tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 4, 2016 6:30pm-8:31pm EST
drudge is an amazing guy. i have 46% and those 15 people. time magazine, 49%. u.s. news & world report, 69% said i won the debate. [applause] mr. trump: pbs, public broadcasting system, 69% said trump won. it is amazing. we have "washington times" at 62%. cbs, 59%. fox, las vegas, 62%. then i go back home after the debate. how did i do? looking good is very important, right? sometimes, it is not as much like what you say, it is how did you look. i looked good, didn't sound too good, but that is ok. [laughter] mr. trump: i go home and i watch and the pundits will say -- they can't totally kill me because we know it is happening -- well,
mr. trump was ok tonight. i won every single online poll and i won. bush does an ad. he was talking about something and then i killed him. by the way, i'm at 69% and he is at 1%. he came in last. i shouldn't even talk about him. it bothers me when i see a guy spending $60 million on ads against me, a lot of it. i say, why is he doing this? he should go home. just relax. [laughter] mr. trump: honestly, he should go home and relax. it does. why is this guy spending all this money? now he is spending it against a couple of other guys who were also very weak. he made a statement and after that, his spin people said he was great. he took on trump, he took on trump. he made a statement that was
written by his pollster. he said, "mr. trump, why don't you this --" i gave him an answer. i said, jeff, i'm at 42% and you are a 2%. it is a simple answer. i said, jeb, i'm at 42% and you are a 2%. it is a simple answer. you started off here, right next to me, and then you were there, then you were there, but the next time, you are going to be off the stage. [laughter] [applause] mr. trump: and then that was it. i responded. the question was fine. professionally written. i give them an answer, i blew him away. everyone says trump won the debate. everybody. that is it. the ad is him asking the question and i'm standing there like this. in one of them, i'm just about ready to open my mouth. but he does not let me respond.
it is almost false advertising, isn't it? hillary is a disaster. [audience boos] mr. trump: she is controlled by her money. so is jeb. so is everybody. i'm the only one self-funding my campaign. [applause] mr. trump: one of the things that makes me happy. i heard one of my commentators mentioned, i've been watching it for 50 years and i've never seen anything like what's happened wtih trump. i'm special. you're special. i like you. i'm special. isn't that nice? every once in a while, somebody says something that hits you. where are you? who said that? wow. so nice. that is a nice one. every once in a while, there is a statement that is either nice or brutal. i think low energy was a brutal statement. low energy can be applied to hillary. i don't like to use the same thing twice on one of my
enemies. i consider them enemies. we view this as war. don't we view this as war? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i hate to give it up. >> how are you going to help my daughter? we are going to help your daughter. we are going to help the country, as well as your daughter. we are in a situation where we have incompetent leadership, our trade deals are killing us, our military is not prepared. general ordeano said that we are less prepared than at any time since the second world war. we should be very prepared. that is enough. because the world hates us. she has done a terrible job as secretary of state. think of it. putin comes out and says that donald trump is brilliant, doing an amazing job, leading the pack. that's nice.
she and my opponents -- wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with the world? wouldn't it be? seriously. wouldn't it be nice? [applause] mr. trump: they want me to refute his statement. how dare you say i'm brilliant. [laughter] mr. trump: who's going to do that? by the way, if he said it about any one of them, they would have been happy. we have to get along. the world has blown up around barack obama. i don't know if you saw his recent release. they were talking about the department of state, the state department, and they said very strongly -- the things that they have done. they could not find it. what have they done that is good? they said bringing peace to syria. did you see that? [laughter] mr. trump: instead of saying they made a mistake, they made a mistake, they are trying to justify it. we meant we are working on it. can you believe it? the world is blowing up.
the migration from syria. they say one of their achievements for the year is bringing peace to syria and the whole world suffers. it is the level of stupidity that is incredible. i am telling you. i used to use the word "incompetent." now i just call them stupid. i went to an ivy league school. i'm very highly educated. i know words, i have the best words, but there is no better word than "stupid." right? [laughter] [cheers and applause] mr. trump: there is none. there is no word like that. we are going to turn things around. and if we had hillary, as you saw it, with hillary, she has been hitting me really hard with the women card. really hard. i had to say, ok, that's enough, that's enough. we did a strong number. she is not going to win. by the way, i love the concept,
love, love, love having a woman president -- it cannot be her. she is horrible. she's horrible. you know who does not like -- we will get ivanka -- i will tell you who doesn't like hillary -- women. women don't like hillary. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i see it all the time. and always so three ethical -- -- and always so three and -- theatrical. mr. trump said this and that and this and that. she is so theatrical. i should not do it. i just have to turn off the television. she gives me a headache. i think last night i gave her a big headache. i can imagine. i can imagine those discussions. but you have to hit back hard. you cannot let them push you around. today, she never even mentioned by name. in the debate, i was mentioned nine times. all of them. i was mentioned nine times. none of the other candidates were mentioned. then she came out with the
sexism, which is so nonsense, but she is playing that card. i hit her back and i talked about her husband and the abuse of women and the tremendous abuse. it is tremendous. i talked about that. now, today, the television is going crazy. she gets up and makes a speech and does not even mention anything about me. i wonder why. i wonder why. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: remember this. it is really important. a poll just came out where we are tied. another one came out, fox, where i am leading by four or five points against or individually. we're doing great. i have not even focused on her yet. look at the people i focused on. i don't want to really knock them. i do not want to mention their names. of those people, that are all gone, they are all people that attacked me. wouldn't it be nice if our country could have that same thing? you attack and they are gone.
[cheers and applause] mr. trump: and if we could do it verbally, that is even better. who wants to use our military? by the way we are going to build , the strongest, the best, the most powerful military ever. ever. ever. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: ever. we are going to take care of our vets. we are going to take care of our vets. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: because they are being treated horribly. but we are going to build the strongest, most powerful military ever, and let me just tell you a little secret. the cheapest thing we can do -- i don't think we are going to have to use it. they talk about my tone. i remember when jeb and hillary talked about my tone. they are chopping off christians' heads in syria and other places and they want me to have a nice tone. isn't life wonderful, ok? look, we've got to be tough.
we've got to be smart. we got to have heart. we've got to take care of people. we've got to fix our health care program. this obamacare is a disaster. you people know. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: obamacare is a total catastrophe. it will die in 2017 anyway. all the people that they didn't think were signing up are signing up. the other people that are really paying for it are not signing up. your rates are going up 25%, 35%, 45%. your deductibles are so high that unless you get hit by a tractor, you will never be able to use it. obamacare is a disaster. we are going to repeal it here and we are going to replace it. there are so many great things we can do on health care. so many great things. and it will cost you less money, and it will be great. it will be great. you are using programs you will never use.
you know that. and you are paying for it. you will never ever use them. we will get that straightened out. we will straight out common core. common core is dead. it's going to be dead. when i look at parents, i see local parents in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. i went to a school and i saw the parents. they love their children. they want educate -- they don't care about money, they don't care about anything. love their children. they get together and they do wonderful programs. they are smart people. as opposed to getting it done by bureaucrats who are getting big, fat checks in washington. we have such talent in this country and we don't use it. so, obamacare, dead. common core, gone. we are going to get rid of it. department of education, we are going to get rid of it. we are bringing education -- one thing on education. so, in the world, we are ranked number 28.
there are third-world countries that are ranked better than us in education and many other things. and yet, per pupil, we are number one, by far. there is nobody close. we spend more money per pupil than any country in the world and we are ranked number 28. which is way down at the bottom, essentially. can you imagine we are ranked number 28 and we are number one? that's what i do like saying about my campaign -- i spent less money than anybody else and i have the best result. i'm number one by a lot and i spent no money. my plane cost me some money. i spent no ads. little radio ad in iowa. the station is so lovely. i spent essentially no money. then you have all these other guys spending vast -- why would we put some of these
other guys -- not only gem bush. i see rubio on the ads all day long. you know the black background. he should have put something like that behind him. the flag, right? and i like him. i think he is a nice guy. these ads with the backdrop -- it is just somber. i do not think it is good. think of it. i spent no money and i'm number one. others spent -- they will have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and they are not even in the race. that's what we need for our country. >> [indiscernible] trump: what? "i've got 15,000," i don't know what he means by that. he is not a protester. ok, i love you. [applause]
mr. trump: don't worry about it. the only time the camera's focus on the crowd is when we have a protester. i always have the biggest crowds. i go home and my wife said were there many people? i watched you on television tonight. i said, i had 20,000 people. she said, they didn't show it. they have it right on your face. i have 20,000 people. 20,000 in oklahoma, 35,000 in mobile, alabama. nobody knows. because those cameras, i think they might be fixed. except every time there is a guy that stands up protesting, they are on drugs or something, they don't even know what the hell they are doing there, all of a sudden, the camera swerves from
their perfect shot. and i like it, because it shows the crowd. i will put in some false protesters. it's the only way i'm going to be able to get the crowd in. i talked about trade. i talked about the border. i talked about a lot of things. i started on june 16 in trump tower. it takes guts to run for president. it's like, i've never done this before. we had the largest debate. we had a largest audience in history cable television. then cnn, a couple weeks later, had 23 million. fox had 24 million. the largest audience in the history of cnn. there are cameras on live right now. the largest audience in the history of cnn. the debates used to be if you go , back four or eight years, nobody even wanted the debates. i think they were forced to take them for licensing, but nobody wanted the debates. now they are drawing 24 million. now they want to have more. can they go three hours?
