tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 1, 2016 12:40pm-3:36pm EDT
>> brilliant minds operate better under stimulus. >> barack obama has systematically rebuilt our trust of the ability to work through this -- >> you will not talk to anyone in our world, our allies. >> what everyone to call the state, it is a disaster for russian americans. >> it can only be described as barbarian management. >> religion forces people to not to unkind things. >> show me the word pretext. show me the word. >> it doesn't change the point.
>> we do not want sympathy. we do not want. we want opportunities. >> it's appalling slander. >> i never said the word. >> it is that kind of restraint, is that kind of sober minded sensible intelligent foreign policy that obama represents so i guess what i'm telling you is he a sort of a quasi-canadian. [applause] (music)(music) [applause] >> we are in the heart of downtown toronto a city that is home to more than 6 billion people. carved into the water of lake ontario and here we are everyone at roy thompson hall. it's distinctive interior
design, we know what well reflected by day transparent by night. this is toronto's premier concert hall. the venue usually for the biggest names in entertainment but tonight before 3000 people, the latest in a series of munk debates, a clash of ideas over u.s. presidential election. good evening. it is once again my pleasure to be your moderator tonight for this debate. this important debate. want to start by welcoming the north american wide television audience. joining us right now on c-span across the continent to usa and here in canada coast-to-coast on cpac.
a hello also to the on line audience watching right now, facebook livestreaming this debate over facebook. our social media partner. on the web sites of our digital and print partners and of course on our own web site the munk debates.com and hello to all of you. the 3000 people who have once again filled roy thompson hall to a munk debates capacity. bravo. [applause] >> our ability year in and year out to bring the debate to bring to some of the worlds best debaters from the brightest minds, the sharpest thinkers to weigh in on the big global challenges and the issues and
problems facing the world would not be possible without the generosity and the foresight and the commitment of our folks tonight so please join me in a warm appreciation for the munk debate founders. bravo you guys. thank you. [applause] so it's a real treat to be of the host these debates in toronto. let's get our teams at debaters out here center stage and our debates underway. we have a controversial motion. it's designed to fire up our participants and fire up the on line television and in the auditorium audience. that resolution be it resolved donald trump can make america great again. speaking for the motion our first debater tonight, please welcome the former speaker of the u.s. house of representatives and an adviser to the trump campaign, newt
gingrich. [applause] speaker gingrich team made is the best-selling author, renowned radio broadcaster with over 5 million daily listeners coast-to-coast in the united states and she is a force of nature and the american conservative movement. ladies and gentlemen, laura ingraham. [applause] one great team at debaters deserves another and we have not disappointed you tonight. be it resolved donald trump can make america great again the former u.s. labor secretary, acclaimed berkeley professor, filmmaker, author, one of the most formidable debaters at this time, robert reich.
[applause] roberts debating partner canadian born to time governor of the state of michigan and the cochair hillary clinton's white house transition team, please join me and no warm welcome to jennifer granholm. [applause] let's go through a very quick predebate checklist before we go to our opening statements. first we have a hashtag going tonight.
those in the hollow those watching on line hashtag munk debate. let us know what you think. join the debate in china conversation take part in our rolling poll also as the munk debate.com/vote and of course our countdown clock. for those of you who are regulars at the debate this is how we keep our debaters on their toes and our debates on time. we have a clock that will appear as the debaters opening and closing remarks count down to zero. join me in a round of applause and that will let them know that it's time to move on. we like to do that here. we like to keep our proceedings moving quickly. let's finally preview how this audience of 3000 people here at roy thompson hall voted on tonight's resolution coming into the debate. in toronto, canada i'm curious here. be it resolved donald trump can make america great again.
do you agree or disagree? let's see those numbers up on the screen. ok. [applause] 14%. 14% agree and 86% disagree. now, hey look you can change her mind. you will hear a lot in the next hour and a half. depending on what you hear are you likely to change her vote over the next hour and a half. assessing those numbers now, please. ok, look at that. 46% of you could change your minds. 54% are decided. let's just see how the decided you are. we will begin with their opening statements now and by colin speaker gingrich. your six minutes begins now.
>> first of all thank you all for coming out. i want to thank peter munk for creating a remarkable institution today was here a few years ago was secretary reich to debate economics and it was a great experience. it was one of the great debates in the entire north american cities so that delighted to have a chance to talk to you. you might about laura and i would be put on edge by an 86-14 vote but if you operate as a conservative and a washington news media that would be reasonably good. so it does not particularly affect us. they also want to give a distinction. i would not have even come. the question had been resolved, the canadian should relax and not worry about the donald trump presidency. i think trump represents very real change. i think you will aggressively put america's interests first
and i think frankly that has to raise issues because that's a very different frame of reference than the way we have negotiated over the last couple of generations and it sets up a lot of questions which aren't answered and can't be answered until we lived through it. what i would suggest to you is in the long run a very dynamic america that regains a reagan level of economic growth, four, five, 6% a year. in america that is generating jobs, generating rapidly advancing income and america in which overhauls its infrastructure in america which reforms the civil service which is in fact a better neighbor, a better customer, a better market to sell into that better support for national security than an america which continues to decay. i think part of what you don't feel in canada is the degree to which the american central government system is decaying. for example we learned last week that the veterans administration , one third of the cause of
suicide lights go to call waiting so you can leave a message. just think about that. you are veteran and you are depressed. you are literally thinking about suicide. it's 2:00 in the morning. you call a number you were told will help you in one out of three times you get a tape recording. this is a government level of incompetence that is beyond breathtaking and you see it again and again in our system. the liquor of the structure we are now $19 trillion in debt and in large part due to the the infrastructure does not work. it has to be a profound overhaul to compete in the world market. the director of national intelligence reported, staff reporter earlier this year that the chinese last year stole $360
billion in intellectual property in the united states. we have an 800 billion-dollar. deficit. you can't sustain it and you also can talk about free trade when your largest trading partner or your second-largest trading partner is feeling a third of a trillion dollars a year in intellectual properties. and so the requirements that we think finally the whole issue of the war in the middle east. it has been 37 years since the ayatollah khamenei illegally seized the american embassy beginning iran's campaign against the united states. it has been 15 years since 9/11 when islamic supremacists killed 3000 people in the united states. we are not winning. we have spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of young men and women, had tens of thousands of severe ones and no serious person can argue that we are winning. when trump says we need to rethink this i would argue that he is not a lib and he is not a harbor -- harvard trained lawyer but as a crude rough-and-tumble businessman that has a habit of actually building things and
making them work and projects he has the entrepreneurial drive and i think he has the courage and i think he has the originality that will enable us to start to break through and to literally make america great again and i think in the absence of very profound change the united states is going to continue to change. we will become a weaker partner for you. it's going to have bad implications for both of our economies and bad implications for both of our national security than an america for example this year we have over 3000 people shot in chicago and over 500 killed. somebody is shot in chicago
every two hours. that requires profound fundamental rethinking. we have lost more americans in chicago since 2009 than we have lost in iraq and afghanistan combined and if that means we are -- we need a rough-and-tumble guy who is frankly not a very subtle, not a very glib, not a very sophisticated person but he may just be like andrew jackson the kind of person you need to break through and actually make the system work again and i would argue that's a much better gamble for the future than to continue the current system, the current policies, the current bureaucracies, the current mess in washington and that's why i think we have a better chance of making america great again with donald trump. [applause] >> thank you speaker gingrich. robert reich you are up next for your opening statement, six minutes on the clock. >> thank you. i love to debate newt gingrich because we agree on nothing.
[laughter] but in a very good-natured way. i have been in canada for about 24 hours and i am so reassured to learn that country to my fears that the canadians are not contemplating building a wall. the off chance that donald trump becomes president most of us want to come north. but let me just say this. on a proposition and the fact that 86% of you are with governor granholm and me is something of a challenge. we want to get you up to 88 or 90% but the difficulty of arguing this proposition is knowing where to begin. honestly. [applause]
let me just say something here and it's very sincere. when you have a lot of people in a society who feel economically stressed and in the united states to a lesser extent in canada, you have a much much better safety net in canada. in the united states we have a lot of the old working class and a lot of middle last, lower middle class people who have been on the downward escalator for years and part of that i don't want to cast aspersions for part of it i remember because i was labor secretary when speaker gingrich was speaker and one of the frustrations i had, no dispersions of all is trying to get job training and more education spending in trying to get infrastructure spending and earned income tax credit which is a wage subsidy for people at
the bottom and getting a lot of opportunities and recreating equal opportunity, widening the circle of prosperity but the republican congress and the republicans wouldn't do it. all they wanted was trickle-down economics. trickle-down economics are tax cuts for the rich and you pretend it trickles down to everybody else. it didn't come it doesn't, it is a cruel hoax and the net results of those years are all of this year's senate fact we have seen basically the standoff now for about 25 years the net result is you have a large and growing percentage of americans who feel with some justification that the game is rigged against them. my friends, you know as well as i do what happens when you have a larger percentage of their population feeling like the system is rigged against them. we can see a lot of the same stresses occurring in europe and elsewhere around the world. you create the conditions in which demagoguery is rife. you always invite authoritarian populism. there is an history to different forms of populism. one i will call authoritarian.
those are the demagogues that want to channel that anger and anxiety and fear and channel it toward scapegoats and want to blame foreigners or immigrants were minority groups. this is nothing new. we have seen the tragedy of what happened 70, 80 or 90 years ago in europe is still within levering memory or at least within the minds that the reform and political system. you make equal opportunity a reality and that's the only alternative when people are stressed. in other words it really is a choice between authoritarian populism or performance populism and that's what we face right now the united states. that's why donald trump is in the words of the cincinnati inquirer for example.
the cincinnati inquirer if you don't know is a republican publication or it has been, back in 150 years has not endorsed a democrat but what did it do a few weeks ago? endorsed hillary clinton. if said quote donald trump is a clear and present danger to the united states and also to the world. now i don't have to do this. fact i have about one minute him left but you know this. this is a man who denies climate change is caused by humans who calls vladimir putin a stronger leader than president obama, who says president obama invented isis who for years has claimed president obama was not even born in the united states. ironically it's an embarrassment -- an embarrassment here. to suggest that the death of supreme court justice antonin
scalia was part of a plot. he refers to women he doesn't like his pigs and slobs and call the former miss universe miss piggy. he said thousands and thousands of muslims in new jersey celebrated the twin towers collapsing, wants to ban muslims from entering. says a federal judge has a conflict of interest in considering a case against trump universiuniversi ty because of his mexican heritage and i could go on and on. you get the point. this is demagoguery. this is wielding anxiety and frustration and pointing it at them. this is hatemongering. this is undermining the social fabric of the united states. so it's not just that donald trump is a problem.
