Trump Slams Radio Host After Stumbling in Interview

NBC ^ | September 4, 2015 | Carrie Dann

[whistleduck]

Nothing new in this Huge Dimwit interview. This is the guys standard tactic. He will always seek to embarrass the guest and display his prodigious grasp of the minutiae of the moment. Huge Dimwit can check the box as a putrid perfumed prince of the elite class of cheap labor lovers.

Put down the mike knuckle-brain.

[itsahoot]

Does he think the Supreme Court will actually go along with his immigration agenda as he's sold it to his supporters?

All he has to do is enforce current immigration law, no court decisions required, unless they intend to try and force him not to enforce the law.

[itsahoot]

“He’s starting to act and sound A LOT like Obama.”

Rush's first caller today could have been you.

[wagglebee]

It wasn't, but what did Rush say?

[CatherineofAragon]

Well, then, go right ahead chasing your fantasies of a liberal Democrat.

I’ll stick with a proven conservative.

[itsahoot]

I would think you'd want a knowledgeable, prepared candidate.

Prepared by whom, for what purpose. Harry Truman came into power not even knowing that such a thing as an atomic bomb, was even being thought of, but he knew what to do with it. Then he started to listen to the intelligent people in his administration and entered us into an unwinable war that has dominated our policy ever since Hirohito surrendered.

[LongWayHome]

Trump needs to do better, but Hugh is an open borders piece of trash.

[chris37]

Your proven conservative signed his name on a bill flipping the senate treaty provision on its head.

What he proved was that he is okay with signing his name on a bill that may be the vehicle for Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, and the guys that we elected and support MADE IT POSSIBLE.

So don’t give me that proven conservative horseshit.

It does not seem to me that any of us have any real friends in government, even though we may believe that some of them are, it really does not seem to be the case.

[itsahoot]

It wasn't, but what did Rush say?

Caller: We have had a bully for the last seven years and she feared that Trump was going to be the same kind of bully.

He tried to allay her fears with about as much success as the posters on this thread have had with you.

[GilGil]

That he did not know the answers to Hewitt’s questions does not concern me. That Hewitt picked Fiorina only and did not ask a cross section of candidates does concern me. Hewitt has been slobbering over her since she announced.

Trump has accomplished a lot in his business life. He’ll figure it out. Just because someone is informed does not mean they can accomplish anything. If that were the case university professors would all be billionaires and leaders.

[CatherineofAragon]

"So don’t give me that proven conservative horseshit."

LOL, I'll give it to you again.

Ted Cruz was memorizing the Constitution at age fourteen, and gave speeches on our founding documents all over Texas---eighty of them by the time he graduated high school.

As Solicitor General of Texas, he fought for the Constitution in case after case, many of which had far-reaching effects on other states.

From the time he arrived in Washington, he's been fighting the GOP---often alone.

What was Trump doing all that time? Yeah, building hotels, I know. Also yelling on Twitter about kicking someone's a##, and talking to Howard Stern about premature ejaculation and the merits of Paris Hilton's sex tape.

Now you're dripping with contempt for Cruz, the most solid conservative in the race, after bleating to me about him being the only choice for president.

Weak minds are influenced very easily.

[RaceBannon]

Excellent post
Cruz has been my guy from the start

[chris37]

I’m not dripping with contempt for Cruz, and I do not have a weak mind, and I do not appreciate your insult to me.

What is the practical result of Cruz’s “proven conservatism” since he’s been in the senate? As far as I can see, it has been to land his name on Corker’s surrender bill.

That is likely to be the thing that has the most consequence out of anything that he has done.

This also hold true for proven conservative Mike Lee.

I am having a hard time seeing the value of demanding that any candidate that we support be a proven or true conservative, because the result of us doing this is that we have lost every, single battle.

In demanding that our candidates be pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-constitution and whatever else, WE HAVE NONE OF THAT.

Abortion is rampant. Baby parts are being sold for profit. Gay marriage has been unconstitutionally instituted by a tyrannical court, and Christians are in jail for refusing to follow unconstitutional court decisions, and yes I am aware of Trump’s position on this, and I don’t agree with it.

My problem is that “proven conservatives” have proven exactly one thing to me, and that is that they are utter failures in political warfare.

Now, the fact of the matter is that I can still vote for Ted Cruz, but he better start talking about the wall he is going to build, and how he intends to completely reverse and end the illegal alien invasion of America, otherwise I will not vote for him.

[Democratic-Republican]

"S U R R E N D E R - D O R O T H Y !"

