Video: Chris Matthews Tried To Corner Trump After Debate- Donald REFUSED To Play Along (It Got Awkward)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews tried to force Donald Trump to address his past questioning of President Obama’s birth place following Tuesday night’s debate, but the billionaire candidate refused to play along.

Trump sat down with Matthews in the spin room to discuss the debate, and as the interview was wrapping up, the Hardball host said, “I want to ask you a last question before you leave.”  

“You can leave, but I’d like you to stay,” Matthews continued. “Is Donald Trump honest when he says that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president? This is a good question.”

“I should not tell you this, but I do watch you a lot,” the candidate responded. “So I knew you were going to ask that question. And you know what I’ll say: I don’t talk about that anymore.”

Trump was among those who called into question earlier in the decade whether Obama was actually born in the United States, and therefore eligible to be president.

Matthews would not let the subject go, badgering the candidate regarding the subject.

“You know the problem talking about that question?” Trump asked Matthews, “Here’s the story. I don’t answer because you know what? If I do answer, that’s all people want to talk about.”

“You’re going to take the oath of office and [believe] the president leaving the office is illegitimate?” the Hardball host pressed.

“I don’t answer that question because once I answer the question, they don’t want to talk about the economy, they don’t want to talk about all the other” issues, Trump replied.

Do you support Donald Trump? Like the page:

“We Catholics believe in confession: You say you were wrong and you move on. You really believe this guy is an illegitimate president?” Matthews asked again.

Trump did not budge: “I don’t want to answer the question.” He turned to Matthews, “Did you have a good time? Was it a good interview?”

Matthews said, “You’re a mixed bag. I’m allowed to say that.”

“I understand” the mogul responded. He shook Matthews’ hand and parted with, “You take care of yourself, great show.”

The MSNBC host had kind words to say about Trump on his program on Monday night, remarking, “He’s a guy who spent his life putting up these big buildings. I’m still impressed. I’m one of these kids who still looks…I’m in New York and go, ‘Wow, he built that, he built this, he built this.’”

The billionaire candidate reached out via Twitter to thank Matthews.

Watch: MSNBC Host Wants You To Call Terrorists These Two Words Instead Of ‘Animals’

A number of prominent Democrats have been criticized for their refusal to identify radical Islamic terrorism in terms stark enough for their Republican detractors. As MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently revealed on air, however, there are further rhetorical limits he advises Americans to place on themselves when describing terrorists.

“I mean, call them what they are,” he said, “—bad people.”

Matthews then went on to chide Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie for referring to Islamic extremists with one particular word.

“But what’s this ‘animal’ thing that Christie’s throwing around?” he wondered.

The divisive host also went after surging GOP hopeful Ted Cruz for his foreign policy proposals regarding the war on terror.

“I mean, when you hear carpet bombing,” Matthews said, “there’s no way to hear that from Cruz without knowing a lot of regular people that just happen to live in those geographical areas will die because you’re carpet bombing.”

At least one notable figure vying for the Republican presidential nomination is apparently still a big fan of Matthews despite his many attacks on conservatives.

The glowing Twitter endorsement did not sit well with a number of Republicans.

h/t: TheBlaze

Democrats And Socialists – A Distinction Without A Difference

Sometimes what’s not said in response to a direct inquiry is more noteworthy than what is said. When the chairman of the Democrat National Committee was asked recently what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was, she sidestepped the issue and went a totally divergent direction. It would have provided a valuable service if she’d answered the question directly; for there seems to be no substantive distinction.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The DNC chairman started to laugh, so Matthews tried again. “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think?” Wasserman-Schultz started to sidestep the issue again, so Matthews tried a third time. “Yeah, but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.” Intentionally avoiding Matthew’s question, she responded, “The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican.” Her dogmatically superficial and fallacious explication ensued.

A little later, NBC’s Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press, asked the same question, which she responded to very similarly, choosing to answer a question not asked. But when the Matthews interview is looked at contextually, she may have already answered the question when she called Bernie Sanders “a good Democrat.”

That’s a significant statement even at face value; for Bernie Sanders, the junior senator from Vermont and a Democrat candidate for president, is a self-avowed socialist. He’s officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them 98% of the time, according to Socialistworker.org.

The significance increases further when Sanders’ burgeoning popularity in the Democrat presidential polls is analyzed. Having started out in single-digit support just two months ago, Sanders has significantly reduced frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s lead. In Sanders’ neighboring state of New Hampshire, one of the early voting states, Sanders now leads Clinton by 7%. Considering only 38% of Americans feel Clinton is “trustworthy,” it’s surprising the former Secretary of State has any lead in any polls, anywhere.

Sanders is attracting larger campaign crowds than any of the other presidential candidates. Last week, he attracted nearly 28,000 in Los Angeles, 28,000 in Portland, Oregon, and over 15,000 in Seattle.

When looking at his proposals, it’s difficult to identify any substantive differences from mainstream Democrat Party doctrine. Sanders is pushing for universal single-payer health care; supports redistribution of wealth; advocates “free” college; fosters an antipathy toward corporations and “big business”; wants military spending cut by 50%; opposes natural resource development for energy; advocates government control and solutions for all economic or cultural challenges; and emphasizes egalitarianism rather than merit and achievement.

These tenets fit comfortably under the socialist umbrella, which, in general terms, is “An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. While capitalism is based on a price system, profit and loss and private property rights, socialism is based on bureaucratic central planning and collective ownership,” according to Investopedia.

There are some distinctions that should be made, however. The American variety of socialism (liberalism and progressivism) has a democratic component that doesn’t require a revolution, as many of the European and Asian models featured, but rather relies upon a democratic vote to incorporate. This necessitates the means to organize communities and proliferate propaganda, in order to effect electoral change. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals rose in direct response to that need, as a playbook for societal polarization and proliferation of socialist objectives. And perhaps not coincidentally, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on the Alinsky model; and President Obama taught it as a community organizer and has implemented it to perfection nationally.

Jason Riley, a Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow, wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week: “Mr. Sanders’s socialism appeals mainly to upper-middle-class professionals and fits neatly within the parameters of mainstream, income-inequality-obsessed Democratic politics in the 21st century. He may have an affinity for a political ideology that has given the world everything from the Soviet Gulag to modern-day Greece, but in this age of Obama, the senator is just another liberal with a statist agenda.”

Founded in individual liberty, America has always been the one nation under heaven where equality of opportunity has taken precedence over equality of outcome. The whole concept of the “American Dream” is based on the individual freedom to become, to achieve, to build, sell, and succeed. This requires individual freedom (which is diminished proportionate to expanded governmental power) and a free market economy (not centralized planning, or government control over the means of production). Consequently, socialism is philosophically, morally, and pragmatically antithetical to American values. Deductively, it is clearly anti-American.

Which brings us back to the chairman of the DNC. With the apparent inability to make any substantive distinction between the major tenets of socialism and the contemporary Democrat Party, it’s perfectly understandable that Wasserman-Shultz would not attempt to note any contradistinction. For as Riley observed in his WSJ piece, “These days, it’s largely a distinction without a difference.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Stunned MSNBC Host Can’t Even Tell The Time After Carly Cleans His Clock

In the early Republican presidential debate on Thursday — the one dubbed by some as the “happy hour” debate or the pre-game show at the “kids’ table” — there was one candidate of the seven on the Fox News stage who was singled out by many observers and analysts as the clear winner. That contender was the lone woman in the GOP group — the presidential hopeful who’s said to be very impressive in person on the campaign trail, but who hasn’t yet managed to show well in national polling — the former head of HP, Carly Fiorina.

While all seven of the so-called “lower tier” candidates handled themselves well and could be credited with respectable showings, it was Fiorina who dazzled the pundits and the people with her clear-eyed confidence and quick command of the issues. Analysts praised her performance after the 5 p.m. debate and social media was abuzz — some might say ablaze — with kudos for Carly.

A post on HotAir described the tweet-astic response to Fiorina’s masterful showing by noting that “conservative Twitter’s in the grip of a full-blown case of Carlymania as I write this.”

Outside the Cleveland auditorium where the debate was held on Thursday, Fiorina took a few moments to speak with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, host of Hardball. In the space of less than four minutes, Carly knocked it out of the park as she explained in no uncertain terms why she calls Hillary Clinton a liar. Matthews tried to defend the Democrat front-runner for the party’s 2016 nod, but Fiorina aptly demonstrated why she was declared the champ in the “happy hour” debate as she took Hillary apart, point by point.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the segment that left the lefty Chris Matthews so stunned. Many political analysts are now predicting Carly Fiorina will move up to the “adults’ table” in future GOP debates.

What do you think? Did Carly Fiorina walk away — or even run away — with the first GOP debate Thursday?

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: She Gets Asked The One Question A Democrat NEVER Wants To Hear, And It Gets Awkward…

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s face began to turn the color of her dress when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews threw her off-script, busted her for trying to spout tired talking points, and insisted that she answer a question that put her in an awkward spot for which she obviously wasn’t prepared.

Wasserman-Schultz, the Florida representative who serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was pressed by the clearly frustrated host of Hardball to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. The discussion on Thursday night’s show related to Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who’s gaining traction in his challenge to Hillary Clinton for the party’s 2016 nomination for president.

As TheBlaze notes in its coverage of the tense exchange: “Matthews first began questioning Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) on whether presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist, would be given a slot on primetime to speak at the Democratic National Convention.”

Matthews kept after Wasserman-Schultz until she finally blurted out an answer – you’d have thought he had a GOP spokesperson on the hot seat. But then the interview came close to going off the rails entirely when Matthews — a long-time Democrat loyalist who used to be chief of staff for House Speaker Tip O’Neill — insisted on getting an answer to his question:

What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?

That’s when Debbie tried to play dodgeball on the show called Hardball. By clicking on the video above, you can see for yourself how the interview took on a decidedly downhill course.

What do you think the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth