Did anyone see Trump on "60 Minutes"?

Yeah, I actually watched the whole thing and lived to tell about it. And I also realized what his domicile reminds me of: A Third World tinhorn dictator who acquires massive wealth through corruption, while his (or possibly her) minions live in dire poverty.

Wow, really activated my almonds. Guess #I’mwithher now.


The part where the whole Trump family appeared together reminded me of photos of the al-Assad family.

I thought Stahl was very disrespectful. Could have asked the same pointed questions without the attitude.

I don’t see a thread for this, and it may end up in The Pit.

Who else watched, and what is your opinion? I thought Leslie Stahl did a good job of holding Trump’s feet to the fire, and Trump did a fair job of trying to dodge the obvious. But despite his attempt to be calm and reasonable, I came away with the conviction that a lot of what has been accomplished in the last 50 years regarding civil rights and women’s rights is in serious jeopardy.

The segment where he claimed to be surprised about recent violence against minorities was disingenuous in the extreme, as he is the one who incited it and encouraged it during his campaign. Blaming the media was a disgusting attempt to redirect blame.

I laughed out loud at Melania’s answer to which cause she would be undertaking: her answer was “bullying”. Too close to the forest to see the giant tree sitting next to her, I guess.

His response about women’s rights, etc., is that he will appoint judges who are pro-life and pro-guns, and that abortions should be a states issue. When Stahl pointed out that it would leave a lot of women without access, his answer was a shrug and a comment to the effect that they could go to another state. Sort of like telling starving people to “move to where the food is”.

I also got a strong vibe from Ivanka. Her careful answers sounded a lot like someone who may run for office.

Interesting fact: humans can only go 4 days without water but up to 3 weeks without an abortion.

I’m curious how many people will buy into the dichotomy of his catering to big business and jobs STILL bleeding out of the country. What fact-free rationalization will he come up for that in 2020?

I did not, and the third presidential debate may mark the last time I voluntarily watched Trump in anything. I will be relying heavily on transcripts and third-party commentary to keep my emesis under control over the next few years.

Krugman’s op-ed in the NYT this morning predicted that the market will continue to show improvement for possibly the next two years or so, but that since corporations are more likely to sit on the windfall tax breaks, rather than create any significant jobs, and given Trump’s desire for an isolationist trade policy, there is going to be a reckoning in the next four years that will have a ripple effect for the following decade.

I watched it. Trump tried to be conciliatory and nonthreatening, but the implications of many of his answers didn’t seem to occur to him. He answers off the top of his head and never thinks things through. Stahl did a good job of following to try to get details.

Some were encouraging – he won’t repeal Obamacare unless something is put in its place, which is better than the Republican position to repeal it first and then worry about a replacement eventually when they get around to it.

Others were disturbing, like when he thought it would be OK if Roe v Wade was repealed because people could go to states where abortion is legal (forgetting, perhaps, the most people don’t have private jets to travel when and where they want).

As with everything, the devil is in the details, and Trump has never been interested in details. His management style is to give vague instructions (“Make it look classy and great!”) and no feedback until the project is far along, where he’ll say either, “I love it; you’re a genuis” or “It stinks; you’re disgraceful.”

I don’t see anything other than a disaster for America from him, but with luck, we can minimize the damage.

Just tryin’ to help.

There’s a thread here:


Is this the same Krugman that said the markets would “never” recover from a President-Elect Trump? If so, I might read his predictions with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I watched it. I was both more impressed with him and annoyed by Stahl than I would have expected at the outset.

Of course, I don’t really mind if Roe v Wade gets overturned, so the more apocalyptic consequences of Trump winning the election that liberals are seeing probably don’t really phase me much.

Yes, and he immediately retracted it. At least he’s honest.

Well, he’s a con man through and through, so consider yourself suckered. Roe v Wade is settled law, and he didn’t say he was going after that decision directly. Instead, he wants abortion left up to the states, which basically means they can shut down abortion clinics until lawyers can sue and get the state laws repealed.

And the word is ‘faze’, not ‘phase’.

Merged thread from MPSIMS.


It’s settled law until a future court unsettles it.

CBS apparently ran other clips in advance of the interview but not that. One wonders why CBS was apparently not all that anxious to see Trump quell this kind of behavior. Killing two birds with one stone, I guess: damaging to Trump even if people get hurt in the process; more ability to portray Trump’s supporters, minuscule in numbers though they may be, as violent, racist jerks.

ETA: Cite

Fox News for a cite? Breitbart didn’t have anything? They’re legit now, you know, since Bannon the Pork Cannon is part of Trump’s Elite.

Anyway, its CBS’ fault for not amplifying him toning down the shit he never should have said in the first place? Well, OK. Works for you, I guess. Did you notice the part where she asked him if he regretted any of the things he said? And he said, no, because he won? Is this the standard of behavior and morality you want to stress?