Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump

Cognitive test of Donald Trump was done in 2018:

Your feedback assessment from Trump “achievement” so far

The MoCA test itself is one page and typically takes 10 to 12 minutes to administer.

In 1996, the year Donald Trump took over the skyscraper at 40 Wall Street and blazed a new trail in the casino business, a young Lebanese Canadian doctor named Ziad Nasreddine created a pioneering way to screen people for early signs of dementia.

Nasreddine’s evaluation was called the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or the MoCA test. Using simple prompts, it was designed to help doctors detect mild cognitive impairment that could signal the onset of Alzheimer’s disease or other problems.

It has proved so effective over the past two decades that it has been translated into dozens of languages and is used by physicians in more than 100 countries.

On Tuesday, President Trump and Nasreddine’s worlds converged when the White House’s top doctor announced that the president had achieved a perfect score of 30 points on the MoCA test as part of his first formal medical exam.

Trump received the assessment as release of the book “Fire and Fury,” a gossip-laden inside account of his presidency, stirred questions about his mental fitness that the White House has struggled to contain.

Trump responded to the speculation by claiming on Twitter that he is “like, really smart” and “a very stable genius.”

Ziad Nasreddine, a Lebanese immigrant to Canada, designed a cognitive test used by President Trump’s doctor.
Ziad Nasreddine, a Lebanese immigrant to Canada, designed a cognitive test used by President Trump’s doctor. (CTV)

Nasreddine was apparently unaware that the president had taken the MoCA test until a reporter from the Canadian Press asked him for a reaction.

“I was very honored when I heard that the test was chosen by the White House,” Nasreddine told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

“The fact that the team of doctors around him decided that this was the most appropriate test gives it so much credibility,” he said, “and confirms that it is actually useful and practical and can give reassurance of someone’s cognition.”

Nasreddine emigrated from Lebanon to Canada when he was 15, along with his widowed mother and two sisters. The decision was something of an accident.

The family, who lost Nasreddine’s father to a heart attack years earlier, was visiting relatives in Canada in 1983 when an outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon’s long-running civil war shut down the country’s main airport and prevented them from returning home.

Soon after, they applied for and received permanent residency in Canada, Nasreddine said.

Nasreddine became a Canadian citizen in 1989 and went on to attend medical school at the University of Sherbrooke. A fascination with the functions of the brain, the body’s most complex organ, drew him to neurology, he said.

“There was so much to learn about what the brain does,” he said, “and I thought it would be intriguing to explore the brain and understand it more.”

In 1995 and 1996, he completed a post-doctorate fellowship in neurobehavior from the University of California at Los Angeles.

While there, he learned that the Charles LeMoyne Hospital in the suburbs of Montreal was looking for someone who specialized in cognition and dementia, so he made that his focus.

When he started working at the hospital he noticed that the screening tests he had to use weren’t sophisticated enough to detect early cognitive impairment in patients, he said. On top of that, they took more than an hour to complete. Without a nurse to help him, he could only see three patients a day.

That was what led Nasreddine to create the MoCA test, which he fine-tuned to include tasks that could measure cognitive functions quicker and in closer detail than other evaluations. “There happened to be an important need. Other tests didn’t evaluate all the cognitive functions that were relevant to Alzheimer’s,” Nasreddine said. “Thanks to my fellowship, I was able to know which tests were the most sensitive and short.”

Nasreddine works as director of the MoCA Clinic and Institute in Quebec and is affiliated with McGill and Sherbrooke universities.

He told The Post he was well aware of the sweeping crackdown on immigration that Trump has pursued in his first year in office, but said he preferred to stay “in the scientific portion of the debate.”

“I’m happy that immigrants are contributing to society, whether in science, culture, business or other aspects,” he said. “This could be a message to consider in relation to Trump’s views on immigration — it’s a nice message, but I would not be emphasizing this much.”

The MoCA test itself is one page and typically takes 10 to 12 minutes to administer.

Patients are given prompts designed to evaluate their short-term memory, visuospatial abilities, executive functions, language and orientation. Some of the assessments include identifying animals by pictures, drawing a clock with the hands at a certain time and repeating phrases such as, “The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.”

Patients receive a score of zero to 30 points, with 30 being perfect. A score of 26 or higher is considered normal, but anything less warrants further examination.

A lower than normal score could signal dementia, Nasreddine said, but it could also indicate something such as depression, sleep apnea or alcohol abuse.

The National Institutes of Health have validated the test as a better cognitive tool for detecting dementia than the more popular Mini-Mental State Examination.

Nasreddine stressed that while Trump’s perfect score was good news with regard to the president’s memory, it didn’t offer anything near a complete profile of his or any other patient’s mental health.