remember when they had the one go three hours and i said, no, i'm not doing three hours. i could stand up here for 50 hours, but who the hell wants to sit home watching three hours of this stuff? mr. trump, you have 30 seconds, what would you do about isis? oh, great. [laughter] mr. trump: by the way, i hate those questions. i want to be unpredictable. i don't want to tell isis what i'm going to do. i hate it. remember, i said very strongly -- you have been watching. four years, i said get the oil. because who is going to get the oil? iran is taking over iraq. we made a deal for iran. done by some of the dumbest people honors on our side. we gave them everything.
we won't even get our prisoners back. all we had to do was say we want our prisoners back. they would've said no. i would have said i want them back, you don't understand me, i want them back. they would have said, no, we won't do that. i would've said bye-bye and left. i would have doubled up the sanctions. and i guarantee you -- [applause] mr. trump: i guarantee you that within 24 hours they would've called back and say, you've got your prisoners, can we talk? i would have never given them $150 billion. i would have never given them the money. they don't have to buy nuclear. they can buy it. why do they have to make it? we are going to have the nuclear with the inspections. they don't want us there. they self-inspect. they have a 24-day inspection,
but the self-inspection is the beauty. we think you are making nuclear weapons here. let us go and check, mr. president. we will go check. no, sir, we are not making nuclear weapons. we would never do a thing like that. these are people who have deceived us, lied to us, they are terrorists. i used to say it is the worst deal that i have ever seen negotiated. prisoners -- they come back, we get our prisoners. then when i hear the other day that, now this deal is done, now i hear they want to negotiate. they said very strongly, we are going to want a lot for the prisoners. we are going to want a lot. we have already taken off the sanctions. they are already rich as hell. what is going on there? that's why i say, i mean -- some people say it is -- there is something going on that we don't know about, honestly. i'm not saying that. i'm not a conspiracy person. she said, "we are."
[laughter] : half the people in this room are saying it. i'm just hoping that you are stupid people, which they are, or there is something going on. because it is inconceivable. did you ever see where some things are so bad that it cannot be -- that nobody can do what they did? right, nobody. iran now wants to negotiate separately. that deal is done. now we want to start a new deal. we want a lot. they want a lot. i want to just shoot the television. you know? because they would have had it -- and you know what they asked, kerry and obama -- the deal was made. everybody knows it is a horrible deal. it's going to lead to tremendous nuclear proliferation. and they are so rich now. they became so rich. they became so rich. and many of the other things that you don't even know about. most people don't even know what the agreement says.
but i will tell you what, when you look at what we are doing, if we keep going like this, folks, we are not going to have a country left. we are not going to have a country. we are not going to have our country. we are like a dumping ground for the world. we are a dumping ground. they want to take these migrants -- and i feel terrible about the migration caused by hillary clinton and barack obama. they are the ones that caused it. they go into libya, they knocked the hell out of gaddafi. they backed rebels who end up killing the ambassador and the other young people. the ambassador was riding in a jeep, one of our jeeps, of course, a military jeep, holding the libyan flag, "freedom, freedom, freedom," and he gets killed by the same people. so we backed people that turned out to be far worse than gaddafi. look what we did in iraq. look at what we did in iraq.
what the hell did we get? we spent $2 trillion, we have thousands of deaths, and i'm not even talking other side. you are talking about hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. you have thousands of deaths, wounded warriors, who i love. these guys are the toughest -- these are the greatest people. [applause] mr. trump: these are the greatest people. and then what happens? we leave, and we have a president that announces the date of when we are leaving. so, i said, man, if i'm the enemy, i'm just going to go wait for 18 months. he gave a date, we are leaving iraq, we will be gone by such and such a time. i'm just sitting there watching and i'm saying, man, that's really stupid, because, believe me, the enemy doesn't want to be killed.
you hear so much they want to go with the virgins up -- you hear so much they want to go with the virgins up wherever they go. their families know what is going on. you thnk their wives don't know what they are planning -- you think their wives don't know what they are planning? you think their kids don't know what daddy is going to do when he is planning to fly into the world trade center? they know exactly what's going on. frankly, i think they have more love for their family's lives than they do for their own life. but they still want to live. here is obama. he gives an exact date, so they pull back. everyone says, oh, we are doing so well. why should they fight when they know, in 18 months, they can go in and take the place? so we have isis taking a lot of oil. i said take the oil. remember, i was opposed because
i said you are going to destabilize the middle east. you have iraq and iran. there was fighting for decades and decades, for generations. they fight, that's what they do. they fight. how we ever got involved in this mess is hard to believe. they fight, and they were equal militarily. they go this way, 10 feet. they go this way, 10 feet. then they rest. they start fighting again. saddam hussein throws a little gas. everyone goes crazy. back and forth. it's the same. and they were stabilized. and i said, if you go after one or the other, in this case iraq, you're going to destabilize the middle east. and that's exactly what happened. you are going to destabilize the middle east. we totally destabilized the middle east. we have migrations largely because of what's happened afterwards. iraq was horrible. it was stupid to go in and we should have never gone in. but we shouldn't have gotten out the way we went out. and we shouldn't have given dates. i would have probably said we would stay forever. and they would have said, oh, man. eventually they would get tired.
they said this guy is crazy. and you will make a deal. when you announce you are leaving in 18 months or whatever the hell he said, they just pulled back. as soon as we left, they come in. we have the oil. the biggest beneficiary of the oil is china. always china. i love china. i love mexico. they are leaders. we have no border. we will build a wall. mexico will pay for the border, the wall, by the way. we are going to have a border. and people are going to come into our country, but they are going to come in through a legal process, not just walking in like nothing. they are going to come in, but they are going to come through a legal process.
so, with iraq, so we give them the date and they take over. for four years, i have been talking about it. then because of paris -- i didn't just want to bomb the oil, i wanted to take the oil. so, we are bombing. and we are not really bombing it, because they are still selling it. how could they keep selling -- obama does not want to hit them too hard because he is afraid he is going to pollute the atmosphere. no, this is serious. think of it. he talks about the carbon footprint, and yet he will fly a very old air force one, an old boeing 747, spewing stuff. he's got a problem with the carbon footprint. you can't use hairspray, because hairspray is going to affect the ozone. i'm in my room in new york city, and i want to put a little spray so i can -- [laughter] [applause] mr. trump: right? right? but i hear where they don't want me to use hairspray. will they wanted to use the pump, which the other one, which i really liked better than going bing, bing, bing, and it comes
out in big globs. they say don't use hairspray, it is bad for the ozone. i am sitting in this concealed apartment. i do live in a very nice apartment. it is beautiful. i don't think anything gets out. and i'm not supposed to be using hairspray. think of it -- so obama is always talking about the global warming -- that global warming is our biggest and most dangerous threat. even if you are a believer in global warming, isis is a big problem. russia is a problem. china is a problem. we got a lot of problems. the maniac in north korea is a problem. he actually has nuclear weapons. that's a problem. we got a lot of problems. that's right. we don't win anymore. if i get elected, we are going to win. if i get elected, we are going to win so much -- we are going to win a lot. [applause] mr. trump: we are going to win
a lot, so much you are all going to get sick and tired of winning. you say, oh, no, not again. i'm only kidding. you never get tired of winning never. but think of it. so obama is talking about all of this with the global warming. a lot of it is a hoax. it's a moneymaking industry, ok? a lot of it. i want clean air and i want clean water. i want clean, crystal water. and i want clean air. and we can do that. but we don't have to destroy our businesses. and by the way, china isn't abiding by anything. they are buying all of our coal. we cannot use coal anymore, essentially. they are buying our coal and using it. when you talk about the planet, it is so big out there, we are here, they are there. it's like they're our next-door neighbor, in terms of the universe. miss universe made a great deal when i sold it. oh, did i get rich. [laughter]
trump: they broke my choppers on that. they said, he talks about illegal immigration. we are not going to put him on television. first of all, univision is being sued like crazy. nbc, i made a great deal with them. far more than i would have ever gotten if i said i think i'm going to sell it if times were normal. isn't it amazing this can work out? but i love miss universe. and i love the universe. think of it, china is spewing up all of this stuff. we are holding back. with china, we signed these agreements where we have to do it now. they have to do it within 30 or 35 years. i don't think they are going to be doing it. it's like japan. if somebody attacks japan, we have to go and start world war iii. if we get attacked, japan doesn't have to help us. somehow, that doesn't sound so fair. does that sound good? so south korea --
i order thousands of televisions per year. i order televisions because i have a lot of stuff. they are all made in south korea, most other than sony. sony, in all fairness, has lost its way. a lot of -- samsung, all of them. they are all pretty much -- all of them, right? i think just about. i order thousands of televisions, they are all from south korea. we have 28,000 people on the border separating south korea from this maniac in north korea. what did we get? nothing. they are making a fortune. it's an economic behemoth. a lot of you don't know we protect germany. germany, mercedes-benz. how many people have a mercedes-benz? question mark we protect germany. it's an economic behemoth. we protect saudi arabia. during the good oil, they were making a billion dollars per day. we protect them. our military protect -- they pay us peanuts, like nothing.
