Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s confrontation with famous Latino journalist Jorge Ramos, explained

Scott Olson/Getty Images

VOX Explainers

On Tuesday, Donald Trump had his security detail physically eject Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a press conference for shouting questions at Trump without being called on.

Trump’s people eventually let Ramos back into the press conference, and the two engaged in a long back-and-forth over Trump’s immigration proposals and his appeal to Hispanics. But the initial confrontation, and the image of Trump shouting “Go back to Univision!” as a member of his staff hustled a prominent Latino journalist out of the room, struck a nerve with Trump critics.

Instead of rallying around a fellow member of the press, however, many journalists have sided if not with Trump, then certainly against Ramos. At best, they say, Ramos was being inappropriate and disrespectful. At worst, he’s a “conflict junkie” (as the Washington Post’s Michael E. Miller wrote) who was “pretending to be bullied” by Trump (as Mika Brzezinski said on MSNBC).

Ramos is arguably the most influential journalist in the Spanish-language press, if not the most influential Latino journalist period. So anything he does is going to matter to a certain segment of Latinos, and, increasingly, he’s getting the attention of the mainstream media ecosystem as well. But a lot of traditional political journalists beginning to pay attention to Jorge Ramos are surprised or put off by what they find. His style — and his conception (shared with a lot of other Spanish-language journalists and media outlets) of what journalism ought to be — differs from the traditional values of political journalism. This isn’t the first time Ramos has confronted a politician, and it won’t be the last, but the confrontation with Trump is bringing the culture clash between his vision of journalism and traditional journalistic “objectivity” to the surface.

Jorge Ramos is probably the most influential Latino journalist in America

Jorge Ramos is the co-anchor of Univision’s nightly newscast, Noticiero Univision, and the host of its Sunday political talk show, Al Punto — the first Spanish-language show in the genre of Meet the Press and This Week.

Both of Ramos’s Univision shows pull in fewer viewers than their major-network counterparts (and they shrank from 2013 to 2014), but they’re often competitive among what’s called “the demo”: adults 25 to 54, who are the key target for advertisers. As of November 2014, Noticiero Univision was beating CBS’s Evening News regularly among viewers 25 to 54.

Those numbers are enough to get media pundits to sit up and take notice — not to mention politicians, who are eager to reach out to the fast-growing Latino vote. If you’re a politician looking to do an interview with a Spanish-language media outlet (even if you don’t speak Spanish), Ramos (and his co-anchor María Elena Salinas) are probably very high on your list.

But Ramos’s influence goes way beyond his active viewership, because he’s the most recognizable journalist in the Spanish-language press — and often a de facto spokesperson for Latinos. Republican strategist Matthew Dowd compares him to Walter Cronkite. In 2010, when the Pew Research Center asked Latinos to identify a “national Latino leader,” Ramos was the only journalist whose name came up (though he was named by only 2 percent of respondents, and most Latinos didn’t name anyone).

Ramos has certainly cultivated this image — he’s a self-promoter, to be sure. But the “voice of the Latino community” is also an attitude that informs his approach to journalism — and the approach that his network, and many other Latino-centered outlets, also take.

It helps to think of the Ramos approach as service journalism, but for politics. In his eyes (and the eyes of like-minded Latino journalists) the point of their work is to keep Latino voters informed about the issues that matter most to them, and to make sure they know who’s looking out for their interests and who isn’t.

Ramos has been going after Donald Trump for some time

Ramos is closely identified not just with Latinos in general, but with the issue of immigration in particular. He portrays it as an issue that’s deeply personal to him because it’s deeply personal to his viewers. (He’s right: polls do show that Latino voters often know unauthorized immigrants, and that they see some anti-immigrant rhetoric as anti-Latino.)

Ramos has made a point of challenging politicians on immigration both in individual interviews and in his punditry. For the first several years of the Obama administration, a lot of his fire was trained on the president, for breaking his campaign promise to pass immigration reform (a promise Obama made most prominently on Ramos’s show) and deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year. But at present, he’s reserving his deepest scorn for Republicans. He generated some buzz last summer by calling out John Boehner during a press conference for his lack of initiative in passing immigration reform.

And this summer, he is extremely concerned about Donald Trump. “Right now Donald Trump is, no question, the loudest voice of intolerance, hatred, and division in the United States,” Ramos said on his English-language show America With Jorge Ramos on Fusion. He conveys a feeling that isn’t uncommon among politically aware Latinos right now: that Trump’s disrespect for immigrants — from calling them rapists and murderers to advocating for the deportation of their families — is an existential threat to Latinos in a way politics usually isn’t. Ramos has called Trump’s rhetoric “dangerous,” and he’s not speaking metaphorically.

