldn’t you agree?” He was called “arrogant” for this logical response.
Trump is no Count Belisarius. How far have we fallen!
Gut impression from a European with limited knowledge of US political process: Egomaniac, but sincere and prepared to defend his convictions in a hostile climate. His arrogance is justifiable given his track record and the quality of his opposition. Overall, thumbs up. He looks like a man who will do what he says he will do. In these times of career pols and weak hypocrites without any real convictions, this alone is enough.
As a Canadian I tend to agree. If I could vote for him I would as my choice. As a Canadian I did not vote for our country’s current leader in the last election. As a Canadian I hope America returns to strength of leadership and from where I sit that is Trump by a long shot.
bverwey
Don Lemon is sour! His questions are an attempt to bait Trump; to get him to stumble and say something CNN can hammer him with. The multiple queries and statements about the Republican party disapproving of Trump are in the eyes of Mr. Trump, irrelevant. Those establishment air heads sans possibly Cruz, just don’t get it!
.
As an American it is refreshing to hear someone of stature speak truth to power. My own decision on whom to cast a vote is not made. If Trump makes it clear that the security of these Unites States trumps the exportation of democracy to third world toilets and our vetting system is drastically improved he has a chance.
.
In addition, it is my fervent hope that Trump’s stance on the Jihadi threat will motivate the Europeans so terrified of Political Correctness to stand up and be heard. Shout it from every housetop!
.
God bless to the good people of Europe who have given the world so much to be thankful for.
1) I’m not sure who the “betas” are that are referred to. Mostly I’d say they are “omegas”.
2) We currently have a president who believes in extra-Constitutional government, and practices it. There is a lot about Donald Trump that feels much the same–“I’M going to do this, I’M going to tell Mexico to pay for a wall, etc.” Now it may be true that “my thug is preferable to your thug,” but fundamentally a thug is a thug. It would be much more appealing to me if he would pull in his horns and indicate he will play be the rules, and treat others respectfully, even if he disagrees with them completely. In this, he is very worrisome.
3) He is performed an incalculable service by being willing, in his uniquely abrasive way, to bring up topics that have been repressed, voluntarily, in our pc society. Once the words are spoken, we have been liberated to discuss them much more productively. For that he deserves our thanks.
So isn’t some sort of economic sanctions on Mexico to the tune of the cost of the wall a legitimate form of reparations?
It seems like you think he’s going to twist their arm behind their backs.
I could think of better than The Donald, but here’s the thing: I can also think of a LOT worse – Obama being an example.
So overall, I’d say that he has a chance and is worthy of consideration unless another candidate with the right opinions and less bombast pulls ahead.
What I’m seeing here in the comments is a lot of focus on Trump vs Obama. As Radegunda stated, Trump is not running against Obama. So, the question then becomes Trump (or any Republican, for that matter) vs Hillary (or any of the clearly socialist Democrats, which is all of them)? I must say I agree with Rush Limbaugh’s statement today that he will vote for any Republican in order to prevent a Hillary Clinton (i.e., Democrat) presidency because we all know that she would take the hand-off from Obama and run with it to further what he’s started.
Trump’s popularity is a direct response to the chaos created by Obama and the sycophantic Democrats and the weak and feckless Republicans. In what significant way(s) is Hillary different from Obama? I don’t think many people could realistically envision Hillary beating Trump. Trump’s support is cutting across party lines, racial and gender lines, economic lines. He’s a populist. Hillary’s support is very reluctant, and with only the die-hard progressives gung-ho about her. And then there’s always the possibility that Hillary drops out. She does not seem enthused, or is “fake” enthused, is weak, her handlers shield her from real questions and the MSM either roll over and play dead, pretending nothing is wrong, or praise the empty (pant)suit that she is. I may indeed be proven wrong in the end, but I just don’t see her being able to go head to head with Trump or Cruz. She would be completely out of her league. She comes across as old not because of her age, but of her tired ideas. I wouldn’t be surprised to see her bow out and Biden take her place.
I’m sold on Trump.
I think people want a leader, and not just another elected official who just says what we are used to hearing. The average middle class person who feels their government operates on their own accord after we put them in “power” keeps getting told what to think, and what they should give up for “the good of humanity” has their guy.
I don’t trust Trump at all. His past positions are the antithesis of being a small government Republican. He is big government all the way, so long as it doesn’t interfere with him. If government screws everyone else he could [not care less].
He talks in the third person like a lot of black sports stars:
“Donald Trump is the smartest man in the room, and Donald Trump is better than everyone.’
His negative ratings are worse than Hillary Clinton’s. That means he gets 40% of the Republicans and Independents and Zero% of everyone else. That won’t win an election for dogcatcher in Oshkosh, WI. Well, maybe Oshkosh.
Trump is at best a conservative Progressive. Even on immigration he’s a squish: he says he will deport millions of illegal immigrants but he will turn around and let them back in through a big door in his giant fence. He says nothing about _legal_ immigration which is actually a far bigger problem than illegal immigration. He’s pro single payer — read his website. He’s pro eminent domaine. He’s a real estate developer who has made his livelihood in bed with government.
His website says nothing about the social issues. In speech, he hardly mentions them.
He says nothing about how to shrink the size of the federal government. Nor has he said anything about this, as far as I know, in any of his talks.
I’m amazed by the lack of specificity in this Don Lemon interview. Trump keeps mentioning we have to “find out the source of this hatred. We need to find out why on earth are people so motivated to inflict violence on us.”
Gee, as if that’s such a mystery. Why doesn’t he mention sharia law?
He mentions the riots in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc. He rightly emphasizes that Obama has been a polarizing figure and has contributed to the riots. But why doesn’t he name Eric Holder?
More importantly, why doesn’t he name _identity politics_ as the culprit?
The man is simply not informed ideologically about conservatism and what is motivating liberals and leftists.
Rob L
“I’m amazed by the lack of specificity in this Don Lemon interview. Trump keeps mentioning we have to “find out the source of this hatred. We need to find out why on earth are people so motivated to inflict violence on us.”
Gee, as if that’s such a mystery. Why doesn’t he mention sharia law?”
It would be wonderful if he did and if elected, or possibly after he wins the Republican nomination, I’m certain he will, but there are, regrettably, limits to what even the Donald can say as a political candidate. He knows what the source of the problem is, you know, I know, GoV readers know, but your average punter out there does not.
Trump cannot indulge in the specificity you and I would wish him to without seriously frightening the domestic horses and having the entire Muslim world up in outrage at the prospect of his becoming president. The latter of which may scupper his chances at the top job by giving his plentiful domestic enemies the ammunition they need, indeed crave, to destroy his political career.
Up this thread somebody likened Trump getting the presidency to giving an 8 year old control of a motor vehicle on a freeway. One can see why – from Trump’s showmanship, self-referentiality and rather gauche lifestyle – that commenter would write that, but as a property developer he has built a brand around himself for commercial purposes. He has now embarked on a political career and obviously cannot become a different public persona overnight. Watch that space.