and if we want to buy, move to another location -- well, that's very expensive. they want to charge us rent? look, we are run by people that are so bad, so out of their league. and i see it on the stage. a lot of them are nice people. a lot of people think i don't like these guys. i do like them, but they don't have business sense. they don't have common sense. they are politicians. they are all talk. they are no action. [applause] mr. trump: folks, when i say we are going to build a wall, most of them say, you can't build a wall. in china, 2000 years ago -- [laughter] mr. trump: they built the great wall of china, which is bigger than any wall we are thinking about. the great wall of china goes 18,000 miles. we have 2000 miles, of which we really only need 1000 miles, because you have a lot of natural barriers that are extremely tough to get across.
we have 1000 miles. china has 18,000 miles or 13,000 miles, and we have 1000 miles. we have modern cranes, caterpillar tractors. i want to use caterpillar, made in america. [applause] mr. trump: even my hats, they are made in america. it was not easy to find a guy who could make those hats. i see so many of those knockoffs. "make america great" -- mine are made in america. they don't produce as many as i would like because, frankly -- i mean, it's amazing. those hats are amazing. anyway, but i also knew that as soon as the hats -- we have a website. as soon as the hats came out, i knew the press would be calling. first hour when the hats were announced, i get a call from "the new york times." mr. trump, where are those hats made?
i said, america! i knew it. i knew it. as you know, if i would have said china, i would have been in big trouble. but they are being knocked off all over the world. they are like helmets. i see them all. what are you going to do? we got to build a wall. when i talk and i'm up on the stage with these guys, these people, wonderful people, and a very nice woman, carly. she's a very nice woman. when i'm up on the stage with them, they think i'm crazy. were going to build a wall, it's going to be a great wall -- we are going to build a wall, it's going to be a great wall. i'm talking about, if they ever get up there, they are never come down, because it is too dangerous. you ever see what they do now with these little walls? they build ramps. they build a ramp. wouldn't it be cheaper to knock the wall down? they drive over it with jeeps loaded up with drugs.
there was a picture in "time" magazine. it's a little ramp that goes over. make money. we get the drugs. think of it. we could build a wall. we get the drugs, they get the cash. not so good, right? we don't like that deal. our politicians don't know. they don't know. so when i say mexico is going to pay for it, these guys on the stage with me they are not business people. , mexico makes a fortune off the united states. number one, we give them a lot of money. but in addition to that, they are taking our businesses. if you are talking about a trade deficits mexico, in a certain , way, is a mini version of the new china. mexico is making an absolute fortune, peanuts compared to the cost of the wall. let's say the cost of the wall is $10 billion. i can do a great job with that. i think we will have a lot of money left over. and by the way 20 years ago, , they wanted to build a wall. people that are opposed to it now, they wanted to stop and
build a wall. you know one of the reasons they did not build the wall? because of the environmental protection agency. they could not get an environmental impact study approved. because there was a toad or a snake or something in the way. in the south china sea, there were these low-level land masses that were covered by water, but pretty close to the town. china sends in massive excavators and they are building military fortresses in the south china sea. a friend of mine, who is one of the biggest and richest people in china -- they are great people. they are fun. their leaders are too smart for our people. they won't need to smart when i -- they won't be too smart when i put my people there. [applause] mr. trump: when i call up, we
would like to speak to the donor -- no, the donor now is carl icahn. great businessman. all these businesspeople call. friend of mine. i call him and i say, you are actually doing it. i say, jokingly, how long did it take to get started? did you have to get a new environmental impact study approved in order to excavate? he looked at me and goes, i hope you are kidding when you say that. they conceived of the idea and they started digging four hours later. there is no go through 25 years of environmental impact, you are going to hurt the snail. you're going to hurt this. they are doing a big thing. they excavated -- massive -- massive -- they are ripping the hell out of that ocean. they are ripping it and they are taking that dirt and they are putting airfields. they couldn't do it. they could not get an
environmental impact study. that's probably not the only reason it happened. i heard the costs were too high. i am doing the coast washing -- i am doing the old post office in washington. i'm under budget, i'm ahead of schedule. look at campaign -- the campaign. a guy has $59 million and he was down at the bottom. i'm nothing and i'm at the top. it's the same thing. [applause] mr. trump: i actually said -- it's funny. the other day i got this great review. they said "trump is a great speaker. the crowd is spellbound. but he has one problem." the problem -- "the problem is he speaks through the applause." and you know why? because i'm so excited, because we have so much potential. i don't want to wait for your freaking applause. we have so much potential. there are so many things to do. i don't want to wait. i just did it again. you were getting ready to give a big applause, because you like that, and i'm speaking. i killed the applause.
he is right. except i'm not a speaker. i'm a doer. i get things done. [applause] mr. trump: so, when the people up on the stage with me -- and hillary, hillary doesn't have a clue. you talk about low energy. she has lower energy than jeb bush, which is hard to believe. she does. maybe it's rude, maybe it is not. it doesn't matter. we have a much bigger problem. we have to save our country. so, if i'm rude, if people think i'm rude -- i'm actually a nice person. i want to help people. i want to help the migration. i want to do a safe zone in syria. i don't want them coming here. we don't know who they are. they are undocumented. [applause] mr. trump: they are undocumented. we should do a safe zone over there. we should ask the both states,
saudi arabia, these states are not spending. they have to spend. they have to pay. we are protecting them. they wouldn't be there for two minutes if we weren't protecting them. they have to start paying. they are not taking anybody. how about germany? can you believe what she is doing to that country? and she was the person of the year and i wasn't. what are you going to do? i think she has made a terrible mistake. we will find out. time will tell. they have tremendous crime problems. i think she has made a tremendous mistake. but what i like is in syria, with other people's money, meaning the gulf states and germany and others -- germany is paying a fortune to accept all these people. we do a massive safe zone. eventually, when this whole catastrophe straightens out, which i will probably be able to get it straightened out. i understand that. when it is straightened out, they could go home to their country, to their area. it is interesting, i have thousands of people that work for me. thousands. i have people that come from far. a are all here legally, don't worry about it. i use everify. they go and check.
they went into the old post office who was walking their dog. they said they found one person out of hundreds and hundreds. i don't believe it. it is possible -- we do have 11 million people in the country. it is probably a much higher number than that. it is probably a much higher number. but we have to do something about it and we are going to. so i just want to finish by saying this. look, we have a situation that is out of control. our country is a dumping ground for the rest of the world. we are laughed at by the rest of the world. and when i started this journey, and it is a journey, and i do love you people come you are amazing people. and by the way, you are so smart. a lot of times people say, well, mr. trump's people are blue-collar. i love blue-collar. i'm honored by that. they are not blue-collar. we have blue-collar, executives, young people. they say the audience is old. it's not older.
the audience is young. the other night in iowa, i told that, and actually we have so many young people, the place erupted. we have an amazing thing happening. [applause] it is just -- look, that's their way of marginalizing, not even me, they are marginalizing you. it is disgusting. i mean, it is disgusting. when i started this journey -- that's what it is, a journey, of movement that is taking place -- remember the old days, the silent majority. the movement that is taking place. it's a noise majority. people are angry. these aren't silent people. this is an amazing thing that is happening. i received a call from a reporter who happens to be liberal. a guy who is really respected. he says how does it feel? he says what you have done has never been done in the history
of politics in the united states. even cnn says number one political story -- isis was number two. i want to knock the hell out of them and make me number one next year. [applause] mr. trump: this reporter, who is a great intellect, he said what you have done has never been done before. newt gingrich was on a television show and said this is one of the great phenomenons i've ever seen in politics. they sent 3000 people home. can you believe it? it is unbelievable. it is beautiful what is happening. it is beautiful what is happening. newt gingrich said he's never seen anything like it. he said, it's never been done before. i said, it's fine, but if i don't win, it's a waste of time.