At the same time, he’s repeatedly asked Trump for an interview. For most journalists, this would be strange — if Trump is stirring up hate, why would you give him a platform? — but for Ramos, it makes sense: An interview would give him the chance to push back against Trump directly.

But Trump and his campaign have shown no interest in engaging. Trump is embroiled in a$500 million lawsuit against Univision, for dropping coverage of his Miss Universe pageant after the “rapists” comments, and he’s used Ramos as an opportunity to mock the network. In June, when he got a letter from Ramos asking him for an interview, he posted it on Instagram — including Ramos’s cellphone number.

Tuesday’s showdown confirmed each side’s opinions of the other

On Tuesday, Ramos took the Trump press conference as an opportunity to confront the candidate anyway. Without being called on — which is the typical etiquette for in-person press briefings — he started shouting questions at Trump. “Sit down, you weren’t called,” Trump replied. When Ramos didn’t stop, a Trump staffer physically ejected him, as Trump said, “Go back to Univision!”

In the hallway outside the press conference, in a video captured by Univision, a Trump supporter greeted Ramos, who’s a US citizen, with, “Get out of my country. Get out, it’s not about you. You were very rude.” (A Trump staffer ultimately allowed Ramos to reenter the press conference to ask his question, provided he did so calmly.)

Continue reading here>>>

Dara Lind

Donald Trump’s New Fan: Former KKK Leader David Duke


The latest well-known personality to reveal that he’s a fan of Donald Trump and his crazed xenophobic message: former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.

“I praise the fact that he’s come out on the immigration issue. I’m beginning to get the idea that he’s a good salesman. That he’s an entrepreneur and he has a good sense of what people want to hear what they want to buy,” said Duke on his radio program last week after noting that he had previously been critical of Trump’s run.

“And I think he realizes that his path to popularity toward power in the Republican Party is talking about the immigration issue. And he has really said some incredibly great things recently. So whatever his motivation, I don’t give a damn. I really like the fact that he’s speaking out on this greatest immediate threat to the American people.”

Of course, this makes perfect sense; it’s exactly the audience Trump is aiming for. But Duke’s support for Trump isn’t whole-hearted; he thinks The Donald still has too many “deep Jewish connections” to be really trustworthy.

Univision chief lambasts Trump for Ramos ouster



Univision’s Randy Falco, president and C.E.O. of the Hispanic-American news organization, had strong words for GOP candidate Donald Trump following his altercation with Univision reporter Jorge Ramos.

“The recent treatment that Jorge Ramos received at Mr. Trump’s press conference in Iowa is beneath contempt,” the statement begins.

“As a Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump is going to get tough questions from the press and has to answer them. Jorge Ramos is one the most professional, dedicated and respected journalists I have seen or worked with in my 40 years in media. He always asks hard questions of candidates and elected officials, regardless of party or issue. Mr. Trump demonstrated complete disregard for him and for the countless Hispanics whom Jorge seeks to represent through press questions that are at the heart of the First Amendment. I remain grateful for the first-rate journalistic work that Jorge and all of his news colleagues at Univision and Fusion do to bring all points of view to the 57 million Hispanics in this country.”

On Tuesday evening, Trump ejected Ramos from a press conference in Iowa after the anchor tried to ask Trump questions despite not being called on. A security guard escorted Ramos from the room, but about ten minutes later he was let back in and engaged in a five minute back and forth with Ramos over his immigration ideas.

“The only thing I wanted to do was to ask a question,” Ramos said in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “I followed my turn. Two reporters before me asked their questions and then I said I have a question on immigration and no one else said anything … I followed the rules and he just didn’t like the questions.”

Ramos said Trump’s ideas and words on immigration and freedom of the press are “dangerous” and “extreme,” and noted he had never been kicked out of a press conference before.

“Those are the things that you see in dictatorships not in the United States of America,” Ramos said. “It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t like it there are questions that need to be answered.”

Trump Calls Martin O’Malley A ‘Disgusting Little Weak Pathetic Baby’ For Recognizing Black Lives Matter


There is no question who Donald Trump recognizes as his base: Extreme right-wing bigots.  Possibly cut from the same cloth as “The Donald” himself?

