Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Donald Trump on Foreign Policy
No, don’t you see, you’re wrong. Trumps wall would get built so fast and be so beautiful that no one would want to climb it.
I’ve no doubt it would be a terrific and classy wall. Trump would give the job to all of his buddies afterall. I just wonder why all the immigration hawks aren’t screaming “AMNESTY!!!!!!!” when Trump says we should keep all the “good” Mexicans? It doesn’t matter, though, because Trump has balls, and really, what else do you need?
Tell us what you really think. :)
I read the transcript of the interview. I thought it was a parody at first read.
Two words: Wollman Rink.
It’s now known as Trump Rink. Trump still runs it.
So yeah, we’d have the Trump Wall with Mexico, but we’d have the wall, I don’t doubt that part.
When I heard him speaking about this, he said they had to leave and return legally, and he’d be happy to have them back.
I was trying to be tactful! :-)
“When I heard him speaking about this, he said they had to leave and return legally, and he’d be happy to have them back.”
—————
Well that sounds terrific. Of course coming back legally just means whatever congress sets as the requirement for current illegals to reenter. So, until Donald unveils his “Greatest ever idea for classy reintegration of good Mexicans” white paper, that could mean just about anything, including heading to Tiajuana for an afternoon and doing a shot of tequila with a Tecate chaser on your way back in. But whatever it turns out to mean it will make your head spin because it’s got so much balls. Plus it will be terrific. And classy.
Which is a problem for those of us who want to mock and ridicule him. It is very hard to expose the foolishness of a man who uses it as his brand.
Mike Judge set Idiocracy 500 years into the future, seemingly believing our society would take awhile to become beyond parody. He evidently had too much faith in his fellow citizens.
I dispute that. I’m not saying Trump is anti-American, but, to me at least, patriotism implies a certain degree of selflessness; I don’t think there’s a selfless bone in Donald Trump’s body.
Direct hit to port! Mission accomplished.
I was honestly surprised that he still uses the phrase “make your head spin,” apparently oblivious to the fact that it’s become a punchline.
Having listened to Hewitt for a long time, the questions he asked Trump and Fiorina are the questions he asks every politician who comes on his show. Trump can’t claim they were gotcha questions when the smallest amount of homework should have told him to prepare for such questions. But, of course, Trump and his yes-men have never listened to conservative voices. He is for government run health care and knows nothing at all and is incurious about the arguments of Friedman, Hayek, Sowell, etc. Not long ago, he was pro illegal immigration.
Fiorina continues to impress as does Ted Cruz, who does not back down in his views on man-made global warming, ethanol subsidies, sugar subsidies, and our horrible Republican “leadership”. Jindal also impresses in this regard, and he did great things with his state’s horrible education system.
Charles Cooke takes a stab. Pretty good.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423589/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-interview-transcript-parody
You missed a part.
This is what I don’t get about the pro-Trump sentiment. We have so many better qualified, accomplished candidates that have a conservative track record, and are “Washington outsiders”. Four years ago, the best we had was Romney. I could see Trump flourishing in that lineup. Compare the primary candidates four years ago with those we have today – I find the difference astounding.
Walker has been unimpressive as a campaigner, but I respect what he accomplished in Wisconsin. Perry has been unimpressive as well, but I sense he would make a pretty good president.
I just don’t get that sense from Donald Trump.
Do you agree, then, that we should apply that standard to our presidential candidates, and “throw out” one who gives b.s. answers to very important questions about the organization he wants to lead?
Trump has now called HH a “third-rate announcer,” which, given the mild treatment Trump’s gotten on the show so far, is as ungracious as it is inaccurate. I expect the next step will be the repudiation of HH from the League of True Scotsmen, er, Conservatives, despite his position on the wall (build it), opposition to Obamacare, the Dubai Ports Deal, his support of increased military spending, a larger navy, and so on.
If Hugh’s the sort of “establishment” types that must be purged, you’re going to be left with nothing but ranters and idiots.
*drops the mic*
Well, I did kind of take your side when I said mild disagreement was appropriate. I just thought Tommy made a good point so I was walking back emphatic to mild.
But if I “throw out one who gives b.s. answers to very important questions” then I don’t know who is left to vote for.
It doesn’t bother me that Trump didn’t know the similar-sounding names of all the lunatics we ought to kill. But, it does bother me that he didn’t know the Quds force or General Suleimani. He got a question about the man during the first debate. Trump badly flubbed the answer, and was as weak as I’ve heard him.
Fast forward a month: he still doesn’t know a thing about Suleimani.
So, when Trump brushes off the whole line of inquiry, telling Hewitt he’ll learn all about it when it counts, do you believe him? His answers count now, yet he remains proudly ignorant of the topic with a month’s notice that someone would ask him about it again!
A reasonable man concludes from this that Trump is winging it, and that he’ll likely wing his presidency too. I don’t want that. I want a proven conservative with a plan to govern in the most conservative way possible. If you think that’s Trump, god help us all.
P.S. Why should we believe that Trump is a great delegator? Because he inherited a lot of money from his dad? Because he had a reality TV show in which he was paid millions to pretend to relish in “firing” contestants? Because he says so forcefully?
In all fairness (and I despise Trump) but I never heard of the Quds forces. That does seem like a gotcha question. However Trump should never have said he knew up front. But the rest is ridiculous. “I will be so good on the military your head will spin.” Hahahahahahahahaha. I can’t believe this guy has almost half the Republican support.
I find HH to be the best conservative talk show host in the country. Better than Rush, and I like Rush.
I don’t mean to act all superior and all, but I knew every one of those names and I could give you a good reason why each one should be killed. These are some of America’s and Israel’s most vicious enemies, most with American blood on their hands.
Now, I’m just a guy who reads the news, and have for a long time, and I care about what happens in Middle East. If Trump didn’t know the names he should have said so, and asked who they are. Then Hewitt could have told him, for example, “Hassan Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah.”
Then Trump either could have said, “What’s Hezbollah? Where are they located? What do they have to do with us?” Or he could have said, “Oh, that guy. Well let me tell you what’s going to happen on Jan. 21 of 2017. Mr. Nasrallah better look to the skies over Beirut. A Tomahawk with his name on it will be coming for him.” Now that would have been an interesting response.
The sense I am getting is that a certain number of people would be just fine with him not knowing what Hezbollah is, either. After all, the actors will all change before January 2017 anyway, and he can appoint terrific people who know these things. The next MacArthur, who is… whoever he’ll find. Serious candidates usually know some of those names, too, and manage to mention that they’ve talked to them.
Problem isn’t that he’s not fluent on Middle Eastern names. It’s that he doesn’t care enough to be briefed. That would be too politician-y a thing –actually learning about the first responsibility of the job you’re applying for.
[Hand waving wildly]
Ooohh!! Ooohh!!
Uh, because he doesn’t like receiving questions that reveal that he is fundamentally unprepared for the Presidency?
Uh, he blames the questioner because being publicly proven to be an ignoramus hurts his extremely delicate ego?
In a difficult case the most likely scenario is that the president’s experts cannot agree, which leaves the president having to think for himself anyway.
Because we all know the Departments of State and Defense would never disagree about anything…
Good one!
I’m just a terminal jockey and I know the difference between the Quds and the Kurds.
The Donald abides.