tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 30, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
scott of the national review on free trade in the national economy. that is part of our spotlight on magazine series. ♪ host: good morning. we will begin with the campaign for president and women voters is your viewwhat of donald trump? female voters will play a want to role and we talk with women who are supporting the republican front-runner. (202) 748-8000. if you are opposing donald trump, (202) 748-8001 is your
number. women voters only, what is your view of the new york billionaire? poll that came out found out he has low favorability with women. this is what they report. negativeericans have a view of donald trump. upng women, the numbers go to 70% negative and 21% positive. dig deeper into the numbers and you get a sense of how big mr. trump's problem is. gap edge is a well-known fact of modern politics. white women often tend to lead republican. 2000 12, mitt romney one white women by 14 points. in the latest poll, white women
go to hillary clinton in a general election matchup with mr. trump by 10 points. swing --d equal a 24% whiteoint swing in the women vote between 2012 in 2016. what do you think about this? what is your view of donald trump? mr. trump has gone to twitter to talk about the issue, saying the press is going out of the way to convince people i do not like women, when that is the opposite. on women.is after me this is a tough business. he said women love donald trump. his executives are predominantly female. doing a google and twitter search, there are over 15,000 supporting donald trump. mary, danville, virginia.
you oppose mr. trump. what is your view? caller: i despise him, greta. for many reasons. males will support mr. trump. one foreign-born first lady. she would be the second. the pictures make her questionable to females. i have seen interviewers mesmerized because she is gorgeous. think she will get such support from females. i have a conundrum. i noticed in the cnn event, we do trump is suggesting pay protection for countries like japan or south korea.
otherwise, we abandon them. relying one volunteer troops, donald trump better consider paying our kids mercenary money. they would be making a lot of and shouldur country be paid as mercenaries. maybe $75,000 to $100,000 a year. host: are you a democrat or republican? right now, i voted as a republican. recently went back to being a democrat. i am really an independent. i have problems with both parties. i am a pro-life person, but i also do not support the
overweening intervention in our public -- our private lives that you see from democrats. i am in the middle. host: who will you support? trump gets the nomination, i will vote for hillary or bernie. in my heart, i wish bernie sanders was pro-life. i am really kind of rooting for him at this point. although i voted for rubio in the virginia primary. i do not want to see a wall go up. see hispanic to americans targeted. there is a little more reason to believe we need to be cautious islam iting anybody can to the country. there is good reason for that. terrorists slid in among the refugees.
hillary, illegal immigrants host: -- hillary clinton to challenge donald trump on key issues for women. she sees this as a vulnerability. wide gender gap dogs the republicans. donald trump should be the least vulnerable in equal pay. he does not have a record on opposing the paycheck at. he has voiced support for equal pay. he has claimed more of his top executives are women than men. clinton, she can use the initiative -- she can use the pay issue to tap into the popular narrative. campaign manager
was charged with simple battery against a female reporter at a florida press conference. stems from an incident at a press conference at a golf course. mr.elle fields said lewandowski grabbed her and threw her towards the ground. there is the video. it is difficult to see. it repeats. you can see she is talking to mr. trump as corey lewandowski grabs her arm and pulls her back. simplebeen charged with battery. he showed up at the share of office in jupiter, florida. mr. trump has received among women.atings 67% of women have negative views of him compared with 30% who have favorable views. cruz, 54% had negative.
33% had positive. mrs. clinton did not do much voters 51% of female have a negative rating. mr. trump went to defend corey lewandowski. my campaign manager, a decent man. look at the tapes. nothing there. make america have less surveillance cameras again. free corey lewandowski. believe me. security footage is a sham. why is this reporter touching me as i leave the news conference? what is in her hand? pen.pears to be a
times saysal according to the charge sheet, the officer who interviewed her and to watch the video of the incident, determined there was probable cause to charge mr. lewandowski with battery. michelle fields, the reporter who did not give a comment yesterday did go to twitter to because my story never changed, and stop lying was her response. also on twitter was the reaction of joe paul look. a top executive at breitbart news. he questioned her story at first. this is what he tweeted yesterday. based on the evidence available at the time with no video and a week description, clearly i was wrong.
dondra, you are supporting mr. trump. go ahead with your comments. caller: because i feel like he telling the truth. i agree with him about everything he says. i have a college degree. can understand plain english. he is very plain. not telling the people who come out there and cause trouble. he does not want that. one time in about five minutes, i heard mrs. clinton tell two lies.
she would not say what he said. he said i would like to punch a man that was causing trouble in his crowd, he said he would like to. he did not say he would. he said "i would punch him." people can leave out parts of throw the whole sentence off just by leaving out one little sentence. i would like to, or a part of the sentence. jacqueline, cuyahoga falls, ohio. you are opposing mr. trump. what is your view of him? if we are not careful with our voting rights, we will a fascist in the white
house. we need to be deliberate and take our time and study the candidate and make sure a man who truly is using the pulpit as a bully pulpit will be the the perhaps not so free world if he is elected president. jacqueline likes the way donald trump talks. he talks in plain english. what do you say to that? talking in plain english and i do not like donald trump. i do not want a man in the white language,uses vulgar privately or publicly. i cannot imagine how he talks in private from the way he talks publicly. i do not want the children of our country to hear the kind of from thethat he uses diaspora when he talks -- from
the dias when he talks. i want a president who respects everyone, who tries to explain things to the best of his or her ability. i do not want a bully. madison, georgia. you are supporting him. good morning. caller: i believe he is the change we need in this country. we do not need hillary clinton or bernie sanders. that is what we have now. we do not need this. we need a change. believe he can? caller: look what he does in his own business. we do not have jobs in this country. we need jobs. we do not need welfare. that is what hillary clinton and bernie sanders is going to give, welfare. people need to work for what they have. host: have you always supported
republicans? caller: yes. host: have you always voted every presidential election cycle question -- election cycle? caller: yes. host: you're going to vote for donald trump. why not ted cruz? caller: he is being paid by the government to bash trump. the government does not want trump in there. the people, we are standing up for trump. there is going to be a revolution and we are going to get trump in there. host: are you worried about anything you have heard from him when it comes to women? caller: no. i went to the atlanta rally. he is much better in person talking than he is on tv. you need to listen to what the man has to say and quit bashing him.
we do not need hillary clinton or bernie sanders in there. thedemocrats are destroying country. people better wake up. wake up, people. host: the washington post story about corey lewandowski being charged with simple battery, the headline is -- trump sticking by his campaign manager, despite this charge. they contradict the claim that the campaign manager did not touch the reporter. the approach seems to have backfired. by refusing to admit fault, trump and lewandowski appeared to have transformed the grab of an arm into a week-long controversy. stridentump offered defenses of lewandowski. counter to his earlier statements that the contact never occurred. donald trump implied it was fields' fault for grabbing at the candidate.
was in janesville, wisconsin, the hometown of paul ryan. he was holding a rally before that state votes on tuesday in their april 1 primary. mr. lewandowski then. this is what he had to say about michelle fields. [video clip] her statement changed. i can read it to you. i want to be accurate. me.ke the press to tape before she knew she was on tape, she said i was jolted backward. if she was, her face stayed the same. grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. campaign managers are not supposed to forcefully thrown orders to the ground. -- to throw reporters to the ground.
she never went to the ground. she never even flinched. , you aredy grabs you off. the toughest guy, the toughest woman. look at her face. zero. washington post reports under florida law, battery is committed when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other. in a statement defending lewandowski, donald trump's campaign has said he will be represented by the u.s. attorney from the 1990's. he resigned after allegations he bit and exotic dancer on the arm at a nightclub. leads in the race for republican delegates. it is possible he will fall short of the 1200 37 needed to
win the nomination. reportsington post also lewandowski could face up to a year in jail if convicted. attorneys say it is highly unlikely. he could argue he thought fields was a threat to trump's safety. even in the case of conviction, first time offenders are often sent to anger management, not jail. i voted for hillary clinton. trump?ou oppose donald tell us your view of him. he is shallow. he also strikes me as being childish and child-like in that he seems to need attention the way a toddler might need
attention. himself andused on he is poorly educated on the topics that i think our president would need to be familiar with. host: what are those? caller: foreign policy and finance. i do not see donald trump as in finance,ducated even though he has been a business person. he gives me no confidence to think he really could improve our economy, if only because of and what ikruptcy think is the lack of business ethics. colleen, kingston, washington. you are supporting him. tell us your view. tell us why. an americans
american. he is not politically correct. people don't like that. i think he is right. he is not afraid to say what he thinks, he is not afraid to express himself openly. that for some reason offends people. believe the percentage of women against him is accurate on that poll. i doubt it. not just that poll. cnn did a poll where they found his favorable opinions among women, 24%. unfavorable, 74%. caller: i don't believe that. i know a lot of people. they are all for trump, men and women. they do not want anyone else. i know women so excited about him, they talk about him in places they get in trouble for talking about politics.
paul, to given you an idea of where i stand. i think donald trump is our greatest chance. host: do you like the way he talks? caller: not always. i don't trust hillary clinton at all. i do not want to be a communist like bernie sanders. hillary clinton cannot be trusted. .he has so much on her plate she should not be running for president. i cannot believe they want her. i think the reason they are trying to make trump look bad is they are intending to put hillary clinton in as the nominee on the democratic party. what is europe feist to donald trump? caller: keep doing what you are doing. no doubt.istakes,
he is a real person. .e cannot be bought i think it scares the elite, the powerful people at the top of the party. they want to take him out. they do not want him to win. people'sot want the choice to win. shame on all of them that do that. the people are choosing donald trump. look at the votes. that was colleen, supporting the front runner for the republicans in washington state. opposing and iowa. you are next. caller: i am a posed to donald trump. he is a bully. he, like the other lady said, is very child-like. press to his advantage. that is a shame. it is sad we have allowed that to happen. to the american
people, especially grandparents, mothers and fathers, what is this talk of revolution in the united states? someone that is talking about revolution? the lady who called bernie sanders a communist, i disagree. i do think he is the pied piper. up.ink we need to speak donald trump is a bully and had someone grabbed his wife, how would he be responding? like you arend supporting hillary clinton. is that what you said? caller: yes. thank you. sharon, iowa, she opposes donald trump. women only.ng to what is your view of donald trump? we are asking you that because polls show he has high,
womenrable ratings with across parties and within his own republican party. white women who tend to vote republican having high unfavorables for him as well. what are your thoughts on him this morning? we will keep getting in more of your phone calls. ae republicans had a debate, cnn town hall, where they were discussing the campaign ahead of the primary on tuesday. i want to show you a little of that last night, where senator ted cruz and donald trump were asked about will they support the eventual republican nominee. their answers differ from what they have said in the past. [video clip] to supportl pledge the nominee, even if it is donald trump? i am not in the habit of supporting someone that attacks my wife and my family. kidswives and
should be off-limits. they do not belong in the attacks. [applause] i am not an easy person to tick off. when you go after my wives and daughters, that does it. i want this race to focus on policy and issues and solutions to the real problems facing america. that is where i am going to stay focused. if other candidates do not, that is beyond the pale. gops donald trump is the nominee, would you support him? : donald trump is not going to be the nominee. pledge to who the republican nominee is? mr. trump: no. let me tell you.
he does not have to support me. i have tremendous support right now from the people. overover 2 million votes him. i have more delegates than him. before, he was talking about his great victory, i won arizona, many more delegates. to doot want him something he is not comfortable with, just i can't imagine jeb bush. i beat these people badly. i beat the governor of this state. he was favored to win. something bad about me and i hit him hard and he went boom. he left the race. i don't want to make people uncomfortable. saying the party has treated him badly, donald trump walking back his pledge to support the eventual nominee.
donald trump starts wisconsin bid in ryan's hometown is the head in the -- is the headline in the new york times. -- seemed aimed directly at him. mr. ryan encouraged republicans to embrace stability rather than ugliness. after that speech, mr. trump responded by scheduling his first rallied before the primary hometown.an's when he asked the crowd how it liked its congressman, he was met with boos and jeers. with charlie skies, who is very popular in the state. series of calls on other talk radio shows, which
carry outside influence among the republican primary voters and engaged in a combative back-and-forth with mr. sykes. we are talking to women only this morning. your thoughts about donald trump. , scottconsin governor walker, endorsed ted cruz in that state ahead of the primary on tuesday yesterday. ted cruz getting that endorsement. regina, kansas city, you are supporting donald trump. good morning. caller: i am supporting donald trump. i think we need an executive in the white house. donald trump has more than enough executives experience. lways dogging him,
because he pays attention to twitter, i feel at least we would have a voice. we would he heard in the white house. other policies, domestic policies, as far as standing up for pro life, that is up to the people to do, to change this country. it is not up to the president. he cannot do it by himself. it has to be the people's voice that change the situation. we have to have a moral people. i think donald trump is true in his emotions. i think he is very american i am going toy -- open the way for you to make your own way, your own wealth, without the hindrance of stupid trade deals. not only stupid, i think they are treasonous. host: you mentioned morality. do you think donald trump is
moral? caller: i think donald trump is what donald trump is. he claims to be a bible from per, i will pray for him. not claim to be a bible thumper. i will pray for him. he will grow to depend on the lord. but right now we need an executive in that office, and we need to stand on our own feet, quit trying to push off our morals on the politicians. the politicians have to feel our morals before there's will change. host: have you always voted for a republican? caller: no, but i did vote for ron paul. i am independent and i will vote the candidate who i think is the best for the country. host: regina, it sounds like the economy, trade, are big issues for you. caller: and letting the american people go on strapped -- go unst
that willagreements harm our country and bring us down. i think americans can stand on their own feet. we can build our own jobs and we can change this country, but we have been hamstrung by political correctness. in wisconsin, as we said, the hometown of paul ryan, janesville, which has been hit by manufacturing losses. abouts what he had to say trade in wisconsin. donald trump: wisconsin has lost 15,000 jobs to mexico since nafta. john kasich is running also read he voted for nafta. p, thef them want tp transpacific partnership. both of them want transpacific. that will make nafta look like a baby, and wisconsin will be hit so hard. host: that was donald trump at his rally in wisconsin yesterday.
another story about paul ryan from "the washington times" -- he will get a challenger to -- he has had it with the trail of conservatives, confirming to "the washington times" earlier this week that a wealthy businessman was mounting a challenge to mr. ryan in the congressional district, but paul nehlen did not reveal his identity until now. locate -- heak helped relocate manufacturing jobs to the u.s., including moving several product lines to wisconsin. as an inventor, he holds several patents for filtration and manufacturing technology, including in 3-d printing. a political adviser close to him acknowledged it will not be easy to defeat mr. ryan, who was the party's 2012 vice presidential
nominee and currently ranks as one of the most powerful politicians in washington -- powerful republicans in washington. you are opposing donald trump. why is that? caller: one, because donald trump acts like a child. he throws tantrums when he does not get his way. is, my thing disappointment in donald trump -- as a matter of fact, i think the american people at this -- donald trump, he does not like women except the women he choose. he has cheated on his wife. and people talk about he is moral. that is not moral. if you know you have cheated, do not try to attack other cheaters. it is like the kettle calling the pot black. you are -- we are listening.
another thing? caller: he talks about trade and nafta. nafta involves mexico, canada, and the united states. did very badates with nafta because they see the united states choose greed over country. they shipped the jobs out of the country. canada and mexico made money because mexico -- we shipped jobs to mexico. canada did not ship any jobs overseas. the "national review" cover story, "enemy: the truth about trade." we will talk with scott lincicome, who is a trade worked onwho has issues with the wto and the commerce department. he will give us his take as to why he believes why trade is not the enemy.
regina, mechanicsville, virginia, you are supporting donald trump. caller: i believe a businessman in that office right now with these deals that are so global will be the right choice. , am so tired of hearing people that they are so offended about this, that, and the other. everybody that works every day, -- iout in the public mean, why are you so offended about certain statements? sooner or later you have to brush it off. i am not offended by what he says. he speaks his mind. i am tired of looking at slick politicians up on the hill sugarcoating everything, and then when you find out about like the tpp, why is that secret? totally? that public
keeping that down on the hill vault and having to sign it in and out in order to read it? host: merrick garland was back on capitol hill yesterday, meeting with mark kirk from illinois, who is up for reelection and facing a tough challenge. onekirk calls judge garland of the most eminent jurors in the country and praised his mind as precise and brilliant, and he calls on gop leaders to let the confirmation process proceed. "the wall street journal" also reports that other senators include senator susan collins of maine, pat toomey of pennsylvania, kelly a young, cash kelly ayotte of new hampshire. ayotte and grassley, toomey and moran are up for reelection.
host: but the court's actions seems to reinforce another deadlock over whether the republican senate leadership should move forward on considering president obama's nominee for scalia's seat, judge merrick garland. defends her decision to because is on raising rates, saying there has , and thatl slowdown is why the federal reserve has decided not to raise rates again in their march meeting, and the markets reacting positively to the federal reserve's decision. calls. .ancy in new york
you oppose donald trump. why? believe that he has the level of leadership and maturity to be a president, but that is not why i want to talk today. basically, i had a personal experience with donald trump. i worked in a nonprofit jewish organization, and the local city councilman or was on a land-use committee, and donald trump needed his vote for his property . so he came out to visit the jewish organization in the community and meet the rabbis or he was informed by the rabbis that the women in their organization did not shake hands with men, so donald trump said, in front of everybody, the women and the rabbis, "well, i am used to doing a lot more with the women i know." and i just thought to share this personal experience because i really believe that if donald trump becomes the nominee, he
will start speaking like a democrat or like whatever he needs to speak to gain a public election. us conservative republicans, believing what he is saying now, it will be something different later. host: nancy, you have always voted republican? caller: no, i am typically a democrat. host: but this time around, you are a republican? caller: no, i am definitely a democrat. nancy in new york with her personal story of interaction with donald trump. marianne in florida, you are supporting him. you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. mi on? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i was listening to nancy and i am very shocked. do avoting for trump to job, hiring him to do a job for our country. i am not voting for him to be a husband.
i am not offended by anything he has to say. i think he is a patriot. i feel that he has the country's interest at heart, and i know for a fact that he is going to put this country back on track. we want to get rid of the debt, we want to create jobs. we want to have security for the country. he wants to build the wall. i am all for that. i live in florida, and i do not know too many women who are offended by what he is saying. i do not get it. i do not believe the polls. florida is just surrounded by democrats here in florida, and there are so many democrats who want to vote for trump. host: what do you make of what happened between his campaign manager and this reporter for breitbart news? the video, and i
do not understand why this woman is pursuing such a charge. she is trying to destroy somebody's life. that the said earlier reason she pursued the charge was to prove that she was telling the truth, because she was, from her own lawyer -- fantastic, but you are ruining somebody's life over somebody grabbing you by the arm? give me a break. that is ridiculous. she wanted an apology, she did not get the apology, so she is going to destroy this guy for grabbing her arm? apology, andted an ,nother reporter at breitbart one of the editors, called on trump to fire lewandowski. is crazy.think this it is all political. somebody is behind her. i do not believe anything she has to say.
if somebody hurt me or did something that is so harmful to me that i would go after him, sue him -- i mean -- host: what do you make of donald trump, up until the video coming out, saying the campaign manager did not touch her, that she was lying? caller: i think when it first came out, she said that she got thrown to the ground and that she was really manhandled by this guy, and it does not seem like it on the video. apparently, her story was twisted, and now she is trying to -- i think politically she is trying to get something out of this. listen, everybody is after trump. everybody and their mother on the gop or anywhere, even the media, they are twisting his words and making him look like he is a racist. , what the media
is saying about him, is not true. he is not a racist, he is not a bigot. but if you want to twist somebody's words around, anybody can look like a racist. host: a little bit more about corey lewandowski, if you want to find out who he is and his political background. this is from rollcall. it says -- " he ran for an open state house seat in 1994 and lost to tom golden. he continued to working campaigns and politics come in turning for a member of the massachusetts house, democratic stephentative
host: that is a little bit about corey lewandowski. "the new york times" says that he has been a combative figure. he has been known to scream and curse, putting some on a blacklist for coverage he finds unfavorable. host: audrey in macon, georgia, you are opposing donald trump and you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning.
how are you? host: doing well. what is your view? caller: all of these people calling in, they support trump, i feel sorry for them. i absolutely do. and these people that are calling in with so much hateful -- who so much hate for barack obama, address him as president obama. he earned that right. i would not hire donald trump to blow mosquitoes out of my neighborhood. donald trump is more of a child in these two young boys that i adopted, and people are talking about hillary clinton and the president giving welfare? these two young boys that i have in my home have been here for more than 7.5 years. , solitary dime was given to me to help support them. i had to support them out of my pocket. i have adopted them. i could not even get health insurance for them.
so nobody gave me anything. everything i got, i worked for. as for donald trump, donald , he iss so rich completely stupid. int: we move onto cynthia wayland, michigan, who is supporting donald trump. why is that, cynthia? caller: i am a mother and her grandmother, i am 66 years old -- i am a mother and a grandmother. i am 66 years old, and i have seen this country torn apart by democrats, from the economic worldview to their moral worldviews. i believe donald trump is true to his word. and there are some things about ted cruz's wife that nobody is talking about. one is heidi worked for goldman sachs, which took a bailout from the obama administration. also, they took a million dollar
onn and did not dispose it that -- and did not disclose it on their 2012 tax return. nobody is talking about that. you think donald trump needs to cite any more about his wife? wife -- to heidi, his she was an immigrant, she is legal, and i think they have a wonderful family. they have wonderful morals, and i believe that we need a businessman to get this country back on track worldwide, security wide. host: morality is something you mentioned a couple of times. you believe donald trump has been and is moral? he has been divorced a few times, mary to his third wife. and all three of those women love him. they have nothing bad to say about him. his children love him. he is not a bible thumper.
and ted cruz always comes out about how religious he is. that makes me feel like i am going to get it from him, because that should not be in politics today. you are interviewing for a job. i am not voting with my vagina, i am voting with my brain. so do not make me feel subservient and dumb. host: mary from st. charles, michigan, you oppose him. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i am doing fine. what is your view of ronald trump. you may have to be bleeding. i think he is like hitler. that is telling everybody he is going to fix this, he is going to fix that. hitler did the same thing. look what happened when he got into office. trump himself is part of the 1%.
, so when hehispanic talks against women and hispanics, and hispanics, he is talking against all my family and calling my brothers, the way i look at it, and my father, a world war ii veteran, calling them racists, that they are stealing, all kinds of bad things. i take that personally. host: mary, how do you plan to vote in the election? caller: i am voting for hillary. she has got experience. she has been in these situations we are in now. you asked trump what we are going to do -- he says, we are going to do this, we are going to do that. who is we? the easter bunny? host: you are supporting donald trump. caller: hello. thank you for taking my calls.
i support truck. i do not like a lot of the things that he says and does. some of them i think our kind of immature. as old as i am, i can think of a lot better answers. when they came out with a picture of his wife, i wanted to tell him so bad, say isn't she beautiful? a lot of men wish they had a wife who looks like her rather than cruz's wife. like he has the brain to financially help this country out of the hole that it is in. that is my biggest thing, because we are in so much trouble financially, and we need our military built back so bad. my husband was a 20-year veteran , and when they started cutting military, he said
that is going to be the downfall of this country, and he really took a personal because being in vietnam, korea, and i just -- the biggest thing is that hillary is the one that she should not even be allowed to run. we are not maybe supposed to be talking about her, but if anybody else had done the things she had done, they'd have been charged with treason. host: we will leave it at that point. a follow-up to yesterday's program, where we asked if you supported the religious freedom laws. north carolina has a law banning transgender people from using a a follow-upthis is to that in the national section majorhe new york times," " companies press north carolina on law curbing protections from bias."
on friday." the attorney general running for governor said he would not defend the law. there is a picture of ray cooper, the attorney general for north carolina. back to calls. jolene in florida, you are opposing mr. trump. good morning. caller: good morning. it is jolin. i do oppose mr. trump. to me, he is like a cross between pt barnum and a james bond super villain. he is running as an antiestablishment candidate because instead of depending on super pac's, he is using his own money. but when you think about that, he has bragged about how over the years he has given money to both sides of the aisle in order to obtain future favors. by funding his campaign, he has eliminated the middleman. he has effectively purchased the white house for his own gain and to stroke his overinflated ego,
and he says we are losing to china and mexico on manufacturing jobs. but his closing line is produced in both countries. his supportersng to the point of violence. the lady who says she is -- the lady who says he is like hitler, she is right. wall,ody supporting the walls built to keep others out can also be used to keep you in. , and the west germany family we were with took us to the border of east and west. i remember the chilling feeling that fence, complete with barbed riot -- with barbed wire and armed guards gave me. i was standing on the free side. i do not want that for my country. host: who are you supporting? caller: i voted for bernie sanders. i fully support him. he is the embodiment of all of the stories my mother told me when i was growing up about fdr and how he saved the country,
and i am really sick of people calling him a communist. he is not. he has never called for the government to take over the means of production. furthermore, the people voting for him -- we are not looking for free handouts. i am generation x, 44 years old. i have worked steadily since i was 15 years old. i pay my taxes. if it is so wrong that i and others who support bernie sanders want our tax dollars to fund a healthy, educated populace who travels on a rebuilt energy efficient infrastructure, rather than more wars, tax cuts, and further subsidies. host: hillary clinton is holding an event in new york ahead of her states where she was new york being the next state to vote after wisconsin she will have an event at the apollo theater in harlem, and we will have coverage of that today
at 11:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. bernie sanders, by the way, tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. on c-span2 , for those of you who want to watch and are supporting the independent or months editor. you can go to the website, -- c-span.org. you can find all of our coverage and what we will be covering coming up. tony in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, you are supporting donald trump. good morning. for taking myyou call. i am supporting donald trump. i am 68 years of age, a black female, a democrat all my life up until now. democrat, and i am so relieved. i was just following along with the crowd. donald trump can leave, seems to
be for the people, and the people seem to want him. has thrown everything and the kitchen sink at hand. for example, cruz, the other day, said, "i have the best wife in the world." , "i have one of the best wives in the world." if donald trump had said that, he would have been hung by his toes or it today it is swept under the rug. , how does it wise make you feel when your next president says i have the best wife in the whole wide world? how does that make your husband feel about your wives. believe me, the last thing i want to say is, if trump would have said it, we would have never heard the end of it. host: i want to get in a couple of more calls here. denise in indianapolis, good
morning, you are on the air. caller: i just wanted to say that trump, a lot of people say that trump speaks in plain english. i think that is wrong. he speaks empty words. that is all he does. he speaks loud and says absolutely nothing. everybody at his little get-togethers only just go there to yell at the protesters and say go back to africa, go back to mexico, go back to where you came from, even though a lot of these white people are from immigrants that are not from here either. maryland, you are our last call. go ahead. i am a registered republican, and i have been a registered republican since i have been able to vote. i have to say donald trump does not represent republican politics. the man is very representative of the sensationalized
polarizing. that is fueled -- that has thatd our economic issues led to politics right now. he reflectsnk anything like our values in the republican party. being end of the day, outspoken or a businessman is like praising a racist for being a go getter. look at the quality of what he says. look at what he actually is like. the quality of what he says proves that he does not give any form of action, but it shouldn't be surprising to the people. he brings to the forefront of our community in the united
people,the masses of the people in the , andan-american community have been swept under the rug. racism exists and everybody kept responding to the community and said you are just playing the race carpet women said, gender inequality exists, and they say, you are just trying to get something -- we are following you. thank you for bringing the issues to the forefront. caller: he is making it so it is undeniable. you and theyou to ladies who called in for that. we will take a short break and turn attention to a nuclear summit president obama is holding here in washington with world leaders tomorrow and friday. it is on the front page of the new york times.
court vacancy. today, with the abuse of , we look at drugs the handling of the issue from health experts and former addicts. cruz: it is certainly not going to be washington dc that stepped in and solve these problems. it's going to be friends and family, churches, charities, ,oved ones, treatment centers people working to help those struggling with drug addiction. obama: we are not new at this. s. are implementing those plan
we look at with today's leaders have said in the past concerning the nominating and come mission process of individuals to the supreme court. >> in my view, confirmation can alone provide a sufficient basis to determine if a nomination merits a seat on our spring court. borrowing --t of barring an eye to logical opponent from the court are not likely to outweigh the damage done to the course institutional standing. ideological opposition to a nominee from one end of the is likely toctrum
help generate similar opposition from later nominations on the opposite end. >> those are some programs this week on c-span. washington journal continues. host: at our table this morning, joe cirincione, author of nuclear nightmares. this is president obama's brainchild. this is what he promised to do. what is the goal? president announced his ambitious nuclear policy agenda, to reduce global stockpiles, to stop new sates from getting them and he wanted to stop terrorists from getting their hands on materials to
build a bomb or a dirty bomb. he promised to unite their world .eaders in the effort this is his fourth and final summit. it is by far the largest gathering of world leaders to ever focus on nuclear issues. you do not get the president of china, france, the united states, leaders of great written, 45 different countries coming to washington in the next couple of days, you do not get them all sitting in a room often or focused for two or three days on nuclear weapons issues p or he has done a remarkable job. -- issues. he has done a remarkable job. host: one liter not coming is what a mere put in. guest: an evil grandmother at every party and putin is sitting this one out. it is part of the tension he has had with the united states, which escalated since ukraine a few years ago.
he has ended the nuclear cooperation agreement united's and russia have had since the end of the cold war. we were helping russia secure its stockpile of nuclear cereals. the president had hoped by this stage to have already negotiated a treaty. russia has refused. this is definitely a setback for the summit, no question about it. most of the nuclear materials in the world are held by the united states and russia. those parties sits out, you take a whole lot of that material office. does that take from the leverage for president obama as he meets with world leaders? guest: it doesn't take away leverage. some ways, it increases the cooperation between united states and china. china has a full paged ad talking about their cooperation with the united states.
a lot of stockpiles we are worried about are in smaller companies. they had plenty of resources to guard the material. itsdoes vietnam guard highly enriched uranium, or ghana, or australia, or some of our small european allies. those are the links you want to protect from terrorist acquisition. toally convincing ukraine get rid of over 500 pounds of highly enriched uranium, provide half a dozen bombs. we have been trying to do it for 10 or 20 years. put on it. was in 2012, the ukraine shipped the last of that uranium out of the country. the country is,
convulsed in civil war, invasion, and, it. just in time. it would have been a worse situation is there were bomb materials that they could have tried to get their hands on. how has president obama so far kept the nuclear stock piles safe? what has the united states or these other countries taught? practices.hare best what are the highest standards? a big part of the struggle is to convince smaller countries who do not think they have a nuclear timer problem to take the and the money to protect their materials, which they guard like library books a set of the gold of fort knox. we have not long -- lost an ounce of gold from fort knox p or we should not use an ounce of highly enriched uranium. provide for siege, p or
pressure, and it has worked to a great extent but it has not worked enough. this is the last of the summit and there is a fear this would dispel the energy and we would be left with a of commitment, international conventions, but no global standard or legally combined roles with how they should be dealing with them. host: when you look at the world weapons stock pile, mostly in the united states and in russia, yellow country, the asian countries where there are quite a few as well, tell us house at that nuclearreat weaponry could fall into the hands of isis? experts have been warning about this since before the collapse of the cold war. it goes back to the beginning of the nuclear age. dr. oppenheimer, the father of
the nuclear bomb, was asked at about what ags terrorist would need to build a nuclear weapon. he said a screwdriver. meaning if you could get the material, you could put together a crude nuclear weapon. the trick is to stop them from getting the stuff that forms the core of the bomb here they cannot make it themselves but if they could get it, they have gone most of the way toward making a nuclear bomb. a well-organized group like isis, a terrorist threat we have never seen before, a rich group with global networks that controls territory, if they had the material, they could almost assuredly make a crude nuclear device that could blow up a major urban area. are they interested in this? yes they are. we know they are trying to acquire this. an event last week that send a chill down the spines of nuclear experts everywhere was the
same bombers, the the isis bombers who attacked the brussels airport and metro station, has been videotaping a nuclear official working on a belgians facility with radiological materials. not the stuff of a nuclear bomb but the stuff you could use in a dirty bomb. ,hey were videotaping him tracking him or his family's movements, a movie terrorist plot, something we have not seen yet. host: let's get to calls. good morning. caller: good morning. i thought there was a treaty between russia and the united states. wasn't there some sort of oversight tornado or the united nations to make sure the
treaties and uranium were .bserved >> no, they were not around. russia invaded ukraine. let me answer the first part. almost pure there are treaties between the united states and russia and before that the soviet union. the highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the weapons themselves are restricted. -- the immense amount going into verifying these treaties, knowing exactly what they have and where and they know what we have and where. but that is where it ends. about the weapons.
, that iss taken out still regulated. expect,ight is -- might it was tight on secrecy. we do not tell the world how much plutonium we have to people can estimate and we can make rough guesses, but there is nothing controlling this and that is one of the short full fallings.hort they are all focused on the building of the materials. 80% of all the materials in the world are in military stockpiles not covered by the summit. i just start with russia coming to our aid and syria, between the two countries, they had come a long way. hope this could be
resolved somehow and some way, with some sort of sanity and rationale. tensions are tense between the u.s. and russia. president obama and the military chiefs are ready to negotiate further reductions. they decided years ago we could cut our nuclear weapons by one third and still fulfill military missions. we prefer to do that in consequence with the russian spirit we would like them to come down one third as well. course, the invasion of ukraine made things worse. the military involvement in syria. you are right that we are seeing a little bit of a thought that russia cooperated with us and stopped iran's nuclear program. have been talking with us and syria to have a cease-fire which is now put in place for on --tentative violate
secretary kerry is working hard to turn that cease-fire into a permanent cessation of hostility and perhaps a path. guest: connecticut, a democrat. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span. i have a question for mr. cirincione regarding all the stock tires we have of nuclear plants throughout the country, i am sure he realized we have closed the mountain. what is disturbing to me in the presidential campaign is there is not one dingell candidate talking about the nuclear fool just fuel piled up. behind, beingleft able to run, and the residents will be stuck with waste dumps in their backyard. could he comment on that? i would be happy to this is not quite with the summits
are about but it is a huge safety problem. we have the most nuclear reaction -- reactors in the world. we still have not solved the spent fuel problem. what do you do with this stuff when you take it out, you have been burning it for five or six years, it is highly radioactive and poisonous. it states radioactive for tens of thousands of years. where do you sort -- store it? there is no good place to store it. we are trying to find a but itgical depository turned out there were geological flaws with that site that would result in the material spilling out thousands of years from now. is now just backing up like a sewer pipe and all being stored at the nuclear reactor site. some of it above ground but most of it in pools of water that try
to keep the fuel cool. it is a risk something could happen like what happened at fukushima, a natural disaster that could spew that radioactivity, and it is also a terrorist concern. we not just concerned about terrorists getting fuel for a dirty bomb, we are concerned about them attacking the nuclear facility. this just came up in the belgian case where there was concern they would attack the belgium facility. one of the key targets might not be the reactor, but these pools of spent fuel. host: our guest this morning, author of the book "nuclear nightmare." with us toncione take your questions and comments. the threat of a nuclear weapon. as joe mentioned at the top, part of president obama passes priorities since he took office, and he was in progress in 2009,
this is what he had to say about it then. theident obama: some argue spread of these weapons cannot be stopped or checked and we are destined to live in a world where more nations are destined for tools of destruction. such fatalism is a deadly adversary. if we believe the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way, we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. [applause] and as nuclear power, as a the onlyower, as
nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the united states has a moral responsibility to act. we cannot succeed in this endeavor alone but we can lead it. we can start it. today i stay clearly and with conviction, america's's commitment to seek the peas and security of a world without nuclear weapons. [applause] host: president obama in progress in 2009. you wrote this in 2001. is that all there is? how would you rate him? incomplete. that was a great speech. i watched that life while on the obama campaign team that helped helpedhe nuclear policy bring it to the white house and that he announced in product. the vision was correct.
the plan was correct. is ironic you took that particular segment because he knew what he would be up against, the deadly adversary, the fatalism, the cynicism. no, you cannot eliminate the weapons, you cannot do this. we are stuck in this deadly contest. i do not think he appreciated how much his own bureaucracy would share that. the is why i talk about real failure of the plan, his own appointees did not believe in his vision, particularly at the pentagon. once you have defense officials who are supposed to be over there implementing the president's plan, they started to side with the weapons contractors, with the service personnel who wanted new weapons and more money for these weapons. he let them proceed. at first, it was part of a balanced plan, reduce the arsenal but keep what we have safe and secure.
but the russians would not cooperate, the republicans blocked his efforts. the policy started to stall and the contracts zoomed ahead. as a result, we were stuck with a plan to spend $1 trillion on brand-new nuclear weapons over the next 30 years, completely replicating the cold war arsenal that we currently had. other countries are modernizing, but for example, russia is replacing some of his aging systems. but nothing compares to the u.s. is planning. the fear, as the former secretary of defense points out, is that when the brink -- we're in the brink of a new arms race. russia will struggle to keep up and china will see what the u.s. and russia will do and maybe they will increase the right -- relatively small arsenal. pakistan react to india. we see the problem. ones who have an addiction to the nuclear
weapons, how do we convince other countries to give them up? back to calls. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i appreciated everything that was said. 45 countries will attend the nuclear summit. my thing is, i am sorry russia cannot attend and that is because of what is going on over here campaigning for the presidency seat. it is out of control. i feel as though our president is doing a great job handling everything going on in the country as well as all over the world. this is vital that we are dealing with it right now. the person talking about the nuclear weapons summit, the things he said, that president obama -- i am really
appreciative of that. something vital to the world. thank you very much. the president is absolutely on the right course. all the steps he has taken have been in the right direction. reduce the stockpiles of these materials around the world. he stopped iran's's nuclear program, something many of the people with their fatalism thought would be impossible. he negotiated a treaty with russia to trim our arsenals. these are steps in the right direction. when you flee a forest fire, it is not just a question of direction. it is a question of speed. to safety quick enough before catastrophe engulfs us? i am afraid we are losing the race. the threats are growing and not shrinking. what is the catastrophe and what is the threat question mark how mobile are the
materials and the ability to i guess take them and create a weapon? are worried about three core threats. we discussed the risk of terrorist to get these weapons. the other is the risk of new countries to get these weapons. north korea is forging ahead. can we stop them before they trigger an arms race in asia? the existing arsenal. there are 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. the u.s. and russia have 95% but there is a brewing nuclear arms race in asia, india, pakistan, 100 weapons each. four wars since their independence. pakistan making nuclear weapons faster than any country on earth and making smaller and more mobile weapons. most people think if we see a weapon used in combat again, a nuclear weapon will be in top asia. worried about an intentional conflict and you are also worried about accidents.
machineseapons are controlled by human beings. human beings make mistakes. you have got to be a real optimist to think we can keep 15,000 weapons in fallible hands and something terrible will not happen. resourcesthere available to react to an accident or intentional use of a nuclear weapon? guest: we have tried to come up with plans. civil defense, older viewers may remove or the tests of the defense system that would happen on saturdays around the country. the sirens or the radio, testing the system. we build shelters during the height of the cold war to react but the truth is, there is no divide that could prepare the city for the devastation of nuclear weapons in part because the nuclear weapon would kill all the first responders. it would burn the hospitals, killed a policeman in the fire people. there would be nobody there to help. even a relatively, what we
consider these days a small nuclear weapon, it is still 20 or 30 times bigger than the bomb we dropped on hiroshima. one of these weapons would be a catastrophe the likes of which we have not seen since the end of world war ii. 10 of these weapons used in a conflict would be a catastrophe beyond human history. the scale of destruction is something i think we have lost touch with and we treat -- cheat the weapons like they are chips to be used in a board game of some kind, when in fact they are the most horrible weapons humankind has ever invented. guest:-- joseph cirincione is our guest. we will go to an independent. caller: i want to get back to yucca mountain. was that wasing purely a political decision, it was payback to senator harry president obama's
election. there was ationed geological problem and maybe after 1000 years, we would discover that is not such a great place to store that feel. -- fuel. it was retrievable. after 1000 years if we had to move it, we could remove it elsewhere to a better solution. because of the political decision, we are back to the very start with no place to put all of this spent fuel and 103 electric plants around the country. we are no closer to a solution than we were in the 1980's when yucca mountain was begun. of argumentsnds you make are exactly what the nuclear industry made. independence would make. putting it in yucca mountain in nevada, harry there ate, putting it
least solve the problem for thousands of years. if there is an earthquake and the water table rises 4000 years from now, we will be able to take care of it. state, weref that reacting to the newer geological studies that indicated this could be happening even sooner than scientists had predicted, that the site was much more unstable than originally thought. the state did not want it, politics in the best sense, representing the views of the people of the state who said no, we will not be your dumping ground for nuclear waste. go someplace else. this is of course the problem. what state will take the material, what state wants it? who couldarry reid represent their views, but no alternative has been found. i think even after harry reid retires, the people of nevada are not going to want the fuel
back. they never want the site to open up and i do not inc. the citizens in new mexico or minnesota or new york or florida want it either. that is the fundamental problem. democratic,real political problem. the citizens do not want to waste in their state. next, republican. hoping to ask the guests about the salt reactor and the way we could use the fuel in the mountain and in current nuclear bombs to be able to put it back into our reactors, nuclear assault reactors and be able to burn that. there is so much fuel still left in the reactors or that spent fuel that we could still burn as opposed to leaving it for 2000 years as waste. there have been proposals
like this for decades, reactors not cooled by water, but specialized reactors using specialized fuel, including using plutonium fuel and burning that fuel. they would be cute -- cooled by liquid sodium, liquid salt. this has been proposed for many years. has never been proven practical. i know proponents of this would say yes it has, but it has never been adopted by the nuclear industry though the government has been funded in part because it is a highly unstable and corrosive serial and the risk of accidents and getting a reliable reactor use in this technique has proven to be very problematic. some of my friends are very involved in pushing this. reactors, etc. so far, without success. you are on the air, good morning.