“Depression, mania, schizophrenia and personality disorders are psychiatric conditions that are not assessed by the test,” he said. “Even judgment is not assessed by the test.”

He added that when he first developed the test he never imagined it would one day be used on the president of the United States.

“I was talking with my colleagues, and I said jokingly that they might do a MoCA test on him,” he told The Post. “I wasn’t expecting that. I’m really proud that the test has made it this far.”

Who are the Upper Middle Classes? The most powerful class politically and financially?

The  Upper Middle Class in the USA (UMC), those earning more than $120,000 per year (20% of the population), vote massively in their districts (80% of the time) and barely move out of their district, kind of implanted in their secluded quarters with all the amenities (security, facilities, schools, clean environment…). They are the obstacle for useful society mobility.

No politician in the UMC district will ever attempt to rob them of any privilege, woo other classes, or touch on any of their acquired “rights” since they are virulent, engaged and hold the power of opinion. Yes, they are most active, educated, and write opinion letters to politicians and newspapers.

A third of the mass demonstrators in Occupy Wall Street were from UMC. As soon as the government and financial multinationals agreed to give them a few guarantees on their acquired financial privileges, the massive UMC dis-assembled and left the other marchers prey to the police forces and their dogs.

The right-wing (Tea Party) and kind of left-wing parties are packed with UMC members: They know how to hold and maintain their power.

In fact, the UMC occupy most of the key positions in the public services, universities, media, municipalities, sciences, survey institutions, all kinds of traditional professions… and No Senator or Congressman will ever antagonize the UMC financial privileges and tax bracket. (Any such law is doomed to Not Pass, actually they are born-dead)

And how Donald Trump managed to circumvent the UMC?

Trump managed to flatter the values and “culture” of the working classes against the ascendancy of the UMC in journalism, mass media, bureaucracy, favoritism in public services and private companies.

Yes, the working classes have no grudge against the richest 1% whom they dream to become one of them and because they are never in close contact with them in any of their daily activities in the public sectors (read government)

The working classes have a gut feeling that their children are practically denied to move out of their parents’ status in society because of the tight-niches of the UMC in every sector in the community.

And why the UMC are so reluctant to slightly dent any of their overpowering privileges (economically, financially and politically)?

And why the UMC are Not ready for any tiny sacrifices in their life-style to promote the less fortunate classes for slightly better advancement in society?

Note: The UMC description and characteristics are valid in every country: colonial, imperialist, communist, socialist, in emerging nations (India, China,Brazil, Canada, South Africa) and even in poor countries where the oligarchy set roots for decades.

On Jerusalem: Symbolic Center of All evils

Today, Donald Trump delivered on his “evil promise” to claim Jerusalem as Capital of Israel, regardless of the consistent and historic stance of the UN and all the 195 recognized States. As if the USA is endowed to summarizing the decision of the world community.

Since 1915, US Zionists pressured England to agree on a land for the Jews in Palestine in 1917, as part of entering the war. In 2017, an entire century, US Baptist and Protestant sects pressured Israel to agree on Jerusalem as Capital. (Even Apartheid Israeli settlers hasveenough troubles without this new calamity with no end in sight)

A couple of days ago I stated: Do you believe Trump will actually move US embassy to Jerusalem? What for? Tel Aviv is Not more convenient among all the other world embassies and far more secure?

As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in 2006—the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

Historical facts prove that there existed the Province of Judea during the Greek and Roman empires. An Israeli Kingdom never existed but in imaginary stories to match the history of the Land in the Levant. All those accumulated stories were meant to give a semblance of history to the Jewish Bedouins down south in the Naqab

If this Symbol of Jerusalem can appease the soul of all the religious sects swarming in this calamity city, let Trump declare Jerusalem a “neutral zone” to all religious sects, including the Jews, and the religious sites run by the UN as museums.

So the US killed, injured, famished and displaced millions of Syrians, Iraqis and Yemenis for 2 decades in order to make the swallowing of Jerusalem as Capital of Israel as a far lesser Evil? Can Jerusalem from now on be considered the Symbolic Center of All evils?

Threatening with an empty pistol? An Israeli commentator on the reactions of the Palestinians and “Arab” people on the eventual proclamation of Trump on Jerusalem as Capital of Israel. As if the readiness of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the reconquest of Syria and Iraq in this world war to divide their territories were done with empty pistol.

Religious institutions mastered the fact that people need stories (myths) to be attached to abstract concepts for viability and credibility.

When in 1967 Israel entered and occupied East Jerusalem, Golda Meir felt relief when the Palestinians did Not demonstrate much revolt. Actually, East Jerusalem was under the mandate of the treacherous Jordanian Kingdom, and the occupiers carried out another wave of transfer of Palestinians around Jerusalem. Thousands of children and females were forced to vacate their villages and hundreds of young males killed while on the road to unknown destinations.