he said what you have done is incredible. whatf you do not win the, you have done is incredible. you have totally changed the landscape for politics. [applause] don't applaud. don't applaud. he says you have totally changed the landscape of politics. there has never been anything like your campaign. i said you don't understand. if i don't win, i will consider this a total and complete waste of time. i really do, because we are not going to do anything. it is nice i had good crowds. i had crowds and trump ran this rather good campaign. if we don't win, to me, it is a total waste of time. because you have someone else in there, you won't be able to do what i want to do.
when you get one of these republicans in, like when i say mexico is going to pay, they all laugh. these are people, they think it is funny. they are laughing. it is so funny. they are making billions and billions of dollars on deficits that we have. the wall is peanuts. they are going to pay for the wall. now they don't laugh because they are starting to agree with me. the other day, ted cruz said we are going to build a wall at the southern border. and my wife is sitting -- where did that come from? he's a good guy but i think it was on fox, he said we are going to build a wall at the southern border. he did not say mexico was going to pay. when i did this stuff, it was very out there. now i'm the one everyone wants to aspire to.
so ted is up and he is talking. routinely, we are going to have a border, and said we are going to build a wall. my wife is sitting there and she sais, darling, did you hear that? that's the first time -- she hasn't heard that from any other candidate. we are going to build a wall and mexico is going to pay for it. there are so many things we are going to do. but when i started the journey, it was amazing. i went down to the lobby of trump tower and it looked like the academy awards. we have a lot of press here today. when i came down the escalator, i said we are going to do things. i mentioned illegal immigration. it wasn't even on the radar. now it's one of the big subjects.
one of the beautiful holes that came out, -- one of the polls that came out, cnn just came out with a poll a week ago, 36 percent for trump. on the economy, they give me 55%. 55%. that's with 16 people at the time. on the budget and the economy, i win it hands down. but on illegal immigration, i'm almost at 50%. and on isis, likewise, almost 50%. so people want to be protected. they want to feel safe. they need strength and toughness. they want smarts. i know a lot of tough guys and they are not smart. they are the easiest. you can be tough. you got to be smart. you got to be tough because the world is trying to take advantage of us.
what happens is this -- i came out, the first couple of weeks with illegal immigration and then kate was killed and an unbelievable young man, just shot through the head. kate was shot by a guy -- these are two. you have the economy and the jobs being lost and all of this stuff. all of the sudden, people are coming over, and now they are starting to say the wall. we have to be progressive in our thinking. i mean smart. i don't mean progressive like bernie sanders. think of it. this guy wants to raise your taxes to 90%. i love this area. i have been here many times. great golfing area, am i right?
no more golf if bernie sanders -- you won't have any golf anymore. you won't have any money left. you will be paying in taxes. this guy is a total disaster. i'm not saying that -- i tell you what -- hillary says, i would like to run against trump. believe me, chuck todd, "meet the press," his show is dying. he never treated me fairly. he gets the highest rating he's had in years. i won't even give you the numbers. i saved his life, and then he goes, hillary clinton says she would most like to run against donald trump. and they are looking forward to it -- trust me, the last person -- she had a tough night last night. she had a tough night looking at the beauty pageant. hillary clinton said -- here is chuck todd.
he's a nice guy. i am not trying to knock him. but she does not like him. he goes, the clinton campaign says they would most like to run against trump -- like i'm some kind of sap. i explained when they say they , want to run against me, that means they don't want to run against me. do you understand that? it is reverse psychology. they say they want to run against me. i'm winning and tied in the polls -- but look at what happened to all the guys i hit -- they are gonzo or they are failing badly. but hillary clinton, think of it. chuck, report it properly. they don't want to run against trump. this is the last thing they want
-- because the husband wants to come and accuse me of things and the husband is one of the great abusers of the world? give me a break. give me a break. give me a break. the last person she wants to run against is me. very simple. i was talking about trade, obamacare, the border, the wall, and the second amendment. the second amendment will be saved, by the way. it will be saved. saved. the second amendment will be with us. they want to get rid of bullets, think of paris, think of los angeles. think if you had some guns in paris on the good side. they have no guns. paris has the toughest gun laws in the world and france, you get caught with a gun, the only one who has guns are bad guys. they go into these various places. they call the guy a mastermind,
but he's a moron. the french police did a great job and our los angeles least did a phenomenal job. they did a great job. wouldn't it be wonderful -- this guy with the hat, he has a lousy head of hair, but he's a strong looking guy. wouldn't it be nice if they had a gun on their waste, so -- you know what they were doing? get over here, boom, 130 people because there are people that are so badly injured. other people are going to die. these are people that gave a party in honor of their marriage. there is something going on folks that is wrong. they gave them a party. she came on a fiance permit and
she was radicalized, and he was probably radicalized i her. people knew that they were radicalized, and people in the area knew they had bombs -- who the hell doesn't know? and they did not want to talk about it. you have to report these people. no more nonsense. they did not report them because they don't disagree with them. it is not because they are afraid. correct toolitically report them. give me a break. we have to change. it started off with me where i was going to talk about trade and all of this, but after paris and california, and there will be others because they have no fear of us, it has totally changed, and my poll numbers went up 10 points. it is amazing.
they say people view you as a tough cookie. that is not going to take this crap. [applause] mr. trump: now i talk about protection. i've got the greatest guys in the world. i always talk about ford. it's not going to happen with me. those fields are no good. ford is closing plants all over michigan. how the hell does that help us? who are the people who think that is good for us? in meantime in michigan and other places we have plants all , over the place and then
they're going to sell cars and parts -- ford will say you have to stay in the united states. it's very simple. how about nabisco announced in chicago they are going to leave and go to mexico. what is my statement -- we are not eating oreos anymore. it's not going to happen. they are going to make a product and sell it in the united states? it's not going to happen. i am a free trader. we got to get something. we don't get anything out of anything. we lose on everything. that iran deal was a disaster. this came to me two weeks ago. i do not know why i did not think of it sooner. the iran deal is the worst deal i've ever seen negotiated. you know what is the worst one?
we gave them iraq. that's even better. we gave iran iraq. take a look. among the largest oil reserves in the world. we gave them by decapitating iraq, not only did they make a great deal, we give iraq. now they have the largest reserves in the world. we handed it to then. that's even better than the original. whoever is representing iran is doing a hell of a job. if that was a stock, you got to buy some. we are not going to have deals like that with me. it is not going to happen. we are going to become rich again.