go ahead with your question or comment. is ir: my personal comment forrateful and thankful president obama having this nuclear summit. i think it is something that is very important and necessary. i am proud that the countries are coming. is, ifstion i have president obama could somehow putin fromadimir russia to come, i feel as though putin is refusing to come because of the mudslinging and the rhetoric that is going on with the new presidential candidates. they are constantly talking about russia, which is not doing our country any good.
host: that is the second caller who has made that point, that they believe it is because the election and the rhetoric. guest: i respectfully disagree. i think president putin is driven by his own internal his own geopolitical interests, and he is not paying all that much attention to the politics of this country. it is amazing how much sometimes foreign leaders don't really recognize that who is president makes all that much difference. they think it is the same group of people running the country all the time and we just shuffle presidents and congressmen and senators every once in a while and i think putin is of that mind. this is about him making a play and how he wants to play the pieces on the board. believe me, the white house has tried to get putin to come to the summit. he just refused.
i do not know how long the tension will last. a country in decline. the economy is a weak economy crippled by falling oil prices. are losing people. the demographic trends of the country are going down. i believe at some point, putin for his own interests will have to come to an accommodation. his policies in the last few successy have limited militarily in syria and ukraine but it has not worked geopolitically. he has not broken out of isolation. we are the ones with a global alliance, we're the ones bringing the bases around the world, not president putin. headline, perhaps related perhaps not, analysts say no meeting reflects unease with turkey, that the president of turkey would like a meeting one-on-one with the president, the white house saying there are 50 leaders coming and he does not have enough time or there
might be an informal conversation between the two. that comes on the day of this headline from usa today, the pentagon is pulling military families out of turkey because of the danger there. issues somewhat related. turkey is on the front -- the frontline in the fight against isis. turkey has been attacked. some of turkish troops have been attacked by isis fighters. but the president of turkey has been track -- cracking down on democratic and human rights in the country. he is under a lot of pressure and risk wanted by taking over newspapers, seizing independent newspapers, which one day were running stories critical of him and the next day, they are government owned. and saying, hey the president is great. the president of the united states does not want to validate possessions and give him a reward of a presidential meeting when we are very critical of what he has been doing domestically and have been trying to get him to stop that.
then a security question roles in. woulds. decided we evacuate the families. .hese are turkish bases ironically, it brings up the nuclear question. one of the bases tens of miles from the syrian border, we have 80 nuclear weapons left over from the cold war. we stationed hundreds in europe view bush age to administration pulled some of these out. the george w. bush administration quietly pulled more of them out, but there were 180 remaining at five entries in europe, eight or in turkey, close to the syrian border. you have to wonder, if the area is no longer safe from military families, is it safe from nuclear weapons? a risk of isis penetrating that base and grabbed one of those weapons?
i think it is time to take the bombs home. illinois, an independent, good morning to you. what is on your mind? >> i wanted to comment on security at the u.s. and i believe security, the plans are very safe from outside, definitely. we are well protected. a nuclear security action is very unlikely in the u.s. had accidents inside because of a bad procedure or some way. i have seen a lot of changes since september 11 on how the security has evolved. very significant. my other comment is i feel sad the nuclear facility is no longer a path -- we need to maintain the talent
and continuetalent to build the plans even though we are not expanding as we used to, but we should. in then important part country and it should be maintained as such. thank you. guest: nuclear fuel is unquestionably going to be a big energy for we get the foreseeable future. about 20% of electricity in the country comes from nuclear power plants. interestingly, half of the fuel in those power plants comes from a deal we made with russia to buy up used, highly enriched uranium that they were pulling out of their weapons. we down blended it to make it into nuclear fuel and sold it to nuclear power reactors, operators in the country. theout of 10 labels in united states is led by energy that comes from weapons that once threatened a spirit one of
the great successes in the last few years. i agree that accidents are rare in new power plants. but they happen. we are currently celebrating the anniversary of the three mile island accident that caused a of that in the core reactor. this is also one of the anniversaries five years ago of fukushima. it can happen from operator mistakes were you get a meltdown, or natural disasters. the accident risk may be growing as the reactors age out. still very safe but accidents happen and a trouble is when it happens that a cold plant, we have a problem. when it happens at a nuclear plant, you have a catastrophe. is a terrorist risk to one threat we're worried about is a terrorist flying a plane into a nuclear reactor. it would be built to withstand a tremendous stress. not a crash from a 747 p are a crash from an airbus.
you're worried about that kind of safety issues as well as nuclear reactors. it is not a reason to cut nuclear reactors, just a reason to the concern and be aware of the risk. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers who wants to know -- we can talk chump and what he said about south korea and the reaction saying if he would pull out of there, they thought that -- those were stunning remarks made by the gop front-runner. guest: it is clear donald trump in particular does not know much about foreign policy, does not know much about nuclear policy. clearly, as marco rubio pointed out, he did not know what the nuclear triad was, the nuclear bombers and missiles and subs we had. he clearly has not looked at this and does not know jack about the iran deal. he claims he has read and understands it, he did not know that the reason u.s. companies were not selling a quit mature
iran now is because the u.s. congress banned companies from doing that, not iran. iran would love to buy u.s. goods at this point. uninformed.y but it is worse when he starts making suggestions that overturn decades of democratic and republican foreign policy. we started a nonproliferation regime in the 1950's because japan was starting to look at getting a nuclear weapon, a country we just if he did in world war ii and they were examining getting a nuclear weapon. so was germany and a dozen other countries, friends and foes. we convinced them all to stop and convinced south korea to stop, and here is donald trump saying maybe it is not a bad idea to get nuclear weapons. i cannot think of a worse policy for a u.s. president to promulgate at this point. force -- lake forest,
republican, go ahead. caller: i hate to disagree with you but you are spewing rhetoric that makes the nice days become even weaker with his policy with a nuclear weapon. in europe, the united states had a deal where they took a live in nuclear weapons from the ukraine area, making it more powerful for russia. china, pakistan, have nuclear weapons. you talk about weakening our country, but you are making it stronger for those countries. guest: so a couple of quick things. i think people still think, i think most people think this, that nuclear weapons are our ultimate security, that this is what will protect us from an
that they see will smith fly a nuclear weapon into the belly of an alien money -- mothership and blow it up and they think this is it, or iron man fly it into a trans-dimensional portal and blow it up. in act, there has not military mission that has required the use of a nuclear weapon in over 70 years. we have been in wars, we have lost worse, our allies have lost worse. and notlost battles once has a u.s. president in those years decided now is a time where i need a nuclear weapon, this is when i have to use it to the consequences of nuclear use considerably outweigh any benefits you could get from using that weapon, particularly when we have conventional weapons we carry out on these missions. this is increasing with new and more powerful and accurate conventional weapons. we do not need nuclear weapons for our security. cane are the weapons that destroy the united states. it is in our national security interest to get rid of the
weapons. this is what the president was saying several years ago and product. it is in our interests to get rid of the weapons not foolishly or your laterally, but together. let's start to disarm. with russia, let's bring down stockpile and convince other countries to not make these weapons and give up their stockpile. the only way you can do this is walking together. we cannot keep our weapons and indefinitely prevent other countries from getting it. you cannot be a chain smoker and tell other countries not to take a puff. that is the iron logic of this approach. it has worked. we have climbed down from the peak of the cold war where we had 70,000 nuclear weapons and the role. we are down to 15,000. we have got rid of 75% of these weapons. do you feel less secure? do you miss those weapons we used to have? you probably did not even know they were gone. most military experts believe we can do far fewer. not zero yet, but a measured
pace that enhances our security by preventing any other new country from getting this. iran did not have a nuke your just maded we just -- a deal to ensure iran does not thea nuclear weapon for next couple of decades. that is where our security lies, in getting rid of these horrible , destructive, and immoral weapons. you will hear a lot more from the president in this two-day summit. it starts tomorrow and friday with 45 and 50 world leaders coming to meet with the president for the fourth and last nuclear summit. joe cirincione, we want to thank you very much. author of "nuclear nightmare." we appreciate the conversation. coming up, we turn our attention to trump supporters. who are they? we will include men as well and talk with daniel of yahoo! news. intodid a report looking all of the different people supporting donald trump here we
will talk a little bit about that coming up and later, a magazine segment continues. we will take a look at the national review piece on trade coming up here on the washington journal. ♪ >> tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to light with the c-span series, landmark cases. we explore constitutional dramas in some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall said this is different, the constitutional -- constitution is a political doctrine but it is also a law. if it is a law, we have the
courts to tell what it means. >> the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it is exactly what you do not want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? the supreme court said it should make the decisions of those debates. >> tonight, we look at the case of limit -- limiting the privileges of the u.s. citizenship guaranteed in the 14th amendment, the slaughterhouse cases. ♪ our bus continues its travels around the country to visit the winners of the student documentary competition. to oklahoma to recognize their winners, including the grand prize winner on her video about the national debt and deficit. family members and school administrators and local elected officials attended the ceremony. the bus also visited winners in
the dallas, texas, area this week. in roswell, new mexico, and el paso, texas. we worked with our cable partners to coordinate these community business for the winners. please visit to watch all of the winning videos for this year and to get more information on c-span community efforts. monthweekday during the of april, watch one of the top 21 winning entries before washington journal. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us from new york this morning is the deputy ,--or of washington use news, daniel klaidman. why did you decide to do this? well, one of the most
persistent and interesting questions of the election cycle is who are these people voting for donald trump, and why do they like him so much? there is a lot of data out there and a lot of holing, but the pulling only tells you so much. it tells you about large groups of people, but it does not tell you about the people themselves. the coverage of the pulling is also reductive. they will tell you what the most important demographic is that it does not give you the human dimension. you, how dotell these people come to these perspectives on the candidates, and particularly on donald trump. personalt about experiences in life stories that may donald trump appealing to them? we wanted to do a deeper dive on who these people are. a human and more empathetic i, andry to understand this
get beyond the stereotypes we sometimes see in the media, not because they want to character -- caricature voters but they are all on a deadline and do not always have the time to do this. talked to many dozens of trump voters at rallies across the country. then we decided to focus on half a dozen of them to do in-depth profiles and also to put them on video. very well produced videos to allow them to talk in their own words unfiltered. we thought it would be a way of on thesesome light voters and this very interesting election. ont: which is what we do this program. to get out what you found, here is how we are dividing the lines. if you are supporting donald trump, including men, dial in --
others, why you are not supporting donald trump. tell us your view of him. daniel klaidman, i just want to read a little bit from what yahoo! put together. the narrative has taken shape in the media. trump supporters are white, male, undereducated, lower income, anti-immigrant, anti-muslim, and angry, even racist. but th truth is more complicated. what is the truth? the truth is while some of those characteristics are real, and you see them across the country, with a wide swath of trump voters, not every chump voter first of all necessarily adheres to those particular characteristics or those points of view. shareny of them, they may one or two of those
characteristics, but there may be half a dozen others that are equally important that those do not necessarily get you the attention. i will give you some examples. you know, there is a voter we named ron, 59 years old, a white male, he is from nevada, and in some ways, he might fit the profile of the sort of angry white man, but he is not angry. he said he is disillusioned and he seemed a little sad, frank. i think his story is he grew up in pittsburgh, his father worked , and hiseel mills father did not want him to have the same life he had. to do better. he did pretty well. he went to college, he went and got a job in the insurance but he had a tough time in that business and lost a
couple of jobs. he is now living in a town in nevada,a small town in and he is still working in insurance but he also has to get up at 3:00 every morning to drive a cab. through allng gone of these experiences and hardships, and this is someone who really is an independent. he has voted for al gore and bill clinton, as well as mitt romney and john mccain. he even voted for hillary clinton during the democratic primary in 2008. right now, he wants someone who could shake up washington, someone who has real grit and determination and can really make a difference. because i think for him, he is looking for someone to improve his life. he does not fit some of those stereotypes that we often see in
the media. it is just more complicated. we're trying to bring some of the new wants to these stories -- nuance to these stories. host: who is eileen schmidt? 46 years old, lives in the middle of iowa, she has two boys, and she is worried about her safety. worried about isis, very concerned about the attacks in san bernardino, and now in brussels. she sees security as a broader issue and not just terrorism. she is worried about, she conflates terrorism and immigration. thingsieves a lot of the donald trump says, that we need a wall to keep immigrants out, and that is, for her, primarily a security issue. for some people, it is more of an economic issue.