But dignity of people over-ride all kinds of subjugation and occupation.  This next civil disobedience (intifada) of the Palestinians will Not be crushed easily and will linger longer than the world war on Syria.

Even in 1933, the Palestinian intifada lasted 4 years and England had to dispatch 100,000 soldiers to quell this civil disobedience and exercised the cruelest of torture and violence on the civilian people.

The Symbol of Jerusalem will unite all the Palestinian political factions and the traitors for appeasement and swapping of security intelligence with USA and Israel will be eliminated


Warren Buffett says Donald Trump’s Obamacare replacement is ‘a huge tax cut for guys like me’

Chairman fumes that healthcare costs eat away at US economy like ‘tapeworm’

Berkshire Hathaway Inc Chairman Warren Buffett on Saturday fumed that healthcare costs are eating away at the US economy like “tapeworm” and said the Republican approach to overhaul Obamacare is a tax cut for the rich.

The US House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly approved a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, a victory for Republican President Donald Trump who has called the 2010 law a “disaster.”

Speaking at Berkshire’s annual shareholders’ meeting in Omaha, Buffett said his federal income taxes last year would have gone down 17 percent had the new law been in effect.

“So it is a huge tax cut for guys like me,” he said. “And when there’s a tax cut, either the deficit goes up or they get the taxes from somebody else.”

The Republican bill would repeal most of the taxes that paid for the law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. The party’s leadership has promised that the new American Health Care Act, which faces a likely overhaul and uncertain passage in the Senate, would address growing healthcare costs.

Buffett said rising healthcare costs are crippling the competitiveness of US companies abroad.

Unlike in many other countries where much of healthcare spending is publicly financed, employers provide health insurance coverage for nearly half of Americans and often face sky-rocketing rates.

Buffett said healthcare costs have risen much faster in the United States than in the rest of the world and “will go up a lot more.”

“Medical costs are the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness,” he said. “That is a problem this society is having trouble with and is going to have more trouble with.”

Buffett is a Democrat who vocally supported Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful bid for the presidency against Trump.

The fourth richest man in the world with a net worth totaling $74.3 billion, according to Forbes magazine, Buffett has vowed to donate nearly his entire fortune to charity.

Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger added that he thinks neither political party “can think rationally” about healthcare because they “hate each other so much.”

Trumpcare v Obamacare: How they compare

Donald Trump: The Menace. By Paul Krugman

For the past couple of months, thoughtful people have been quietly worrying that the Trump administration might get us into a foreign policy crisis, maybe even a war.

Partly this worry reflected Donald Trump’s addiction to bombast and swagger, which plays fine in Breitbart and on Fox News but doesn’t go down well with foreign governments.

But it also reflected a cold view of the incentives the new administration would face: as working-class voters began to realize that candidate Trump’s promises about jobs and health care were insincere, foreign distractions would look increasingly attractive.

FEB. 3, 2017

The most likely flash point seemed to be China, the subject of much Trumpist tough talk, where disputes over islands in the South China Sea could easily turn into shooting incidents.

But the war with China will, it seems, have to wait.

First comes Australia. And Mexico. And Iran. And the European Union. But never Russia (That’s the only good wait)

And while there may be an element of cynical calculation in some of the administration’s crisismongering, this is looking less and less like a political strategy and more and more like a psychological syndrome.

But this is the age of Trump: In a call with Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, the U.S. president boasted about his election victory and complained about an existing agreement to take some of the refugees Australia has been holding, accusing Mr. Turnbull of sending us the “next Boston bombers.” Then he abruptly ended the conversation after only 25 minutes.

Well, at least Mr. Trump didn’t threaten to invade Australia. In his conversation with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico, however, he did just that.

According to The Associated Press, he told our neighbor’s democratically elected leader: “You have a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”

White House sources are now claiming that this threat — remember, the U.S. has in fact invaded Mexico in the past, and the Mexicans have not forgotten — was a lighthearted joke. If you believe that, I have a Mexico-paid-for border wall to sell you.

The blowups with Mexico and Australia have overshadowed a more conventional war of words with Iran, which tested a missile on Sunday. This was definitely a provocation.

But the White House warning that it was “putting Iran on notice” raises the question, notice of what?

Given the way the administration has been alienating our allies, tighter sanctions aren’t going to happen. Are we ready for a war?

There was also a curious contrast between the response to Iran and the response to another, more serious provocation: Russia’s escalation of its proxy war in Ukraine.

Senator John McCain called on the president to help Ukraine. Strangely, however, the White House has said nothing at all about Russia’s actions. This is getting a bit obvious, isn’t it?

Oh, and one more thing: Peter Navarro, head of Mr. Trump’s new National Trade Council, accused Germany of exploiting the United States with an undervalued currency.