Let’s face it, Trump was big on the “Birther” theories.   President Obama paid homage to the Birther movement recently, on his trip to Kenya:

“I suspect some of my critics back home are suggesting I’m back here to look for my birth certificate,” he said VIDEO


Appearing on Fox News over the weekend, Donald Trump admitted to being completely ignorant about the Black Lives Matter movement. “I know nothing about it,” the billionaire real estate developer said.

Of course, his lack of knowledge didn’t prevent him from harshly criticizing the effort. Trump said that he’s “seeing lot of bad stuff about it right now.” He said Martin O’Malley, a contender for the Democratic nomination, was a “disgusting little weak pathetic baby” for apologizing to Black Lives Matter activists earlier this year.

Despite his professed lack of knowledge, this isn’t the first time Trump has been critical of efforts to protest police brutality against African Americans. In response to the demonstrations in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, Trump said that “our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are happily and openly destroying Baltimore.”

Historically, Trump has claimed a more positive relationship with the African-American community. “I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump said in 2011.


Trump Orders Bodyguards To Throw Hispanic Reporter Out Of Press Conference: ‘Go Back To Univision’



At a press conference Tuesday in Iowa, Donald Trump had his bodyguards forcibly remove Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from the room. As Ramos continues to try to ask his question, Trump’s bodyguard pushes him out of the room.

Later, Trump allowed Romos back into the room and allowed him to ask a question. Ramos asked Trump how he was going to build a 1,900 mile wall. “Very easy, I’m a builder,” Trump said.

Trump is currently suing Univision for $500 million after the network dropped coverage of his beauty pageants. Univision severed the relationship in protest of Trump’s disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants.

In a statement released after the press conference, Univision President Isaac Lee said, “We’d love for Mr. Trump to sit down for an in-depth interview with Jorge to talk about the specifics of his proposals.”

A recent poll showed Trump has a negative 51 net favorability rating among Hispanics.


The GOP’s Birthright Citizenship Flip-Flop



Republicans are divided on birthright citizenship, one of their party’s greatest achievements.

Birthright citizenship has split the GOP presidential field. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, fellow Republican presidential hopefuls Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and even longtime immigration reform advocate Lindsey Graham have said they support ending the practice. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have been the most vocally opposed.

This didn’t used to be such a difficult issue for Republicans. After all, it was the GOP that wrote birthright citizenship into America’s constitution. The leaders of the 1866 Republican Party—the Party of Lincoln—were staunch supporters of the idea. Indeed, birthright citizenship was central to the Republican vision for post-Civil War America, and a key dividing line between the supporters of President Andrew Johnson and those of the Republican leadership in Congress.

Birthright citizenship had long been the traditional rule in the United States—one rooted in the English common law and adopted by many colonies and early states. Citizenship was acquired by soil rather than bloodline—subject to a few well-established exceptions, such as for the children of foreign diplomats or invading armies. But various Southern courts in antebellum America chose to diverge from this tradition in certain cases, allowing their states to deny birthright citizenship to those they deemed unworthy, such as African Americans.

This Southern “tradition”—fueled by white supremacy—was reinforced by the opinions of certain pro-slavery Attorneys General and ultimately codified in the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, authored by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, himself a former pro-slavery Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson. In Dred Scott, Taney concluded that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens even if they were born free on American soil.

During Reconstruction, one of the Republican Party’s central goals was to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee equal citizenship for everyone born on American soil. President Lincoln signaled this move early in his administration through an 1862 opinion by his Attorney General, Edward Bates. Replying to a request by Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, Bates defended birthright citizenship for African Americans, explaining, “You and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than ‘the accident of birth.’” After the Civil War, congressional Republicans followed Bates’ (and Lincoln’s) lead.

By late 1865, Lincoln’s promise of a “new birth of freedom” was very much in doubt. Following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, President Johnson had pardoned thousands of Confederate officials and plantation owners. More troubling, he deferred to the Southern states on how best to rebuild their societies, leaving them free to enact the Black Codes, which sharply limited the civil rights of the newly freed slaves.

With the ex-rebels gaining political strength and an important midterm election looming the following fall, congressional Republicans quickly settled on a potent one-two punch. First, they would pass a civil rights bill that would counter the Black Codes and secure important protections for the newly freed slaves. Second, they would push for a constitutional amendment that would establish constitutional baselines for post-Civil War America. At the center of both of these measures was a key principle—birthright citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard, a radical Republican from Michigan, was at the center of this political fight. He helped to draft and pass the Thirteenth Amendment, ending slavery. He also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and supported the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Most importantly, when Senator William Pitt Fessenden—Chair of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction—fell ill, Howard took over as the chief spokesperson for the Fourteenth Amendment, which was to establish the laws governing citizenship.