immigrants taking jobs from american spirit for her, it is a security issue. the metaphor she uses is her home. does not allow anybody into her home. she only allows people who she welcomes into her home. that is what we ought to do. someone --she is not not only does she have a college degree, but she is working on a graduate degree. she is educated. she is just concerned about her personal safety, her family's crime hasd she says increased in her neighborhood and her area and in iowa, and from what she calls illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, she feels a very strong sense of personal insecurity. that is driving her to john donald trump -- two donald trump. to donald trump.
tell us how that tracks with what you found. antoine, good morning. caller: i am supporting trump for different reasons. young, 32, i am black, raised in, born and d.c., i am a business owner and i own two corporations. i had a partnership getting ready to start with another small corporation. i like trump because of some of the things he is saying. the wall in particular, i am not so much big on that, even though to our north, we have great leaks, i would love if you took a look at building a great lake two-hour south. -- to our south. ,t would bring much-needed jobs
and remember you do not need a college degree to dig a ditch. a couple of other things. of my friends also support trump as well, but they are also business owners. we are all republicans. i'm a fourth generation republican. was my dad, my granddad, and my great granddad, and that is pretty much it. host: we will have daniel respond. look, i think, and aan, defies stereotypes in way a lot of people we talked to did. i think he said he is african-american. he is not as concerned about immigration and does not seem to be in favor of the wall and believes immigrants add to the labor force. that is probably good for the economy. so again, the point i was making
earlier, we sort of oversimplify who trump voters are and tend to be reductive in the way the headlines capture these stories. example of how trump voters can somehow defy stereotypes. is aj del wrote about gato, 36 years old, cuban-american, grew up in , and shevana in miami is interesting. she is a passionate supporter of donald trump because of the immigration issue. she grew up among immigrants. cuban immigrants and other immigrants in miami. she makes a distinction between illegal immigrants and immigrants who came here legally. more importantly, she thinks wealthy elites and the
as she puts it does not get the issue. she thinks they do not understand that if you are working-class, and she grew up and her mother was a factory worker, her father a buster ira, that this is an issue that really hits home because it is the working-class who lose out to immigrants who come here illegally. in fact, she began by supporting marco rubio, who of course is a native son of a cuban community when marco rubio signed on with the gang of eight there, the immigration reform plan, she viewed that as a betrayal and viewed him as an elitist, someone who did not understand the hardship of working-class people in cuba. people who support a lot of the main issues donald trump talks about, if you dig a little deeper to try to understand how they came to
those issues, those perspectives, you get a little bit of subtlety and nuance and theystanding about why feel so strongly about donald trump. host: we will get in more calls, david in san francisco. who are you supporting? i am generally a ralph nader supporter. the green party is my general theme. bernie is ok. i am more concerned, america used to be a magnet of freedom. we used to be a country which encouraged investment and creativity. development scheme >> this divide and conquer scheme is dividing people out of america. we need to encourage, not only freedom in terms of escape from
the tyrannies around the world, but we need to be inventive and freedoms that create jobs. the development of the republican party the republican party have gone out of their way to build barriers and disinvest in america. do the people you talk to have any concerns about divisive language from donald trump? guest: a lot of them did. falle concerned about his garrity, rhetorical excesses, some of the ways that he has talked about women and minorities, but they give him a pass. "he doesn'tsay really mean those things, he
says them to get attention" or "this is something the media focuses on but it is not what is important about donald trump. there are all these other issues that he is going to shake rings " -- thoseington interestingly, some of the people we spoke to, a number of them, were religious people. evangelical christians were offended by that kind of rhetoric and tone and language. -- thee again, they are overriding issues for them that they are voting on and the reason they like trump are questions about the economy or questions about shaking up washington and making america great again. they are willing to put some of
those concerns to the side and emphasize these other things they think are of overriding importance. greta: we have heard the same things from our viewers. ellen in indiana, what are you -- why are you supporting mr. trump? asler: the media depicts us maybe uninformed, not intelligent, not a graduate, and i say it is probably because we are informed that we are supporting him. he truly can provide jobs in this country. he has offered to renegotiate the trade deals. not to hurt china, but to help us. if you look at our youth branch that can't find jobs, america is losing.
it is a sad thing for someone my age. a sad thing for my age to see. and, ted cruz has been in the senate for a long time and has never offered to bring to the senate floor to renegotiate those trade deals so america can win some. all of a sudden, he is running for president. he is just saying what we want to hear whereas i do believe donald trump is saying what we need to hear. greta: may i ask, how old are you? caller: 68. greta: daniel klaidman, your thoughts? all, what thef caller was saying at the outset, this was the reason we decided to do this project. we thought that some of the coverage of trump voters did
kind of caricature them. she made the point about the perception that trump voters are not educated. there is a significant percentage of these voters who don't have college degrees but donald trump has one -- has won among educated voters in many states where there have been primaries and caucuses. so it is just simply not true that the vast majority of these voters are uneducated or undereducated. many are educated, many have college degrees, and even the on that. -- even beyond that. an important part of donald he iss appeal is that saying the things and doing the dongs that others won't
because they are "politically correct." that is an important point. what she is getting at is this is a politician who is willing to break with political orthodoxy. has taken these positions on trade, for example, which has the the republican party -- conservative movement has been pro-trade for a long time. it has not been that popular along a significant subset of the republican party and the democratic party as well. this is an issue that has resonated across the country with a lot of voters. part of what we wanted to do was -- we wanted to be geographically diverse. we want to get the perspective of trump voters from all across the country. we had voters in florida, in nevada to represent the west, in
michigan and the deep south and mississippi and all over the country. this particular issue, trade, was one of the issues where donald trump's position has resonated all across the country. greta: we are going to be talking about this issue of trade coming up. michelle, in columbus, georgia. why are you so -- supporting some of the else besides trump? caller: donald trump is a big it. .- is a bigot i just don't like ham. -- i just don't like him. -- youy black people always are talking about how --y people donald trump has
how many black voters does donald trump have? mitt romney had one thing right. blacks are going to go to the polls like never before and he is not winning lacks or becauses or other races he is a divider and not a uniter. greta: got to leave it there and have daniel respond. the caller is absolutely right in the sense that donald trump does not have support among african-american voters, among latino voters. obviously, there are exceptions and within the republican primary electorate, he has gotten a small amount of support from those two groups. when it comes to the general election, if he is the republican nominee, he is going
to get walloped. look at a tiny percentage of the black vote and the latino vote, and importantly, this is increasingly coming -- becoming apparent to people, he is going to do buried -- do very poorly among women voters as well. he has disapproving numbers in the 70's, which is quite extraordinary. this package that we did, these profiles of these voters, there was not an african-american voter among the six that we chose to profile. there could have been but it would not have been broadly representative. caller is absolutely right, he has very little
support among those ethnic groups. greta: let's go to gregory in missouri, trump supporter. i just question the media. we went to a president that didn't go through the vetting process. republicans,s and feel that -- do you feel the vetting process is accurate? greta: do you feel it has been accurate when it comes to donald trump? caller: very vague. goods got a lot of experiences but all i hear about is those two bankruptcies. i didn't hear anything on president obama because he didn't accomplish anything. greta: daniel? guest: it is an interesting phenomenon with trump.
trump has been a high profile public figure on the scene for decades. this -- thereis was this perception that trump is really well known, there have been books written about him, there have been documentaries, he was on the apprentice for all peopleears, and so really know the donald trump story. on media tends to focus more what trump is doing in this campaign. i think that is changing. there have been a lot of stories about his more recently -- more recently about his business his upbringing, the kinds of forces in his life that shaped him as a businessman and a person, but in principle, i agree with the caller that the media has to really do as good a
job as it possibly can to affect 2 -- to vet a potential candidate. donald trump has been an open book. we need to do as good a job as we can on reporting different aspects of his life and career. this is obviously the most important job in the world -- most powerful job in the world, president of the united states. theeed to continue to vet candidates as well as we possibly can. greta: that caller mentioned he didn't know a lot about trumps business. reported onon post trumps network. martin in lexington, massachusetts, who are you supporting? caller: i am supporting hillary clinton and i wanted to mention
that it seems the trump supporters are basically concerned about the economy. they don't like the type of job, or the fact that they don't have any. ,ecurity, which would be isis and immigration. trump is not stupid. he is smart, but so was made off -- so was madoff. don'the trump supporters seem to be concerned about our women's rights, such as abortion. the lack of international understanding that trump has of getting rid of nato, just being a bully to other nations, he is a believed to other politicians. he can be a bully to other nations.
that is dangerous. greta: i am going to go to andrea, and i will have daniel respond to both of those calls. andrea, from supporter in michigan. caller: i supported him from the beginning. i just wanted to dispel a myth. african american female with two masters degrees, so i am educated. i think the media has put out there that these are poor white men. i would be interesting -- interested to know how many african-americans were in your survey. it is aboutout -- our economy, the security, are you kidding? obama wouldn't even address people being affected -- people being vetted. everybody is afraid to say what trump is saying. i support from and it is more
like me and we are not on informed, uneducated -- uninformed, uneducated white males. guest: both callers are broadly right in what they are saying. the first was talking about the kinds of issues that trump supporters, why they support trump. they talked about the economy, clearly a hugely important issue for many, if not most from voters. trump voters. they see donald trump as being a tough guy, strong. .f course, immigration if there was a single issue that ,et him apart from candidates even those who are not afraid of immigration reform, that really
resonated with these voters and brought a kind of passion to this candidacy, it was the immigration issue where he talked about how he would deal with it. not just the wall, but throwing out all of the undocumented workers who are here now. that is something that resonated with a lot of people who became trump voters. the second caller is right too. we did not do a poll but we did survey a lot of polls and a lot millionsolls now that of people have actually voted. and yes, there are many african-american voters who are supporting donald trump and many of them, like this caller, have college degrees and even advanced degrees.
but not necessarily statistically significant numbers in the sense that they are going to push the election one way or another. his support among african-americans and latinos is still pretty small. those people are out there and we want to to write about them as well. greta: conrad, new jersey, good morning. rallieswhen i see trump , i see a lot of angry caucasian inricans yelling, screaming, some cases even consulting people. historically speaking, when you whiterganized bands of people like that, people like me and up hanging from trees limbs. but me give you a brief analogy.
if you have an electrical problem in your house, you would the likelihood of your house going up in flames goes up exponentially. secondly and thirdly, i hear people say "he can shake things up." an earthquake can shake things up as well. thank you for taking my call. greta: a right, daniel klaidman. right, daniel klaidman. guest: one of the reasons we did this project, is i was in nevada, i went to a trump rally in las vegas and i was curious to see what they were like and who the voters were. i spent a lot of time talking to voters and my initial reaction was -- these people are friendly. a were having fun, they were
polite. i didn't hear the darker impulses that i was reading about. there was nothing threatening or menacing about the rally itself. it started to change once the rally started and trump started to speak. some people remember this because it was played on television a lot. there was a protester who stood up quietly, showed a sign, and trump said "get him out of here. if this were another time, they'd take him out on the stretcher. i would like to punch the guy in the face." the crowd roared. votersu talk to these individually, they did not betray this kind of anger. there was something about the way he was able to whip them up into a kind of frenzy where you
started to see that more menacing side to these rallies. it was after that that we began to hear these stories about some of the violence and tension. understandtrying to this phenomenon and this dynamic , but it was interesting to see how things changed inside that rally. to the point where wanting the difference -- the difference between someone who can shake things up and someone who has experience and the expertise you need to run this country and run the government, i think that is a very important issue. i think that is one of the things that is being debated. i hope those are the issues that come out of the debates at the town hall that we are having. that is part of the vetting process. there are things about his leadership style that are going
to appeal to people but the question is going to be "can he get the job done? " that does more to character and .xperience greta: thank you for joining us and talking to our viewers about the project that you did. guest: thanks, i enjoyed it. greta: we are going to take a short break. our spotlight series continues with a cover story for national reviews. we will be back with that. >> the media teaches us democrats and republicans are
supposed to be at odds with each other and i think people need to recognize that we need to be respectful towards each other and we need to understand that senators are respectful towards each other and that will be more conducive to getting real policy done. >> the truth is, these people we see on c-span are real people. obama, the president thing that most stood out to me was that he had bags under his eyes. he was tired. that was most interesting. q&a, top hight on school students from around the country attending the 54th annual senate youth program talk about their experience in the leadership program plus their plans for the future. the students met with all branches of government plus military and media representatives. >> washington post journalist came to speak with us and he -- i love the insight he gave us about being the outside source
reporting back to us and the electorate about what is going on. ruth bader ginsburg is the most inspirational person we have met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. i either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a senator. is importantnk it that politicians go to their state capitals or washington with their eyes on a goal and they are determined to meet that goal instead of sacrificing it in the light of money or bipartisanship. >> we need to get back to disrupt -- constructive discourse. and making this country a more respectful place where people are welcome to give their opinions. >> washington journal continues. morning,ining us this
scott linthicum who wrote a cover story. the enemy, the truth about trade. what did you find out about the truth about trade? found out isi there is a lot of miss and misperception about trade and jobs and whether trade is really example, the-- for loss of manufacturing jobs in the united states. or whether there are more fundamental problems with the american labor market. the conclusion is that trade isn't really to blame for some of the problems in our labor market. instead, one of the problems we have really had is a collapse of labor dynamism. the ability of displaced workers to find new and better jobs over a longer term. have seen exit
polls from this presidential cycle and state after state, worrynd republicans, and when thosemy voters express concern about trade, they are voting for bernie sanders and donald trump who are opposed to these kind of deals. blaming china for all of the ills in american economy, that makes a good sound bite. there is palpable economic anxiety, something sanders and trump have seized on, but if you look at the numbers and review the various academic studies, what you find is trade really isn't a cause of the vast majority of job losses in the manufacturing sector of the united states. one recent study found it was only about 10% of total job
losses since 2000 in the manufacturing sector. 90% were caused by productivity. these are things like robots and computers. not only is trade not the driver of those job losses, there are a lot of benefits that americans don't see on a daily basis. they see a closed factory because of import competition, but what they don't really see are the lower prices that we all enjoy at walmart and target and the rest. --ause of free-trade pour it free-trade. total value in the manufacturing sector, it is setting record highs because we don't make t-shirts anymore. we make airplanes and satellites and things you are not going to see at the shelves of walmart.
there is a great disconnect between perception and reality and i think folks like sanders and trump are more than willing to exploit that misperception and say everything can be solved -- all their problems can be solved -- by cutting off trade with china. unfortunately for the voters out there, that is simply not the case. greta: scott is a contributor to the national review and he is at duke university right now because he is a senior visiting lecturer there. he is an international trade attorney with experience in trade litigation before the u.s. international trade commission, the european commission, and the world trade organization. he has advised on regional trade agreements and u.s. trade policy as well as wto matters. your questions and comments and what you think about trade
coming up here. continue dialing in. we will get to those. first, i want to bounce off of you this column in the wall street journal. he writes that recently, labor paperists have found in a that import penetration has been responsible for up to 20% of job losses since the end of the 20th century. china's advance has toppled much of the perceived said -- perceived wisdom. industry's most exposed have been hit the hardest. actually, i covered this study in my piece for national review. it is getting a lot of traction and it is important to note that in the coat you -- in the quote of manufacturing
job losses. the other 80% have nothing to do with chinese imports. no one is scoffing at those 20%. those are millions of jobs. the problem, and this is something noted in that study, the problem is not trade. the problem is the american labor markets ability to adjust to shocks. whether they be technological progress or trade. things that are beneficial overall but do cause disruption. in that paper, those authors note that what we really need to focus on is the collapse in labor dynamism. as i argued, there are a lot of government policies. very misguided government policies have contributed to the collapse in labor dynamism. -- ofility of this placed
displaced american workers to become employed again. in the 90's, this type of labor was quite positive but it collapsed in 2000 and remained in the negative territory ever since. what we really should focus on isn't chinese imports. it is instead, what is wrong with our labor markets that workers can't find new jobs? that workers can't resume that kind of natural job turned that the american economy used to be so good at? greta: paul is up first, a democrat in north carolina. i am a writer -- and journalist and i have written extensively on trade since the 80's. i agree with some of the comments made. i watched temporary agencies do away with permanent jobs and so
forth, and that is a factor. however, the trade agreement worked perfectly the way they wanted to. they moved industry into the south and they couldn't manufacture cheap enough to bring wages low enough there, so things moved offshore. i am a promoter for fair trade. we don't have fair trade. lots of callsre lined up, and i want scott to respond to what you are saying. guest: i am thrilled to hear that we are at least talking about automation in terms of manufacturing job losses. the other thing i would that wee is the idea don't make stuff anymore is simply a myth. american manufacturing output is setting records. mentioned the
american south. there are new manufacturing facilities across the american south, here in north carolina, throughout georgia and alabama. a lot of these places are booming. the idea that there is this great off shoring of american labor simply -- is simply belied by our own eyes. sandra, you are next, georgia, independent. caller: i think the trade deals we have made over the last 15 years have not been good for the united states. you have got china with their money manipulation, their cheap mexicothings going to and not all these people -- now all these people are losing their jobs because different is this is our being automated. regulations and demands made by our government are making it so difficult for businesses,
particularly small businesses, to stay in business. something needs to change. greta: scott, your response? guest: it is a great point. the reality is there are a lot of government policies that are making it very difficult for american businesses to remain globally competitive. but this is not a trade problem. this is a domestic policy problem. we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we have regulations that strangle small businesses. again, trade deals get a lot of those have nothing to do with our skyhigh corporate tax rates. if you look at the numbers, there is not a strong connection between the passage of, for example, the u.s.-korea fta and the loss of manufacturing jobs.
trump respond to donald yesterday in wisconsin, a city that has lost jobs in manufacturing. >> wisconsin has lost 15,000 jobs to mexico since nafta. john kasich voted for nafta. both of them want tpp. ,he transpacific partnership both want transpacific. that will make nafta look like a baby. wisconsin will be hit so hard. greta: did nafta wisconsin? will tpp do even more? guest: obviously, i am not going to be able to speak to the employment numbers, but if you
look at the broader national data, the fact that we have been losing manufacturing jobs since the 1940's, we have losing -- we have been losing since 1979. long before nafta was ever enforced. we lost the same number of manufacturing jobs in the years leading up to nafta as we did in the years after nafta. so the idea that nafta is some great job destroyer is again, just simply false. as far as dpp goes -- as ttp goes -- as far as tpp goes, it provides a good political target but the fact is that tpp has some good things and some bad things. nafta, to blame all of wisconsin's manufacturing problems on nafta or the future tpp is simply false.
servedould be far better looking at some of the problems in our corporate tax sector, our regulatory sect were, and our labor market instead of just laming china and mexico for what is obviously a much more complex problem. greta: what if we didn't go forward with the partnership? you write in the truth about trade that even if it were morally and economically advantageous for the united protectionism,ce it is almost certainly impossible for it to do so. manufacturers have involved to become integral links to a breathtakingly complex global value chain. guest: correct. the numbers i cite there are fascinating. 40% of everything we export has chinese or mexican or canadian content in it.
everything china and mexico and canada export have american content. if you look at a so-called american car, it is likely it is going to have various parts from all over the world. an iphone says it is made in china. but it was only assembled in china. it contains parts from japan, taiwan, and the united states. to simply try to pair all of this -- they're all of us apart, remove american manufacturing and the american economy from this very complex global value chain would not just hurt america. it would hurt the global economy . you would be trying to kill the virus of global trade and in doing so, you would kill the host. greta: virginia, june is watching us there, republican. caller: good morning.
