Trump’s O’Reilly Super Bowl Interview

 

Fox News released an excerpt last night of an interview of President Donald Trump by Bill O’Reilly that will air before the Super Bowl tonight. In it, O’Reilly asks Trump about Putin, noting that “Putin’s a killer.” Trump then responds, “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think–our country’s so innocent?”

This is not different from things that Trump said during the campaign. In a December, 2015, appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Trump made a similar statement. When host Joe Scarborough said that Putin “kills journalists that don’t agree with him,” Trump replied “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.” Later in the interview Scarborough asked Trump if he condemned the killing of journalists. Trump said, “Oh sure. Absolutely.” I wonder if O’Reilly will ask the president a similar follow-up question. I hope so.

Even if there is more context, there’s no saying that it will cast Trump’s position in a better light. But then that depends on where you’re standing.

The NeverTrumpers are gleefully condemning both Trump and Trumpers.

https://twitter.com/StephensWSJ/status/828047211762155520

I’m a Neoconservative. I didn’t fully agree with Trump’s foreign policy stances during the campaign. It’s one reason I didn’t vote for him in the primary. However, I do like his focus on strength. And I know that President Obama got rolled by Putin repeatedly. Hillary Clinton spent four years implementing Obama’s failed foreign policy. I believe Trump will be tougher on Russia than Clinton ever would have been.

What would NeverTrumpers actually prefer? That Hillary Clinton were now president? Clinton has no core beliefs when it comes to foreign policy and national defense. Remember, she voted for the Iraq war when it was popular to do so, then turned against it when it was popular to do so. She also sold American Uranium interests to Russia for personal gain.

Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

Criticizing Trump’s statement that “we’ve got a lot of killers” is perfectly fine, but I’m getting tired of the constant outrage. When you’re outraged about literally everything then nothing is outrageous.

Scott Adams has described this as “outrage dilution.”

At the moment there are so many outrages, executive orders, protests, and controversies that none of them can get enough oxygen in our brains. I can’t obsess about problem X because the rest of the alphabet is coming at me at the same time.

NeverTrumps should consider cooling it if they want to be taken seriously and not like the boy who cried wolf. Even though I have real policy disagreements with Trump in some areas, I feel an overwhelming urge to defend Trump, if only because the NeverTrumpers are so obnoxious all the time.

Update:

The interview has been released in full.

I didn’t much care for Trump’s comment on Putin. In a cold way, Trump’s obviously correct: We’ve killed a lot of people. And I don’t have a problem with that. But there’s huge difference between Putin ordering the assassination of journalists — one of whom was gunned down on the sidewalk in Moscow — just for writing critical stories and Obama taking the entirely lawful act of ordering the assassination of an enemy combatant who had declared war on America and was responsible for many terrorist acts.

I supported Obama’s action on Awlaki, and always thought that Libertarians were off the deep end howling about how Obama had “ordered the killing an American citizen without due process.” When you declare war on the United States, you forfeit your right to due process.

But Trump didn’t cite Alwaki. He cited the Iraq war. “Lots of people died” in the Iraq war. So I guess that George W. Bush is somehow morally equivalent to Vladimir Putin? That doesn’t make sense. I don’t get it.

But again, this interview with O’Reilly does not reveal anything new about Trump in this regard. He’s said these same things before, during the campaign.

I’ll be fine with Trump’s comments if his actions reflect American strength, which I think they will. The problem with Obama was that he had weak rhetoric and backed it up with weak actions.

There are 128 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    @blueyeti has bet me $20 that O’Reilly will move on to a different subject and that there will be no more context to the exchange in the excerpt.

    Maybe he’s right, but I hope not because I want that $20. I think FOX has an incentive to generate controversy so that more people will watch the interview. The excerpt they released has certainly done that.

    • #1
  2. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    I have never once in my life ever considered the idea that the US had never done anything underhanded due to raison d’etat.

    • #2
  3. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    “When you’re outraged about literally everything then nothing is outrageous.”

    Indeed. Great thread Max. The force of the “Rabble” is with you.

    Are You Ready For Some Football?

     

    • #3
  4. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    • #4
  5. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Note:

    Uncivil.

    Ronald Reagan: Evil Empire.

    Donald Trump: We’re as bad as they are.

    Trumpers: [redacted]

    • #5
  6. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    I think Andrew Klavan was correct in his show on Friday. In many ways Trump is out of his element in politics and diplomacy. His instincts are those of a celebrity businessman, so sometimes, like at the prayer breakfast, he is a little tone deaf.

    • #6
  7. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Note:

    If you believe a comment violate the CoC, please flag it to bring it to the editors' attention.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Ronald Reagan: Evil Empire.

    Donald Trump: We’re as bad as they are.

    Trumpers: [redacted]

    [Columbo breaks personal rule of non commenting …]

    “Trumpers” – what drips from your tongue when you say this, meaning fellow Rico members?