In this new role, Howard introduced the measure before a packed Senate gallery on May 23, 1866—a speech that was published on the front pages of various newspapers, including the New York Times and the New York Herald. While Howard explained quite well the “privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizenship that would be protected by the proposed amendment, the draft amendment did not yet define how one became a citizen in the first place. Was it by virtue of birth or blood? A product of national policy or state prerogative? And, what would happen if the Republican Party fell out of power and the supporters of the Old Confederacy took over the federal government?

A week later, Howard rose in the Senate and proposed an answer to these questions—the Citizenship Clause, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment today as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This provision echoed similar language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, approved by Congress a mere two months earlier over President Johnson’s veto.

Through this new clause, Howard sought to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee equal citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil. Howard conceded that there were small groups that would be excluded, consistent with well-established law, such as the children of foreign diplomats and certain Native American tribes. However, Howard was clear about the core purpose of the new Clause: “to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of . . . gentlemen . . . who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.”

Fair enough. But what did this new provision mean for the U.S.-born children of resident immigrants—Trump’s main concern? Quite a bit. While the Citizenship Clause was paradigmatically about African Americans, the clause’s text and history confirm that it was about much more than that—namely, equal citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of race, color or parental origin.

Opponents of the Citizenship Clause expressed anxieties about the effects of the clause on the U.S.-born children of unpopular immigrant populations, such as the Chinese out west and the Gypsies in the east, with Senator Edgar Cowan—a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania—using especially unflattering rhetoric to describe the Gypsies as “people who invade [Pennsylvania’s] borders; . . . who pay no taxes; . . . and who do nothing, . . . but . . . settle as trespassers wherever they go.”

In the face of Cowan’s tough rhetoric, supporters of birthright citizenship stood their ground. For instance, Senator John Conness of California—a naturalized citizen from Ireland—replied that he supported citizenship for “the children . . . of Chinese parents” and the “children of all parentage whatever,” born in California. Leading Republicans such as Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull—a moderate Republican from Illinois and sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1866—expressed similar sentiments during the debates over the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment—including the Citizenship Clause—on June 13, 1866. And the Fourteenth Amendment was finally ratified by “We the People” on July 9, 1868.

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the Republican Party’s greatest achievements. With it, Republicans continued to write Lincoln’s promise of “a new birth of freedom” into our Constitution and lead a Second Founding of our republic. Birthright citizenship was a key part of the Republican program. Before resolving to eliminate it through constitutional amendment (as some propose) or simply read it out of our Constitution (as Donald Trump suggests), it’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the important place that this concept has in our nation’s constitutional story.

Trump to O’Reilly: 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

NEW YORK - MAY 15: Donald Trump watches from the stands along with news commentator Bill O'Reilly during the game between the New York Yankees and Minnesota Twins at Yankee Stadium on May 15, 2009 in the Bronx borough of New York City. The Yankees defeated the Twins 5-4. (Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)

(Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)


Donald Trump clashed with Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday night over the part of his immigration plan that would take away citizenship from the children who were born in the United States but whose parents came to the country illegally.

Under the 14th Amendment, O’Reilly told Trump on “The O’Reilly Factor,” mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen.

Trump disagreed, and said that “many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this.”

“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.

“Regardless, when people are illegally in the country, they have to go. Now, the good ones — there are plenty of good ones — will work, so it’s expedited, we can expedite it where they come back in, but they come back legally,” Trump clarified.

O’Reilly then asked Trump if he envisions “federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country dragging families out and putting them on a bus” as a means to deport everyone he intends to deport.

“I don’t think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — some would disagree. But many of them agree with me — you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country,” Trump said.

There is a way to do it, O’Reilly said, in amending the Constitution.

Trump also said that he would not pursue an amendment to the Constitution to remedy the situation.

“It’s a long process, and I think it would take too long. I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don’t think they are,” he said. “We’re going to test it out. That’s going to happen, Bill.”

Donald Trump’s Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk

Dennis Van Tine/UPPA via ZUMA Press


The tycoon decries the US invasion of Iraq but embraces one of its architects.

Donald Trump regularly boasts that he was opposed to the Iraq War. On Meet the Press this past weekend, he said, “And, as you know, for years I’ve been saying, ‘Don’t go into Iraq.’ They went into Iraq. They destabilized the Middle East. It was a big mistake.” In July, he reportedly told a conservative group in Hollywood that instead of invading Iraq the United States “should have invaded Mexico.” And he’s been consistent on this point for years. In a 2004 interview with Esquire, Trump dumped on the Bush-Cheney crowd for initiating a dumb war:

Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!