the problem is that donald trump has already poisoned the well and we have got to all of us here tonight get rid of him. [applause] we will next go to you laura ingram. your six minutes is on the clock. >> i want to thank everyone here for coming tonight. it's such a great privilege to be with all of you and i can't believe 14% of the people in this room actually support the proposition. i will buy margaritas for all of you, all of you at the fun table. i am honestly thrilled to be here to support the proposition and i would like to begin with a quote from march of this year. here it goes. i have seen first-hand how excessive wall street in the corporations are at wielding influence using lobbyists, campaign donations and subtle promises of future jobs to get
the global deals they want. opal feels like a transpacific partnership will boost the profits of wall street's corporations and make the richest 1% even richer but they will will conjure you to the steady shrinkage of the american middle class. that quote was posted by robert reich former secretary of labor for the clinton administration and our opposition tonight. next i would like to quote at 2000 article about the decision of electrolux. we have had electrolux vacuums in my house in connecticut. they will leave greenville
michigan for mexico. governor jennifer granholm was disappointed by electrolux decision to abandon greenville. she promised to persuade the company tuesday to stay assembling a package of more than 120 million in state and local tax credits. the city offered to build the plant, the local union agreed to give as up as much is $33 million in wages. they said there's nothing you can do to compensate for the fact that we are able to pay $1.57 an hour to mexico granholm recalls. that's when i started to say quoting governor granholm nafta to embarrass our distinguished opponents tonight. i really didn't. i quoted them to show that we actually share common ground and i think it's important to say that even at a debate. lots of folks in washington complain that we don't have enough bipartisanship, and people from different parties can't agree on policies to make the lives of the average american better, but when it comes to this issue of globalization, i believe people of good faith on both sides increasingly agree that the
current system does not work for blue-collar workers. so for years people like governor granholm and secretary reich have warned about the harm that are trade policy is doing to american workers and some of us, some of us on the republican side including people like senator jeff sessions of alabama, have done the same. so we are not asking for protectionism. we are not asking for mercantilism. we are not opposed to all trade. we are simply asking for a system where american workers and businesses in america have a better chance to compete, where it's easier for american businesses to grow and expand and for american workers to actually obtain higher wages. and after all, the united states is the largest, most attractive market in the world and of all countries we shouldn't be forced in the united states to enter deals that put our people at a disadvantage. but what has happened? absolutely nothing despite the common ground that a lot of democrats, people like bernie
sanders and people like myself and obviously donald trump. at this very moment president obama is pushing yet another massive trade deal, the transpacific partnership, and that bob does not like. and this is the exact deal that he criticized this year, and he's absolutely right. but you know when i know that everyone in this room knows that hillary clinton, if she is elected president, this country, our country, the united states will soon be bound by the , transpacific partnership, and it might happen in a lame-duck session of congress and it may happen after secretary clinton, if she becomes president, makes a few minor tweaks to the deal. but it will happen. why are we doing this? if this puts us on a path to hurt so many americans? i will tell you why. the same people who the same -- have kept the same gridlock in washington for so many years are in favor of it. because they have always been in favor of the things that benefit them, and it's usually the top
1% of the country. and it's usually big donors and it's usually big corporations who have really fancy lobbyists who have made a lot of money. they eat fancy dinners in washington, d.c. and wine and dine everybody at the capitol . and then along comes donald newt describes him accurately. he's a rough-and-tumble guy without any political experience and he comes out and he calls everybody out on their blankety blank and he does in a way that is offputting, and i think it's frankly terrifying to a lot of people because when you mess with their status quo, then they start getting really serious about fighting you. donald trump will not be beholden to big donors. he will not be beholden into wall street. wall street is endorsing hillary clinton. hillary clinton refuses to show her transcripts after goldman sachs speeches and i would like to know why that is. we need a government that represents all the people, no matter where they come from, no matter what color their skin, and donald trump promises to do
that. and i think a system that. [laughter] ms. ingraham: i still think canadians are nice. [laughter] ms. ingraham: we need to break the oligarchy in washington, d.c. that dominated the country, restore democracy in which the voice of all the people is respected. [applause] rudyard: the final opening statement goes to governor granholm. you are up next. ms. granholm: thank you so much, and thanks for the invitation to come. i know the munk debates wanted to get a canadian-born u.s. politician who is against donald trump to come and speak to -- and then ted cruz endorsed donald trump a couple of weeks ago, so here i am. [applause] ms. granholm: so i want to talk in that vein of robert reich as an apology.
really, do how do we start? i want to give you in my brief six minutes a couple of reasons of the 4365 that you might vote against this resolution. just to wet your whistle. for example, donald trump is so erratic that nbc has done an evaluation of his positions and where he has stood, and what they have determined is of 20 positions donald trump has changed his mind 124 times. on the issue of immigration he has changed his mind 18 times alone. he would be a danger as a president not just because he's erratic. don't take my word for it. take the word of economists and their global intelligence unit. their unit rates all of the
global risks. they have determined this month that donald trump is the fourth highest global risk among all global risks. in fact, they have never put a politician on this list before. [laughter] [applause] ms. granholm: why is this? they said because of his language about the muslim world is god's gift to isis recruiters. fact, the head of the former counterintelligence agency has counted the number of times that he has been able to find that isis is actually rooting for donald trump to be president because he really is giving them an ability to recruit. that is a danger. he is a danger because as
secretary reich said, because of putin, and that is not just because he says obama or vladimir putin is a better leader than barack obama. but for anybody who has been watching, and i am sure you all have, you may recall his second campaign manager, paul manafort, represented for many years the head of the russian-backed ukraine until he was kicked out. and when he was the head of donald trump's campaign during the republican convention, this campaign went in and removed from the republican platform a provision that was a standing provision that said the united states would go in and defend ukraine in the case of russian incursion. he also has said among his foreign policy policy advisors, there is a guy carter page, who is a u.s. business man who does
a huge amount of business in russia, and this week yahoo news determined and reported he was under investigation. his foreign policy advisor is under investigation by the united states intelligence agencies because he is apparently having conversations in moscow about lifting the sanctions against russia in the advent of a donald trump victory. we know that donald trump has overtly called upon the kremlin to hack hillary clinton's e-mail. we know, in fact, the kremlin, or russian hackers have hacked the democratic national committee. we know the former head of the cia, mike moral, said that donald trump -- f putin has recruited donald trump as an unwitting agent of the soviet federation. the man is a danger.
he is also incredibly deceptive. i am sure you have been following this. he is a con man. he has trump university, trump mortgage, and separating the little guy from his money. we know he is a chiseler because he is involved in 3400 lawsuits , many of which are from contractors who sue just to get paid. people who built the base for his slot machines and pem who -- people who served as waiters and bartenders had to sue him just to get paid. we know that. we know he is hiding something because he is not releasing his tax return which is a 40-year tradition in united states that presidential candidates release their tax returns so we can see if there is any conflict. we know he is a liar because the news agency, politifact and fact checker, objective entities,
they have evaluated donald trump's statements, like they do everybody else, and they found of all politicians they have evaluated donald trump is by far the biggest liar. [laughter] ms. granholm: "usa today" took the position for the first time in their history, taking a position in a presidential race, saying he is a serial liar. 78% of the facts checked were lies. the man is untrustworthy. he is not worthy of being president. the resolution says please, vote against this resolution. four candidates sake, for the anada's sake, -- for c sake, the world's sake protect , the united states. [applause] rudyard: terrific opening statements.
speaker gingrich, i want to go to you. react to what you heard, and what is your rebuttal in the debate. mr. gingrich: as canadians having listened to these two, , you would have to ask the question, how could donald trump be this close to winning? right? [applause] mr. gingrich: there is a profound reason. it is the same reason brexit won in great britain. for the first time in rome's history, there is a female mayor and she won as part of the five-star movement that was founded by a comedian for anti-corruption. in brazil, their president was impeached for corruption and the indicted fort starting corruption. the brazilian petroleum company has a $40 billion scandal of bribery, and according to gallup, 74% of brazilians
believe there is widespread corruption. in the united states, 75% of people believe there is widespread corruption. republicans were not in charge of chicago as it collapsed. the last city counselor in baltimore was 1972. our inner cities are declining, schools don't work, kids don't have jobs, and violence all over the place. these are democratic-controlled area. and it's honesty and this entity -- dishonesty. donald trump changed his opinion about as often as hillary clinton has changed her explanation of our e-mails. [applause] mr. gingrich: the fact is almost 50% of the country maybe a winning percent is sickened. we talk about russian influence bill clinton who got $1 million from moscow for a speech. it is the clintons who gave 20% of the uranium to russia at the same time they put a donation in
the clinton foundation. it is this kind of corruption which has led a number of americans tuesday, yes donald , trump may be a risk but he is a better risk than hillary clinton. [applause] rudyard: interesting rebuttal. , let's hear your rebuttal. it is convenient for the elite to blame someone who hasn't been in office over the past 15 years for the ruin they left behind. syria, a massive refuge crisis, a consumer confidence crisis across western europe, the rise in westernt movement europe, brexit, seven out of americans think the government 10 is going in the wrong direction. the trustworthiness for donald trump nature not be high but it is in the basement for hillary clinton, too. she is the former secretary of
, and in her first trip to russia couldn't get the translated button right when handing it to the foreign minister. and donald trump is the incompetent person? just delighted, i am thrilled, as someone who lived in the former soviet union, i am thrilled to hear the democrats are concerned about russia. in the '70s they called and said it would all work out fine. they called president ronald reagan, for whom i worked, because he was out of control and was going to bring chaos on to the world scene. america in decline is the threat. four years or eight years of hillary clinton promises the same policies over the same last
years. a negative and pessimistic view of government from the people. massive trade definite -- deficits. china on the rise as america falls. american decline under hillary clinton. that is the danger. [applause] mr. reich: i disagree. [laughter] mr. reich: for example laura, , you said that hillary clinton is indebted to wall street. well donald trump is not , indebted to wall street because wall street won't give him any more loans. he declared bankruptcy four times. where is he getting his money? could it be, perhaps, from russia?
trade, look, i was there. i implemented the north american free trade act. [applause] mr. reich: thank you. nafta, to my way of thinking did not have adequate labor or protections in it. it was the best deal we could get. let me tell you free trade is , not itself bad but the problem is if we don't have, and the united states doesn't have mechanisms in place to ease the adaptation of workers who get hurt by the loss of jobs because of trade or technological change. if you don't have job training, education, reemployment insurance, if you don't have anything in place then obviously , those workers are going to be stranded. the problem is not trade. the problem is lack of adjustment mechanisms for the people who get hurt by trade and
technological change. [applause] mr. reich: and let me say finally that trade is not and should not be considered as donald trump considers it a zero sum game. a trade should be a positive sum game. if you don't trade you actually are going to condemn the rest of the world, particularly the poor in the world, to a lifetime of poverty. that is not good for the world, that is not good for foreign policy or peace. thank you. [applause] ms. granholm: laura quoted my huge anxiety over the loss of .lectrolux and she did not quite get it right. and ontario for us,
has seen its share of lost manufacturing jobs, as well. and the question is who is in a , better position to create industrial clusters, to go after advanced manufacturing and make the investments necessary to make our region irresistable to those who would create jobs here. who is in the best position to be able to be smart enough and the right kinds of partnering and investments? is it somebody who said the other night at the debate, when payinghy he was not taxes, said it was because i am smart. somebody who is being guarded at this moment by secret service agents who are paid for by federal taxes, somebody who uses airports with his big jet that is paid for by federal taxes,
whose limos drive on roads paid for by federal taxes but cannot himself see fit to tribute in any way to the comment. this man -- they talked about corruption. this man has manipulated the laws to his benefit his entire career. if you want to have somebody to bring jobs back to the united states you don't rely on someone , who is outsourcing to manufacture stuff in china, mexico, turkey and everywhere else. he is not the model that we need to bring a change we require. [applause] rudyard: thank you, governor. very strong opening debate. we will now move into the moderated portion, more free flow. the themes the first half hour
debate, you mention this, laura, and america in decline. let me start with you, robert, to get why in a sense clinton isn't, in your view, the status quo that laura and newt are condemning therefore proposing , that trump is the solution in the absence of a disrupter on the democratic side of the ticket. mr. reich: disruption for the sake of disruption is not what america or the world needs. stalin and hitler and all of them were disrupters. i have known hillary clinton for 49 years, by the way. if you can keep it in this audience, i will tell you something. [laughter] mr. reich: i met her and i went out on a date with her in 1967. [applause]
mr. reich: and i blew it because i could possibly be the first gentle man of the united states. [laughter] mr. reich: i had known her always as a woman of extraordinary principal, a person of deep, deep commitment to social justice, a person who worked so hard over the last 30 to 40 years to improve our society. to me, even mentioning the word donald trump or the name donald trump in conjunction with hillary clinton is absurd. [applause] mr. reich: if i may, let me say one other thing and that is that hillary clinton does not represent the status quo. hillary clinton is a fighter and has been a fighter all her life. i was there in the white house when she was fighting for example, health care reform. who is she fighting?