scott, iike to say to am a trump supporter. the reason i am is because of the 35% tax on corporations. i had a business at one time and it was under jimmy carter. about four years later, reagan came in. what a difference. it is night and day. when anyone talks about lowering the corporate tax and changing and working on this trade issue is such a big deal. i think trump has his hand on it. greta: do you like what donald trump says on trade as well? caller: i like what he says on trade. trump i wish that donald focused far more on our onerous tax and regulatory policies and less on china.
earlier, latee of that trumps misguided focus on china and mexico actually papers over a lot of real problems we have in the american economy, whether it be policies that discourage workers from investing in their own future or our job training are crowding out private job training programs. all of those policies totally deserve credit and when trump talks about them, that is great. the problem is that he obsesses over china and blames china and mexico for all of america's problems. greta: lawrence is a democrat in what you think about trade? caller: as a democrat, i have been thinking that if donald
trump happens to win the presidency, and the problems he is having right now with the republicans, what do you think will happen to trade and american politics? if they don't want it now, what is going to happen to the senate and republicans when he puts forth all these things he says he is going to do? greta: go ahead, respond. part: i missed the first of the question, we had a little technical staff who -- technical snafu. greta: when donald trump claims all the things he is going to do, he says washington is not that crazy about him even within his own party. what is the impact if he gets the nomination, if we -- if he were to win? aest: there are some things president trump could do and a lot of things he couldn't.
it is very likely that president trump could withdraw the united states from the wto and nafta. but what president couldn't do is actually raise our tariffs in response to any sort of withdrawal from nafta or the wto. that is because congress has a final say in regulating international commerce. so president trump can withdraw from the deal but he can't raise tariffs on china, mexico, or wherever else. but what withdrawing would do is prevent china, mexico, and every other country in the wto to raise their tariffs in response to us or otherwise discriminate against a american goods, services, or investors. that is just a idiotic idea, to essentially allow other
countries to do whatever they want to us and doing nothing in return. there is an important dose of reality there. the other issue is that even if president trump did somehow convinced congress to raise tariffs on china and mexico to even 45%, what you see is a massive tax on not only american consumers, so everything you buy at walmart and target, but also a tax on american manufacturers. more than half of everything we import, our machinery and raw materials used by american manufacturers to produce globally competitive products. he is not taxing american families but business as well. that makes no sense. so would mexico and china win if they brought a tariff case before the wto?
caller: assuming we stayed in tariffsand trump raised to 45%, it would be the easiest wto case ever brought to the dispute settlement body. we have very basic international obligations. with respect to not only the level of our tariffs, but also whether we can discriminate against individual countries. we can't do that. china would be able to go to the wto and win the right to retaliate against american exports. $200e talking about billion in annual tariffs against american good and service exports. doing that would cripple the american economy. there were a couple of recent analyses showing that if trump did get his way, the economy would sink into recession.
we would lose millions of american jobs. once you put reality to trumps rhetoric, you see what a disaster it is. greta: gary is in alabama, independent. hello sir. all right, we are going to move on to tom in illinois, republican. caller: hi. i am a farmer in the midwest and there are several things that have happened over the years, like jimmy carter putting an embargo on the russians -- on the rations on corn and our market lost a dollar a day and it never came back for 10 years. went to a seminar one day and a guy from the corporation that does the trading with grain with china and japan and all these foreign countries -- i asked him
a question. i said what about our embassies? every bushel of corn i sell, for ans a check off agency set up to promote our corn around the world. i asked him how much these things help our market. he said "i am going to step on a few toes, but i don't think one thin dime." the chinese and the japanese will do anything in their power to get a penny or two cents. they will call at any time. greta: let's get a response. guest: it is a wonderful point and something we don't talk about. the role of international trade
in american agriculture. the united states has a globally dominant farm. wheat, andorn, everything else to all over the world. a lot of that is due to our international trade agreement, such as the wto or nafta. insaw a dramatic increase american farm exports after nafta. in order to increase the competitiveness, whether it be manufacturing, corn, or whatever, there are things we can do. some of the things we can do our eliminating taxes and other regulations that raise the cost of doing business in america. haveat, and i think we can a more legitimate conversation about world trade. greta: rick is a democrat in indiana. you are next.
old-time factory jobs that i had that went about 14 years ago down to mexico for two dollars an hour, also technology has killed factory jobs. where it used to take 100 guys to make a widget, today, it takes five. greta: let me get in eric as well as who is in kansas. what are your thoughts? shafta we now call nafta . big corporations have done well and the labor market has been dismantled in agriculture and family farming. when he is talking about the economy, he is talking about corporations. greta: is that what you're
talking about? guest: no, i am talking about jobs. international trade benefits big corporations. guys like going have tremendous capability to sell products overseas. but if you look at the basic numbers, as i already mentioned, we started losing manufacturing jobs in 1979. since that time, we have gained over 50 million jobs in the united states. over 30 million jobs since nafta passed. is somedea that nafta great american job destroyer is belied by the fact. facts.he of course, international -- but insteads of killing the golden goose, what we need to do is look at
the problems we have in helping displaced workers get new jobs. if you look at my piece in national review, we used to be very good at it. in recent years, we are not. instead of blaming nafta for all of these problems, we instead look at the real culprits. governmenty of policies and regulations that have crippled u.s. labor dynamism. there are so many things we could do that we actually could improve the lot of the collar there, in terms of losing a job to technology or trade. that is the real tragedy. greta: darrell in michigan, republican. caller: good morning. guest to congratulate the for being such a master of misdirection.
i want to ask him this. free trade. what is free about free trade? we are running a trade deficit. how is it good for our workers? and don't tell me we are going to get to buy seven dollar t-shirts. guest: sure. first of all, that is a great allusion to the trade deficit. unfortunately, the trade deficit is not this bogeyman that donald trump makes it out to be. theou look again at numbers, as the u.s. economy expands, our trade deficit also expands. when we had the collapse a few years ago, the deficit contracted a lot. that was not good for the u.s. economy. it tracks almost perfectly with the trade deficit. that is not because the trade deficit causes of mania -- american manufacturing output,
the deficit is a signal of economic activity. it is not a signal we are losing at trade. the numbers don't support the idea that because we have a trade deficit we all of a sudden should shut down free-trade. stella, democrat in new york, good morning. caller: how can you explain the fact that prior to nafta when hillary stood on the border -- board of directors of walmart in 92, we had a trade surplus in mexico. we used to ship them more goods than they shipped us. now, it is the reverse. we lost our textile industry, we lost our apparel industry. we lost the training industries, rimming industries.
we are a service economy. how can you explain that? guest: i can't explain it. the reality is we have been losing manufacturing jobs long before nafta ever came about. we have been losing andfacturing jobs transitioning to a services economy since the 1940's. by the way, countries that have trade surpluses like germany are also losing manufacturing jobs. this is not about the trade deficit or surplus. automation. about robots and computers and all those things are causing, as one earlier caller said, one employee can now do what five employees are -- used to do. we need to find real solutions to these policies. protectionism is not a real
solution. addressing problems in our labor market, there are plenty of things we can do now. it is far better that we have i.t. engineers in new york city or financial professionals in new york city and that we help people who used to work in that industry find a new job. greta: let's go to dave, independent, massachusetts. caller: i think what we are hearing a lot of his people who are pro-democracy and want to be pro-trade and feel like we can be both. of that is exemplified by what is happening with trans canada suing us using a provision in nafta for $15 billion for refusing to build the keystone pipeline. if they are successful, the uprican taxpayer will end
paying a foreign corporation $15 billion for something that was never built based on an expectation of future profits that never materialized. greta: can you talk about what he is driving at? guest: it is a great point. at the cato institute, we talk about isd s. it is not a perfect system. i think there are legitimate criticisms to how it operates. in terms of the specifics of transcanada's case, i can't get into that. but the united states is very successful in winning isd s claims. there haven't been that many of them. it sounds bad when transcanada is suing the united states under nafta in terms of it being a huge problem, it isn't. it doesn't reflect on the basic fact of trade liberalization, lower tariffs, and whether trade and imports are good or bad for
the american economy. we can have a conversation about isd s but there are -- that has nothing to do with the trade deficit, nothing to do with manufacturing jobs. that folks like donald trump and bernie sanders are talking about. if donald trump wants to have a debate about i.s. ds, i would welcome it. , i would welcome it. caller: i had a business in houston for 38 years, where i successfully employed 25 ladies. we were very competitive with any other company in the u.s.. it is impossible for a u.s. company to compete with people sitting in india, paying their transcriptionists two dollars an hour.
i don't understand why you allow the subterfuge that you are allowing on your program because this man is obviously vested in free-trade. we need the other side too. greta: we have had the other side on many times and we will continue to do so. guest: she talked about services. for callers who are concerned about the trade deficit, we have a massive trade surplus in services. that is what transcription services are. the idea that we are hemorrhaging jobs to other countries in the services sector is simply not true. there will always be jobs lost to foreign competition if we have open markets. the reality is that there are american companies and american workers and important american consumers that benefit greatly from that international competition. it is not just lower prices. it is jobs, innovation, and
competition. so we should find good policies that help workers who are affected by trade or technology. the idea that shutting off trade or that trade is somehow the cause of all these problems is simply not the case. greta: james in new jersey, republican. toler: one thing that needs be addressed is governments like china and vietnam that are authoritarian, when they have no labor unions and the governments are not interested in paying their workers more to raise the standard of living of workers in china. it is not a question of trade as much as a question of policy in different countries and the willingness of the government to see the standard of living raised for the workers. scott, what do you think? if youfirst of all,
look, wages in china are going up dramatically. they are going up so much that a lot of manufacturers are moving their operations to mexico or back to the. states.to the united if you look at north korea, for example, things are far worse. if you are concerned about rising wages in authoritarian regimes, the best thing to do is help them get richer and help us trade with them. a panaceaing to be for issues with china and their governments? of course not. but the solution is not isolating them. the best thing we can do is to get them richer so that they can help fix their own problems from
within. greta: i want to tell our viewers who mentioned the other side of this debate, laurie wallace. the global trade watch director , andn this show recently she gave the other side of the argument. if you want to hear it, go ahead and go to our website. let me get dawn, in d.c.. independent caller. are you there? caller: yes, i am here. have you ever heard of the concept of the end of work? from my perspective, the situation is only going to get worse. we are going to continue to see a decline in the labor market because of the advance of technology. what are we going to do? people are filled with conspiracy theories and anger about what is happening but it
is only going to continue to become worse over time. we have to change our labor market. greta: scott? guest: clerks sure, if you lookt throughout history, there have been great technological industries. the industrial revolution. people said, will face the end of work. we will have the end of manufacturing, it has not happened. maybe, this is different. for example, an assembly line worker goes away, the u.s. economy is good at creating a new job. whether it is it over or airbnb, or whatever. jobs do not exist