There’s an interesting economics discussion to be had here, but government officials aren’t supposed to make that sort of accusation unless they’re prepared to fight a trade war. Are they?

I doubt it. In fact, this administration doesn’t seem prepared on any front.

Mr. Trump’s confrontational phone calls, in particular, don’t sound like the working out of an economic or even political strategy — cunning schemers don’t waste time boasting about their election victories and whining about media reports on crowd sizes.

America and the world can’t take much more of this.

Think about it: If you had an employee behaving this way, you’d immediately remove him from any position of responsibility and strongly suggest that he seek counseling. And this guy is commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military.



Transcript: Donald Trump on NATO, Turkey’s Coup Attempt and the World


Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, discussed his views on foreign policy in Cleveland on Wednesday with David E. Sanger and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times during the Republican National Convention. The following is an edited transcript of their interview.

SANGER: So what we want to do is pick up where we left off in March. We were listening to Speaker Ryan last night, and he presented a much more traditional Republican, engaged internationalist view of the world. One in which he said that the United States would never lead from behind. In our conversation a few months ago, you were discussing pulling back from commitments we can no longer afford unless others pay for them. You were discussing a set of alliances that you were happy to participate in.

TRUMP: And I think, by the way, David, I think they will be able to afford them.

SANGER: They may be.

TRUMP: We can’t.

SANGER: But I guess the question is, If we can’t, do you think that your presidency, let’s assume for a moment that they contribute what they are contributing today, or what they have contributed historically, your presidency would be one of pulling back and saying, “You know, we’re not going to invest in these alliances with NATO, we are not going to invest as much as we have in Asia since the end of the Korean War because we can’t afford it and it’s really not in our interest to do so.”

TRUMP: If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich.

Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal, I would like you to say, I would prefer being able to, some people, the one thing they took out of your last story, you know, some people, the fools and the haters, they said, “Oh, Trump doesn’t want to protect you.”

I would prefer that we be able to continue, but if we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth — you have the tape going on?

Marj Henningsen shared this link
David E. Sanger and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times.|By The New York Times

SANGER: We do.

HABERMAN: We both do.

TRUMP: With massive wealth. Massive wealth. We’re talking about countries that are doing very well. Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”

SANGER: That suggests that our forward deployments around the world are based on their interests — they’re not really based on our interests.

And yet I think many in your party would say that the reason that we have troops in Europe, the reason that we keep 60,000 troops in Asia, is that it’s in our interest to keep open trading lines, it’s in our interest to keep the North Koreans in check, you do that much better out away from the United States.

TRUMP: I think it’s a mutual interest, but we’re being reimbursed like it’s only in our interest. I think it’s a mutual interest. …

SANGER: We were talking about alliances, and the fundamental problem that you hear many Republicans, traditional Republicans, have with the statement that you’ve made is that it would seem to them that you would believe that the interests of the United States being out with both our troops and our diplomacy abroad is less than our economic interests in having somebody else support that.

In other words, even if they didn’t pay a cent toward it, many have believed that the way we’ve kept our postwar leadership since World War II has been our ability to project power around the world. That’s why we got this many diplomats ——

TRUMP: How is it helping us? How has it helped us? We have massive trade deficits.

I could see that, if instead of having a trade deficit worldwide of $800 billion, we had a trade positive of $100 billion, $200 billion, $800 billion. So how has it helped us?

SANGER: Well, keeping the peace. We didn’t have a presence in places like Korea in 1950, or not as great a presence, and you saw what happened.

TRUMP: There’s no guarantee that we’ll have peace in Korea.

SANGER: Even with our troops, no, there’s no guarantee.

TRUMP: No, there’s no guarantee. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line.

SANGER: But we’ve had them there since 1953 and ——

TRUMP: Sure, but that doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be something going on right now. Maybe you would have had a unified Korea. Who knows what would have happened?

In the meantime, what have we done? So we’ve kept peace, but in the meantime we’ve let North Korea get stronger and stronger and more nuclear and more nuclear, and you are really saying, “Well, how is that a good thing?” You understand?

North Korea now is almost like a boiler. You say we’ve had peace, but that part of Korea, North Korea, is getting more and more crazy. And more and more nuclear. And they are testing missiles all the time.

SANGER: They are.

TRUMP: And we’ve got our soldiers sitting there watching missiles go up. And you say to yourself, “Oh, that’s interesting.” Now we’re protecting Japan because Japan is a natural location for North Korea. So we are protecting them, and you say to yourself, “Well, what are we getting out of this?”

SANGER: Well, we keep our missile defenses out there. And those missile defenses help prevent the day when North Korea can reach the United States with one of its missiles. It’s a lot easier to shoot down from there ——

TRUMP: We’ve had them there for a long time, and now they’re practically obsolete, in all fairness.