she was fighting the republicans who she has always been fighting. we have two parties in the united states. one is a party about the future and one is a party that wants to go negative, backwards, and we cannot afford -- rudyard: let's bring in laura to respond. you brought up the notion of decline and trump being a manifest manifestation of change but you believe change is necessary regardless. ms. ingraham: first of all, robert mentions it learned, mussolini, and stalin. let me talk and you have get your time again. this is what happens in a substantive conversation about the future of america where substance issues fade away in the background and the conversation just moves to personal attacks or the most outrageous adjectives or trump is crazy. , let mere you guffaw
just say this. trump could go away tomorrow and maybe you would clap and strike up the band and i understand that. trump could go away tomorrow and the carnage left behind between established cabal in washington which is comprised of democrats and republicans, that status quo that left america behind and left the working class infuriated is still going to be there. for all of his walk down memory lane with hillary clinton, i am sure hillary clinton is a great person to know, and to date and all that but that is not relevant because for the last three decades almost she has been in public life and has almost nothing to show for it. that might sound harsh and i am sorry -- but her four years as secretary of state rendered america not stronger on the world scene but
weaker on the world scene. her four years in the u.s. senate after promising 200,000 york, in upstate new guess what they got? a big goose egg. hillary clinton is the celebrity of the moment to the democratic party because obama is going away. but the idea there is a substance of record in the accomplishment of the economy or foreign policy that is going to galvanize the country behind her is not playing out. if donald trump is the character made out she should not be struggling in florida, nevada and even states like iowa where trump still has a narrow lead. if he is that outrageous you must think half of your country are bonkers or more. [applause] rudyard: i want to stay on the
topic of decline and how the candidates -- let's stay on track. ms. granholm: i beg the question to begin with. our unemployment rate in the united states is 4.9 percent. it is less than half of what it was when barack obama took over. [applause] ms. granholm: we have had 15 million jobs created since february of 2010. it has been almost 80 straight months of job growth. now we are seeing wage growth as well. so this notion we are in decline -- the challenge certainly has been for barack obama that he has been saddled with a congress that refused to invest in a lot of things he would like to do to continue our progress. [applause] i would say this. donald trump would shove america
into the filler of international -- cellar of international esteem, so fast. believe me. the idea he has people on his team that have given oxygen to this dark underbelly. it is not everybody on the republican side. it is a swath. that swath of the electorate who is animated by this movement that when you go to donald , trump's rally and they have andmost horrific signs chance that you would be mortified by. and it is perfectly common at his events. the idea that he and that -- the people running his campaign, who breitbarty part --
news site which is the home of this white nationalist movement, the fact they trumpet this america first as that is the to convince america not to er whenagainst hitl it has been seen as a spinoff of this white nationalist movement. that would put america in decline. yes, the world is complicated. they are complicated things happening in the middle east. but what has donald trump said he would do? he would contemplate disengaging from nato, or at least not going to the defense of countries that have contributed their fair share. upending the world order post-world war ii. have youe to you, respond to the governor saying america is not in decline and trump is taking is there? gingrich: you have a
left-wing fantasy really have to invent a horror to hide reality. have walked out of the job market. they are gone, they are not looking for work, they are playing computer games or whatever. the fact is right now the opioid epidemic has gotten so bad that for the first time sensitive element of the mass-produced car there is a new cause of death larger than automobile wrecks. it is opioid addiction. literally more people died today because the underclass of america, the collapse of belief in america, the whole sense of what is going on is led to an epidemic of the accommodation of mexican heroin and oxycontin, which is a horrifying system. peoplereports 25 million have dropped out of the middle class under this administration.
25 million have now dropped out. this wasn't donald trump's fault. he wasn't in charge of the presidency. how much money was in the original package in 2009? a little of it went to infrastructure? how much of it went to paying off various political parties. you talk about investments. they gave $557 million for solar power and went bankrupt. in your home state, second home state after canada. they invested in it battery company that would bankrupt and bought by the chinese. case after case after case. i think it's a bit much to suggest there is some extreme that america'sde going through three parallel revolutions. all the people jerking towards sanders, jerking towards trump, and the black lives matter rebellion among younger blacks who were sick and tired of being
lied to having nothing happen to improve their lives. all three are occurring simultaneously. none of them are donald trump's fault. they are manifestations of an establishment they cannot deal with reality. [applause] >> i think there is an important kernal of truth to what you say. the hopelessness and despair and anxiety and frustration faced by many people use to be in the middle class, and even though the economy is improving and i think we have a lot to be grateful for, that underlying structural problem that started 30 years ago is still very much with us. i think we are now reaping the whirlwind of failing to invest in people, failing to invest in education, failing to invest in
infrastructure. we are reaping the world we had -- whirlwind of failing to provide the kind of security people need to go on with their lives. we have made a fetish, and i don't need to be partisan newt starts --but it [laughter] i was there when he became speaker. that the regulation trickle down economics, that austerity economics. do you know what has happened to america because of it? about thehe despair shrinkage of the middle class is at your feet and some of the people you brought in. [applause] when laura asks me how is it so finding donald trump to be exciting, they are because of the choice i indicated at the beginning.
when you have so many people who are so economically stressed, some of them will be moved and tempted to follow an authoritarian populist who is blaming everybody else but himself and who is fundamentally as many republican papers have said deeply flawed and deeply dangerous. mr. gingrich: let me say two things. theust a conference of brooking institution on the 20th anniversary of the welfare reform bill. the largest a client and children's poverty, the largest taking of children out of poverty occurred after the welfare reform bill moved people from dependency to work. the fact is, and bill clinton will claim credit but we moved more people out of poverty than any other time in american history.
second this is the tragic of american liberals yes, it would be great to invest in education. robert and i share a passion. in detroit 9% of the third graders can read. in baltimore, 13% of eighth graders can pass their math exams. the baltimore system is $1.4 billion system which is brilliant at paying a company bureaucrat and fails children. we have gone through this for 30 years. those of us who believe in choice and allowing parents to pick a school that works are defeated consistently by the power of the labor unions who on the democratic party. when you talk about investing, don't you have to reform the system so something positive happens with the money? mr. reich: it's important for us to knowledge that money is not
the only thing that is necessary, but without money you can't do anything. united states is only one of two advanced countries that actually provides less funding for poor child for funding on average for middle-class children. that to me is a scandal. >> i want to bring the debate back to the resolution which is the end result, donald trump can make america great again. these are big problems we are talking about. inner cities, failed education, suicide, drug addiction. what are the characteristics you think trump has a can address these complicated entrenched problems you are saying that the elites run unable to fix over the last years? >> i think he has occurs courage to be called every name of the book in the holding on to the idea that it hasn't
worked for the average person. gets really unpleasant to walk to the fire everyday i know both jennifer faced the same thing it isken in dish it out not pleasant to take on in many ways both parties agree on a lot. there is a reason that the bush's, at least a couple are supporting hillary clinton. they agree on a lot of issues. globalization. they probably agree on immigration, a lot of foreign policy. i would cement the trump has a much -- he is much closer in many ways then -- to reagan many as to george w. bush. i am someone who was for the war in iraq and it is something i've had to re-examine personally. i did a broadcast over baghdad and i love our troops, but i think right now we're seeing america stretched every which
way. arencially, culturally, we stretched in every way and donald trump is saying it is not and it is not 1994 even. 1984 we are $19 trillion in debt. we can't do this to the next generation. we can't pile this on their shoulder because america will cease to exist if we keep doing what we're doing. i have a new way forward. it is not going to be easy. when he says it can happen, of course it can happen fast. but it is certainly not going to happen if we keep saying let's spend our way out of this or we have a foreign policy that is so confused and muddled that our advisaries take advantage and our friends don't trust us. trum comes along saying we will lay off some of these heady regulations, lower the corporate tax rates, and simplify life of the small business owner in
america which is tethered to environmental regulations, labor regulations, and i know some of them are necessary but not all of them are necessary. he is trying to streamline that with a little bit of common sense. i don't think it is as partisan as people would make him out to be. i think he is a common sense pragmatist guys and if he gets in the white house and fails they will throw him out in four , years because the people are impatient right now. >> i want jennifer to come in on this. we have not heard from her in a little while. ms. granholm: i totally get the deficit issue but what he proposed according to objective evealators like the tax foundation would increase deficit by because of the tax $5.3 trillion cuts to the rich he is proposing. to your point about doing something about oxycotin or investment in schools, the paul
-- policy he has about education is basically to cut 70% of funds from public schools. 30% from the department of education. put it all into vouchers which help the private institutions but the public institutions are left wanting. you put at risk the 22 million students as a result. so my point in saying this is i totally understand what you are saying and understand from a republican point of view why you would say that and those are the intellectual arguments you are making. but the problem is the policies he is proposing don't address the issues you are raising. [applause] mr. reich: not only do they not address the policies you are raising, but actually they take us in the opposite direction. jennifer mentioned the independent tax foundation which did an analysis and they found that donald trump's tax plan
would boost the after-tax income of the top 1%. if you're in the top 1%, you get -- on your taxes because they would be reduced. the middle class we get less than $500 a year. on top of that you get a huge buffet -- budget deficit. this is going to happen every time we supply -- we try supply-side. >> make the case. mr. gingrich: i've gone through two cycles of this. in the late '70's, we had a totally.d a collapsed it ended up with 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, rising unemployment.
ronald reagan had a simple model. are you better off in you were four years ago? he won the largest electorate -- elect for college victory in history. with george bush called voodoo economics. it was a very bold approach that said if you cut regulations and taxes, you stimulate the american economy and get dramatic growth. the truth is we came out of a deep recession very fast and had a tremendance amount of economic growth in the last five or six years of the reagan administration and leading into the first three years of the bush administration. this was phase one. in 1994, i campaigned to produce -- i have produced four consecutive budgets. i believe if you quit paying the crooks you can save at least $140 billion a year in federal budget. literally.