again. and we are going to become strong again. [applause] and you are going to remember this moment. this is going to be an important moment for all of us. the one thing i have to ask you to do go out and vote. , it is going to be your turn. it starts in february 1 with iowa. we go to new hampshire, and then three weeks -- we've got four weeks to go -- no matter what is going on in your life, you got to go out and vote. don't go say trump is going to do well. the more we can win by, the more power we have because it is like a mandate. i will tell you this it has been , an honor to be here, but we will make america great again, i
he calls for a temporary enteringof all muslims the country until we figure out what is going on. he will stop illegal immigration by building a wall with our southern border
that execute will pay for. mr. trump: we will make america great again. our coverage continues. tomorrow, rand paul will have a town hall meeting in exeter, new hampshire, and 6:30 eastern on c-span2. c-span takes you on the road to the white house, best access to the candidates, at town hall meetings, speeches, and we are taking your comments on twitter, they spoke, and by phone, and always every candidate -- every campaign event we cover is available on our website, www.c-span.org. tonight, consumer
technology president on issues 2016 and why the 's name was changed. with the exhibit space, up from 2.4 million in 2015, so we expect more innovation, or different categories than every before. it is the future. it is a show where solving problems, not just about entertainment or education information, health care, transportation, clean food, can solve big problems with technology. announcer: tonight at 8:00 2.stern on c-span tw announcer: president obama
tomorrow expecting to make announcements. 'sre's a portion of today white house briefing. earnes goodt: am glad the new year has you in a good spirit. hands ribbing of any some of my colleagues. i don't see too many out in the audience today. it's because many of you actually got a little time off and i hope it was a pleasant opportunity to spend time with your family. enjoyed that opportunity so i hope you all did as well. obviously, this is going to be a pretty exciting year, for a variety of reasons. fast, and starting off
we've got a lot of work to get to. so let's go straight to questions. julie, do you want to start? >> thanks, josh. of the art with one things the president was talking about this afternoon. that he r expectation will announce what he plans to expect that to be an announcement later this week? >> i would anticipate that the president would have an announcement quite soon, where e would discuss some steps where his administration has concluded and that he has are within his executive authority that would of guns out of the hands people that shouldn't have them, and there are common sense steps he can take using his authority that do not undermine the constitutional rights of we abiding americans, but have to do something in this country to address the consequences of congress's act, and, look, there an 30,000 americans
who die every year as a result gun. and we're not going to be able to pass the law or take an would ve action that prevent every single incident of gun violence, but if there's preventg we could do to even one, why wouldn't we do it? and that's the president's mind-set as he enters this meeting with the attorney general and as he prepares to make some announcements. >> a lot of the executive actions the president has done have faced legal challenges, you're already seeing republicans talking about things they expect the president to announce being unconstitutional, bounds.pping his what do you expect preparing for legal announcements and a legal whatever he t announces, could be something he away? nts right >> the part of the work -- a lot of the work that has gone on behind the scenes to take a look t what the president can do
using his executive authority, has been grounded in the knowledge. they are going to look for ways we know stop it, and they will likely pursue to legal theory to prevent the implementation of these ules, and that's why the president wants to be sure that the recommendations he receives actions he utive carries out are going to stand up in a court of law, and a lot of the work that has gone on has we would sure that have confidence in the legal actions, and i feel confident in telling you now that what the president does announce will be the kinds of actions in which we have a lot f confidence that they are
within the legal ability of the president of the united states to carry out these actions. >> one other topic, saudi arabia announced that its allies has either cut off or downgraded iran.atic relations with how concerning is this to the white house, not only the iranians, but as it relates to iplomatic efforts in syria and yemen? mr. earnest: well, julie, we do about e to be concerned the need for both the iranians and the saudis to de-escalate this situation in the middle east, that we're urging all show some restraint and inflame tensions that are on quite-vivid display in the region. and secretary kerry has been in touch with his iranian counterpart. u.s. diplomatic officials in saudi arabia have been in touch
with their counterparts to convey this message. i would anticipate that secretary kerry will be in touch with his saudi counterpart at some point soon as well to deliver that same message, and we have seen that a lot of the volatility and instability in he middle east has a tendency to break down along sectarian minds. it's not a coincidence. we believe there's more that can be done by people on all sides to try to bridge those divides advances the interest of countries all across the region. for example, the syria situation, i think, is probably the most vivid example of this. the united states has succeeded in leading the international effort to bring all sides together to try to bring about a political resolution to the situation inside of syria. >> do you worry with it now saudis andetween the iranians, that it could influence that effort and cause it to break down? -- eferee:
mr. earnest: we're certainly hopeful it won't. it's clearly in the best interest of both countries to advance a political solution syria.of the reason that iran and saudi arabia have participated in those conversations that are led by secretary kerry are not out of charity. they're doing it because they interest own vested in trying to bring about an end chaos inside of syria, and they're looking for a way that they can contribute constructively to that process. it was a lot of painstaking diplomatic work to bring them to the table the first time, and be reasons forys them to be suspicious and be with ant to engage countries that they consider to be their adversaries, but the pursuit of this ultimate goal is so clearly within their own direct interest that we're hopeful that they will continue to engage, but ultimately, it will be up to them.
roberta? s you talked about comment that secretary kerry has made or plan to make. has president obama made any comments to his counterparts? mr. earnest: at this moment, any resident has not made calls to his counterparts in any of those countries on this issue. is certainly, the president aware of the situation and the andage that secretary kerry other u.s. diplomats have been elivering is certainly consistent with the president's perspective on the situation. have does saudi arabia he head's up for cutting it off? mr. earnest: i won't get into the details of the diplomatic conversations between the united states and the saudi officials. i can tell you that the united raised egularly has concerns about the human rights situation inside of saudi arabia. the president has even done that in his conversations with king
salmon. and more recently, there have raised by concerns u.s. officials to saudi officials. about the potential damaging consequences, of following through on the execution, on mass executions, in particular, al nimmer, not only a political leader but a religious leader. this is a particular issue of concern we raised with the saudis in advance and, unfortunately, the concerns that saudis have to the f ecipitated the kinds o consequences we talked about. back onid the u.s. hold
he sanctions for iran, did saudi express irritation about that? mr. earnest: well, roberta, i think theory a couple of things about this. the first is we've been talking about this for some time about the potential that the united states could levy sanctions iran against ballistic missile tests they conducted last year. this is an option that has been and e table for some time one considered by experts of the treasury department who are imposing those kinds of penalties. we know those financial penalties have an impact and they are helpful in countering missile program but, ultimately, we will impose we'llfinancial penalties, impose those sanctions at a time and place of our choosing when
they will believe have a maximum impact and those decisions are not subject to negotiation by the iranians or anybody else, for that matter. they are actually -- those decisions are made based solely on the conclusion of our experts about ensuring hat those penalties have the maximum impact. >> did saudi arabia express any irritation about the sanctions not being levied at this particular time? mr. earnest: you'd have to ask hem about that, but again, the decision that the united states makes about imposing sanctions iranians for their ongoing ballistic missiles rogram are made based on our judgment about when those maximums would have the impact. julie? >> thanks, josh. what does the president think about the situation that's unfolding in oregon on this preserve preserve. it's federal land and there are
protesters. i wonder has he talked to the attorney general about this? oes he think the federal government is taking action against these people? what does he think about them occupying these buildings and not moving? mr. earnest: the president is certainly aware of the situation. i'd frankly be surprised if it context with the attorney general later. working with local law enforcement to resolve the hopeful the we're situation can be resolved peacefully without any violence. public have the right to be on this land at this point? mr. earnest: i'm not sure the resident has spent a lot of time considering the case of the individuals who are carrying out this action. this is a local law enforcement matter. he fbi is monitoring the situation and offering support to the local law enforcement officials as they try to deal with it. >> but what is the federal government's role given that federal land?
it can't be purely a local law they're nt matter when occupying federal land. mr. earnest: well, certainly, the concern we have is for the safety of federal personnel that work in those facilities. knowledge, at this point, there are no federal federal employees that are at risk or in danger right now. obviously, we're aware of the situation and concerned about now, ut ultimately, right it's the -- this is a matter that local law enforcement is with the nd doing so support of the fbi. federal government given any guidance to the employees about the facility, enter or should not not go to their place of work? mr. earnest: i'm not aware of that. ou might check with the department of the interior that i believe manages these facilities. okay. mara. >> just a follow-up on what you said to julie earlier about the court challenges about the action on guns. president is
confident that the recommendations will stand up in a court of law. you are a short-timer in the administration, and the time is ticking. i mean, it's not so much of whether you might eventually prevail. it's just that the immigration orders can be tied up to the the process runs out and they can't be. o how confident are you that the court challenges will actually all be finished in time go into effect before you leave office? mr. earnest: i'm certainly not going to be in the business of outcomes.g court what i can tell you is that the president will only put forward recommendations or only put forward executive actions, in confidence in their constitutionality. one of the reasons that this particular effort to scrub the the president described it, to consider what executive guns ity he has to keep out of the wrong hands, has been ooted in his desire to make
sure that they would stand up in court of law, and we want to make sure that the arguments are arguments e, we can make, not just with confidence in their ability to ddress the issue, but also confidence in their legal standing. >> right, but can't the opponents stop the actions merely by tying them up in court or 12 months, which is all you've got? mr. earnest: i certainly wouldn't be surprised if they try. arguments the kind of that we'll be able to mobilize in the court of law are ones that i am confident are ones that are powerful and persuasive. ultimately, ones that a judge will have to decide. but we should not be distracted, however, from the fact that the reason the president is taking is because s congress has utterly failed in so.r responsibility to do congress, time and again, has to multiple opportunities
take action that would make it the wrong hands to get ahold of guns. and there are steps that congress can take that would not undermine the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. refused.ess has congress has failed to take those actions. going to useent is his executive authority to follow through and take what steps he can. i can tell you that after the president takes those steps, congress is still going to have a responsibility to act in their own right as well. the will not eliminate responsibility that congress has to take steps that only they can of the keep guns out wrong hands, and that's -- so you know, the president is going to make this announcement soon, and there will be some important that willill take but not be the end of this debate. there will still be a responsibility that congress has