SANGER: Relatively new missile defenses would allow us ——

TRUMP: I’m only saying this. We’re spending money, and if you’re talking about trade, we’re losing a tremendous amount of money, according to many stats, $800 billion a year on trade.

So we are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion. That doesn’t sound like it’s smart to me.

Just so you understand though, totally on the record, this is not 40 years ago. We are not the same country and the world is not the same world.

Our country owes right now $19 trillion, going to $21 trillion very quickly because of the omnibus budget that was passed, which is incredible.

We don’t have the luxury of doing what we used to do; we don’t have the luxury, and it is a luxury. We need other people to reimburse us much more substantially than they are giving right now because we are only paying for a fraction of the cost.

SANGER: Or to take on the burden themselves.

TRUMP: Or, if we cannot make the right deal, to take on the burden themselves. You said it wrong because you said or — or if we cannot make the right deal for proper reimbursement to take on the burden themselves. Yes. Now, Hillary Clinton said: “I will never leave Japan. I will never leave Japan. Will never leave any of our ——” Well now, once you say that, guess what happens? What happens?

HABERMAN: You’re stuck.

TRUMP: You can’t negotiate.


TRUMP: In a deal, you always have to be prepared to walk. Hillary Clinton has said, “We will never, ever walk.” That’s a wonderful phrase, but unfortunately, if I were on Saudi Arabia’s side, Germany, Japan, South Korea and others, I would say, “Oh, they’re never leaving, so what do we have to pay them for?” Does that make sense to you, David?

SANGER: It does, but we also know that defending the United States is a harder thing to do if you’re not forward-deployed.

TRUMP: By the way, and I know what I’m talking about is massive. If we ever felt there was a reason to defend the United States, we can always deploy, and it would be a lot less expense. …

HABERMAN: Can we switch to current events, recent events?

TRUMP: You understand what ——

SANGER: I do, I do.

TRUMP: You always have to be prepared to walk. It doesn’t mean I want to walk. And I would prefer not to walk. You have to be prepared and our country cannot afford to do what we’re doing.

HABERMAN: How closely did you watch last week as events were unfolding in Turkey with the coup? Is there anything you would have done differently in how it was handled?

TRUMP: The coup never took place — the coup was not successful, and based on the fact, and I give great credit to him for being able to turn that around.

SANGER: Erdogan?

TRUMP: Yes, some people say that it was staged. You know that?

SANGER: We’ve heard.

TRUMP: I don’t think so, but I do give great credit to him for turning it around.

You know, the first hour, it seemed like it was over. Then all of a sudden, and the amazing thing is the one that won that was the people. They came out on the streets, and the army types didn’t want to drive over them like they did in Tiananmen Square when they sort of drived them over, and that was the end of that. Right?

People said, I’m not going to drive over people. The people came out of their homes, and they were not in favor of what the military was doing. So that was quite impressive from the standpoint of existing government. I will say this: I think Turkey can do a lot against ISIS, and I would hope that if I’m dealing with them, they will do much more about ISIS.

SANGER: Erdogan put nearly 50,000 people in jail or suspend them, suspended thousands of teachers, he imprisoned many in the military and the police, he dismissed a lot of the judiciary. Does this worry you?

And would you rather deal with a strongman who’s also been a strong ally, or with somebody that’s got a greater appreciation of civil liberties than Mr. Erdogan has? Would you press him to make sure the rule of law applies?

TRUMP: I think right now when it comes to civil liberties, our country has a lot of problems, and I think it’s very hard for us to get involved in other countries when we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country.

We have tremendous problems when you have policemen being shot in the streets, when you have riots, when you have Ferguson. When you have Baltimore. When you have all of the things that are happening in this country — we have other problems, and I think we have to focus on those problems.

When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger.

SANGER: So that suggests that you would not, as, say, President Bush did, the last President Bush, make the spread of democracy and liberty sort of a core of your foreign policy. You would say, “We need allies, we’re not going to lecture them about what they do inside their borders.”

TRUMP: We need allies.

SANGER: And lecture inside their borders?

TRUMP: I don’t know that we have a right to lecture. Just look about what’s happening with our country. How are we going to lecture when people are shooting our policemen in cold blood.

How are we going to lecture when you see the riots and the horror going on in our own country.

We have so many difficulties in our country right now that I don’t think we should be, and there may be a time when we can get much more aggressive on that subject, and it will be a wonderful thing to be more aggressive. We’re not in a position to be more aggressive. We have to fix our own mess.

SANGER: You said that they could be much more helpful with ISIS. I’m sure perhaps they can. The big difference they’ve had is that we’ve been supporting Kurdish forces that have been very effective ——

TRUMP: I’m a fan of the Kurds, you understand.

SANGER: But Erdogan is not. Tell us how you would deal with that?