[applause] i believe if you open up america for national resource development, you probably generate $7 trillion over 10-12 year. i believe if you went through all the properties owned by hud and got rid of the empty houses currently sitting and blighting cities you go through the cycles. having done it once, it took 4 years and we thought it would take seven. i think within 5-7 years a very aggressive -- this is the key to tromp -- a very aggressive entrepreneur who walks in every morning and says what do we have to get done? not what is our theory? what my next speech? what are the 7 glip answers for the press conference but what do we need to get done? i think we can get radical economic growth. one pieces would be business transfer tax, eliminate the corporate income tax, rebate the tax on leaving the country and charge it for imports coming in.
that differential alone would create a tremendous number of jobs eventually. -- in the united states. [applause] >> if you can answer in the context, we are hearing an appetite for blowing it up. the status quo hasn't worked. median incomes of americans have been frozen since the late 1990's. it is time for radical change. but the question is radical change of what sort? everybody wants change. i want change. i agree with newt gingrich entirely that we should not pay crooks. the federal government should not -- can we agree on that? mr. gingrich: bipartisan moment. mr. reich: bipartisan moment of agreement. but the real issue is exactly what you do. and we can debate supplies economics until we are both board to tears, bored to tears. i can shut you because i was there in the clinton administration, i know in the balance -- budget was balanced
and what happened with the george w. bush administration in terms of creating a $5 trillion that. and barack obama worked out of it. then we had deregulation under george w. bush that created and contributed to one of the worst meltdowns in wall street and the economy we have had. there was a lot we can talk about here, but the essential issue is donald trump. his experience, his credibility, you say he is a great business man, well i know he alleged in 1976 that he had a networth of $200 million. that is he said. let's take him at his word. he now says he has a net worth of $8 billion. let's take him at his word. in 1976, if he had taken the 200 million and put it into an index fund and reinvested the dividend and did nothing he would now have $12 billion now.
[applause] not what i call a great business man. [laughter] ms. ingraham: i think of it this way. sometimes when you think of bill clinton and hillary clinton when president clinton left office and hillary clinton decided she would run for senate. they famously said they left the white house broke which of course wasn't true. but essentially broke. in a relatively short period of time, hillary and bill clinton made close to $150 million. and that is great. i am for all people making as much as they can. that is awesome. what did they do for $150 million? to whom did they speak? what type of access did they get to the leverage of power in washington, d.c.? what type of regimes paid them to speak?
and how is it that bill clinton's speaking fees, i believe, tripled when hillary clinton decided to run for the presidency? i wonder why that is that he -- suddenly all these countries wanted to hear from bill clinton and pay him 3 times the going rate. that might seem like a small point but i would say it this way, donald trump didn't bat a thousand in business in. i don't know all that many businessmen who have. so he has had some things that are not been all that successful. however he has employed and created economic opportunity for at least 14,000 workers across the globe. those are real human beings with real families and children and kids to send to college and dreams and hopes and that is something. and to create a job and to make a payroll and i have maybe 50
employees and that is small. it is not easy. i am just a small business person. to employ thousands of people and to start a company and to keep it going with the government and all of the competing interest of the competitors, i love how people blow that off. there is nothing there. he just exaggerates. how many people have the clinton's ever employed in the private sector? zero. [applause] it is true that donald trump has created a global business and i think it is terrific to talk about people employed around the globe with compassion like that. 500 businesses are under the umbrella of the trump organization all over the globe. newsweek did a story talking about the kinds of businesses and in what country he invests.
he has got investments or azerbaijan, russia, the united arab emrites, in turkey in india, all over the , globe. the question is because he says i won't be running my company when i am president, i will give it over to the kids to run. any ethics expert tells you that is not a blind trust. that doesn't remove the conflict of interest your immediate family is running this global operation. the question is when he makes a foreign policy decision, if he did as president, that happened to benefit one of his companies, wouldn't everybody be wondering did he make that decision because he was going to line his children or his own pockets in the future? would our foreign policy as a country be for sale? that is another element of the
dangerousness of donald trump. i want to parrot with this idea re that with this idea of him being a compassionate business owner. here is a guy who, you know, at his resort in florida, always has international workers coming. he said he can't hire people locally. in trump modeling, he recruited a bunch of international models to come work in the united states and his organization coached them on how to lie to the immigration officials. this is a guy who is a steadfast , put up a wall, send them out guy and yet his personal life and existence has completely gone in the other direction. so to this resolution we are debating, can donald trump make america great again, it is difficult to imagine a guy making america great again when everything in his personal life
wreakes of hypocrisy based on what he is saying today. i completely understand -- [applause] >> yup. i am sorry but we are conscious of time. we will wind it up by having an -- speaker gingrich explained why the personal isn't a reflection of professional. we'll give you a quick last word in the bogota closing statements. -- and then we will go to closing statements. mr. gingrich: i think a clinton supporter worrying about , it is sof interest infuriating breathtaking. under hillary clinton, the u.s. state department lobbied the haitian government against raising the minimum wage from $3 a day to $5 a day on behalf of people who happen to have given to the clinton foundation.
this is a level of disgusting mixing of government and personnel health. this whole thing, for anybody who is for hillary clinton to raise the concept of conflict of interest shows a capacity for schizophrenia that is stunning. [laughter] [applause] mr. reich: talk about the capacity for schizophrenia. the idea that somehow the clinton foundation is somehow a bad thing or that somehow it can be compared with donald trump's worldwide efforts. the clinton foundation has done some very good things. it is a charitable foundation. it is a fact record that is extraordinarily commendable. laura, your notion that donald trump has created jobs. canadae an expression in
called stiffing? that is when you don't pay somebody. do you know the landscape of america, in fact the world is littered with people with contractors and employers who have never been paid but are owed by donald trump? have been stiffed by donald trump? when you say that somehow donald trump created jobs but the clinton's haven't, the clinton's have been involved most of their life and i have seen it, experienced it and worked with them in the public sector. in the public sector, bill clinton as president presided -- presided over on economy because of his policies that created 22 million net new jobs in the united states. that is not insignificant. [applause] ms. ingraham: wait a second. you have saying that hillary clinton, the feminist icon, my first book was called the
hillary trap, but as a feminist icon we are supposed to judge hillary clinton's plan for the economy, robert, from her husband's record on the economy? because i thought women stood for themselves. [applause] i thought women -- come on. mr. reich: wait a minute. ms. ingraham: no, no, no. men are not going to interrupt me. let me finish. i never interrupted in the debate. this is what happens when you cut the bone of liberal, they always cry foul. [applause] remember, i am woman hear me roar? hillary clinton is the tough, pioneering, trailblazing woman except when the going is tough and then it is like i'm a damsel in distress. can obama campaign for me?
michelle, you are more popular than me, can you campaign for me? or my husband's economy is good so please, just believe me, he is going to be my economic advisor and save me from all of this. if you want to stand on your own two feet -- see, they don't listen. if you want to stand on your own merit and your own two feet with your own policies, than i am ready to hear about how hillary has been hiding in a secret treasure chest the secret to the u.s. economy, the secret she's has been keeping from barack obama for years because he hasn't been able to do it. i hope hillary stands on her own two feet as a strang and accomplished woman and said my husband is his own person, i have my own way forward and listen to my ideas. i think that is better.
>> please be brief. mr. reich: i will be very brief. i disagree. [laughter] let me just say, laura, you can't have it both ways. you are saying hillary clinton and bill clinton haven't created a single job. on the other hand you are saying , hillary clinton wasn't responsible for the jobs created under the bill clinton administration. she is just taking of the fact that -- she was first lady and the fact is hillary clinton to the extent she is and has been a partner with bill clinton over the past 40 years, i think deserves some credit. no? >> robert, i don't know if you will win this. mr. reich: wait a minute, her health policy, i was there in the white house when she worked night and day to try to craft a health policy. there has been no first lady in
my - ms. ingraham: and it failed. >> we will move to closing statements. we will be conscious of the time so we will do it in the reverse order meaning jennifer granholm you up with three minutes on the clock. ms. granholm: i totally want to lighten it up. in honor of tonight, i have constructed an ode to this muck -- munk debate and insanity in the u.s. election. with apologies to dr. seuss bob , and i spoke against the resolution america is already
-- is it because he is so insecure? his words so bold and he seems super strong for a seven-year-old. [laughter] manipulated by flattery, voted by tweets, his hands near the launch codes when he overheats. he insults our allies and when he is done he is bromancing putin and kim jong un. he says i will bring back the jobs let go but he makes stuff in china and mexico. tonight one reason we cannot let , up the attacks is trump's refusal to release his own taxes. this lack of transparency like
never before as he is stashing his loot offshore? or because donald trump's race is unfair? or his global investors are at such a scale that trump foreign policy would be for sale? he is the candidate of america firstism spewing anti-immigrant, rants and racisms, building huge walls are part of his plan and must all be related to the size of his hand. [laughter] of course that wall will block bad guys from mexico. weird, there are no bad guys here in ontario? and his issues with women and what it reveals, spinning in euros and heels punish the women , who exercise choice, criticizing the sound of hillary's voice, bleeding out bile like a glow hard, i think it is time to play that woman card.
so, no pressure, no pressure tonight. vote as your conscious dictates. the election just turns on the outcomes of the munk debates. [applause] ms. ingraham: i would say it is very difficult to follow dr. suess tonight. i what the government and dr. seuss went to dartmouth. i have a rap if you don't mind. [laughter] i am totally kidding. that would be really tragic. a blonde american rapper. vanilla ice part two. i think it is really serious what we are talking about tonight.