to take action. christy. >> josh, you said at the beginning that there are some steps that the president has concluded are within his executive power. his mind?eady made up when did he do that? today he in a meeting with the a.g.? mr. earnest: you'll have an opportunity to hear from the with the when he meets attorney general so i'll let him speak for himself in that case. you that there are a number of recommendations that the president has considered, know, i would anticipate that we will, very soon, have announcements about what actions the president has chosen to take. say that he to believes it's within his executive power to increase or to expand the number of people who have to register as a firearms dealer? mr. earnest: well, there are a range of things that have been considered and given that we will have some announcements here, rather on than speculate on what the president is likely to decide,
let's let the president make a decision here and announce these steps and we can discuss sort of cons of what's been decided. >> one more thing, is he talking with boards before or after the meeting with the a.g.? mr. earnest: it will be after. so he'll have an opportunity to that discussion. michelle. >> the normal course of events, r the way the system is supposed to work, that kind of ongressional action was being formed by public opinion. so we now have a record of these bipartisan basis failing and now public opinion howing that the majority of americans oppose stricter gun laws. so are all of those people wrong? mr. earnest: well, michelle, i think the polls actually indicate there are strong some common sense steps that congress could take. -- whatple, closing the is often referred to as the gunshow loophole, essentially
ensuring that everybody who tries to purchase a firearm, overer it's a gun show, or the internet, has to undergo a background check. 84% ding to a recent poll, of voters with households in support purchases at gunshows or gun purchases online. we have been conducting a lot of iowans, i'm not sure that is, said it jokingly. three out of four iowa republicans support requiring criminal background checks for purchases, a similar number applies to new hampshire republicans. 81% of new hampshire republicans supports background checks on s, so this is se not just -- this is not a ething that -- this is not partisan endeavor, and this is not just something that is being advanced by people who are strong advocates of gun control. un owners and republicans
overwhelmingly support at least closing on sense step, the gun-show loophole. ics e are similar statist that apply to congressional action that would prevent those individuals who are on the no-fly list from being able to buy a gun. it's a pretty common sense step, if the government has determined it's too dangerous for to you board an airplane, that you houldn't be able to purchase a firearm. about three out of four surveyed s who were recently came to the same conclusion and agreed with that otion, and i know there's at least one republican candidate for president who has articulated support for that. you can look at very specific aspects of this. but when you see it broadly that a majority of americans now, and fewer than a couple of years ago, support stricter gun even after the mass shootings, even after all by the ssion statements
president. to what does the administration a ribute those numbers that majority of the americans would feel that way? mr. earnest: well, again, -- what the president is focused on in the context of this exercise is very directly steps this administration can take, to keep and out of the wrong hands, we're not under the illusion that that is going to prevent violence, ent of gun but it's possible that we could prevent even one or two violence, then n we're going to eagerly implement those executive actions and that's exactly what the president is focused on. >> is there any evidence that any of the president's prior gun control ionos have kept guns out of the wrong hands? s there any evidence that whatever he does now will do some nd, i mean, i think of the criticism in the past has been -- or, i mean, it's so many that the reason americans oppose stricter laws is maybe they feel those laws or
those actions wouldn't have any effect. so why do you think whatever the action is going to be would be different? mr. earnest: let me take this a couple of different ways. after the tragic shoot nothing newtown at the end of 2012 and early 2013, the president announced about 23 executive actions he was taking, again, to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands. related to e steps ensuring that federal agencies were providing the necessary records to produce background checks and the result was a 46% increase in the amount of federal records that were provided to the background check service. it's called nix. one of the executive actions also had to do with providing an incentive to state, and greater clarity to states to ensure
they're providing records and that has resulted in a 69% increase in the number of records provided to the background checks service. now, the question is, well, what's really the point of information that to the background checks service, if there are loopholes? precisely why the president supports closing loopholes. ostensibly, that's why the majority of americans and the majority of gun owners and closing the blics support loopholes. our background checks system over the last decade and-a-half prevent body 2 million gun transactions. that's 2 million guns that were blocked from going into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. do more ea that we can to ensure that more transactions re subjected to those background checks, that's a pretty common sense step, and we a common sense way, because we know that a
law-abiding american who doesn't have mental problems, is not the order, of a restraining can go through the background timely ystem in a fashion and purchase a gun. of part n, that's sort of the kind of common sense should guide ve these decisions. alexis. >> it's believed that with the blockade in congress, the make this a ted to political issue. issues.bout the because of talking about this to and even afterwards, can you describe in the body s are politics with his concentration on the issue here, beyond what you've described as trying to keep people alive. but beyond that, what is his hope? his arnest: well, i think top priority is ensuring he is sing every element of his
executive order to take common sense actions that would keep uns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. that's what's driving the he could nts i think expect sometime pretty soon. separate from that, i would nticipate that the president wants to continue to engage in a debate about additional steps our congress make the community safer. uld be not a law that co passed to prevent every incident of gun violence but there are laws that could be passed that will reduce the likelihood that guns will fall into the hands of people that shouldn't have them laws and pass those implement them and enforce them in a way that doesn't undermine he constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. so i think the president's desire to have this discussion debate i think is -- i think a piece of have for that is that the president should agree o participate in a town hall
meeting later this week that will be broadcast in prime time notable cable television network, and i think that's an indication of the president's desire to not just focus on what e can do himself using his executive authority to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but what do to lead an ongoing debate in this country about teps that can be taken and should be taken to reduce gun violence in communities all country. e >> with regard to national mental health, and speaker ryan talked about mental health in his statement this morning. does the president believe that sense or a good element of cooperation that talking e out to just to house republicans, including speaker ryan, about what work of d be done on the issue mental health? mr. earnest: i will say that there's a lot of skepticism rooted in republican claims that
about improving mental health care in this country. when they're prepared this week actually take their 60th vote very law that has done more to expand access to mental health than any other law in decades. so it's a little hard to consider their claim that they're interested in mental health care, as anything other than an attempt to excuse their do something o serious like standing up to the nra and passing a common sense gun re that would reduce violence. lala. >> happy new year. mr. earnest: happy new year to you too. >> with the initiative with within a week, they are coming across the border. make of the decision there? mr. earnest: well, obviously, the leaders of both countries
decide for have to themselves what they believe is in the interest of their citizens. the united states certainly relations at warmer and more cooperation between the pakistan would be in the interest of both countries. ultimately, the leaders of those countries will have to decide for themselves. >> when pakistani prime minister there was a joint statement issued by u.s. and in which pakistan promised they would take action against terrorist groups. do you see any action being taken by them against these terrorist groups? r. earnest: well, obviously, the united states and pakistan have a security relationship that advances the interest of countries.r hundreds, if not thousands, of pakistani citizens have been the victims of terrorist groups and terrorist actions inside several over the last years, and so obviously, the
has their of pakistan own interest in trying to fight extremism and fight terrorist organizations that are operating country.heir own the united states has offered our support to the pakistani government. them, ously want to help particularly in light of that terrible terrorist incident extremist w an organization carry out an attack against an elementary school inside of pakistan, a little over a year ago, i believe. i think it's a very vivid illustration for people who this issue,y follow that citizens in pakistan and has akistani government their own vested interest in trying to deal with organizations trying to operate country and the united states obviously strongly supports the pakistani do that.t if they [indiscernible question]. mr. earnest: i'm not aware of any upcoming meetings between the president and the leaders of india and pakistan, but if anything materializes, i'll let
you know. >> josh, happy new year. mr. earnest: happy new year to you, too. cover two topics with you. is the s, the other middle east. we'll start with guns. you spoke repeatedly in this briefing about the confidence the president has in the lawfulness of the measures he implement. how did that confidence arise some did he task the office of the legal counsel and the department of justice to provide that subject? mr. earnest: we'll have an opportunity to get into a little after the this work president has made an announcement on this, but i will ave beenes, that there h attorneys both at the white house and the department of justice that have been carefully ooking at the law to determine what authority the president does have are to take action in focus, as ind their mentioned earlier, was not just n what would be effective in addressing the problem, which is keeping guns out of the wrong that, but also making sure
the steps that the president was taking were well within his legal authority. and so the attorneys who have been working on this were carefully considering both elements here, and that's what gives me the confidence to assert that what the president does announce will be something in which he has full confidence in the legal arguments that we could make about them. >> is it accurate to say that tasked the attorney general with developing options in this realm and that she has complied? mr. earnest: the president certainly did ask the department f justice, including the attorney general to play a leading role in considering what le to him was availab to keep guns out of the hands of them. who shouldn't have >> doesn't that call into question the independence of the attorney general, if the simply call her up like a chinese food restaurant the menu and off she serves it up? mr. earnest: well,
unfortunately, the system for doing that wasn't quite as easy a or ering from column column b. ultimately, experts at the epartment of justice had to carefully consider what the law mean, llow and what -- i they bring expertise of two varieties to this situation. is, law enforcement expertise, which is understanding exactly what steps could be taken to enforce what laws are on the books and close make those at may laws less effective than what was originally intended. also bring expertise in exactly what the president can do using his existing executive authority and also understanding what only congress can do. both of those areas of expertise, the president was ndationsget some recomme from the department of justice. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its
caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] eeps, colin n the u.s. and about the different regions and nations. and president bill clinton on the trail campaigning for hillary clinton. glickman talks about presidential campaigns and the political process. "washington journal," we'll discuss campaign finance and spending for political ads. usa today reporter fredreka schouten will join us and manal his roots alk about on islamic extremism and ways to prevent it. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. next, author and journalist colin woodard talks about the history of regionalism and cultural wars in the u.s. and
red he calls the myth of and blue states. book.cusses his this event was held at the iowa state university. >> it is my honor to introduce book that of a explodes the red state-blue-state myth with a claim that our cultural wars are inevitable. the ther books include lobster coast and the struggle for a forgotten frontier, travels through endangered seas, and the republic of pirates, the basis "crossbones." ies he is also the state and national affairs writer at the portland press harold and main sunday telegram.
