We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AFTER A NIGHTMARE few days for the Trump campaign following the emergence of those ‘hot mic’ groping comments, it was no surprise that last night’s debate turned out to be an ill-tempered affair.
The Republican lashed out like a wounded animal early in the encounter – launching a blistering attack on Democrat Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former President.
“There’s never been anybody in the history of politics that has been so abusive to women,” Trump claimed, referring to Bill.
The two hadn’t shaken hands when they took to the stage in St Louis – setting the tone for what was a scrappy, bitter debate.
Which is why Donald Trump’s answer to one of the lighter questions of the night – the final one asked, in fact – surprised many viewers.
In spite of referring to her minutes earlier as “the Devil” and saying she had “tremendous hate in her heart”, he gave the following response when asked by an audience member to name one thing he respected about his opponent:
“I will say this about Hillary – she doesn’t quit,”
She doesn’t give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She’s a fighter. I disagree with much of what she’s fighting for. I disagree with her judgment in many cases. But she does fight hard and she doesn’t quit and she doesn’t give up and I consider that to be a very good trait.
The businessman’s response followed Clinton’s answer to the same question, in which she said she respected Trump’s children, who were watching from the audience.
His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald.
Surprisingly classy
The comments from Trump surprised many watching:
Jade Hyderman / TwitterThat last question was the best. Trump said something nice... Surprising #debate
— Jade Wankhruea (@Willy_Wankhruea) October 10, 2016
Rotus / TwitterGosh. I didn't expect #Trump to be that nice with that final question. What a surprising way to end the #debate
— Rotus (@Rotankwot) October 10, 2016
After all (direct accusations of being the actual Devil aside) the following quotes are more reflective of the the sort of thing he’s been saying about the Democrat in the last few months:
“Totally flawed.”
“ONE-HUNDRED-PER-CENT CONTROLLED.”
“No emotion.”
“Made a speech today using the biggest teleprompter I have ever seen.”
But, as we’re now well aware, Trump has been saying things (things about business, things about entertainment, inappropriate things, off-the-cuff things) for decades. On radio. On TV. Wherever he’s given the opportunity, essentially.
The property developer was a Democrat himself for years (he changed affiliation five times since registering as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987) so it’s hardly surprising that, during that time, he happened to say a few nice things about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
For example, back in 2008, during primary season, he said she’d make a very good president:
For his part, Obama said he’s just focused on winning the nomination although at least one member on his team said Clinton would make a good vice president. Well, I know her and she’d make a good president or good vice president.
He added:
A lot of people think a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton pairing would be a dream ticket in November, but for that to happen one of them has to be willing to serve as number two. Until that time, it’s going to be very interesting.
A year previously he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Clinton was “very talented” and had a husband “that I like very much”.
And in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump including a picture of Hillary with him and his sons. The caption describes her as “a wonderful woman who has handled pressure incredibly well”.
In the 2000s, Trump donated $4,100 to Clinton’s campaign for the Senate, according to Politifact. He also gave more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
ABC News / TwitterDonald Trump says his money drew Hillary Clinton to his wedding: "She had no choice..." http://t.co/kJol2TU0bE pic.twitter.com/uuuWocNhaq
— ABC News (@ABC) August 7, 2015
The wedding
If should be stated, though, the relationship hasn’t all been one way traffic.
Hillary and Bill were guests at Trump’s third marriage – to Melania – in Palm Beach, Florida in January 2005.
“I didn’t know him that well,” Clinton has said about their relationship more recently.
I thought it would be fun to go to his wedding because it’s always entertaining. Now that he’s running for president, it’s a little more troubling.
Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump, who are close in age and live near each other in New York, have also been friends.
‘Occasionally right’
A few months ago, the Clinton campaign put together a new web ad highlighting the various times Trump has praised the Democratic nominee.
“Donald Trump: occasionally right,” the tagline at the end reads.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I wonder if anybody has actually studied which countries actually pose or have posed the most serious threat to the US.
I won’t even ask if they know which countries actually carried out the largest terrorist attacks against the US and if they are on the list.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But Trump has businesses in those countries. He has no businesses in the countries he proposes to ban.
Even though they harbour and support terrorists?
Saudi Arabia -
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/what-we-know-about-saudi-arabias-role-in-911/amp/
The US have oil interests in Saudi, so unsurprisingly, not listed.
While undoubtedly a megalomaniac, the US defence contacts outweigh his personal interests, which is why these countries are off the list. His own families legacy and financial security is already set, and now that he has seen how he can raise military spending by tens of billions, he’ll start to grasping that power… even if it means Ivanka’s clothes don’t sell, her husband will still be at the heart of these new military contacts.
The seven countries on the list were identified by the Obama administration as the most likely sources of future terrorist attacks on US soil.
@Jason Culligan:
Great idea to forget the past and the schools and those that are financing them, that are bringing up new generations of terrorists and extremists.
Jason: How can they think pakistan poses no threat when they are using drones to kill terrorists in pakistan as we speak?
And an aggressive ban such as this will only serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise.
This ban is only to appease Trumps xenophobic followers, and won’t prevent any terrorism
@Jason Culligan: Lets talk about Iran ? What changes to the current visa programme will make America safer ? Thanks.
PS.Have the Homeland Security come out with a statement regards an imminent threat from these 7 countries ?
@Dave Harris What a lazy comparision to make : Well if the ban “serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise” Good . More drones to take them out then . So they must have been on the edge anyway
Any comment on the fact that Israeli Jews are banned from entering any of the countries on Trump’s proposed travel ban, and in most of these countries an Irish citizen would be banned from entering if they so much as have an Israeli exit / entry stamp on their Irish passport ? This has been the case for years and we’ve all been extremely quiet about it..
Well two wrongs do make a right I suppose.
@Karen Wellington: For the record Karen I don’t agree with any travel ban that is based on nationality or race – the concept of singling out people based on the colour of their passport is disgusting to me. However, I do recognise the hypocrisy in social media commentary in this country, where being anti-Israeli seems to be acceptable but being anti Iranian is horribly racist..
Countries can decide who comes in, or not – for any reason.
How is it wrong to impose restrictions on visas from countries you’re not friendly with. Israel have been known to assassinate individuals in other countries. They done so not too long ago using fake Irish passports. While you won’t stop that it seems silly to just let them wonder in.
Maybe because israel is doing pretty evil shit
@Awkward Seal: For the same reason that the UK didn’t impose a blanket ban on Irish citizens entering their country during the ’60s, ’70s & ’80s – they knew that we weren’t all intent on bombing their pubs and that most of us are law abiding and sensible people, so they allowed entry but carried out security checks. Blanket bans based on nationality is racist, uncivilised and downright unfair.
Unfair, maybe – but security and safety are more information than fairness. Every state has the right to dictate who visits, or doesn’t – do you actually think otherwise?
@willypearson: I agree, as are Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Sudan, Somalia – and don’t forget UK, Russia, Japan, Australia, France, USA, Korea, China… My point is that the Irish seem to be blinkered and single out Jewish Israel over all others.
Every country develops such policies based on the standards of the country. In the US this ban had previously been argued against as unconstitutional. If you have a constitution you pass laws that are not in conflict with it.
A blanket ban on a nation isn’t racist as it doesn’t specifically target race. If the UK were to impose a blanket ban on Irish travelling to the UK they would have been justified as it would have cut down on the number of terrorists attacks. However there is a cost-benefit analysis to such a move that would make it not worth it in most cases. If it’s unfair so what. No country is obliged to be fair to the citizens of other countries. If they don’t want to be discriminated against because of the passport they hold they should try to reform their counties so that the state doesn’t sponsor terrorism. Civilisation is based on rules. Every country in the world limits the number of people that are allowed to enter and citizens of different countries are treated differently. Some can enter for as long as they wish, some may only apply for certain visas and stay a limited amount of time and the number of visas allocated to different countries varies too. So basically every country in the world is unfairly discriminating based on nationality. So your whole argument is nonsense unless you’re advocating for open borders worldwide.
This is for s h i t s ville but seems to have posted to the wrong place
Trump is right.
@John Henry: Trump is infallible and all seeing. Trump is God. Bow down and worship our great leader. Let him rule the planet and the skies. His wisdom is infinite.
@Tony Daly: Hes not that great Tony but we get your point. Long live King Trump!
There’s a lot more scrutiny of major decisions – in the US – than here…
@Fank Pulman: you raise a very interesting but provocative point.
Politicians around the world are loving this Trump circus – all sorts of crafty shenanigans can be done under the distractions
It sounds like they have no legal leg to stand on. If Trump said the sky was blue there’d be protests on the street calling him racist against the sky.
Except that trumps is more likely to say that the sky is green.
The usual Democrat state’s running in to court going nowhere on this occasion
Trump is such a unifying President. He is coherent the US nation. He should be made honorary Chairman of FG.
Your second sentence is gibberish, and your point is childish…
@Jason Culligan: Red herring
have your say