poetry that is really funny but not withstanding, america is in decline. i am a daughter of a working class couple. my mom was a waitress until she was 74-years-old. her hands knotted up with arthritis from carrying the tray and died at 79 not much time out of her retirement. she worked really hard for her children. she were the same winter coat for 35, 40 years. my father ran a car wash. we picked tobacco, picked blueberries, picked peaches, delivered newspapers. isdid jobs because there dignity in work and we had to get by. i learn from my mother that when something is true, say it. when something is wrong, fight against it. don't be afraid, even if you are
in a room of skeptics. smile and try to share your story. the story of america is very complicated, but in 240 years we didn't get to this place to see it go down the drain. not because of one party failing but both parties failing. , we have real unemployment and real unemployment and people taking part-time jobs because they can't find the work they want. at avoid 12 -- at about 12.6%. people really in despair have given up looking for work altogether. i think donald trump is the only person to make america great again because the alternative would continue us on a path of the same decline, the same division on our streets, frankly between the races, between the poor and the rich, immigrants and non-immigrants because without prosperity and without
the dignity of work and the ability to make a better living america will not continue to exist as it does today. that might sound alarmist and that is never going to happen. but in a scenario with the rise of china, the adversarial posture of russia and america in decline my friends, that is not , a good scenario for this beautiful country that we are sitting and standing in today. [applause] donald trump will make america great again. [applause] mr. reich: i think you see, the 2016 election has worn me down. [laughter]
before.2" [laughter] i am also getting old. i remember harry truman as president. every member of the eisenhower-stephenson election. i remember an america that feels different than what i am witnessing today. part of what has happened to your neighbor to the south and -- is frustration and anger and anxiety over declining wages and declining job security. two thirds of americans are living paycheck to paycheck and jobs are becoming less secure and for the first time in memory most americans believe their children will not do as well as they are doing. to that extent, i agree with our debating opponents that i think
the vision we believe is better for america is sharply different. part of the anger and part of the fear and part of the anxiety in america today has found its way into a viciousness, a name calling and inability of people to talk to one another across the great boundaries of party in class and race, and it is vitally important, and i say this as somebody who is getting older and served as secretary of labor in the clinton administration and served even in a republican administration and that is something else i tell you tonight if he can keep it under your hats. but we have to learn to work together and work together better. donald trump, to my mind, his
xenophobia, nativism, misogyny, megalomaniasm, his record -- represents a temperament and character that is very dangerous for the united states. he needs to be reputated big time. i want to ask all of you, the 14% of you who are still with trump, i want to ask you to come over to our side for the simple reason i want americans to know that here in canada you know right from wrong and you will repudiate this person who should never have been dominated to be president of the united states. [applause]
mr. gingrich: first of all, thank you. it has been a lot of fun. i think you can tell that all 4 of us like to live in a world of words and are fairly good at it. i want to pose one question and a way of measuring that question. i think donald trump is a risk. i think when you have somebody totally outside politics and an entrepreneural business person then by definition to bring them at the top is a risk. let me be clear about that. but i also think that the current pattern is an even bigger risk. this is what i ask you of the next few weeks to think about as you read newspapers or watch tv news. how many terrorists attacks does it take in europe and the united states where i think a humanitarian crisis in nigeria
because of boko haram? how many disasters do we have to have before we take the current saucy -- policies are not working. there is a study of the intersection of mexican heroin and oxycontin, and is a nationally breathtaking and disturbing picture of what is happening in america the people who've lost hope. look at it. every day when you read about lossext overdose, the next of life, the next 22-year-old who should still be with us, ask yourself. you go from george w. bush saying there is an axis of evil. he names three countries, one of those iran. we're currently sending iran billions of dollars and day-by-day we're learning the deal is even worse. you think the iranians have changed? you think they are not -- the
state department over obama says the largest state supporters of terrorism on the planet and we're sending them billions of dollars. you think that's going to work? every time we turn around the system is not working. in the next riot, the next violence, you think this has worked? my point is simple. i've been at this stuff since august of 1958. i helped create a majority for the first time in 40 years, i was speaker of the house. worked with bill clinton to balance the federal budget, so reform welfare. i am genuinely frightened not just for the united states but also western civilization, and you just read the papers, put the dots together and you decide which is the bigger risk. more of the stuff that isn't working or taking a gamble on real change? [applause]
>> ladies and gentlemen, we began the week with an uninspiring, less than terrific debate. let's of the next two are better, but we ended the week, and it friday with a debate on u.s. politics i wanted to watch on monday and you gave it to us tonight. please, let's thank our debaters. they were fantastic. [applause] >> thank you everybody, that was a great debate. >> so, we have a luxury tonight. we don't have the responsibility of voting in november but get to
cast a ballot now. all 3,000 of you in this hall have a ballot. you received a second ballot on your way in. >> remember the drinks i promised you. >> the margaritas for the 14%. you will have the opportunity to think about your vote. they will quickly but at what the results were at the start of the evening again. we began tonight's debate with an agree/disagree vote. those numbers i believe were 14% in favor of the motion. the rest, 86% opposed. you were split on whether you can change your minds are not. let's see if that happened. all of you, there's ballot boxes on the way out. and we'll tally those results around 9:00. those of you watching this broadcast right now on c-span, the results will be on our
social media feed also shortly after 9:00 p.m. so, again, lamp, thank you for being part of a terrific debate. to ballots, to the bars to their margaritas. let's do it. [applause] ♪ >> from last night in toronto, a resolution on the whether donald trump will make america great again. the canadians in the audience last night when there chance to respond and react to the debaters. opportunitypan your as we open up our phone lines to get your response to the debate from last night in toronto. the numbers on your screen. a donald trump supporter,
202-748-8921. 202-748-8920. others and undecideds, 202 -748-8922. you might support one of the third-party candidates as well. the canadian audience got a chance to vote again following the debate last night. we do have some updated results from that audience. this tweet put out by the munk debate last night, an update to the numbers. pro 20% comic-con 80%. the pro side being newt gingrich and laura ingram, they were declared the winner's in the munk debate showed a 6% increase in those who supported the resolution that donald trump can make america great again. a clear majority, 80% still rejecting the motion.
80% of the audience in toronto last night voting in opposition. let's go to the phone line to get your thoughts on what you just saw. we will start with a caller from seattle, washington. kenneth joins us on the line for others. hey, i am all for clinton. as far as i'm concerned trump is a joke. said hefirst started i was a dog and pony show. a flimflam man and a con artist. he always has been. simple as that. he's probably a really nice guy if you're out drinking a couple of turns with him since he doesn't drink, you would have to drink being around him because he is such an egotistical bastard. french, butse my
hillary is the ticket. she can make this all work. everybody likes her. andcan go around the world all the diplomats and stuff, she already knows them all. trump just seems to party up with guys that are no good and piss people off he doesn't agree with. host: let's get some other viewpoints. your chance to weigh in on the debate. who do you think won the debate? did the debaters slight human anyway? newt gingrich and laura ingram on the other side, robert riech and former governor granholm saying that is not the case. let's go to the democratic supporter of hillary clinton. marie in newport beach, california. debate i listened to the and i'm definitely for clinton all the way. i agree with the previous
caller. bye. host: thanks for calling. andy in boca raton, florida on the others' line. caller: interesting debate. host: did its way you anyway? gingrich's side i was swayed by the same argument that comes out of republicans. action from the road does not exist from the represented that he america and how he has worked in the congress and balanced the budget. he wasn't the only one. i can see he was to be the architect for the trump administration. representelf doesn't
what politically american needs in this environment. we need a person that has.political experience even barack obama coming onto the stage new, african-american yes, trump is a businessman. he is new, yes, he is trying to ride the same wave. it was diminished by the republicans in congress for the last eight years not putting forward the same policies they were arguing for in the states debate or friday. they were arguing for the implement of the policies on the ground, implementing the theicies for increasing funding for education, for welfare and childhood education for higher education,
for roads and bridges, tunnels. we just had a train accident in new jersey. these things are evident. is notlure of the media recognizing the severity of what is represented in these two campaigns. host: thank for calling. @cspan. also tweet us lawrence, another florida caller. this time a donald trump supporter. lawrence, are you with us? guess not. we will move on to thomas in michigan on the line for hillary clinton supporters. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i am totally behind mrs.
clinton. waslast mistake i made voting for governor snyder in michigan. i spent 30 years in politics. i will be 80 in december. i incompletely supporting mrs. clinton. i think she is totally capable based on her background and experience to perform the job. i do not believe trump has the background or experience in politics to do a good job. he has too many enemies within his own party that are going to be shooting at him. i just don't believe he is going to be a good and capable administrator if you became president of the united states. that's all i've got to say. host: thanks for calling. tucson, arizona, another hillary clinton supporter. charmaine? go ahead. what do you think? caller: i am for hillary.
i was not swayed by the debate. i watched her today campaigning in florida. she has a new plan for young people. how to get involved for one year, two years, three years, and that's the way they will take care of their tuition. it was amazing to hear the plan. there are three different plans she is offering the kids. it is something new and i think it's wonderful. when i hear the thing strong says, it just disgusts me. and i don't think is the kind of america we want to live in. i want my senior citizens and social security cap safe and i believe hillary will do that. host: thanks for calling from arizona. the munk debate last night, the resolution debated. donald trump can make america great again? on the pro side, laura ingram, the conservative commentator and
radio talkshow host, former house speaker newt gingrich. on the con side, former labor secretary robert riech and the former michigan governor granholm. johnstown, pennsylvania. the line for a donald trump supporters. go ahead. i was wondering how people can actually still believe hillary clinton and elsie stands for what she has already had her chance. and everything she has done so far has been a catastrophe. she has not had to be accountable for anything. have you ever seen anyone in politics who has had more adversity thrown at her because of the things she has done? i just can't believe people can't use common sense to actually vote for somebody who can make a real change in america. host: thank you for calling.
we have a couple of tweaks coming in. this is a tweet from maverick who says that newt gingrich and lower kingdom -- laura ingram selling trump are being crushed on c-span by robert reich and jennifer granholm. a few more of your phone calls. let's check with michael in los angeles for others. caller: how are you? you guys give me a lot of information from across the country. i think donald trump is a loose cannon as far as the words he says. he might not mean what he says. hillary clinton, i want back her because i was for bernie sanders. what i dislike about hillary is when i see her on tv everything
is all fine and dandy, smiling, waving. i want her to be more angry. i want her to be angry that she wants to fight and win, opposed to her smiling and acting like every thing is ok. she has enough that has happened for her not to smile. again, thank you for having me voice my opinion. host: two scottsdale, arizona. hi. you are a hillary supporter? caller: originally bernie sanders supporter. host: bernie sanders supporter. you watched the debate. were you pushed in either direction towards donald trump or hillary clinton? caller: no, actually the debate was very entertaining. i didn't learn anything new. but i think that where we went wrong is that the dnc and the wrong choice in going ahead with
hillary. we would not be in this position if they would have changed the superdelegates to bernie. he would be way ahead, whereas hillary is tying and possibly going to lose. i'm really disappointed that they do not have enough foresight to make the right choice and to ensure that a democrat, even a democratic socialist would take the white house. host: to lewis in miami on the line for republicans. donald trump is your man? caller: yes. debate i see, i believe in the republican party debate and decided it is supposed to be
-- the democracy is a joke. they are more serious than the republican party. because in 30p clinton has a doing what she is doing, whatever he is doing, she never do nothing for nobody. he wanted to be president. what is she going to do the next four years and then forget about all the rest of the people, including the black people? they use the voting, these the people and then forget about what he said. i think donald trump, they are ,oing to have people around him the political people, and he is going to be where the rest of
the people are around them. he will make america great again. host: looking ahead to the road to the white house coverage as we follow the presidential campaign and other campaigns tomorrow. we will re-air the presidential debate from this past monday. that's coming up sunday and 10:30 a.m. eastern time. there are two more debates to go. we will re-air the one from hofstra tomorrow morning. two more debates to go for the presidential nominees on october 9 and october 19. the vice presidential debate, the one and only vice presidential debate coming up on tuesday, october 4. that is live at 7:30 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that here on c-span and listen on the c-span radio app. streaming online at c-span.org. campaign 20 seeking coverage continues with a look at the misery senate race followed by a
debate in that race. >> in missouri, the senate race has democrat jason kantor try to unseat republican lower -- rory blunt. joining us is eli yokley. his work is available online at morningconsult.com. let's talk about the polls that show this is a surprising race. many thought rory blunt would walk away but that's not the case? c jason kantor as a compelling candidate. a lot of the environmental aspects are not set when jason kantor announced last year. he is a young guy, a democrat elected in a tough year. and if military veteran you were to design a candidate that has the opposite of everything paris blu -- rory b
lunt is, you would come up with jason kantor. with the trump of fact -- the fact, -- effect, he holds a small lead back in missouri. this race is shaping up to be a big one, especially of races in florida or marco rubio is holding on. states like missouri and indiana and north carolina. lessons fromere the claire mccaskill victory a few years ago and does she have a political machine that would help him? eli: she is helping him raise money. senator blunt has a long history. their parents served together in the state legislature. they have been friends since i got the washington. they have been together quite a bit. rory blunt campaigned against
her back in 2012. she has not campaigned to much against him. she wants to win this race. she would love to serve in the majority. this race will be a big part of that. it was so different from some of the other senate races. we have the issues of todd shiftedthat -- that that race in a way this race doesn't, and it probably is not going to shift. of course, we have some of the dynamics and politics where sen. blunt: seven to answer for things donald trump says -- although he is trying not to. he is taking the mitch mcconnell approach of focusing on the senate and his work there. he is focusing a lot on the supreme court and how this can be a check on whoever the next president is. but i think this race is a race of its own just because of all
these different things, especially with trump at the top of the ticket. much money is pouring into the race on both sides? li: a lot. just this week, they moved $20 million -- some of it for the state where they thought that they were going to be more competitive races that are groups dropped another million dollars in missouri to focus on some of these issues about roy blunt they do.d the lobbying all three of his adult children are lobbyists. his wife is also a lobbyist. really the democrats are these situations.