TRUMP: Well, it would be ideal if we could get them all together. And that would be a possibility. But I’m a big fan of the Kurdish forces. At the same time, I think we have a potentially — we could have a potentially very successful relationship with Turkey. And it would be really wonderful if we could put them somehow both together.

SANGER: And what’s your diplomatic plan for doing that?

TRUMP: Meetings. If I ever have the opportunity to do it, meaning if I win, we will have meetings, we will have meetings very early on.

HABERMAN: I was going to say, when would you begin that process?

TRUMP: Very early on. I think it’s a natural. I think it’s a natural. I mean, we have two groups that are friendly and they are fighting each other. So if we could put them together, that would be something that would be possible to do, in my opinion.

HABERMAN: You had meetings in the last couple months with James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Did they in any way change your views?


HABERMAN: And what did you come away with from those meetings?

TRUMP: No. I came away with a lot of knowledge. I respect both men. …

SANGER: Tell us how you’d capitalize on that. On the record, tell us how, in the case with Mexico.

TRUMP: I think we’ll have a very good relationship with Mexico, and it will be a fair relationship. Right now, it’s a massive, Mexico is a massive loss. A massive loss for us.

But I think it will be a very, very fair relationship and a very good relationship but right now, Mexico, we are losing on the border and we are losing on trade. We have billions of dollars of trade deficits with Mexico. Drugs are pouring in across the border. And they are beating us both on the border and with trade. I think we’ll have a better relationship than we do now and it will be a much more fair relationship.

SANGER: You’ve talked about building the wall of course. Would you amend or change Nafta?

TRUMP: Oh, without question.

SANGER: Tell us how.

TRUMP: Without question. Nafta ——

SANGER: Would you pull out of Nafta?

TRUMP: If I don’t get a change, I would pull out of Nafta in a split second. Nafta is signed by Bill Clinton, perhaps the worst trade deal ever signed in the history of this country.

It’s the worst trade deal ever signed in the history of this country and one of the worst trade deals ever signed anywhere in the world. Nafta is a disaster. You have to understand, I just campaigned, as you probably read, and I won all these states, and one of the reasons was because of Nafta.

Because Nafta has drained manufacturing out of New York State, out of Pennsylvania, out of Ohio, out of so many different places. It’s drained.

And these companies have gone to Mexico, and they’ve gone, they’ve left with the jobs. David, I have statisticians, and I know, like if I went to Pennsylvania, I say, “Give me the statistics on what is going on with respect to manufacturing.” Numbers — 45, 55, 65, I have states that are so bad. New England.

Look at New England, what happened. Nafta has been a disaster for this country. And a disaster for the worker and Nafta is one of the reasons that, you know, there are people that haven’t had a wage increase 18 years in real wages.

Actually, they’re lower, some are working two jobs, working much harder, then making less and they’re older. It’s supposed to work the opposite. You’re making more, you’re making more I hope.

HABERMAN: What kind of change could you make in terms of Nafta without fully withdrawing from it? How could you?

TRUMP: You’ve got to be fair to the country. Everyone is leaving. Carrier just announced they’re leaving. Ford is building a massive plant. So I have a friend who builds plants and then I have to go. I have a friend who builds plants, that’s what he does, he’s the biggest in the world, he builds plants like automobile plants, computer plants, that’s all he does.

He doesn’t build apartments, he doesn’t build office space, he builds plants. I said to him the other day, “How are you doing?” He goes, “Unbelievable.” Oh, great, that’s good, thinking about the United States, right, because he’s based in the United States. So I said, “Good, so the country is doing well.” He said, “No, no, not our country, you’ve got to see what I’m doing in Mexico.” He said: “The business there is unbelievable, the new plants we are building. People moving from the United States.” That’s what he does. One-story plants. You understand?

SANGER: Since your time is limited, let me ask you about Russia. You’ve been very complimentary of Putin himself.

TRUMP: No! No, I haven’t.

SANGER: You said you respected his strength.

TRUMP: He’s been complimentary of me. I think Putin and I will get along very well.

SANGER: So I was just in ——

TRUMP: But he’s been complimentary of me.

SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs.

If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?

TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.

SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——

TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.

SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.

TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.

SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——

TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.

HABERMAN: And if not?

TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.

SANGER: You’ve seen several of those countries come under cyberattack, things that are short of war, clearly appear to be coming from Russia.

TRUMP: Well, we’re under cyberattack.

SANGER: We’re under regular cyberattack. Would you use cyberweapons before you used military force?

TRUMP: Cyber is absolutely a thing of the future and the present. Look, we’re under cyberattack, forget about them. And we don’t even know where it’s coming from.

SANGER: Some days we do, and some days we don’t.

TRUMP: Because we’re obsolete. Right now, Russia and China in particular and other places.