learning k forward to more about the 11 rival regions in the country which will no greater d to understanding of the current presidential campaign. welcoming me in colin woodard. . pplause] mr. woodard: thank you all, and hank you, iowa state, for having me and thank all of you for coming tonight. it's a great pleasure to be back especially as we're entering political campaign season in its full glory. "american nations" is a book about north american regionalism and the vital importance it plays in understanding our history, our national identity, indeed, our current political cleavages, which are they are , even as idea lonl icologic ideological. i think we all know that regionism is important, red states and blue states. there was a civil war and the south is apparently still
fighting it. we know that the presidential to say es are supposed one set of things to their party faithful when they arrive in new later, re and two weeks say a completely different set of things to the faithful of the ame party when they get to south carolina. even in this tea party era, a state ike vermont and a like mississippi might as well be on separate planets in terms of religious values, political priorities, ideas about the proper role of government, about the relationship between church and state, and even the meaning of such important and key terms lexicon as can indeed, or liberty or the definition of american ideals and liberty. the point is we're no more a united culture, a united nation, than europe is. and indeed, our component cultures are more diverse and share fewer values in common han any few member states today. but we can't talk about these critical differences in any meaningful sort of way because we don't have the right map.
regions?t do we mean by worse, you know, we hear regionalism all the time. polls and t regional regional marketing and whether krispy kreme like region.n donuts by what do you mean by regions? it's a set of regions defined by boundaries and sort of that classic federal government way of the northeast and the a south and a west. but by doing this, particularly lines, you g state end up distorting and diluting the true role that these cultures play. this approach misses the true fizzures, which are historically-based, have been consistent through the centuries, and rarely respect state or, indeed, even international boundaries. again, we all know this, right? we all know that state boundaries don't make any sense. is there anyone here from maryland? marylanders -- and every marylander you ask, they all
now that there are three marylands and can have an argument with each other about exactly where the boundary is located between the three. there's the three texases, right? austin is the state capitol. all texans know that, but houston, san antonio and dallas are the hubs of three very different texases. there's the coastal strip of the west coast that seems to share a great deal in common between states and even provences and, yet is as odds in almost every conceivable way with the interiors of their own states provences. there's upstate and down-state illinois. there's the great quote from the democratic strategist, james ragin you know, the cajun. he was taking a political neo neofite around the state and was telling him about the realities for state. he said, here's what you've got to understand. there's philadelphia, pittsburgh, and alabama in
between. and he was talking about the uplands of northern alabama, he was actually on pretty sound ethnohistorical grounds. missouri can't ven agree on a regional basis how to pronounce the name of the state. clearly, state boundaries aren't in hing something and yet times of uncertainty and discord, many americans seek of the n the works founding fathers hoping that if we could return to their ideal, and followed nd their original intent, we could sense of isplaced common purpose, restore our civic strength and bring the union back to unity. but time and again, this effort is frustrated by the simple and when you think about it, very obvious fact, that the men who came together to confront a ommon enemy in 1775 and 1776 and to build a more enduring alliance in 1787 to 1789 were not our country's founders but, rather, the founders' great and great-great, and
great-great-great grandchildren, and those founders from the 17th century and early 18th century shared very little in common in terms of purpose and intent and ideals. indeed, most of our true regional cultures date back to 18th 7th and early centuries. here they are, the original east coast, he where they originally started from and the light-shaded line got through t each 1775. these original clusters you see here on the eastern seaboard ere founded and settled by people of distinct regions of the brightal isles, the french, the netherlands each with their own political and ethnographic character characteristics. for generations, these discrete euro american cultures developed a remarkable isolation from one another, consolidating their own cherished principals and indeed, al values and, expanding across the eastern half of the country in nearly
settlement bands. the dark section there is the and this you just saw, is the expansion out to 1850 in tiers.eparate now, some of these regional cultures championed individualism. others, utopian social reform. some believed themselves to be purpose.y divine others champion freedom of conscience and inquiry. explicit ced an anglo-protestant identity. thers, ethnic and religious pluralism. some valued equality and democratic participation in politics. others, deference to a traditional aristocratic order of led on the slave states classical antiquity. throughout the early slave saw one another as competitors for land, for ettlers, for capital, and even as enemies. in these cultures you see here, ook opposing sides in the english civil war of the 1640s, in the american revolution, in
the war of 1812. indeed, nearly all of the regional cultures you see on this map right now would consider leaving the union in the 80 years following the battle of yorktown and two of them, tragically tried to do so in the 1860s. the point is is that there's but been one america rather several americas. there are 11. this is county resolution. i'm going to very briefly introduce them. the book goes into all the subtleys.d i'll give you the comic book version so that we could get through them in 15 minutes instead of 15 hours. with the top right blue. in yankee-dome in started by radical calf annists and new zion. a city on a hill. since the outset, it's put great emphasis on perfecting social
society through engineering, self denial for the social good, and the aggressive outsiders.n of t has prized education, intellectual community, and community rather than individual empowerment. broad participation in politics and government. shield the public against the machinations of ggressive aristocrates and strong county government. i'm going to briefly explain what this map is depicting with yankee-dome so you understand doing.he whole map is i'll just describe why it is that category is described as yankee-dome. it gives you a sense of what this is depicting because, you the puritans may have come to massachusetts bay and bsorbed the purity of the pilgrims in cape cod and swallowed up the royalist and ements in maine consolidated with sister
olonies in connecticut and taken its sister in new hampshire and so on and so forth. defeated incks were the netherlands, there was a great controversy about who was over what ve control became new york and the controversy was because, do you remember back at least in my era, your high school text books in american history, would show each of the colonies, right, and many of the colonies were wide ng a strip about as as the colony of territory going all the way across the map to wherever the next ocean was. we haven't seen it yet but we own our strip. we're claiming it. that so happened massachusetts's strip went right through an enormous swath of upstate new york that had been taken from the dutch and belongs to id, this us. so there's a big controversy about it, and the compromise that was made was everyone decided, okay, new provence of new york, you'll get sovereignty over these millions and millions
way of , but by compensation, massachusetts will vast areatitle to the that was under dispute. it happened that massachusetts-based land companies were given by the commonwealth to settle those organized id so and almost villages on the move ashion with entire groups of villages and towns from massachusetts moving out to these contested areas in new york and settling off, led by their clergymen to set and create new england style villages in upstate new york, which is why so many of the resemble hat region those in new england. fast forward to the creation of the northwest territory and the ohio territory and you ran into the same problem. see that blue bit up there by ohio, northern ohio around cleveland? reserve.he western the western reserve of connecticut. if you match it up, that's the connecticut strip and they said hey, this belongs to us. worked out the same compromise so connecticut-based land
settling the d up section known as the western reserve. if you look even today, pull out your rand mcinaly map, you will see many of the towns in the western reserve section happen to have the same place names as towns in connecticut because that's where the original settlers came from. zoom forward another generation, the michigan territory is appening, many of the initial settlers into the michigan territory who went to the constitutional convention and wrote the constitution, who were the governors of the initial territorial government and state government were from the western reserve of ohio, the portion of ed upstate new york, or new england itself, provided the first five michigan governors. similar story into the wisconsin territory and minnesota and so on and so on. you're watching this sort of formatting of the hard drive, as of ere, as the line settlement moved forward and these were separate settlement ands and you could tell a similar story for each of the cultures on the right two-thirds of the map.
that's what it's actually depicting. so moving on from there, as we ove down from yankee-dome to the area in light blue around the big apple, that's new netherland. as the name protrays, it wasn't founded by the british at all, but by the dutch. at the time, in the 1640s and 1650s, when the netherlands was sophisticated society in the western world and isplayed the salient amsterdam.tics of multiethnic, multireligious are, ith a profound tolerance for diversity and an unflinching commitment to the idea of freedom and conscience. like 17th century amsterdam but center of a leading publishing, trade and finance, a magnet for immigrants and a persecuted in e amsterdam's case by the other monarchies of europe, in new york's case, by those persecuted by other regional cultures from
century to gays, ohemians and feminists in the 20th. very different place as you can yankee-dome. further east on the seaboard, point formed the shores of delaware bay. the midlands is america's great swing region and it was founded originally by english quakers by penn's experiment. the quakers believed in the inner light and inherent they ss of humans so welcomed people from many nations and creeds to their colonies on the shores of delaware bay. it spawned middle america and as cart land, f where ethnic and ideological been a as never priority, where government has never been seen as an unwelcomed intrusion and political opinion has been moderate, even apathetic.
mosaic, even from the start. from the time of the revolution, pennsylvania, very midland dominated, had a german, even though it was a british colony. it's a swing region because it shares the yankee belief that organized to be benefit ordinary people but nlike the yankees, it rejects top-down government intervention to achieve this, so it ends up buffer zone between two traditions and the yankee and appalachian space that are very much at odds, and it's no accident that many of the swing electoral our current map have large midland sections inland. moving south ward from there chesapeake country into the southern two counties of delaware, southern bits of maryland, eastern north carolina, you're in the tide water. more or colony set up less the same time as the xpansion of new england and english people. what a different group of english people it was from
yankee-dome. it was settled not by wide-religious utopia but rather sons of southern english gentry and it was meant semi-futile the minoral society of the country side they'd left behind, where economic, political and social affairs were run by and for landed aristocrates. a 17th ere sort of century version of downtown abbey. you have the, you know, we are the right people to be leading the heads of household but we care about what happens with the hamz, the social sort of contract of sorts. context of the new world, there was a major problem with this plan. they found great difficulty in finding people who wanted to stand in for the role of the peasantry.the they turned first to indentured tragically asater the 17th century came to an end, to full on slave system. tidewater has been conservative
on respect andue authority and tradition and very little on equality, public participation or politics. it was the most powerful nation in the 18th century, but today, in decline, having been boxed out of west ward expansion by its boisterous appalachian neighbors and more ecently eaten away by the expanding federal halos around the district of columbia and and on roads and norfolk virginia, site of the world's largest naval base. ask me why ople would this map change 1,000 years from now. are these things permitted or never move? no, but culture has a lot of inertia. things move slowly and sometimes cultures do in fact disappear. babylonia anymore, no byzantinnia, or mes potamia. it's being absorbed into something sort of midlandish, as far as we can tell, but it's federal because the
government and the presence of it in the middle of tidewater in with trillions of dollars of spending mean can live f people economic and social lives without reference to the idewater and that's having a cumulative effect over time. n to those aforementioned boisterous appalachian neighbors. palachia is greater. his is a place founded in the early 18th century so somewhat later than the ones we talked about. it was founded by wave upon wave from northern ireland and the english marches and scotland. lampooned by generations of writers and screenwriters as the home of red necks, but in reality, it's a transplanted culture formed in a state of near constant danger and upheaval characterized by a
warrior ethic and a deep commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty. people of appalachia as you might imagine have been suspicious in history of the lowland iriftocrats and yankees alike, so they have shifted alliances based on whoever was the greatest threat to freedom. since reconstruction, it's been in alliance with deep south in an effort to undo the federal government's ability to override local preferences. consider this, in the civil war, uction, reconstr appalachia was on the union side. now, working our way south a little further to the deep red area marked the deep south, its around hearth charleston and south carolina. this is a regional culture 1670s d in the 1660s and by slave lords from the english barbados who were transplanting and creating a fully formed west indy style slave society in the subtropical lowlands of america.
oligarchy has been privileged and republicanism. on ancient greece and rome, where democracy was the privilege of the few and subjugation and slavery the many.al lot of the many had an ideology that that was the only way a republic exist, is if you have a large class that was subserveient and didn't have the political rights and did all the difficult work. its systems have been smashed with the help of outside intervention but its leaders on the federal stage continue to fight against expansions of federal power, taxes targeting capital or the wealthy and robust environmental labor or consumer safety protections. working doub down to the southwest of the country, el norte, which expands on both sides of the border. this is actually the oldest of the euro-american cultures. hen i went to school, at least you got caught american history as sort of this east-west expansion, manifest destiny.
everything starts on the east coast and moves that way. in fact, the oldest european the ements in what are now united states are in the southwest and came south to north, because this is the borderlands of new spain, of the vast and expansive spanish-american empire. by the time you got to the you ier in the far north, were so far from the seats of power in mexico city and iberia, that k in this region evolved its own characteristics. map you can see the county what i've marked there. that used to the idea spain claimed half of the united states. that was on paper. the areas that are shaded are areas that were actually colonized by spain prior to the dates nexations and the of the settlements and the like. and this map largely corresponds today with a couple of slight exceptions of roll-backs in eastern texas and the san francisco bay area, but essentially, it's the same map. most americans are aware this is
a place apart or hispanic language and culture dominate.tal norms but few realize that among exicans, nortes have a reputation for being independent, self sufficient, adaptable and work-centered than their south and center countrymen. the historical context, north has been a long reform of revolutionary sentiment. in various parts of the region before the u.s. annexations tried to break off from the rest independent form buffer states, lands between the two federations, that they didn't want to be connectd to directly. there was the republic of the rio grand. republic of texas. it wasn't austin and his anglo followers. they were backed by the entire spanish-speaking lead of the provence of texas, because that to get away of the exploitive relationship from the being mexico and avoid captured by the united states. it didn't turn out that way, but
that was the original plan. today as you can see, it stretches for about 100 miles on and sides of the border resembles in many ways germany during the cold war, two peoples culture common separated by an increasingly large wall. two i'm going to mention are what i call second generation nations, because they're much younger. the far west and the left coast are settled essentially are colonized in the late half of the 19th century. history is much, much shorter a they weren't colonized by european group coming and setting down a settler society outward of the characteristics, but were settled by the rest of us, so first me later, and the one chronologically to be settled actually was the left coast, not the far west. and as you can see, it's a hile-shaped nation sandwiched between the mountain ranges. and it was colonized essentially by two groups. there were merchants and missionaries from new england
who arrived by sea. even by the panama canal, the easier way to get across the continent was to get a boat in boston or new york and sail around the end of south america through the great passage with its mighty solar storms with the seas and storm activity, work your way around nd go all the way up the shore of south america and central america and finally come in the gh puget sound or into mouth of the columbia river or into san francisco bay. easy way.he the second group of people who came across did it the hard way, going over land, over the incredibly dangerous expanse of the far west. not only was it environmentally and climate-wise extremely tribesus, but the native who were there had not been defeated yet and were still trying to defend their territory from intruders, sometimes to great effect. and these people tended to be fur traders and miners and
prospectors and farmers from largely the appalachian midwest over land. by wagon now, the yankee missionaries expended incredible amounts of convert this to area to california and these other places to be a new new england on the pacific. they actually had missionary societies to do this, to put orth from a new england theo logical school, was to go save the continent for the yankee way. too.did it in the midwest they had th own journals, the merican missionary society journals and would write up entire articles about the peoples coming out to the and out to to iowa minnesota and stuff and reports back on whether or not they were succeeding and establishing the yankee way to keep the terrible kentuckians at bay and praying norwegians were like good massachusetts people at home. they also expended considerable effort trying to create a new england on the pacific. a new city on the hill. a new light for humanity to see all the way out to asia to be saved and come by and follow our
lessons in new england. about en saw and wrote fuego ir travels around were similar to the may flower and so on and so forth. despite all of this effort, they weren't entirely successful. he west coast is not just another yankee-dome on the pacific because they acquired another settlement stream and hybrid culture instead. it's interesting. it combines yankee utopianism, can and should create a better world and tinker with the world to make it more perfect now and here with the appalachian emphasis on individual self expression and exploration. and it ended up being a rather secant combination. think of all the companies that dominate life in the 21st globe.y all over the they're located on this strip, the apple, microsoft, googles of and orld, amazon, twitter facebook, silicon valley. it's all in that one little strip with a population of like 22 million. that's like the population of romania.
hat's a pretty outsized influence for the size of the territory. it's been through history, these and federal ly politics of yankee-dome, clashes sections of western the interior of its own home states and provences. interior gs us to the of the far west. this is the other second generation nation. and this is the one place where will admit that environment totally trumped ethnography. because in this whole area, it context of e settlement and the technology available in the late 19th entury, it was so high and dry and remote, it just stopped these eastern nations in their tracks. and with minor exceptions, it was only able to be colonized by vast ployment of industrial scale resources, railroads, heavy mining quipment, oar smelters, dams, irrigation systems. as a result, settlement was
directly controlled by distant corporations, off on the eastern seaboard, headquartered in places like san francisco, new chicago, or by d the federal government itself, which controlled much of the exploited it essentially as an internal colony for the benefit of the rest of nations. in the far west, people have long been entirely aware of this nd resentful of this dependent status. and its anger has been shifted back and forth through history being directed at corporate masters at the anaconda coppers and the pacific railroad, which is what led to senatorse big populist being from the mountain west, focused te have are their anger at the federal government. but it shifts back and forth. an interesting phenomena in western politics. the last two, only have small enclaves in the united states but play a major role in canada. this book covers canada as well, with the core around quebec