let's talk about friday fell debate, the only one so far kandered between jason and roy blunt, and also the negative ads airing in your home state. eli: when roy blunt was running for the seat in 2010, he did not want a debate. cutout ofa cardboard roy blunt. der is trying to make more debates. no one has heard of the other
three opponents. what of that is because of the money fueling some of these negative ads. ads, jason kander put together a rifle, talking about count -- talking about background checks and his service, putting that against roy blunt. it takes away from sen. blunt: nra rating. blunt the things senator is trying to do is tie jason kander as closely to kill clinton as they can. she is unpopular, maybe more, than donald trump in my home state. so, they are really banking on that as a key line of attack. the ads airing in missouri, what are they like?
eli: well, they are rough. the kander camp has not shied from taking shots at roy blunt and his family. they have a shot of his wife and three kids talking about -- one of the things the senate after, inac has gone 2002, when they were forming the department of homeland security, roy blunt tried to get a provision where his soon-to-be wife was working. it sounds like the democrats will be trying to find more of these. host: eli yokley joining us on
the phone. thank you for being with us. eli: good to be here. host: up next, some of the ads from the friday -- from the missouri senate race and we will follow that up with friday. in the army, i learned how to use my rifle and in the state legislature, i supported second amendment rights. i also believe in background check so a terrorist cannot get their hands on of these. i approve this message because i would like to see senator blunt do this. >> some people can put together a gun blindfolded. some do it really fast. really, really fast. some do it upside down and
blindfolded. but only one of these is a hillary clinton national campaign chairman. his one of these after failure to defend the second amendment, only once -- one votes for amnesty for illegal immigrants. missouri voters know what is important. >> i'm roy blunt and i approve this message. >> this is what afghanistan looks like when you are a next suv.unner in an unarmored i am jason kander. i enlisted after 9/11. when i came home, i worked to reform state government. now i am running for senate and i approve this message because there are too many politicians in washington who only care about themselves. we need more leaders willing to sacrifice for their country. democratscans and disagree on lots of issues. when bipartisan solutions solve problems i am all for it. i worked with senator brown of ohio to pass a manufacturing
jobs bill. and i led the fight for victims in child abuse and ceremony and i that the first alzheimer's research in years. it's all about getting things done. i am roy blunt and i approve this message. you, dennis, and again, welcome to between 16 candidate forums hosted by the missouri press association. earlier today, candidates true numbers to determine the order in which they will be making opening remarks. closing remarks be made in reverse order. i am going to introduce you to the candidates in the order of their opening remarks. first, green party candidate jonathan mcfarlane. democrat jason commander. -- jason kander. candidate -- arty republican roy blunt, after
their opening statements, i will ask the first question and we will proceed to questions from our three panelists. our three panelists are tim press,of the st. joseph our guest fromd the washington missourian. candidates will have one minute to answer each question. after each turn, i will decide if rebuttal time is necessary. if so, candidates will receive an additional 30 seconds for rebuttal. if a candidate fails to answer question i reserve the right to prod them to try again. be up in the front row. candidates, please adhere to the stop signs, and audience, please hold your applause until today's
event is over. with that, let's begin. opening statements, first, for green party candidate jonathan mcfarlane's. mcfarlane: thank you for having me. i appreciate you allowed me to speak today. i would like to thank my wife for her unequivocal support. thank theke to volunteers who help to get the green party on the ballot in the state of missouri press association for having us year. i believe we should have good ideas and not just big pocketbooks. and i think representatives should always show up for work, and i also believe that -- that we need real change.
like to thankso my son abraham for a long me to be away from him today because otherwise he would be right here in my arms because he is two. he would not know how to compromise. so -- [laughter] thank you. >> jason kander. >> thank you. thank you for the missouri press associations. my dad worked as a police .fficer, later ran he told me that what was important his courage. that is why when i saw the plane to the towers on 9/11, i knew i felt called and i was going to join the army, so that is what i did. volunteered to go to afghanistan to do anticorruption investigations. i learned a lot from my deployment. it was not easy. there were times i was alone in
an unarmored suv with just a translator and no backup or with two or three other soldiers in kabul, dressed in street clothes, and gathering information. it was the first time i was on the receiving end of decisions made by people making those notsions -- we often did have the proper equipment. i thought that what i saw was very clearly wrong. so, after a few years, i came home -- or a few years after i came home, i felt the need to take on corruption in the missouri state government. that is what i decided to do. representative, i worked with republicans and as your secretary of state, i special interest money and gives to politicians. washington is broken and we will not change washington until we change the people we send there. the time has come for the next
generation to step up and take a lead in shaping the state and the nation and with your help, that's exactly what i'm going to do with as your united -- when to do as your united states senator. >> jonathan done. >> i would like the of my things to the missouri press association for holding this debate and inviting all of the participants. also i will ask jason and roy to make this about issues, not personal insults. i'm concerned with the direction of our country. we have all seen the commercials being played nonstop. to negative ads, and i have agree with them both. they are both bad for the majority. roy, in 2010, you promise to the people of missouri, standing up on the stage with me that you would go to washington and you are going to repeal obama care. restore our to
freedom, lower our tax burden. the fact is, you have done none of that. the only thing you have done is vote yourself a raise every single year. i truly believe the biggest political problem in america is the career politicians and i think we need change now and across the board term limits is the answer. if elected for senator, my first priority would be to pass legislation enacting term limits for congressmen and senators. congressman should be restricted to 62-year terms and senators 62-year terms. politicians are like diapers -- they need to be changed often and for the same reasons. elected, i promise to stand up for your economic freedoms .nd your physical freedoms they are one and the same.
me thistand with november and vote libertarian. the time for voting for the lesser of two evils is over. >> our founding fathers had a dream, and nation of free men where power resided with we the people. at the same time they understood human nature. they understood they had to create a government that would protect us primarily from our own government. every man who seeks to expand the size or the power of our federal government the trace this finding -- founding principles. a strongdesire for centralized government shows either one's ignorance of human nature or once wicked intent. to job of a u.s. senator is
represent the interest of his state, to protect states rights, to restrain or even rollback the ever-growing federal tierney. obviously, i am -- federal tierney. honestly i'm running because i do not think senator luntz has done a good job at that job. bluntnot hold senator accountable by electing some of the party that is even more subversive all those founding principles. to thank the missouri press association for having this forum, for allowing us to footing.n equal it is the one time we will all have an equal voice. i sincerely want to say thank you. >> roy blunt. , david.blunt: thank you
thank you for the missouri press association for this opportunity to hopefully talk about the issues, but the opportunity to be here. i suppose every time there was an election, a politician said this was the most important election we have ever had. i do think when you look at the tableyou can put on the this time, you can put more of those facts on the table that might suggest this is exactly the time we are going to make decisions that will impact us for a generation. we have lots of opportunities. energy, what can happen in health care research -- what can happen in transportation -- actually all of those areas. we need to be focused on better stronger families. but so much of the time, the biggest obstacle is the out of government regulator.
obamacare and the disruption it has created in the health care system, regulators that pass regulation with no apparent interest in what the impact is. a foreign policy where our friends do not trust us and our enemies are not afraid of us, and this is the time to move of thoseaway from all things. i am a fifth generation missourian. i had a chance if you'd days ago to speak at a high school. the first job i had, teaching high school history, the first job that anybody in my family ever got were you had to have a college diploma to get the job. my grandfather's job was a janitor at that same building. that's a pretty good story. in our country there are a million stories better than that went. the promise of america is something we need to hold onto. i often listening to missourians. i have been trying to find solutions. i hope i get a chance to do that. that is what voters decide on
election day. >> whoever wins this election will have to work with senator claire mccaskill to represent missouri. senator claire mccaskill recently complained that the scheduled to work fewer days this year than any time in the last 50 years. is this an indication that washington literally is not working, not addressing important issues, or do you think this is a laudable display of limited government question mark that goes first to jonathan mcfarlane. like clairee: i mccaskill. i sat across her in many rooms. i wouldas a senator like to work more days, because thing in the government, there is a lot of responsibility,
there is a lot of work to be done. to negotiate with people, to work with people to get some kind of agreement and come up ish some kind of compromise the best way we could do anything. and so, i would like to be more involved in the ever mental process and working with everybody i can to achieve those goals. >> jason kander. it has been 60r: days since the u.s. senate worked so few days. they arebecause getting so much done. they decided to give themselves a seven-week break, either to a campaign or go on vacation. it was not as though they had gotten all of their work done. they had plenty left on the table. they just finished funding the government. they had to hurry to do that.
