Why is Florida so weird? Can government unite us? Is Charles Cooke still a British citizen? The editor of NationalReview.com himself returns to The Remnant to answer these and other questions.

You can access the full archive of The Remnant at NationalReview.com/podcasts, where you can listen to four episodes per month for free, or get the entire back catalogue with an NR Plus membership. Visit NationalReview.com/subscribe for details.

Subscribe to The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 33 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Member

    Perhaps–and I know, I’m challenging the deepest, most sacred beliefs of libertarianism here–the problem isn’t that Donald Trump doesn’t know what trade deficits or tariffs are, it’s that partisan libertarians don’t.

    Frankly I’m shocked to hear Jonah make the “Trade deficits are the other end of foreign investments in America!” line. Ten years ago America plunged into a deep recession caused mostly by “foreign investments” into America’s real estate market. Or take Greece. I’m sure the Greeks would love to hear that their pre-2010 trade deficit with the EU was the product of “foreign investment” instead of a dangerously high fiscal deficit.

    And tariffs? If the top third of the population is going to use college as a de facto tax aimed at discouraging the hiring of non-credentialed labor then I think it’s fair game for the other two thirds of the population to similarly protect themselves by taxing foreign trade.

     

    • #1
    • December 6, 2018 at 7:16 pm
    • 3 likes
  2. Member

    It’s like talking to children. Seriously “establishment” movement conservatives in America must be the stupidest faction of all of global neoliberalism. Hands down. We should never have elected George Bush in 2000, it ruined us.

    Bush Conservative: Deficits don’t matter! Spend! Cut taxes! Import foreign goods, subsidize imports, who wants to manufacture anything, it’s all good man! *smokes weed*

    Normal Conservative: That’s insane. Haven’t you heard of a balance of payments crisis? Do you want to end up like Greece or Italy?

    Bush Conservative: Ah, if it comes down to it we’ll just steal from a bunch of foreigners. They have to use our currency to buy oil and settle trades, we can do whatever we want!

    Normal Conservtive: Surely there are limits to how much we can abuse our currency. At some point a competitor to the dollar might arrive. And besides, America’s problem isn’t material wealth; we have plenty of that. It’s jobs, and taking things from foreigners means we can’t employ our own people to make–

    Bush Conservative: Have some of this marijauna! You’ll feel much better, no use hurting over all these issues of pure theory. And everything will make perfect sense!

    • #2
    • December 6, 2018 at 7:26 pm
    • Like
  3. Member

    Just because Charles Cooke loves guns and believes in the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that he believes that ordinary Americans should disarm themselves for a less peaceful (or perhaps in some circumstances a more peaceful) society.

    Just because Donald Trump claims to love tariffs doesn’t mean he believes that America should disarm itself in a trade war. Who knows what any president really believes the ideal tariff arrangement should be. That probably depends a lot upon one’s youthful observations of living near certain businesses. Situations change depending upon economic and foreign policy, especially when tariffs are used as a replacement for going to war.

    For libertarians who claim that they do not believe in utopian ideas, many libertarian-types tend to get a bit utopian regarding the issue of trade and protecting conservative-leaning American workers who are willing to vote for Democrats.

    • #3
    • December 6, 2018 at 7:38 pm
    • 1 like
  4. Member

    Hmm, I may have sussed out a bit of the problem with Jonah vs Trump.

    While talking with Charlie Cooke, Jonah says that he has a problem with people who lionize Trump basically just because he’s president and doing what they like, therefore he must personally be great too. That’s their blind spot.

    Jonah’s problem may be that he thinks ONLY a “good person” CAN or SHOULD BE president. That’s HIS blind spot.

    And I think if you go around asking Trump supporters if they think he’s a great person, as long as the people you ask don’t think you’re working for a polling company or that they’re on TV or something, they wouldn’t tell you that they think Trump is a great PERSON.

    But one problem there, of course, is that the people who do go around asking people if they think Trump is a “good person,” ARE pollster/TV reporters… So how many honest answers can you really expect?

    • #4
    • December 6, 2018 at 11:26 pm
    • 2 likes
  5. Member

    A thought on “the pressure to share thoughts on every issue”- what if mainline Protestantism degenerated from “text alone” to “conscience alone” to “replacing religion with politics,” and the only people still left on social media are the narcissists self-expressing as a means of creating identity? If this were the situation, narcissists expounding their stance on every political issue, and bullying others for not agreeing with them, is what we should expect on social media. 

    • #5
    • December 7, 2018 at 7:45 am
    • Like
  6. Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):
    And I think if you go around asking Trump supporters if they think he’s a great person, as long as the people you ask don’t think you’re working for a polling company or that they’re on TV or something, they wouldn’t tell you that they think Trump is a great PERSON.

    I had someone tell me that “God played his Trump card” in deep southern VA Trump country. He has true believers who think he is a great guy. I tried to talk about Trump’s many personal faults and was immediately told it was all fake news. 

    These same people are very happy to talk about John McCain’s or Paul Ryan’s faults but won’t hear any criticism of Trump.

     

    • #6
    • December 7, 2018 at 7:59 am
    • 3 likes
  7. Member

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):

    Frankly I’m shocked to hear Jonah make the “Trade deficits are the other end of foreign investments in America!” line. Ten years ago America plunged into a deep recession caused mostly by “foreign investments” into America’s real estate market. Or take Greece. I’m sure the Greeks would love to hear that their pre-2010 trade deficit with the EU was the product of “foreign investment” instead of a dangerously high fiscal deficit.

    With respect, I think you’re confusing two terms here. The “trade deficit” is the difference between imports and exports of goods and services. The “fiscal deficit” is the difference between government revenue and spending. The two may have some connections but essentially are different: it is possible to have a trade surplus and a fiscal deficit, a trade deficit and a fiscal surplus, a deficit in both, or a surplus in both.

    The fiscal deficit has nothing to do with foreign investment and is a more worrying thing than the trade deficit, because a fiscal deficit is essentially just a deferral of taxes to future generations (just as a mortgage is a deferral of house payments to your future self). But a trade deficit is always balanced by an opposite surplus in foreign investment versus domestic investment abroad. Investment can continue indefinitely; it is not a deferral of payments to future generations.

    (I realize that the term “investment” is often misused by, e.g., Democrats, who insist that we should “invest” in government-planned health care. But I am not misusing the term here: I’m referring to a party using capital to generate productive capacity with the goal of reaping a profit. The fact that we have more foreign investment in the U.S. that U.S. investment abroad is indicative of the relative strength of our economy versus the world’s.)

    • #7
    • December 7, 2018 at 8:03 am
    • 3 likes
  8. Lincoln

    Someone once told me that after the British civil war, many of the losers came to America which may have accounted for the revolutionary spirit here 100 years later (roughly). I have no idea how true any of that is. If it is true, Charlie Cook sounds like he would have been one of the early Americans.

    • #8
    • December 7, 2018 at 10:39 am
    • 1 like
  9. Lincoln

    I have to say, I’d be one of the American’s who would state you can cut my social security/medicare/raise my taxes after you trim the military and stop fighting 14-17 year long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Providing assistance to poor people and having more freedom (by way of lower taxes) are way less offensive to me than fighting wars spending money we don’t have and losing the lives of our soldiers where there are no achievable objectives, no definition of victory, and no exit strategy!

    • #9
    • December 7, 2018 at 11:22 am
    • Like
  10. Lincoln

    Do you think that tariffs are something other than a tax on imported goods – like a sales tax? Do you believe that Trump believes they are something else. What exactly do you think he believes they are. It seems to me that the definition is rather simple, so I don’t know why Trump would feel the need to define it when the definition fits into fewer than 10 words.

    • #10
    • December 7, 2018 at 11:29 am
    • Like
  11. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    And I think if you go around asking Trump supporters if they think he’s a great person, as long as the people you ask don’t think you’re working for a polling company or that they’re on TV or something, they wouldn’t tell you that they think Trump is a great PERSON.

    I had someone tell me that “God played his Trump card” in deep southern VA Trump country. He has true believers who think he is a great guy. I tried to talk about Trump’s many personal faults and was immediately told it was all fake news.

    These same people are very happy to talk about John McCain’s or Paul Ryan’s faults but won’t hear any criticism of Trump.

    That would be known as “hope”, a mysterious phenomenon that occasionally afflicts benighted run-down towns when people in power actually care about them.

    • #11
    • December 7, 2018 at 11:39 am
    • Like
  12. Member

    James Jones (View Comment):

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):

    Frankly I’m shocked to hear Jonah make the “Trade deficits are the other end of foreign investments in America!” line. Ten years ago America plunged into a deep recession caused mostly by “foreign investments” into America’s real estate market. Or take Greece. I’m sure the Greeks would love to hear that their pre-2010 trade deficit with the EU was the product of “foreign investment” instead of a dangerously high fiscal deficit.

    With respect, I think you’re confusing two terms here. The “trade deficit” is the difference between imports and exports of goods and services. The “fiscal deficit” is the difference between government revenue and spending. The two may have some connections but essentially are different: it is possible to have a trade surplus and a fiscal deficit, a trade deficit and a fiscal surplus, a deficit in both, or a surplus in both.

    The fiscal deficit has nothing to do with foreign investment and is a more worrying thing than the trade deficit, because a fiscal deficit is essentially just a deferral of taxes to future generations (just as a mortgage is a deferral of house payments to your future self). But a trade deficit is always balanced by an opposite surplus in foreign investment versus domestic investment abroad. Investment can continue indefinitely; it is not a deferral of payments to future generations.

    Do you know what happens when a country runs a large fiscal deficit and fails to attract foreign investment? Here’s a hint: Read the IMF’s reports on any of the dozens of balance of payments crises it’s had to deal with in the past three or four decades alone.

    Frankly I think this attitude is insane, and so does pretty much every economist. Trade deficits are inherently self-limiting. A strong dollar is a tax on the American economy and a subsidy (sometimes large) on imports. If you want to put it in FDI terms, too much FDI can destroy the economic value of those investments. Large imbalances are unnatural.

    You have to understand where Bush’s policies come from. For a very long time social scientists used the “terms of trade”–how many imports a country can buy with a given unit of exports–as a proxy for social welfare. People in societies with strong terms of trade feel wealthier, more secure. But this only works if the rise in the terms of trade is due to real productivity gains. As we discovered with Bush, something a bit different happens when the terms of trade improves because of reckless fiscal deficits and military spending.

    • #12
    • December 7, 2018 at 11:58 am
    • Like
  13. Member

    I feel this should be bolded (be grateful it’s not all caps!)

    Reaganomics was a deflationary policy mix crafted to fight inflation in the 1980s. 

    Stop mythologizing why Reaganomics worked. It’s not generally applicable! Reagan’s tax cuts worked for two reasons–taxes were well to the left side of the Laffer curve, and the deflationary effect of the resulting fiscally-driven trade deficits (encouraged by his trade policies) helped to tamp down inflation. Don’t forget that toward the end of his term Reagan did reverse course (once inflation was tamed) and got tough with trade with Japan; that’s part of what led to the 1992 recession (where the U.S. actually dipped into trade surplus), but also the prosperity of the 90s thereafter.

    • #13
    • December 7, 2018 at 12:05 pm
    • Like
  14. Coolidge

    I agree that Jack should read all ads in the future. Also, get well soon, Pippa!

    • #14
    • December 7, 2018 at 2:11 pm
    • 2 likes
  15. Coolidge

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):
    That would be known as “hope”, a mysterious phenomenon that occasionally afflicts benighted run-down towns when people in power actually care about them.

    Hopeless if you ask me if they think Trump cares about anyone other than himself. Oh and it is a rather upscale retirement area by a lake and not at all rundown and benighted.

    • #15
    • December 7, 2018 at 2:52 pm
    • Like
  16. Member

    @josepheagar wrote: “Do you know what happens when a country runs a large fiscal deficit and fails to attract foreign investment?”

    Again I think you are conflating two different things. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is when entities outside the U.S. invest in U.S. businesses. The strength of the dollar matters here, but the strength of the economy (or more specifically, of the businesses being invested in) also matters. (Worth noting: saying the dollar is “strong” or “weak” is as meaningless as saying a $100 share of stock is “expensive” while a $1 share is “cheap”. Relative to what? And in what direction are they moving?)

    Countries certainly do run into problems when they run large fiscal deficits and fail to attract foreign investors… to buy their sovereign debt. But that is not foreign direct investment.

    Simply stating that an imbalance is “unnatural” makes no sense. Is the only “natural” state one in which all countries have a zero trade deficit? If so, why?

    • #16
    • December 7, 2018 at 2:59 pm
    • 1 like
  17. Member

    Only just heard the podcast now, so probably just yelling into the wind here, but a few reactions:

    One theme (grudge?) that Jonah raises frequently in these podcasts is “…the conservative used to be X, but over the last few years it’s become Y”, with “X” usually being some variant of “principles-based” and “Y” being some spin on “winning at all costs”. The jist being that conservatives used to fight for their mostly-common principles, and now they’re acting like the left.

    I have a much different take: I don’t think the conservative movement or the Republican electorate writ large has changed much. Principles were never much of a driving force or uniting principle among the electorate, or even large subgroups such as, say, Rush Limbaugh’s audience. The conservative principles that Jonah espouses and that he thought were broadly shared among his side of the electorate and commentariat were really primarily window dressing to facilitate gaining power and using that power to advance everyones’ self-interest.

    I imagine that Jonah’s ascension by writing Liberal Fascism during a peak of anti-progressivism on the right helped him (and many others) fool himself into thinking that the broader conservative public was generally in lockstep on principles. But that unity was just an illusion; and the Trump phenomenon hasn’t so much put cracks in the wall as it has simply rubbed away the plaster to expose the cracks that have existed for decades.

    • #17
    • December 8, 2018 at 2:54 am
    • Like
  18. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    While talking with Charlie Cooke, Jonah says that he has a problem with people who lionize Trump basically just because he’s president and doing what they like, therefore he must personally be great too. That’s their blind spot.

    ….

    And I think if you go around asking Trump supporters if they think he’s a great person, as long as the people you ask don’t think you’re working for a polling company or that they’re on TV or something, they wouldn’t tell you that they think Trump is a great PERSON.

    I mostly agree with this, but I’d put a slightly different spin on it: Jonah seems to be locked in a death battle (in large part of his own making) with a small number of talking heads, pundits, and Twitter personalities who are indeed 100% bought into the Trump personality cult.

    Whenever Jonah talks about “these people who never have a bad thing to say about Trump”, I don’t think he’s referring to an average “Trump supporter” or an average Joe responding to a phone call by a pollster. He’s referring to Hannity, to a few of the Breitbart/American Greatness authors, and to the trolls on his Twitter feed.

    Frankly, I wish Jonah could learn to stop listening to that 1% of rabid Trump supporters/loudmouths, especially the Twitter trolls and D-list pundits on the web. They’re irrelevant and he should ignore them accordingly. But it’s obvious he can’t, and his undying irritation at a small number of internet trolls is negatively affecting his commentary.

    • #18
    • December 8, 2018 at 2:59 am
    • 3 likes
  19. Member

    One last point in my interminable rant:

    It really irks me to hear Charlie say (paraphrasing) “I know Trump has nominated lots of judges who are great protectors of the 1st amendment, but what really counts is the fact that he obviously doesn’t care personally about the 1st amendment based on his public comments”.

    This is hogwash. In 15 years, after Trump is out of office and likely deceased, his offhand comments about suing Rich Lowry for libel will matter not one whit, especially since he never acted on them. What will matter are the actions he took in office that had lasting effects – and judges with lifelong tenure are the ultimate in staying power.

    I’m not a Trump supporter. But the notion that “Trump’s actions are irrelevant since his words contradict them and those words are more important” epitomizes everything that’s wrong about punditry.

    • #19
    • December 8, 2018 at 3:05 am
    • 3 likes
  20. Member

    I love the part where the progressives couldn’t write about their principles, only about winning elections. Theft and graft win elections. They don’t care about anything else. 

    • #20
    • December 8, 2018 at 6:00 am
    • Like
  21. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):
    That would be known as “hope”, a mysterious phenomenon that occasionally afflicts benighted run-down towns when people in power actually care about them.

    Hopeless if you ask me if they think Trump cares about anyone other than himself. Oh and it is a rather upscale retirement area by a lake and not at all rundown and benighted.

    Honestly, I think Trump really does care about them. They are Trump’s allies against the hated NeverTrumper and Democratic establishments. Pretty much everyone in America looks down on Trump except for them. I think it’s entirely credible that Trump genuinely cares for them and he’s certainly acted like it (tariffs, nuking the health care bill, restricting immigration, etc).

     

    • #21
    • December 8, 2018 at 3:27 pm
    • 2 likes
  22. Member

    Everyone needs to do themselves a great big favor: stop believing in government.

    Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™

    Trump got elected because they want someone to fix it, or they want someone to steal for them and they are sick of cultural Marxism. That is our system. It is unmanageable. This is only going to end when the bond market collapses. Stop being idealistic. 

    Woodrow Wilson started this, and now most of us are going to pay big-time. You can’t stop it. They said it right here on this podcast.

    The progressives are the road to ruin.

    …but

    When does conservatism ever sell? It doesn’t. No one ever really leads on this stuff. Spending: spare me. 

    All they do is start wars and spend. And give into cultural Marxism.

    No entitlement reform. 

    Submit to The Emperor!

    They explained it all right here on the podcast.

    • #22
    • December 8, 2018 at 3:38 pm
    • 1 like
  23. Member

    James Jones (View Comment):

    @josepheagar wrote: “Do you know what happens when a country runs a large fiscal deficit and fails to attract foreign investment?”

    Again I think you are conflating two different things. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is when entities outside the U.S. invest in U.S. businesses. The strength of the dollar matters here, but the strength of the economy (or more specifically, of the businesses being invested in) also matters.

    I’m aware of that. I thought it was too technical to mention, but saying that trade deficits are driven by FDI is just insane. Small trade deficits are driven by FDI. Large trade deficits always involve either foreign government maliciously intervening in our bond markets or just rank bond market speculation. Speaking of which, when was the last time America had a real bond market bubble that didn’t involve foreign distortion of our markets? The 20s?

    (Worth noting: saying the dollar is “strong” or “weak” is as meaningless as saying a $100 share of stock is “expensive” while a $1 share is “cheap”. Relative to what? And in what direction are they moving?)

    Oh come on. The “strength” of currencies is the easiest thing in the world to measure. Just look at how much in demand the currency is relative to how much is needed to settle foreign trade. British intellectuals in the 17th and 18th century were similarly befuddled at people talking about “a strong pound”; they’d say things to the effect off “There’s no such thing as a British Pound, it’s just a unit of gold. Why are people talking like this?” Then the newspapers would run stories on how strong or weak the Pound was in the foreign FX market.

    Countries certainly do run into problems when they run large fiscal deficits and fail to attract foreign investors… to buy their sovereign debt. But that is not foreign direct investment.

    Simply stating that an imbalance is “unnatural” makes no sense. Is the only “natural” state one in which all countries have a zero trade deficit? If so, why?

    Well no, the natural state is for all countries to have small trade deficits/surpluses. Trade imbalances are inherently self-limiting. Surpluses naturally lead to more demand as surplus countries attract capital and interest rates fall; similarly, deficits naturally contracts demand as capital leaves and interest rates rise.

    • #23
    • December 8, 2018 at 3:46 pm
    • Like
  24. Coolidge

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):
    Honestly, I think Trump really does care about them. They are Trump’s allies against the hated NeverTrumper and Democratic establishments. Pretty much everyone in America looks down on Trump except for them. I think it’s entirely credible that Trump genuinely cares for them and he’s certainly acted like it (tariffs, nuking the health care bill, restricting immigration, etc).

    Trump genuinely cares for Trump. His whole life is a testament to that. 

    • #24
    • December 8, 2018 at 5:42 pm
    • 1 like
  25. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):
    Honestly, I think Trump really does care about them. They are Trump’s allies against the hated NeverTrumper and Democratic establishments. Pretty much everyone in America looks down on Trump except for them. I think it’s entirely credible that Trump genuinely cares for them and he’s certainly acted like it (tariffs, nuking the health care bill, restricting immigration, etc).

    Trump genuinely cares for Trump. His whole life is a testament to that.

    It’s not like narcissists can’t care for other people :)

    • #25
    • December 8, 2018 at 5:44 pm
    • Like
  26. Member

    Mendel (View Comment):

    One last point in my interminable rant:

    It really irks me to hear Charlie say (paraphrasing) “I know Trump has nominated lots of judges who are great protectors of the 1st amendment, but what really counts is the fact that he obviously doesn’t care personally about the 1st amendment based on his public comments”.

    This is hogwash. In 15 years, after Trump is out of office and likely deceased, his offhand comments about suing Rich Lowry for libel will matter not one whit, especially since he never acted on them. What will matter are the actions he took in office that had lasting effects – and judges with lifelong tenure are the ultimate in staying power.

    I’m not a Trump supporter. But the notion that “Trump’s actions are irrelevant since his words contradict them and those words are more important” epitomizes everything that’s wrong about punditry.

    ———————————————————————–

    I agree that judicial appointments are what count in the long run. The problem (my problem) is not whether Trump cares personally about the First Amendment. Rather, it’s that he doesn’t understand it. And it’s not just freedom of speech, but a long list of constitutional and governmental constructs he’s in the dark on. My guess is that this is what bugs Jonah and his guest. It does me. Not to say that Trump might not have some instinctual understanding. But his ineffective means of communication (incoherence) raises doubts.

    • #26
    • December 9, 2018 at 4:09 pm
    • Like
  27. Member

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    I agree that judicial appointments are what count in the long run. The problem (my problem) is not whether Trump cares personally about the First Amendment. Rather, it’s that he doesn’t understand it. And it’s not just freedom of speech, but a long list of constitutional and governmental constructs he’s in the dark on. My guess is that this is what bugs Jonah and his guest. It does me. Not to say that Trump might not have some instinctual understanding. But his ineffective means of communication (incoherence) raises doubts.

    This is one of the reasons I was against him. He lacks civic knowledge and he’s never had to speak under “civic pressure” for lack of a better way to say it. He should’ve gotten a tutor or something.

    • #27
    • December 9, 2018 at 5:00 pm
    • 1 like
  28. Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    I agree that judicial appointments are what count in the long run. The problem (my problem) is not whether Trump cares personally about the First Amendment. Rather, it’s that he doesn’t understand it. And it’s not just freedom of speech, but a long list of constitutional and governmental constructs he’s in the dark on. My guess is that this is what bugs Jonah and his guest. It does me. Not to say that Trump might not have some instinctual understanding. But his ineffective means of communication (incoherence) raises doubts.

    This is one of the reasons I was against him. He lacks civic knowledge and he’s never had to speak under “civic pressure” for lack of a better way to say it. He should’ve gotten a tutor or something.

    Fine, be against him in the Primaries. But to once again use Jonah’s words against him, “The Primaries were over.” Would your argument be that Hillary “understands” the First Amendment better? As I recall, she wanted the FEC (or something) to rule that a TV network couldn’t show a movie about her. Just for starters. And as for who she’d put on courts to “interpret” the First Amendment for the next few decades, well…

    • #28
    • December 10, 2018 at 1:21 am
    • 1 like
  29. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    I agree that judicial appointments are what count in the long run. The problem (my problem) is not whether Trump cares personally about the First Amendment. Rather, it’s that he doesn’t understand it. And it’s not just freedom of speech, but a long list of constitutional and governmental constructs he’s in the dark on. My guess is that this is what bugs Jonah and his guest. It does me. Not to say that Trump might not have some instinctual understanding. But his ineffective means of communication (incoherence) raises doubts.

    This is one of the reasons I was against him. He lacks civic knowledge and he’s never had to speak under “civic pressure” for lack of a better way to say it. He should’ve gotten a tutor or something.

    Fine, be against him in the Primaries. But to once again use Jonah’s words against him, “The Primaries were over.” Would your argument be that Hillary “understands” the First Amendment better? As I recall, she wanted the FEC (or something) to rule that a TV network couldn’t show a movie about her. Just for starters. And as for who she’d put on courts to “interpret” the First Amendment for the next few decades, well…

    I don’t disagree with any of that.

    Part of the issue though is, Clinton understands “the system” better than he does even though my values are far more aligned with Trump. She knows how the levers and dials work and she will be able to lie about it better. It’s an extra burden for Trump to figure that stuff out on the fly. Same with foreign-policy.

    The other thing is, Dennis Prager doesn’t think political executive experience (civic pressure and government employment issues, as opposed to just trying to garner enough votes in the next election) like governor or mayor matters. I don’t agree with that, but I’m not some gigantic expert on the topic either.

    • #29
    • December 10, 2018 at 1:49 am
    • Like
  30. Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):
    “The Primaries were over.” Would your argument be that Hillary “understands” the First Amendment better?

    Hillary is irrelevant now. Mike Pence understands the First Amendment better.

    • #30
    • December 10, 2018 at 7:31 am
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2