    “Damn [oh my] … pray to the Orange God”.

    This is blasphemy for one and certainly mind-reading, rude, defamatory, ad hominen and lacking in good faith.

    [Columbo restores previous personal rule …]

    Carry on.

    • #7
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    This is a symptom of symbolism and style over substance. This public caterwauling and demands that someone condemn “X” or “Y” or “Z.” It’s such a fricking waste of time and effort.

    “We condemn in the strongest possible terms…” really means we ain’t gonna do jack but we’ll all feel better about ourselves.

    • #8
  9. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Trumpers: [redacted]

    Really?  Can we avoid the hyperbole here?

    • #9
  10. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Another liberal weighs in. Why don’t these people get it?

    • #10
  11. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Ronald Reagan: Evil Empire.

    Donald Trump: We’re as bad as they are.

    Trumpers: [redacted]

    [Columbo breaks personal rule of non commenting …]

    “Trumpers” – what drips from your tongue when you say this, meaning fellow Rico members?

    “Damn [oh my] … pray to the Orange God”.

    This is blasphemy for one and certainly mind-reading, rude, defamatory, ad hominen and lacking in good faith.

    [Columbo restores previous personal rule …]

    Carry on.

    [Columbo’s note to Editors: you might put that in your CoC. I’m not a mind reader.]

    oh, and one more thing, I’ve made a pledge to myself to not ‘flag’. Bad form and all.

    • #11
  12. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Another liberal weighs in. Why don’t these people get it?

    I agree with her. NeverTrumpers are still obnoxious.

    • #12
  13. JcTPatriot Inactive
    JcTPatriot
    @JcTPatriot

    This question from O’Reilly was a perfect setup question and so I ignored it. Now it keeps coming up again and again.

    “Do you like swimming pools?

    “I love them.”

    “Dozens of kids drown in them every year, so I guess you ‘love’ kids drowning.”

    “Wait, what?”

    What if Trump had answered differently? “No. I do not respect Putin.”

    “Well then how are you going to mend fences and try to get along with Russia and secure trade deals and blah blah blah if you don’t respect their leader?”

    “Wait, what?”

    It’s really just a variation of the old “When did you stop beating your wife” routine.

    • #13
  14. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):
    This question from O’Reilly was a perfect setup question and so I ignored it. Now it keeps coming up again and again.

    “Do you like swimming pools?

    “I love them.”

    “Dozens of kids drown in them every year, so I guess you ‘love’ kids drowning.”

    “Wait, what?”

    What if Trump had answered differently? “No. I do not respect Putin.”

    “Well then how are you going to mend fences and try to get along with Russia and secure trade deals and blah blah blah if you don’t respect their leader?”

    “Wait, what?”

    It’s really just a variation of the old “When did you stop beating your wife” routine.

    Nope. It’s a perfectly legit question given the President’s previous statements on Putin and one that he should have long had a better answer prepared.

    • #14
  15. Herbert Inactive
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    Max Ledoux: When host Joe Scarborough said that Putin “kills journalists that don’t agree with him,” Trump replied “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.” Later in the interview Scarborough asked Trump if he condemned the killing of journalists. Trump said, “Oh sure. Absolutely.” I wonder if O’Reilly will ask the president a similar follow-up question. I hope so.

    Well there you have it….. our country kills journalists that don’t agree with us.

    • #15
  16. Herbert Inactive
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Ronald Reagan: Evil Empire.

    Donald Trump: We’re as bad as they are.

    Trumpers: [redacted]

    [Columbo breaks personal rule of non commenting …]

    “Trumpers” – what drips from your tongue when you say this, meaning fellow Rico members?

    “Damn [oh my] … pray to the Orange God”.

    This is blasphemy for one and certainly mind-reading, rude, defamatory, ad hominen and lacking in good faith.

    [Columbo restores previous personal rule …]

    Carry on.

    [Columbo’s note to Editors: you might put that in your CoC. I’m not a mind reader.]

    oh, and one more thing, I’ve made a pledge to myself to not ‘flag’. Bad form and all.

    in addition something can be all that columbo said and not be in violation with the CoC.   Or they could be in violation but ignored.   Good faith is lacking these days when it comes to these sorts of things….

    • #16
  17. Robert McReynolds Inactive
    Robert McReynolds
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Here is another way to think about this. People are worried that the US might cozy up to Russia because Russia is a thugocracy governed by the head thug, at least that is my reading. Well what about our relationship to China, Saudi Arabia, and any host of third world states one wishes to examine? We have Most Favored Trade status with China and they throw people in jail for not being good little Commies or for being Baptists. Saudi Arabia? We have a security agreement with them that virtually guarantees our men and women will die for the safety of the House of Saud and the routinely kill Shia Muslims from the Eastern Province. So if the US isn’t exactly like Russia, we certainly don’t give a whit about cozying up to other states that are. I suppose as long as the Neo-Cons are happy right? And no that is not a code for “JjjjjjjjjjjEW!” So don’t even try that crap with me.

    • #17
  18. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    If we only ever discussed the knowable, Ricochet would cease to exist.

    The obvious point of Max’ question was to challenge each person to contemplate the answer he/she thought likely.  And I guarantee that at least 99% of Ricocheti would answer the same way.  Even though that’s unknowable.

    • #18
  19. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    dittoheadadt (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    If we only ever discussed the knowable, Ricochet would cease to exist.

    The obvious point of Max’ question was to challenge each person to contemplate the answer he/she thought likely. And I guarantee that at least 99% of Ricocheti would answer the same way. Even though that’s unknowable.

    OK, I’ll bite: given that HRC was convinced that Russia had tried to defeat her in the last election, I’m 100% positive that her U.N. ambassador would have been very critical of Russia.

    • #19
  20. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    dittoheadadt (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    If we only ever discussed the knowable, Ricochet would cease to exist.

    The obvious point of Max’ question was to challenge each person to contemplate the answer he/she thought likely. And I guarantee that at least 99% of Ricocheti would answer the same way. Even though that’s unknowable.

    Counterfactuals aren’t very helpful. Especially given that we have actual events to discuss.

    • #20
  21. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    EJHill (View Comment):
    This is a symptom of symbolism and style over substance. This public caterwauling and demands that someone condemn “X” or “Y” or “Z.” It’s such a fricking waste of time and effort.

    “We condemn in the strongest possible terms…” really means we ain’t gonna do jack but we’ll all feel better about ourselves.

    Not unlike “I take full responsibility for…” something for which I’m not going to resign.

    • #21
  22. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    dittoheadadt (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    If we only ever discussed the knowable, Ricochet would cease to exist.

    The obvious point of Max’ question was to challenge each person to contemplate the answer he/she thought likely. And I guarantee that at least 99% of Ricocheti would answer the same way. Even though that’s unknowable.

    Counterfactuals aren’t very helpful. Especially given that we have actual events to discuss.

    Does that make them unhelpful?  Or might they just be interesting food for thought?

    • #22
  23. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    dittoheadadt (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    dittoheadadt (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    If we only ever discussed the knowable, Ricochet would cease to exist.

    The obvious point of Max’ question was to challenge each person to contemplate the answer he/she thought likely. And I guarantee that at least 99% of Ricocheti would answer the same way. Even though that’s unknowable.

    Counterfactuals aren’t very helpful. Especially given that we have actual events to discuss.

    Does that make them unhelpful? Or might they just be interesting food for thought?

    Usually they’re unhelpful, and fodder for those that wish to avoid the actual issue.

    • #23
  24. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    dittoheadadt (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux: Would Hillary Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador have used her first appearance at the U.N. to criticize Russia?

    Unknowable.

    If we only ever discussed the knowable, Ricochet would cease to exist.

    The obvious point of Max’ question was to challenge each person to contemplate the answer he/she thought likely. And I guarantee that at least 99% of Ricocheti would answer the same way. Even though that’s unknowable.

    OK, I’ll bite: given the HRC was convinced that Russia had tried to defeat her in the last election, I’m 100% positive that her U.N. ambassador would have been very critical of Russia.

    Was she convinced before the election?  Because if we were talking about her ambassador at the UN…

    • #24
  25. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    What would NeverTrumpers actually prefer? That Hillary Clinton were now president?

    C’mon, Max. You’re resorting to the argument that to take issue on one or any Donald Trump pronouncement is to suggest that conservatives would have preferred Hillary. Can conservatives ever take issue with Trump without being accused of preferring Hillary? Or is this what we should expect to be hit with on Ricochet for the next four years whenever some of us feel that Trump could have expressed himself better? Pretty weak.

    • #25
  26. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Usually they’re unhelpful, and fodder for those that wish to avoid the actual issue.

    Except we’re not talking about “usually.”  We’re talking about Max’ specific example.  Reading his OP I don’t get the sense that he wishes to avoid the actual issue.

    • #26
  27. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    I didn’t ask a counter factual. I asked what NeverTrumpers actually want.

    • #27
  28. Herbert Inactive
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYKWch_MNY0

    • #28
  29. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    I don’t know who that is directed to, Herbert, by I enjoyed it. ;-)

    • #29
  30. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Max Ledoux: Fox News released an excerpt last night of an interview of President Donald Trump by Bill O’Reilly that will air before the Super Bowl tonight. In it, O’Reilly asks Trump about Putin, noting that “Putin’s a killer.” Trump then responds, “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think–our country’s so innocent?”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/obama-drones-double-down_n_4208815.html

    Foremost on that day, with the fresh news about al-Awlaki, it seemed the president was pondering the drone program that he had expanded so dramatically and with such lethal results, as well as the death of Bin Laden, which was still resonating worldwide months later. “Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama said quietly, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.