not updated at all, thely seriously debated authorization of military force against isis, the greatest military threat we face. what happens when someone does not get their work done and takes a seven-week break if they get fired. senator blunt is a member of senate leadership. he sits at the table when they come up with the schedule and apparently no point did he say, hey, fellas, since we have not gotten our done, maybe we should not go home. >> jonathan dine. mr. dine: america's founders did not see career politician as a full-time job. serve a few hours, returned your profession, be a representative of the people. today, most are lawyers. the times they work together, it is usually to steal our freedoms or our money. you look at this bipartisan saudi arms deal. they said, hey, we're going to billions ofnemies
dollars of weapons. i don't think our government should be in the business of destabilization. the less you guys work, probably be better. >> mr. ryman? mr. ryman: i think it depends not only on the senate schedule, but the senator. whether i am in washington, d.c. or back home in missouri, i suspect i will be working almost all of the time. you cannot simply go to washington, d.c. and serve and stay there and when you are off duty, you are off duty. you're always listening. you are always trying to get .eedback from your constituents time not in washington, d.c. should be spent here at home. >> roy blunt. senator blunt: i think mr. ryman has a good idea of this job,
which as you both places. i had over 1500 meetings in the state. people knew i was coming. they reported while i was there, and people knew what was said while i was there. i have been in all 115 counties in the last six years at least three times. i have been all over the state. but also how much you work is not always how much you get done. as far as senator mccaskill and i are concerned, when things impact our state, we almost always figure out how to find a solution we can work on together. we just worked together to get together a major national security site. they were looking for a new place to go after 70 years in st. louis. they are keeping that great work for us and our state. i have been working with lots of members on both sides of the aisle to get things done and i will talk about those as we get time. is from mr.question
nugent. >> the senate may be called upon to confirm more than one member of the u.s. supreme court, plus others in the federal judiciary. can you please tell us about how you would approach your review of those nominees. -- of those nominees? kander, your first. i would starter: by meeting with them. when asked why he has not, he said he did not have time. when i was in afghanistan, there were meetings i did not want to go to in dangerous places, but i went as it's my job. , when ir who is elected am in the united states and, no matter who was president, no matter who they nominate, i pledge i will meet with them and consider their qualifications
for the court. >> jonathandine. mr. dine: i would look to andrew napolitano, to someone who would really believe in the constitution and what it fans for. for far too long, the supreme defendersposedly the of the constitution have sided with the state. your fourth amendment rights happen violated by the nsa, the government. we need someone who is not just going to pay lip service to these things and to actually stand up for your rights. those are the types of people i would look for. it is a rare quality. judge andrew napolitano is one of the best examples. ryman. want to look would at the prior rulings. but i think your question did not go far enough. it's not simply about approving ruleces we believe will
constitutionally. we have justices and judges that are ruling from the bench in such a way that they are creating new law. the senate should be working with the house frankly to impeach and remove justices going far beyond the bounds of what they should be doing. i can give you several examples. an eminent domain lawsuit where the courts basically substituted public benefits for public use. versus elizabeth bennett, issues on denial of funds. again. we need to remove those that are not ruling according to the constitution. >> roy blunt. senator blunt: i think the next president will have an
opportunity to reshape the court we probably will not see for the two or three presidencies. i suspect them of the three vacancies, the good before. one of the things voters ought to be thinking about is who is going to be nominating judges to the court and who is going to be confirming those nominations. it is the senate and the white house. and i think we need judges who will read the constitution and try to figure out what the constitution says rather than look at the case and try to figure out what they think the constitution should have said. this is a big moment. voters get a chance to be heard on this moment. there was no reason to confirm judge garland. he's a perfectly nice man with a perfectly bad judicial record. >> jonathan mcfarland. think theand: i constitution reads that the
president will select a nominee for the supreme court, and there's not much left to the imagination. therefore, president obama is the president and therefore, if he chooses somebody for the supreme court, i feel i would have no choice but to honor that choice. and then, you know, make my decision. but i strongly feel no matter who the president has, no matter who that president chooses, i would at least entertain that idea of making that choice so we could continue with our democracy. question comes from carol stark. >> we get numerous reports across our edge -- across our desk every day that shows the epidemic of opioid prescription abuse. how do you hope to stem the tide, especially in your own state, the only one without a prescription drug monitoring
plan? dine.athan a health drug use is issue, not a criminal justice one. far too many people are addicted to drugs, but the stigma of persecution makes it hard to seek treatment. people are sometimes forced to do illicit drugs. one example, the k2 spice that has been found to give people brain damage. if there was not this prohibition on marijuana, kids would not be forced to do other things. people who are truly addicted to drugs deserve treatment, compassion, not to be persecuted. on -- wehat we spend
have the largest prison population in the world and half of them are and therefore drug offenses. our resources could be better spent treating violent criminals with real crimes. >> i would agree with the premise of your question, saying that missouri does not have a way of tracking opioid abuse. i do not really feel that this issue rises to the purview of the federal government. some may disagree with me on that. but i would disagree that that is something the federal government should be involved in. 's responsibility covering that, definitely. >> roy blunt. is a placet: this where listening does matter. i talk to someone he reads your paper every day who has a daughter who has a huge problem with this.
we had a discussion some months ago. before this became a big national discussion, we cut other programs to triple the commitment we had to opioid abuse. our teaching hospitals are all looking at how you prescribe pain medicine in different ways. i sat down with three with them kansas city university and kirksville, to talk about how they are doing this differently. mccaskill only vote together about half the time, but this is a case where in the cairo bill -- the bill we to make a more defined approach to this, we put a provision so our counties and have thegether
room prescription drug monitoring system. >> jonathan mcfarland. we need tond: alleviate the problems of nonviolent offenders in jail. heon't believe we should penalizing everybody because shoulde doing drugs we treat it as a health care issue. we need funding so we should do throwing coast to people in jail, which we also use funding for. that would alleviate a lot of our problems. we would be able to remove those and put them in health care facilities. prisons are not help. they are not made to help. we need to change that.
change the fact that people need help. >> jason kantor. we do need ader: prescription drug abuse program. we need leadership to get it. we need to do more. there have been good steps taken, but we need to do more. i have dealt with people who deal with this on the front lines. they do not think this will do anywhere near enough. i believe we can do that. we need a new generation of leadership. folks who will focus on solutions. we also need to recognize that ultimately drug use of every economics to follow concerns. at a time when we have folks in trade dealstecting that send jobs overseas, that does not help any situation.
we need to focus on the middle class and make sure that they have more economic opportunity and traditionally when we have done that, we have seen problems like this chick downward. -- ticked downward. >> the next question comes from bill miller. mr. miller: in this campaign year, there has been a lot of talk about precollege education for every student. i would like to know how each of you feel about that. i would like to know if you think it is economically feasible to do something like that without a huge raise in taxes? >> fred ryman. mr. ryman: bill, this is going to go back to what carol is talking about. no, i do not believe in free college. i used to be a teacher myself. i'm not speaking from complete ignorance here. i went to college for two years. i maintained a 3.2 gpa.
when i went back to school at the age of 30 and had to pay for my own education, i maintained a 3.8 plus. when i went back at age 40, i maintained a four point oh. you appreciate what you have to pay for, but more than that it's the general philosophy developing in this country where we look to the feds to solve our problems. and i'm sorry, but the federal government is not the solution to most of our problems. the federal government is the problem most of the time. >> roy blunt. fastor blunt: i think the talk about precollege education without any real idea how to pay for it is foolish. one of the things i have tried to do and i believe we will get done this year is returned to the year-round telegram. this is the grant you get if you truly are qualified economically to get, not alone, but a grant.
you can go to school in the fall and the spring and stay in school in the summer and particularly if you are the first person in your family to finish college, like i was, that's not doing anything that disrupts that pattern, makes a difference. if you are going back to school as an adult, not having to take that semester off. if you get full bill, there's no community college. tuition, allll books, all fees, and a couple of our four year schools. returning the year-round pell would be a big help to students struggling to get college. >> jonathan mcfarland. mcfarland: i believe free education is a great idea. i believe that the american people to be much more intelligent with such a device and we can work on it. we can work on it by getting their economically.
we can put together a program for a free educational system. and if we just allow our tax -- if weo just be allow our taxes to go without allow richnd just people to be taxed fairly, we could see an increase of two $4 billion in our funding of the free educational system. >> jason kander. secretary kander: i disagree with those who say we should make it free. it is too expensive. coulds what i think we do. we can refinance student loans. we can cap interest. those are concrete things we can do that would help a lot. i was amazed when senator blunt said something along the lines he reason folks are graduating with so much debt is because of their lifestyle during school as if the extra bowl of ram and in the microwave was the reason that folks are graduating with
of debt.e of $36,000 it's interesting. senator blunt odor to cut held grants five years ago and he's talking about a situation where he has worked to restore the funding back to where it was. he is just taking it back to where it was before he cut it. senator, someone who sets a fire and puts it out is not a fireman. he is an arsonist. you think college is expensive now. wait until it is free. let's get government out of the loansharking business. if the government was not giving out all of these loans at ridiculously high rate, colleges would be forced to let people in or go out of business. it is the same concept that went to the housing market, because the housing bubble. we are in an education bubble. we need to reevaluate our educational system in
particular. we have these kids for 12 years already and we can't get them ready to join the workforce? they should graduate with a high school degree that should get them in a job. the idea you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for a piece of paper that says now you're ready to make some money does not make sense to me. the wise words. give a man a fish, if you demand for a day. teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. job training, skills training, plumbers, technicians, things of value. i'm out of time. >> senator blunt? senator blunt: when pell grants were eliminated in 29, president obama was in office, democrats were in control of the congress. if you think student spending has nothing to do with student borrowing, ask anyone at any community college or for your
school what elements they are most concerned about when they talk about the money that students are borrowing and eventually have to pay back. , would you like three seconds? secretary kander: sure. it's interesting. they have it on video where you pointed out it was student lifestyles causing it. and that's clearly not the case. in not sure if that is what you had in mind when you voted to studentse rate that pay on their loans. this is not an issue on students. this is a middle-class economic issue. i meet people it is affect inc. three generations and their families. i have met grandparents who have suspended their retirement. this is affecting people throughout the state. not just students or interest groups. >> next round of questions. nugent: where you stand in regard to undocumented residents
and giving them a path to citizenship and along with this, how much of the nation's resources should be committed to strengthening border security? >> roy blunt, to you first. senator blunt: in terms of border security, i think that is the fundamental issue. there are three questions. how do you secure the border. the legitimate workforce needs of the country. what do you do about people who came or state illegally. that is about 50/50. about 50% came in legally. and -- illegally. in about 50% came in legally and just aid. i think people will be pretty forward leaning about trying to find solutions. i was absolutely opposed to president obama's executive amnesty. unfortunately, a federal judge
in texas -- and fortunately, a federal judge in texas agreed. i a lot to say about that at the time. i am not for citizenship for people who came to the country illegally. >> jonathan mcfarland. ourmcfarland: securing borders has a lot to do with mexico rebuilding the economy. i was in mexico and 2011. and a lot of people say after it was passed, what they had as resources was taken away. i know nobody knows about it because we keep on pushing the agenda of mexicans having these drug cartels or whatever. i just happen to know otherwise. help believe we need to mexico and not punish people who have been continual -- actual historical migrants.
people for mexico came to the united states, what is now the united states. and we need to honor that. honored what they had. which morea place in or less it is taken from other people. >> jason kander. secretary kander: our immigration system is broken and we need comprehensive immigration reform. had i been in the senate, i the bipartisan legislation put forward by senator rubio. and had that passed, we would not be facing the same problem we are facing right now because we desperately need comprehensive immigration reform and i would have supported that bipartisan effort. i know personally the promise that legal immigration holds in this country. my wife came to the united states from the soviet union at the age of eight in 1989 and i have seen the contravention to the community she has made and
our -- my in-laws have made. but we need people focused on solutions and not so incredibly disagreeable they cannot move forward on important issues like this one. that bill, that i would have supported, senator rubio's bill, increased funding for security at the border and that is where we need to start. mr. dine: our resources should to protect us from people attacking our country, not from people who want to be part of it. immigration needs to be reformed to streamline the process. many people are coming here to work. if we are making it possible to make a work visa, people would line up at the wall. give them a social security number. they can pay taxes. you might as well make them a useful resource. the idea that all immigrants are bad stems from the war on drugs and the propaganda. if we ended the war on drugs we
would not have to worry about the drug cartels, people like colorado where they are making money hand over fist, giving money back to their citizens. immigrants play in important -- an important role in society. many industries would be devastated without migrant workers. these are skilled workers who provide a resource. tax them. citizen after seven years, give them background checks so we know who they are. let's bring it from underground to up top. have been hearing about comprehensive immigration reform since i was a teenager. that's about 40 years ago. i'm sorry. never once has congress acted to secure the border. it has not happened in 40 years and i don't look forward to it happening anytime soon as london's we have the same crowd talking the same language. one of the things we have to do
in order to secure the border is not just build a wall. that is something politicians do to make it look like they are doing something. all they are really doing is wasting our money. what we need to do is turn off the magnets that are drawing people across the border in the first place. the real criminals are not the people crossing the border trying to feed their families. the real criminals are the companies hiring illegal law,rants against the and taking noem, action at all against them. almost no action at all. i would say we need to beef up the penalties, not only an force what laws are on the books, but beef up those penalties. >> next question from carol stark. on wednesday, after months of infighting, congress finally approved $1.1 billion in funding
to fight the zika virus, which is now spread into the united affected some pregnant women. has congress waited too long to attack this problem? goes first to you, jonathan mcfarland. mr. mcfarland. mcfarland: i do think congress has waited too long. we had money set aside for the ebola virus. myself, i was one who wondered what was taking so long to handle the zika virus because it was right on our shores and entering the united states. there is at least one fatal case in missouri. being that my wife is pregnant with our second child, i was really disheartened about what was happening with the zika virus and how we were trying to treat it. so, i just believe that congress
should act faster on things that are very important to the american people. especially when it relates to threats to future americans. we could really handle this situation a lot better. >> jason kander. congress kander: yes, waited too long. they were too busy taking seven weeks off to campaign or not up forr those reelection. this is something urgent that should have been dealt with and it goes back to the makeup of congress. right now we have the fewest veterans in congress than any time since world war ii. it is not a coincidence that we have so few people who have the ability -- people have the ability to put aside their differences or their opportunity workareer advancement and together. in the military, we have folks from different backgrounds, different places, different perspectives who come together to get things done. they rally around the mission.
in this case, getting zika done on time was the mission, but they don't seem to have the ability to put their differences aside. i believe it has something to do with us, friendly, having too few people who have served in congress. how many viruses has the government george? to me, i think it will unfortunately be a waste of money. private industry should be doing the research. there is plenty of research institutes, colleges -- they have alumni. special interests, some individuals lobby the government and they will get rich off of this. i do not believe the government has ever been a good steward of our tax dollars and all of this knee-jerk reaction to pass -- ilation and funding is think the unintended consequences are worse. mr. ryman: the zika virus issue
is another one of those that crosses over the line between state responsibility and federal responsibility. we do have these centers for disease control that can speak to such issues, but as was that, i don't think we are going to find a cure for these eco-virus. certainly not in a matter of weeks. that becomes more an issue of controlling the spread of the virus, which has more to do with killing mosquitoes thank controlling a disease. that again is something i state or locale municipalities are equipped to deal with. federal the jurisdiction beyond curing the disease itself? i don't see one. the federal government is not going to get into pest-control, i'm sorry. federalnt:: the
government once again saw a crisis and overreached and try to make the most of it. they ousted for money, $85 million of it for new buildings of the -- at the cdc. $500 million of the ebola money had not been used. so we can quickly to $1.1 billion. and i came to the compromise. i wanted to get it done before july.t in toy're talking about trying find solutions -- even hillary kander, whose secretary is one of the cochairs of her
campaign said what congress should do is pass the blood-murray compromise, and we did. for one moreme question. this come from you, bill miller. have been viewing tv ads where where the candidates is using a rifle, taking apart, and putting it back and so on and i have heard comments from missourians that they feel that is an insult to their intelligence to think that being able to handle a gun, shoot a gun, take it apart and so on is proper preparation for serving in government. >> jason kander, that goes to you first. secretary kander: well, bill, i support the second amendment. here's the clear difference between myself and senator blunt. i'm a gun owner and a learned how to use a gun in the army and i'm also a father. missourians, i'm concerned, very concerned every time i see a school shooting or any other time when our citizens are not safe and i believe what
we need to do is we need universal background checks. we need to expand criminal background checks to include suspected terrorists. i believe that's very important. senator blunt is about to talk about his nra rating in mind, my i would happily put marksmanship badge against a political reading any day of the week because i fundamentally believe there is no conflict between being a supporter of the second amendment and wanting to protect the second amendment, making sure terrorists and criminals do not have the same access to guns you and i have. mr. dine: the whole barrage of usually negative campaign commercials have become aware of life. you cannot turn on the without one of these coming across the airwaves. the world is going to end if you vote for this guy. i wish you guys would give me commercials but to me why i should vote for you. what are you going to do?
what you going to do and not just slander the other guy. i think it is indicative our political system. but roy just proves my point when he said we worked on this is zika virus year built together, republicans and democrats, coming together to take your money to build two new buildings and expand the scope of government that has little to do with finding a cure for the zika virus. tax not feel a steward of dollars, and to me, politicians and police should encourage gun ownership in education and training programs. a responsible, well armed citizenship is the best defense against them is the tyranny and foreign invasion. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment and i do not believe the second amendment is therefore sporting or a hot. it's for our defense, more of our family, also against our own
government if you want to read federalist paper number 46. but i have a long-winded explanation for my support on my website, voteforfred.org. i want to say with the remainder of my time that i am is appointed we never got to trade. trade is a hugely important in theith respect to job united states. senator blunt voted to fast-track the tpp and i'm sorry, but free trade with underdeveloped nations kills american jobs. i would definitely say free with depressed countries kills us economically. blunt: the way that this works i get 30 seconds to respond to the seek a comment and the fast-track comment and a minute to respond to the
question? is that right question of you get a minute right now. senator blunt: to respond to the question? with gun control, of course, no one wants terrorists or have guns.o what a foolish line to drawn. officially secretary kander wants to have a gun, but he's not nearly as concerned whether other people can have guns are not. from the nra in the missouri general a simile. not easily done. p with and 10% of the missouri general assembly managed to get an f. theays he is a defender of second amendment. no one who watches these issues believes that to be the case. ofedom of religion, freedom speech, the second amendment, the fourth amendment, all of the amendments have impact on how this senate and the next
president deal with the court will make a big difference in whether we are able to secure those freedoms or whether those freedoms are taken away from us. >> jonathan mcfarland? mr. mcfarland? i'll think this has anything to do with the requirements to being a politician. gottenpeople who have their conceal carry licenses and they feel cheated by the new rule just past that allows the most anyone to carry a gun now. it caters to our lowest nature. and am sorry -- what he said about trade, we have a great opportunity in missouri to really expand trade. especially in the solar panel industry. missouri could be a great producer of solar
panels. we can do a lot to improve our economy. >> there were right of issues. senator blount, if you want an additional 30 seconds, we can do that. secretary kander: sure. the main difference between 's eyes on sen. blunt: the mentally believe my second minimum rights in your second amendment rights are important enough that if somebody comes from area and they are a suspected terrorist, we should not give them the same buy a gun. to senator blunt can call that foolish. senator blunt: you should not have suspected terrorists coming from syria.
i was clear.ink we did not build additional buildings. we stopped the administration from building those buildings. we looked at this carefully and agreed to do one part $1 billion. and i think that money arrives in time. i would have preferred if the human -- it be done in july. vaccineave the expanded test now. back.as not been held if congress would pass the compromise bill we passed this week several weeks ago, it would have been a better way to deal with it. >> we will move to closing statements. roy blunt, your first. senator blunt: eggs, david, for doing this. there is a clear choice in this election. i have been listening. i spend a lot of time at home.
i understand the state in ways i think takes a while to do. it's a diverse state with a lot of opportunities. a lot of discussion about disagreeable things in the congress. i am able to reach out and find solutions. senator brown and i got legislation passed for advanced manufacturing that will have an impact on manufacturing jobs. senator stab no one i -- she is from michigan. we got the excellence and mental health act fast, which many say is the biggest step forward in mental health and 50 years. it will let states treatment will help like all other health. really long, we have required law enforcement and the emergency rooms in the country to become the effect of mental health system. coons and i were
able to get the legislation, even though the obama administration, for reasons we cannot understand, did not want it extended. senator murray and i got the first increase in mental health research in a dozen years. we got a 7.6 percent increase last her. we propose to that and i think we will get it again this year and to do that, we had to eliminate over two dozen programs that were not effective. everything is a priority. nothing is a priority. missourians deserve a congress that will look at their money and not take any more of it than absolutely necessary. it it is a great honor to work for missourians. the last thing i would like to say is i would be pleased to have your vote and serve you for another six years in the senate. i believe the desire
for most americans is to be left alone. to live our life and run our businesses. we are fed up with the overreaching, over regulating federal tyranny. we are fed up with lifelong politicians who rule over us instead of representing us and then going home. who has enriched himself and his family in what should be public service. yet he pulls money out of his pocket and mind to fund the practices of planned parenthood, to fund social benefits for illegal immigrants, to fund green projects in foreign nations. to fund more and more and more bureaucracy. i believe this election more than most in recent times is about one thing, accountability.
i stand here representing the constitution party of america. these guys will tell you that to vote -- a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote. let me ask you all, how much more wasted could you vote possibly be then to be cast yet again for the two parties that have given us $20 trillion in national debt? this time when folks step into the voting booth, i want them to remember how wasted their vote was last time. and this time if you will waste your vote, wasted on me. vote the constitution party, vote for fred. thank you. >> jonathan dimes. >> listening to roy appear try
to defend his record, telling me about the legislation he passed -- 20 was elected in 2010, 1 of was that hepromises would repeal obamacare. in the last year roy only sponsored two eases of legislation. to me, at best he's completely ineffective senator or at worst, he's a liar who doesn't want to get anything done. like many americans in here, i'm concerned about the direction our country is headed. i'm tired of the constant fighting between the democrats and republicans, their us versus them mentality is hostile and counterproductive. beating the team has become -- beating the other team has become more important than solving america's problems straight the time to stop voting -- start voting for the lesser of two evils is over. neither is serious about balancing the budget, restoring your freedoms, limiting the economic involvement.
here toan opportunity make history. if you really want to break up the stack nations of the two parties, send a libertarian up there. i promise you that i will fight tirelessly, as your senator i will sponsor legislation for term limits, elimination of the federal income tax. to me, the power should be returned to the people. .ote libertarian just one time if you don't like peas, prosperity, and freedom, you can vote tyranny in next time. go to our website, the number four, and check out where i stand on all the issues. see who will best represent your voice in our government. >> thank you, david. thank you to all of you for hosting us. i've been to year every county in our state and i have spoken to missourians all over the state. i've listen to them.
over again, what they have told me as they want folks in washington to work together to get things done for their families. over the past hour we have not heard one idea from the senator about how to fix congress. and that's because he has become a part of the problem. the senator has been protecting the status quo because the status quo has been great for him, his family, and special interest donors. over that time he has allowed overseas,to ship jobs to continue to get tax breaks labor for middle-class families would get them. that is one thing i'm going to the senate to change. the senator has voted to raise his own pay 12 times. middle-class families and misery are continuing to struggle. today senator blood lives in a million-dollar mansion in washington and only visits missouri when he has to. he's not the same person who was a history teacher or a greene county clerk eva had my current job as missouri secretary of state.