So here’s the puzzle: Why would Trump pick one of the lead cheerleaders for the Iraq War to be a top foreign policy adviser?

In that Meet the Press interview, host Chuck Todd asked Trump to identify his “go-to” experts for national security matters. Trump said he “probably” had two or three. Todd pressed the tycoon for names, and the first one Trump mentioned was John Bolton, the George W. Bush administration’s ambassador to the United Nations. “He’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about,” Trump said. (He also named retired Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC military analyst.)

Bolton has long been one of the most hawkish of all the neoconservative hawks. He was part of the Bush-Cheney crew that claimed Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction and that war was the only option. As a top State Department official prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Bolton pushed the false claims that Iraq had obtained aluminum tubes and uranium for its supposed nuclear weapons program. He was also a supporter of a conspiracy theorist named Laurie Mylroie who contended that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Before Bush launched the Iraq War, Bolton predicted that “the American role actually will be fairly minimal.” (In 1997, he was one of several conservatives who wrote to President Bill Clinton and urged him to attack Saddam.)

Not surprisingly, Bolton has stuck to the position that the Iraq invasion was the right move. In May, he said, “I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for an explanation of Trump’s reliance on Bolton’s advice.

Bolton, who flirted with the notion of running for president in 2016, has a long history of extreme positions. In 2009, he noted that the only way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would be an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran—an option he seemed to endorse. In 2012, he backed then-Rep. Michele Bachmann’s call for an investigation of members of Congress supposedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood plot to infiltrate the US government. This past March, Bolton called for the United States and/or Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Bolton is not in an exclusive relationship with Trump. He has also advised other GOP 2016ers, including Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Bobby Jindal. But Trump’s reliance on Bolton is curious, for Bolton was neck-deep using false assertions to promote a war that Trump himself says was all for “nothing.” Bolton ought to have received a “you’re fired” pink slip from Trump. Instead, Trump solicits his views.

Would Trump have retained an apprentice who screwed up this badly?

Donald Trump Falls Apart When Asked Who He Would Turn To For Military Advice

donald trump meet the press military advisers

NBC Screen grab | MTP


During an interview on Meet The Press, Donald Trump admitted that he gets his military advice from watching television.


Chuck Todd asked Trump who he would turn to for military advice. The billionaire gave a disastrous answer, “Well, I watch the shows. I mean a really see a lot of great. You know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals.”

Todd asked who Trump’s go to military adviser is, and he answered, “Probably, there are two or three. I mean, I like Bolton. I think he is a tough cookie. He knows what he is talking about. Jacobs is a good guy. Col. Jake Jacobs is a good guy, and I see him on occasion.”

The problem is that Chuck Todd was getting at who is advising Donald Trump on military issues, and Trump gave an answer that focused on television and people he likes. Trump never said that either of the individuals that he named was advising his campaign.

Trump knows how to use to television to appeal to Republican voters, but there is very little behind the bluster. Does Donald Trump have military advisers? Judging from his answer on Meet The Press, he does not.

What makes the Trump campaign so entertaining to watch is that he is flying by the seat of his pants, but a president can’t “wing it,” in the White House.

Anytime that Trump is asked a serious political question or is pushed for details, he falls flat on his face. However, the Republican Party is so weak that it is possible that they won’t be able to pin Trump down.

Trump’s answer today provided more evidence that if wins the Republican nomination, he will be crushed by the Democratic nominee.

Jason Easley

The 199 Most Donald Trump Things Donald Trump Has Ever Said – Would You Vote For This Man?

Politico Illustration—Getty.

Don’t worry, I haven’t posted all one-hundred ninety-nine quotes…there is a “continue” option. KS


1. “… don’t let the brevity of these passages prevent you from savoring the profundity of the advice you are about to receive.” (How to Get Rich, 2004)

2. “I am a really smart guy.” (TIME, April 14, 2011)

3. “I’m intelligent. Some people would say I’m very, very, very intelligent.” (Fortune, April 3, 2000)

4. “I know what sells and I know what people want.” (Playboy, March 1990)

5. “I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.” (Albany’s Talk 1300, April 14, 2011)

6. “I just have great respect for them, and you know they like me.” (CNN, July 23, 2015)

7. “A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. … [I]f I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I believe they do have an actual advantage.” (NBC News, September 1989)

8. “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!” (Twitter, April 28, 2015)

9. “I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day.” (USA Today, May 20, 1991)

10. “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (Twitter, Nov. 6, 2012)

11. “I know the Chinese. I’ve made a lot of money with the Chinese. I understand the Chinese mind.” (Xinhua, April 2011)

12. “I did very well with Chinese people. Very well. Believe me.” (TIME, April 14, 2011)

13. “Who the fuck knows? I mean, really, who knows how much the Japs will pay for Manhattan property these days?” (TIME, January 1989)

14. “The Mexican government forces many bad people into our country. Because they’re smart. They’re smarter than our leaders.” (NBC News, July 8, 2015)

15. “Jeb Bush will not be able to negotiate against Mexico. Jeb Bush with Mexico said, ‘People, come in,’ they come in, it’s an act of love, OK?” (Birch Run, Mich., Aug. 11, 2015)

16. “Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.” (Retweeted and then deleted on Twitter, July 4, 2015)

17. “I’ll win the Latino vote because I’ll create jobs. I’ll create jobs and the Latinos will have jobs they didn’t have.” (NBC News, July 8, 2015)

18. “I’m leading in the Hispanic vote, and I’m going to win the Hispanic vote. I’m also leading in the regular vote.” (Birch Run, Mich., Aug. 11, 2015)

19. “I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” (“Entertainment Tonight,” July 1, 2015)

20. “I cherish women. I want to help women. I’m going to be able to do things for women that no other candidate would be able to do … ” (CNN, Aug. 9, 2015)

21. “I will be so good to women.” (CNN, Aug. 10, 2015)

22. “I will be phenomenal to the women. I mean, I want to help women.” (CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Aug. 9, 2015)

23. “Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, ‘Can you believe what I am getting?’” (Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life, 2008)

24. “I’ve never had any trouble in bed …” (Surviving at the Top, 1990)

25. “I have many women that work for me.” (CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Aug. 9, 2015)

26. “She’s not giving me 100 percent. She’s giving me 84 percent, and 16 percent is going towards taking care of children.” (TIME, May 23, 2011)

27. “All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me— consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.” (How to Get Rich, 2004)

28. “I have really given a lot of women great opportunity. Unfortunately, after they are a star, the fun is over for me.” (ABC’s “Primetime Live,” March 10, 1994)

29. “When a man leaves a woman, especially when it was perceived that he has left for a piece of ass—a good one!— there are 50 percent of the population who will love the woman who was left.” (Vanity Fair, September 1990)

30. “You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body. She made a lot money as a model—a tremendous amount.” (The Howard Stern Show, 2003)

31. “Every guy in the country wants to go out with my daughter.” (New York magazine, Dec. 13, 2004)

32. “… she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” (ABC’s “The View,” March 6, 2006)

33. “I’ve known Paris Hilton from the time she’s 12. Her parents are friends of mine, and, you know, the first time I saw her, she walked into the room and I said, ‘Who the hell is that?’ … Well, at 12, I wasn’t interested. I’ve never been into that. They’re sort of always stuck around that 25 category.” (The Howard Stern Show, 2003)

34. “There’s nothing I love more than women, but they’re really a lot different than portrayed. They are far worse than men, far more aggressive … ” (The Art of the Comeback, 1997)

35. “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” (Twitter, April 16, 2015)

36. Women? “You have to treat ’em like shit.” (New York magazine, Nov. 9, 1992)

37. “What I say is what I say.” (Republican presidential debate, Aug. 6, 2015)

38. “One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. … The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)

39. “Sometimes they write positively, and sometimes they write negatively. But from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)

40. “Sometimes it pays to be a little wild.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)

41. “It’s always good to do things nice and complicated so that nobody can figure it out.” (New Yorker, May 19, 1997)

42. “If I get my name in the paper, if people pay attention, that’s what matters.” (Donald Trump: Master Apprentice, 2005)

43. “The press portrays me as a wild flamethrower. In actuality, I think I’m much different from that. I think I’m totally inaccurately portrayed.” (New Yorker, May 19, 1997)

44. “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” (Esquire, 1991)

45. “There are two publics as far as I’m concerned. The real public and then there’s the New York society horseshit. The real public has always liked Donald Trump. The real public feels that Donald Trump is going through Trump-bashing. When I go out now, forget about it. I’m mobbed. It’s bedlam.” (Vanity Fair, September 1990)

46. “Controversy, in short, sells.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)

47. “The show is ‘Trump.’ And it is sold-out performances everywhere.” (Playboy, March 1990)

Michael Kruse