Well you got me, I don't understand that, even after googling and seeing something about the Wizard of Oz. Before you explain what you meant, let me just say that surrender is NOT in my vocabulary. And I certainly do not mean surrender on Homo Marriage or Abortion. Both of these will require similar strategies to correct.

Marriage will need to be restored through the courts by getting that case overturned in a later SC, by challenging the establishment of a fake "law" created by the SC that was never passed by a Congress and signed by a President. Another good tact will be legislating the removal of any Federal involvement in marriage because in a way we have asked for this by having those stupid Marriage deduction tax "benefits" and related. This could be like the First Amendment: "... shall make no law respecting Marriage or prohibiting ...". This will also require a ground game as did civil rights with Rosa Parks inspired citizens like that lady in Kentucky who is very brave.

Abortion is in the identical place, shielded by the same Supreme Court firewall. The ground game has always been active and is getting very effective now with the sting videos. They are learning a lot about drip, drip, drip. They are relentless. All the same court strategies apply, and are no more doomed to Roe failure than Plessy doomed civil rights. There is nothing preventing the Congress to pass new laws affecting Abortion and signed by the President, and then it takes two years to get to the Court. This should be done over and over until Roe is overturned. There are many strategies out there.

All that I am saying in a long-winded fashion is that there are avenues to follow and hard battles to fight. The main point is that we cannot keep looking at the President as Santa Claus or God. It is maddening to see us dissecting their positions on non-Presidential matters and makes no more sense than worrying about his hairstyle and favorite baseball team. We're projecting powers onto that office that we never gave it. We are also doing our kids a disservice by screwing up basic Civics 101. That is not surrender, it is smart and logical. It doesn't make sense to waste energy on irrelevant things.

[Democratic-Republican]

>> I would think you'd want a knowledgeable, prepared candidate.

Prepared by whom, for what purpose. Harry Truman came into power not even knowing that such a thing as an atomic bomb, was even being thought of, but he knew what to do with it."

That is such a great point. It's stunning how the (D)ummycrats have done this several times, as you said with Truman kept far away from the Administration and later with LBJ also kept at arm's length. Wilson had a VP you couldn't pick out of a lineup and they decided to just make believe he didn't exist and let the Missus steer the ship after the stroke. LoL. Come to think of it Grover Cleveland did similar with his Cancer surgery.

So once again the (R)epublicrats are actively using Alinsky rules on themselves, screening furiously for a perfect "knowledgeable, prepared candidate" while the enemy tries to just find someone who can win.

Catherine, the requirements for President this cycle is very simple ... Wrecking Ball.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Catherine, the requirements for President this cycle is very simple ... Wrecking Ball."M

Yeah, we have one of those---Ted Cruz---and he's a proven and solid Constitutional conservative. In his book he talks about needing a leader in Washington who shatters glass.

I'll stick with him. He can do what needs to be done, and he isn't a liberal who hasn't the first clue about the Constitution or our God-given rights.

[Democratic-Republican]

>> ""Catherine, the requirements for President this cycle is very simple ... Wrecking Ball."

Yeah, we have one of those---Ted Cruz---and he's a proven and solid Constitutional conservative. In his book he talks about needing a leader in Washington who shatters glass."

Wait, you just called Ted Cruz a wrecking ball? He'll smash the establishment?

[CatherineofAragon]

"Wait, you just called Ted Cruz a wrecking ball? He'll smash the establishment?"

The choice of terms seems to have some sort of import to you, but I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Cruz's record, going all the way back to his days as Solicitor General of Texas.

[longtermmemmory]

It was another planned set up. weak. The media is in as much a panic as the establishment. The media needs establishment for their snob lives.

on FNC too, every female on air personality gives the “will not vote for him” bs line and goes on to hint for some left win policy (ie using conservatives to force acceptance of homosexual behavior, pro establishment candidates, and so on)

[Democratic-Republican]

>> ""Wait, you just called Ted Cruz a wrecking ball? He'll smash the establishment?"

The choice of terms seems to have some sort of import to you, but I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Cruz's record, going all the way back to his days as Solicitor General of Texas."

So that's a yes? Or no?

I'm just asking if you think Ted is the right tool for this particular job - smashing the status quo to pieces before it kills us. And it is going to kill us very shortly with amnesty and naturalization. Is Ted up to this? Has enough of Trump's Save America agenda rubbed off onto him and the others? ( that's not snark, you must admit that not one word of this subject would have been uttered without him, correct? ).

Without extreme action now your vote will not matter in 2020 and thereafter. It will be offset by at least one, possibly two (D)ummycrat Invaders. But by all means disregard this and vote as if this does not matter. It's a free country, for now.