MARK LEVIN: President Trump's speech was terrific

Mark Levin Twitter ^ | February 28, 2017 | Mark Levin

[conservative98]

Mark R. Levin‏Verified account @marklevinshow

FWIW, President Trump's speech was terrific, despite certain policy disagreements I have with him.

[wardaddy]

So you think Trump is treated like a King

You’re silly

He’s detested by the media Hollywood academia most corporate boards the Democrats most world leaders and the GOPe

I think he gets more criticism than any president I’ve witnessed since 1974

Sorry it’s not enough to sate your Anti Trump hormones

[GJones2]

> Some of us remember that when faced with a choice between Trump and Clinton, Levin chose Trump. [GJones2] “Yes, but like nightmare marriage, he has done nothing but nag us since about that decision.”

:-)

Amusing analogy. “Nothing” is an exaggeration, though. Despite the “despite”, this is a favorable tweet — “FWIW, President Trump’s speech was terrific, despite certain policy disagreements I have with him.”

[GJones2]

> ...he’s quick to assume the worst of President Trump.

I believe you’re right about that.

> He made a big deal about Trump “giving away” securing the border before compromising on “Dreamers,” and was quick to suggest that Trump didn’t learn the lesson of Reagan’s agreeing on amnesty now in exchange for security later.

Well, it was Trump’s outspoken opposition to making deals on immigration before securing the border that first won him lots of support on this forum and in the country. I’m unsure of the details of what he has in mind yet, but if people wait to express their opinions until they see a finished proposal, it will probably be too late to influence it.

I won’t attribute the position to Trump, but will say that if this country continues to accept illegal immigrant children — with the border not yet secure — that will encourage more parents to send their children on the dangerous trek to the United States (which is dangerous now even to adults, and according to a study I read, a large percentage of female illegals end up being raped somewhere along the way — after all they’re dealing with some of the worst criminals in Mexico).

Let’s hope that’s not what Trump has in mind. Despite seeming merciful on the surface, it can end up harming more children, not to mention harming the country with more uncontrolled immigration. (Accepting children but not their parents isn’t very merciful anyway.)

[GJones2]

I think people on the right ought to continue to criticize Trump when he appears to be weakening on what he promised during the campaign (just as we do with the establishment Republicans, with whom it’s a routine practice). If he comes up with a compromise that clearly seems advantageous, then yes, let’s support it. Bear in mind, though, that if politicians receive less criticism for veering to the left than to the right — and obviously they won’t get it from the Democrats and mainstream media — then that’s where they’ll be tempted to go.

Without criticism from the right there will be no price to pay. Compromises need to be acceptable to persons on the right too. Otherwise all they amount to is caving in again, the same old establishment Republican story.

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't disagree with this; I would simply caution Levin that there is a rash of fake news and agitprop out there right now designed to separate Trump from his base. It would behoove Levin to take a breath or two before taking the bait.

-PJ

[GJones2]

Yes, best not to jump to conclusions.

[waverna]

Not the Spanish Covil War! Where did I go wrong! /s

Please.

[RedWulf]

>Not the Spanish Covil War! Where did I go wrong! /s

Probably when you misspelled civil.

[conservative98]

Levin was talking up the worst assumptions of the speech during his first hour today.

-PJ

---

Yeah, he does that a lot. It is a bad habit and bad for ratings.

What has he been talking about tonight? I just turned it on to hear the last half hour.

[Political Junkie Too]

I only listened to the first hour. He praised the speech, said it was fantastic, said even the liberal parts he disagrees with were expertly delivered and woven into a patriotic narrative. He panned the Democrats for sitting on their hands during statements supporting the American citizen, and for looking like the 1924 Democrat National Convention klanbake.

But he started the show by saying that it was his listeners who drove Trump to change his speech because of their comments on the air.

-PJ

[TBP]

The "broken window" fallacy is stated well in Henry Hazlitt's classic Economics in One Lesson. It has to do with ignoring the hidden costs, such as opportunity costs. How else could that resource (in this case, money) be used to advance the economy?

The fact that Trump proposed this massive program from Day One doesn't make it a good idea. He proposes to spend as much as Obama's failed stimulus PLUS the amount Hillary was proposing. We're $20 trillion in debt, and he wants to spend another $1 trillion just on "infrastructure."

We do not need a massive, expensive Big Government program. We do have some infrastructure that needs repair, as we always do, but most of it is in pretty good shape.

Who do you think pays for "public-private partnerships"? We do. Always.

[TBP]

at least it's Constitutional spending

Where in the Constitution is that listed?

Who do you think pays for public-private partnerships? We do. Entirely. Always.

How does spending a trillion dollars on a government program NOT increase the size of government?