SANGER: Would you support the United States’ not only developing as we are but fielding cyberweapons as an alternative?

TRUMP: Yes. I am a fan of the future, and cyber is the future.

SANGER: President Obama, as you probably know, as you probably read, is considering a no-first-use pledge before he leaves office for nuclear weapons. We don’t have one right now. Some other nations do, some don’t. Would you consider that stabilizing?

TRUMP: Depends on who we are talking about, it depends on who we are talking about. I would only make that commitment as the agreement is being signed. I wouldn’t want to play my cards. I don’t want to say that.

SANGER: This would be a declaratory policy of the United States.

TRUMP: I understand. I will do everything within my power never to be in a position where we have to use nuclear power because that’s a whole different ballgame. That’s very important to me. I will do everything in my power never to be in a position where we will have to use nuclear power. It’s very important to me.

SANGER: President Obama, as you know, has talked about reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal and hopefully getting to the point, maybe not in our lifetimes, of no nuclear weapons. Do you believe at this point that we have sufficient forces that we could come down unilaterally?

TRUMP: I only like that premise if nobody else has them. But that’s never going to happen.

SANGER: Do you think we have too many weapons than we actually need to defend the United States?

TRUMP: I think we have a lot of obsolete weapons.

SANGER: We certainly do.

TRUMP: We have nuclear that we don’t even know if it works. We have nuclear where the telephone systems are 40 years old and they have wire that’s so corroded that they can’t call from one station to the next.

SANGER: That’s right.

TRUMP: We have nuclear that their silos are rusted so badly that they don’t even know if the rockets are going to pour out.

SANGER: Well that raises the question whether we need that part of the triad?

TRUMP: Yes. Yes, I think you need all three parts, but — but we have, much of what we have is obsolete. Now, Russia, if you look at what they’re doing, they’re building submarines, they’re going to a level. …

SANGER: You’ve been a little bit vague about what we’d do with ISIS other than bomb the hell out of them.

TRUMP: I don’t want to be specific because I don’t want ISIS to know what I’m planning. I do have ideas, very strong ideas on ISIS.

SANGER: Do any of them involve diplomacy, as opposed to — in other words, diplomacy in terms of getting Russia and others to help cut them off?

TRUMP: Oh, I would love to have a good relationship where Russia and I, instead of, and us, and the U.S., instead of fighting each other we got along. It would be wonderful if we had good relationships with Russia so that we don’t have to go through all of the drama.

SANGER: You would keep Assad there if he’s also fighting ISIS?

TRUMP: I don’t want to say that, I have a very specific view on Assad, but I think we have to get rid of ISIS before we get rid of Assad.

SANGER: So you agree with President Obama in that regard?

TRUMP: Look, Assad hates ISIS; ISIS hates Assad. They are fighting each other. We are supposed to go and fight them both? How do you fight them both when they are fighting each other? And I think that ISIS is a threat that’s much more important for us right now than Assad. You understand what I’m saying?


TRUMP: Because Assad and ISIS are fighting. Now we are going to go in and fight them both, because we have people that don’t know what they are doing. We have people that don’t know what they are doing. So I would get rid of ISIS, but I don’t want to fight at the same time.

The other thing you have is, is Assad is backed by a country that we made a power, O.K.? Iran. And Russia, O.K.? So why didn’t we do something about that before we made Iran rich, and before we gave them this tremendous power that they now have, that they didn’t have and shouldn’t have had?

SANGER: We haven’t given them very much right now.

TRUMP: Well, you’ve given them $150 billion.

SANGER: They’ve gotten a few billion. At this point, they’ve gotten a few billion.

TRUMP: They’re getting a lot of money. And they have an agreement that’s a terrible agreement in my opinion. It’s an agreement that will get them to nuclear quicker than had we had no agreement.

But that’s a different question. You asked me about Assad. So Assad is a bad man. Done horrible things. We have to get ISIS first, and you don’t want to fight them both at the same time when they are fighting each other. So I hope you treat me fairly. And I hope you say that I do know my subject. And I do know it. I know it better than, I know it better than the people that do it for ——

HABERMAN: We’re going to run a transcript — Let me ask you one quick question because I can’t not ask. Do you have anything more you want to say about either Meredith McIver or what happened this week?

TRUMP: No, it’s fine. I wanted to protect her. She’s been a person that’s been very good ——

HABERMAN: Protect Meredith?

TRUMP: Absolutely. But it was getting to a point where it didn’t make sense. Look at your story today. Give me a break. We are talking about ISIS. We are talking about Iran and Iraq and we are walking about and you put, the biggest story is about, the No. 1 story in The New York Times today is about this?

She was terrific. She’s a terrific woman, she’s been with us a long time and she just made the mistake. You saw her letter?


TRUMP: And she came and she said, “Mr. Trump, I’d like to say what happened.” I thought it was such a nice thing.

HABERMAN: When did she come to you yesterday?

TRUMP: Two days ago?

HABERMAN: She did?

TRUMP: Yeah.

HABERMAN: Right away? O.K.

TRUMP: Who knew this was going to be a big story? What I’m saying is, she came in after the speech. But she was, I thought that was very nice.

HABERMAN: And she offered and you said no?

TRUMP: Well, originally, but I didn’t know it was going to be a big story. She was more interested in, because Melania did a phenomenal job ——

HABERMAN: Her speech was very well received.

TRUMP: Very well received. And she was more interested in getting that straight, because she thought it was very unfair to Melania, who did a phenomenal job. And I’m glad, it was very nice that she did it. She offered her resignation. I said, “I really appreciate what you did.” I think it’s terrific that she came forward instead of me going to her and I said, “I won’t accept it,” and she was thrilled with that. She was happy with it.

HABERMAN: Is there anything you would do differently going forward with how speeches are handled?

TRUMP: Look, Obama copied a speech from Massachusetts. Joe Biden is famous for copying speeches. Obama had another one with Bush, I read it I think in your paper.

I’ve been reading about this stuff all my life. It happens, it can happen. In this case, it happened. You know the story. By the way, the letter cleared up everything, cleared up everything. The only thing is, if I had done it a day earlier it would have been better.

HABERMAN: It would have ended it ——

TRUMP: A day earlier, in retrospect. But I didn’t clear it up and people are giving, I think, everybody a lot of credit right now.

HABERMAN: What do you think people will take away from this convention? What are you hoping?

TRUMP: From the convention? The fact that I’m very well liked. Look, I got more votes than anybody in the history of the Republican Party. Almost 14 million votes. I got 37 states. Kasich has one.

As an example, Ted had, you know, not many. Thirty-seven states. Now, with the roll call, I had 44 states. It was 44 to seven and the seven was everybody else: 44 to seven. It was 44 to six because we are including the different islands. And when you are in that hall and you see those people, like yesterday, my daughter called up, she said, “Dad, I’ve never seen it — it’s total love.”

HABERMAN: Which daughter?

TRUMP: I don’t get love from the media. Instead of reporting like it is. But I think that people are starting to see what’s going on, because I really believe there’s a movement going on and it’s a movement based on common sense, it’s a movement based on law and order, it’s a movement based on compassion, based on a lot of different things. Based on trade.

SANGER: This is an America First day you are having out there.

TRUMP: Yeah.

SANGER: We talked about that a little bit at the last conversation. Does America First take on a different meaning for you now? Think about its historical roots.

TRUMP: To me, America First is a brand-new modern term. I never related it to the past.

SANGER: So it’s not what Lindbergh had in mind?

TRUMP: It’s just, no. In fact when I said America First, people said, “Oh, wait a minute, isn’t that a historical term?” And when they told me, I said: “Look, it’s America First. This is not ——”

SANGER: You were familiar with the history of the phrase.

TRUMP: I was familiar, but it wasn’t used for that reason. It was used as a brand-new, very modern term.

HABERMAN: What does it mean to you?

TRUMP: Meaning we are going to take care of this country first before we worry about everybody else in the world.

Note: If Trump can deliver on what he said regarding the Middle-East, he is a far better choice than Hillary who already has a set mind of hating all Arabs and people in this region.

A few excerpts of peoples opinions on Trump

Jonathan Cousar. September 30, 2015 ·

UNBELIEVABLE: This is the CRAZIEST thing I’ve seen in Religion since the pope was here last week!

So-called Evangelicals praying blessings on Trump and pleading with God to make him president!

They tell God he could bless America spiritually? What is it about this man that makes these false teachers think he, as a non-Christian could possibly bless America spiritually!?

(This is not what Biblical Christianity looks like. This is fake self-serving Christianity).

Apparently the people in the room don’t think God can hear their prayers unless half the people in the room are videoing them on their phones and uploading to the *cloud* – which is apparently where they think God resides!

Attending are the usual false teachers like David Jeremiah, Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, Robert Jeffress, Pastor Mark Burns and Rabbi Schneider.

Some “faith leaders” are so desperate for a seat at the king’s table, that they will prostitute themselves in this manner.

Trump really has them bamboozled into thinking he’s God’s man for the job of POTUS

Brian Murray shared this post

Mr. Trump as commander and Chief would force the military to obey his illegal orders. It is hard not to make the comparison to Hitler.

BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.

So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way.

They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.

This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you.

They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly…


… that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding?

We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.

BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?


TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?

TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening.

The wife knew exactly what was happening.

They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?

You must download and install the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player to view this content.




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,518,704 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: