it happened and depending on your point of view, it either was possum or appalling Donald, was inaugurated? What is the president of the United States a scorching. All I'll be brief on our girl address, which we will talk about at length on this week's edition of the editors podcast, on which Lowry on joined by Ian Tunnel Raw, hence alarm and the right honourable Charles Cook thought. The way we would divide us up today is to look First, it kind of language and rhetoric and presentation of the speech, then Gus the substances,

lastly, and finally a bad around the politics of it Charlie once you get us started. What did you think of the language and the rhetoric? I thought the line which reflected a certain honesty. Donald Trump is not somebody who speaks in poetry and when he tried to speak and poetry cheering his address. It sounded to me a little force This is a man who has always been brisk adds a man. Who's been blunt he is a man who appeals to people who dislike political correctness who dislike euphemism. I didn't like the address I'll come on later, but in that regard I felt that it was an honest and accurate reflection, both of whom Donald Trump is and how he campaigned. He clearly if he didn't

right. It himself, he clearly had a great deal of inputs, and that came down two to the language, to the phraseology into the the tone that he struck now I for what it's worth think that it was an inappropriate turn. I think that at these events do require a little more thought. Little more finesse, but he ran against Washington. He ran against the systematic lady thought that he wasn't going to fancy and to himself up yet you know of two minds about this one? It was a little surprising that there there wasn't morbid attempt to elevate the speech almost as though they didn't really attempt to give the inaugural address. As we know it for a century or more but on the other hand, is Charlie alludes to it was a speech that was true to Donald Trump and the way he talks and if you tried,

put kind of my person. Matt Scully poetry, into his teleprompter it just would have rung false private groups. I think that's quite right. I mean it would have been False in spirit in a way for free, I'm too. Bring himself in line with the tradition, when impart the tradition is exactly what is what he's running against year for him to have sound like just another president would have been in. A certain way This is the spirit of his entire here's. Entire campaign is entire a message on the other hand, as you say, there's there's there certainly good good reason for that.

Rhetorically. I think it was. It was precisely what what you would expect an end, no four, the folks in the back room. Are helping him him to craft it. I think it's probably for the best just just in the sense of honesty is Charlie, says too to give it a speech that was very much trump versus you know. Whatever for ten pretence. He might have thought appropriate to take on The thing is interesting, though, and enrich you- and I talked about this. A little already is there. It is an interesting speech also because The delivery really does matter. If you Sit down. Read this speech its in a certain sense, to a certain extent,

fairly banal amid there, there are things that might raise some eyebrows, but you know you said it alongside, especially some of those you certain darker passages, America, carnage, those the sort of time passages from it and it doesn't look a whole lot different from portions of of Ronald Reagan's, one thousand nine hundred and eighty one inaugural is first inaugural. When you know he was not Reagan that it was not at all sweetness and light. But when You heard Trump give this speech, it sounded a whole lot more radical it sounded very. sort of protein impounding Reno, revolutionary is here the word a couple of people, including on the right, are using, and if you heard it, that's that's. I think an appropriate reaction, so it's it's

interesting in in that regard, how the the rhetoric is to change the reception to two. What act, what from actually said in terms of content yet This is real disparity where Obama beaches, you'd, listen to them and watch them, and even if you don't like the substance, you'd oftentimes think there quite spired then you'd them on the page and realise there completely undistinguished an and trump hazy opposite quality. Where you, you watch or listen to this speech, and you think, while this this sounds unhinged and then you read it and it's it's much more, a pedestrian. Do you not also struck by union? You referred to the people who, in the backrooms might have helped them with this speech. yeah he made a big deal, as you might expect of writing. Editing it himself and I attended to that was an Nancy its boast, but then, actually, as the speech was written, it is plausible that Donald Trump had a really heavy hand and its rafting around.

and what was there anything about the the cetacean or the writing that struck you. I have a gripe which is this. What I've been hearing from in a various other writers is this line american carnage, it's the line that keeps coming up and I just want to who indulge me for a moment. I just want to read what came before that line. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public, but for too many of our citizens a different rates, the exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation, in education system, flush with cash, but which leaves are young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge.

the crime and gangs and drugs at a stolen, too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This american carnage stops right here and stops right now. Many people have said the troll speech is divisive and, It's a fair pointy has an extended olive branches to his opposition, and what have you, but on a level. The speech is unifying. What he is saying is that there are the people in D C and elsewhere, Hooper profiting from these things that have been following out and endangering our country and what I wanna do is unify the people. can see why you know people see this rhetoric as dangerous or what have you, but it's really worth keeping in mind that there, a couple of different ways to be divisive right? One the way, is to divide the country right down the middle. You know better let's say red and blue and another way divided is to say that hey wait. A second there are a lot of people are hurting their people.

In our cities, and there are people in the rust belt and what have you and there actually all hurting together in the next line is we are one nation and their pain as our pain and to me that is really powerful stuff and the longer term. Question is this Ronald Reagan and J F K both If inaugural address is that right they inspired lotta people. Then Ronald Reagan and JFK were people who compromised in all what kinds of different ways they didn't live up There are soaring rhetoric and all kinds of different ways, but they actually set a tone and a sensibility that had a deep influence on lots of people. The question here is the tone the trumpet set in this speech. Almost regardless of what happens over the coming years. Is that so a new marker and creating the possibility of a new politics. That's gonna have a very deep effect on our policy. I'm not sure the jury is still out, but I believe

there is a fundamentally good, and positive scenario that would grow out of that, whereas either as you Has no, I very sceptical about Trump himself and allow that people surrounding trump himself. So so when I hear the speech gamut, of course, its divisive but its, but it's actually very it's done I see that a very different way than what people all generally mean when they say device it. It's not fifty fifty devices its aspire Craig at least to be twenty divisive and again scary to people, particularly for the twenty, but it's interesting nonetheless right and I think, lot of people would be reassured if you read all Donald I was going to say: I've got a truck reading was just just while we're on tone and language. I urge you think, there's something to that all joking aside, its partly the way he speaks listening to Awry Henry that an end. It wasn't just the right hand ready.

better. In my view, it was you brought the american carnage land back into the context to which it belongs, and I think Trump didn't he almost paused and then shouted that line it. What carnage is that I do think you make a good point about said. I never want to hear anybody ever again: slime Obama for his rising of the oceans line. Having listened to the promises, a trump made today, our point as an order trump is really just a human cells. jammer, but so let but before we move on to the next aspect of the speech, was go really quickly around the horn, which should these lines do you guys think will be remembered longer from the speech. We are transferring power from Washington DC and giving it back to you the people

or the line that that right hand just raised the this american carnage stops right here and stops right now, Charlie wow, that's almost impossible to answer. I suppose, because we don't know, what's going to happen next for years. I think, for now the american carnage line is going to get more attention, partly because at least the way it sounded. But I take my hands point. It's not true, and he has elsewhere suggested that the? U S is in the middle of a crime wave that it's not, I know, there's a little take up in crime this year become compared to what we weren't say. Ninety- ninety- that's just not true, and so the media will rightly push back against. The idea that we are living in how Skype so for now. I think that will. If, however, he presides over four years of improvement and maybe a more traditional republican policy platform, spearheaded by

Poor Ryan one puts federalism front and centre and people feel more control of their lives. The densely maybe it'll, be the other in a beggar generally with Charlie M in some from people who are already unsympathetic to Donald Trump are going to remember that the carnage liners o this this is that the vision of an American of the false vision of an american health gaped at this manners is presenting to us Isn T disk disconnected, is any obviously disconnected from reality. And then the huge number of people who are sympathetic will remember the the former Linus. As part of the you know, the hope that they they see in his message ran. I agree with you Charlie that it's gonna be the american carnage line. The question to me is: is them ok?

one hates to speak in generalizations about the media, but I think it's fair to say that we're talking about a lot of you, too kind of elite media established media outlet. There is this distinct oppositional sends and basically Trump embarrassed. A lot of people by doing run around rather by demonstrating how you look at it? Basically, people than see these media outlets trustworthy, and I guess the question is: are those are those entities going to reassert their power and are they going to define how he's interpreted and understood, and that's What I see as the american carnage line will serve could survive is ridicule of him. On the other hand, if it really is true that there is a need, ecology exists outside of those institutions, then maybe Things were going to resonate, but I kind of life. I suspect that Europe what to see this reassertion of the power of those entities that were embarrassed and that there are going to play a very big role in defining him

you don't think about Saturday life, but also just the New York Times and sort of the god of the major media outlets that that's kind of what I think is going to determine what remembered from this address. So Charlie's move on to the substance and flowers. The of speech. One thing that was really remarkable about it: there's just zero limited government in it not even a nod, except perhaps, as you pointed out about that we, the people line in conserving and populist share the goal of tat. in power out of Washington at least to some extent, but for trumpets and entirely with you trade as a trading speech, a populist goal that has to do with undermining and ineffectual and corrupt elite establishment, where conservatives have an entirely different goal, not to early different, but a more philosophical opposition to government right and I've? Never like this we the people line. Anyway,

I know a number of people in the legal profession who think it was smuggled in that bike Governor Morris, the in order to accommodate expanded government later on at certainly it's not necessary to make the document work. That was nothing from the rest of the concert: there was no reference to the founders. I was watching Chuck Summa, who is one of the warm up acts and I thought his speech was: was misjudged and miss cost, I thought, isn't it interesting that we so rarely hear the words liberty or freedom from the Democrats these days that much more interested in equality they like to talk about diversity, they like to talk about tolerance and- and these are ideal said- have been opposition in many ways since the, founding era. Tocqueville talks about this that equality and liberty are hard to put together because one tends to lead to the other, the exclusion of the

and then Trump came on house halfway through amusing, about Chuck, Summa, undemocratic rhetoric and Trump mentioned liberty and freedom few at times, than Schuman. He said at once: Schuman set. It twice Humor least went back to the civil war and used the song array of a soldier to illustrate national purpose and, in some ways to illustrate national creed Trump. Didn't do that and that's fine, if that's your cup of tea, if Donald trumps, politics, all yours

that's fine, but for me somebody who's more libertarian. Who is more interested in keeping America's founding promised keeping the promise of the declaration. I find that difficult. In a sense, it suggests that Trump is without ideological mornings. I'd suggest that he is or sees himself has beings, I want divorced from american history and it leaves me wondering what red lines, if you will forgive the phrase trump is, is going to impose upon himself and his administration in what do you think that was notable? There's just zero relate civic religion in this speech,

that matter. Well, there is and is in a sense, but it's not the civic religion that you found in Lincoln's famous address it. Cooper Union or or you anything you want exercise of the american tradition, but there is a very real a very real veneration of the state in a certain way in in the way that Trump seems to appropriate to approach politics in that? That's the near this, the very, very strong nationalist theme that came through in the other. Obviously, some very good things, and there there is a real sort of the deepest level in this speech, was a robust defence of the concept of nationhood and of a binding force that

gathers your people on both sides on every extreme in this country into serve one. One movement that they have won orientation and there's a very conservative impulse there request for me, though, is cannot nationalism, be tempered where, where, as Teresa, where, where the lines going to be drawn- and this was a speech that seemed in danger of tilting into a journalism that in its dosage, could be potentially toxic, and that's where the The conservative impulse in the long tradition of having deeper philosophical, principles than just the way drawn or the ethnicity from which you come are going to be so crucial.

Sir. I hand do you share that concern about this, this nationalism being unmoored from deeper american principles and therefore potentially becoming something task toxic. Well, you know rich, you know me, I didn't really, I very susceptible to nationalist appeals. I guess what so one way to think about it is that the the dominant tradition in this country, the way the we make sense of our lives. The government, I think of it as individualistic and theirs, left wing, individualism and right wing individualism. So one ideas that it's the right, that's individualistic, you know where the libertarian minded ones etc, and the left is obsessed with equality. You know there's something to that, but actually believe that the left in this country, particularly since the sixties Rousseau, has also been hyper individualistic. You know they talk about

you know anti discrimination law suits said what have you been in its bear very much about vindicating, your rights and the ideas that the federal government is your friend, the friend of the individual against your oppressive neighbourhood, your oppressive church or small town, your family, the dust doesn't understand, you just doesn't understand your? U no kind of, let's say unconventional identity. How alternative and bold. You are all of his other things. So government is your friend. because otherwise you would be dependent on neighborhoods community is in all these other things and, thank goodness, the federal government. He is here to provide you with an unconditional basic income or whatever else it is. Where is on the right? You, don't we individuals don't get between me and my family, you look out of this idea. I'm gonna defend my my kind of narrow community my little platoon against the wider world and and and and of course, that version of individualism is more attractive to me than depended individualism, but there's another straight in our history and our culture that has that really was kind of damage

in the new deal era in mid century, Erika, and that is a more you could say community and if you want to be friendly, you could say collectivist if you wanna be less friendly, and you know that that collectivism is something that I think Trump has always spoken too. He's always invoke, did decide We will take care of our own and I will say that for myself I much more. Right wing humanitarian, that I am a right wing individualist and for that reason, I certainly think that constitution matters. I certainly think these ideas matter and it's part of our tradition and it's all such an important part of resisting tyranny. But you know, I also understand that this other tradition has been buried for so long

and that's why you see people on the left and the right or discomfited by the fact that he's not invoking. All of these are these kind of individualistic troops. In for myself, I just feel as though you know. I think that there is room for a corrective here, though, of course, I believe that that individual astray and is important and valuable to surrender but that's drill down on a specific issue. It seems to me on trade. He came closer to being explored said about where he really is, then perhaps anything else, I've seen from him cause law, the rhetoric and campaign was over just gonna renegotiate, bad deals and we're not gonna cut bad deals anymore. We ve been suckers but there's a line in this speech. Where he's he's talking about every decision mean being made to benefit american workers. an american families and he says after that quote, protection will lead to great prosperity and stuff.

banks and strikes me all. You need to add there to be completely forthright about. It is a little ism at the end of the word. Protection I guess you don't tell me that I M so fascinated by the fact that that is seen so contentious to say that we're gonna see through the lens of what works for the United States, because if I were someone who is start free trader. I would say we say yeah I also want to do what service the national interest. But serves Americans, and that is utilised free trade. That to me, is they much more potent argument of whether or not you are. I believe it to be true, and- and you know, as as you know, I have mixed feelings about that, but you know that is a much more put Margaret and saying that its outrageous and I know you're not saying that rich but enter the idea- that its outrageous to say that we're going to frame our policies

in the national interest. We're gonna put the interests of Americans first and also another part of what he said in the speeches that yeah you know, We expect other nations to do the same thing. because the idea, I think that this is a theme that you know Peter TEAL talk about this in the past to South America an exceptionalism. There was a time when american exceptionalism meant we. are, we think, we're uniquely great and all the other stuff, but then american exceptionalism has morphed into this idea but we are unique in that way are always going to be self sacrificing itself, Flash relating and we're gonna be the glue although provider of public goods we're gonna, be the consumer of last resort, and all of that other No, I ain't again. You can make a case that that is actually good for us, but part of a trumpet things that I want America to be a normal nation in the sense that, like every other normal nation we're gonna. Look after ourselves. Now again, I probably a little bit more of the view that hey, sometimes providing those public goods is actually

that, serves our national interests, but this notion that you should be making those arguments in the context of what serves our interests sounds right We- and I will agree with you also more broadly looking at trumps platform like he didn't mention Obamacare. The speech, for example, that's pretty interesting. He did mention trade and taxes and immigration and train pretty foreign trade is the area where he's created a new National Trade Council. I think that this is the one area where, in terms of deviations from Europe and of traditional movement, conservative orthodoxy, I think this place where he really means that he is really serious. Whether or not he understands it, whether on he's gonna be able to do something effective is an open question, but I definitely think he really means it is complete. Lay serious and add just that. The speech underlined it for me, but in their couple things one you know in the area of defence national Security, he has several folks and his cabinet high headlined by general matters who don't agree with

everything he said over the eighteen months, so their there's last eighteen months, so there's intention there there no daylight at all between Trump and the folks he's put, positions of responsibility for our our trade relationships to he's threatened tariffs, so often that if he didn't fuck all through with some and fairly quickly. I think undermined his credibility on nearly everything, that's really important for any presidents, especially important for this one who wants to uses Bully Poland to jawbone businesses, to make decisions to forego offshoring that he likes, but a if Europe now everyone thinks all this is empty. All of it is empty. Bluster he. He loses a lot of his force and in that hard. So one of the conclusions- Charlie, I draw from the address. Is the trade war or a trade war is common while providing

Congress goes along with it and it seems to me that many income There is serious about not starting a trade war and not radically altering the states, as close as Trump is serious about doing those things he had said. I don't think Congress, I think, is a lotta unilateral power in this area, where I was see Congress, those control this ultimately and Republicans and Democrats don't like what Trump is doing and then they can stop it The situation in this area is not the same ass on, say: Healthcare were Democrats are likely to fight for Obamacare and Republicans are likely to fight against it and you'll never reached the two thirds thresholds in order? to overrule presidential power if Congress ass a whole dislikes trump on this question, it can do so.

Think about it, but on the original point- yes, he is serious about this, and I just wrote this on the corner and I dont know why the people were surprised by this speech. This is Donald Trump, Donald Trump, The said right from the very first moment he came down the escalator that he thought America's trade status quo needed alteration. He said right from the very first, my that illegal immigration is a serious problem that American he did a wall. Does it needed to rethink its immigration in general? He said since the eighties that workers weaken embarrassed and that need Liberalism ass, our friends on the left, would call it is destroying factory communities as this during the heartland and that money in a zero sum fashion is flowing out through America's borders and into the pockets of other people, and he said that today and he said that

only today and in a sense, that's admirable, because he clearly believes loud, sir, before I move on, let's quickly go around the the horn again, so even if your porn I am pretty much a standard issue: conservative with some Jack camp tendencies, but very much not a populist after hearing the speech, are you scared concerned or energized? I think you're concerned I think you look users, certainly some places in there that you can look for four, common ground, but you know if you ve spent the last year watching Donald Trump. What you heard today was was pretty familiar, and I think that one of the reasons that were Ryan and top congressional elected officials were concerned throughout this whole process and after two dad or think they have any reason to feel much better. Randy think Ryan should be scared concerned are undergoes insert.

Darling. I think you should be mostly energized, because I think trumps gonna sign an awful lot of Ryan led legislation, and I think that Ryan is going to remake domestic policy in the next two years and a around Is there going to be some nasty fights yeah? I think Paul Ryan. Being who Paul Ryan is. He is actually energy as colleagues always energized, but I think that the right posture would be a little bit of all three scared concerned and energized so Ryan quickly on the politics of the speech, Democrats were appalled as we looted to earlier, and that there are very few.

Of branches that they took as all branches does that matter, and what do you think that the democratic posture towards Trump is gonna be going for its very hard to say, because I think that there is the kind of elite of the party there's the donor base, and you know I just I think that there are going to be really pushed into different directions. On the one hand, Chuck tumor wants to help get his twenty eighteen class, politically red state Democrats real liked it. On the other hand, I actually really believe that door. we are going to be a problem because they are going to be so hostile to the sky, and also within the electorate. So On the one hand, you have the slice, this diminishing, shrinking slice of white working class, folks who vote Democrat euros at a chunk of whom voted for from a chunk of homer independence, who it who used to swing Obama, this times, etc, etc, and I

think that, well, if I'm going to alienate these other constituencies, these kind of college, educated, liberals and also you no kind of some component the non white democratic days there just in a very tough position She's going in one direction is definite. Gonna alienates some people, even some people are complaining about Nancy Pelosi, kind of laughing like yakking it up with them, tromp up on the Dias. Just it's very hard to say- and my guess is- that the owners and the influencers and the media types will alter. We went out, but you know the other possibility is that on tropical spent his time beating up on Republicans gonna triangulate, which I kind of think that from his perspective, would actually be the best and shrewd IST way to go. Though, of course, you know not great for those of us who have some priorities that are more or less

with Republicans in Congress. Charlie Journey Peters and near ties have been talking about this. A lot lately has had repeated conversations with Steve Band were banned in really wants to blow up the two party system and basically create Trump party, and you can see an address like like this one setting the predicate for that down. The one may be I know about him- wants to do that, but I'm sorry, article, not only because the two party system is so strong is ensured for so long. It so strongly built into the american structure, but because all political figures become unpopular of attire and circumstances change and their moment disappears, Bernie Son

It wants to do this as well, but if he really wants to change american politics, he will try to change the Democratic Party if Steve, Bannon and Donald Trump want to change american politics. It will try to remake the Republican Party in their own image, while accepting that a lot of its both enthusiastic and reluctant adherents are going to stay inside its walls, I Don't see this happening, and I will say for the record that Donald Trump is very unpopular coming into office. He ran behind the vast majority of Republican set, the state level, ass in the Senate, governess races if anyone is likely to to dwindle. It is him not those people

best way of navigating the next few years will be to incorporate some of trumps themes into the republican offering and for trumped to acknowledge that. There are a lot of people more popular than him and he needs them as well. Yet in on trumped popularity, Canada, the worst case scenario- I I is it. We have a lot of poles over the last couple days. Show him at historic laws for newly elected president. Probably around forty four that may be lower and in some poles and usually you dont go up in these the fur years, legislative rights and an parson trench warfare, earlier spending capital not accruing it and that creates situation where you know trunk conceivably, a year from now be at thirty five percent or lower. And he becomes a bit of a millstone around the neck of the

party going into the the mid terms, and one reason that his numbers might be low at the moment is: there's really been no effort by him. He hasn't had won, but no effort I him to create a honeymoon and again Circling back to the the address. There was no outreach there, such that people, not inclined to support him, but maybe a little bit on the fence. What sort of typical her and say well. I am going to give a chance you're through and veto, if he does triangulate against from both parties, which, I think is reasonable and which I think was apparent- which he was apparently trying to do in the speech today. To a certain extent here you have to ask how much can you actually when fighting alone when as surely says the circumstances. surrounding this position, structures, the operation of the federal government and the political

sure writ large are so massive. Donald Trump is certainly a force to be reckoned with as a personality by overcoming all of that certain all of us that combined circumstance and still somehow being massively influential in the ways that he wants to be is very, very difficult, so he's going to have to do a little bit of bridge builder. Alliance building in in some vanity somewhere soon and if he doesn't he's going to you, I think you're right be be isolated, and that's why you are obvious But he's he's, presented himself as brawler YO. He he's said from the beginning: he is going to fight, is going to a sort of, everyone in his vicinity. But here you can only

do that so long before it becomes becomes tiresome and Billy counterproductive. So, let's to sum up, let's quickly go round the whole again in rate the inaugural address overall from one to ten one being an abysmal disgrace to the nation, ten being a speech that the destined to live on in the annals of American or it or a Tory Charlie one one to ten, where I think I'd give it a seven discussed. Some of my criticism is subjective. I do think, given that he wanted to convey what he believes and that he has a base that likes what he says that it was effective. I dont think in the context of a

Erica Writ large. It will stand the test of time. Energy will will writ willing and radios high seven, I was gonna say about a six. Are some surprise? It surely is a little more generous than I am dear points for four, as we said earlier, admirable honesty area for four, not putting up any pretence. One thing that I I do think may hurt him and which wise opponents will hang around. Him is the fact that he he promised the moon. You know brass. As Charlie said Brok, Obama talked about lowering the sea levels, but Trump talked about space in eradicating disease and the

was a very in some in some ways, utopian speech and a lot of that could potentially come back to bite him pretty quickly. Sir, I am you have a six and seven after picked another number, you can have a six or eight ok, I'm gonna violate the rules. Just this one time. If Donald Trump has a teapot dome scandal then. This speech is a too if he cried it's a generation of trumpets out of this, which I think is possible. Then it's a nine. A nine well. I am really going gonna hedge my best and go right in the middle with five ice tracked a lot further. The fact that the word or a tree It wasn't very memorable. I I I don't think this will be talking about this speech for very long, but it did

achieve a certain power from its distinctiveness so right. Well, it's that time and our podcast for our editors picks in what's your pic. So this is unusual. For me, I'm going well outside of my real house, because Obama care policy, one curry eyes, not my stuff! Sir, but Remercie has an excellent piece in my in my opinion, of limited knowledge on this topic, has an excellent, peace in the latest issue of the magazine on how Republicans should approach the repeal, Slash, replace a conundrum when it comes to form our President Obama's signature, legislation and it with it's one that I want to put on the desk of every member of the House and Senate Ryan,

I really enjoyed Rostov its review of la land and I want to offer briefly a trump best interpretation of Lala Land, which is that in the B Sitting of the movie, you have a bunch of people on a traffic choked. Angels highway, and they are all singing together. In the style of nineteen, forty music, musical Americans of all different colours and creeds all credit for turning to be Fred, Astaire engender Rogers, and I just thought you know that's cut- that is kind of a trumps twenty percent revision. If you want to be as generous as possible, I assume the hereafter and producers of Lala Land would executed me for saying this, but I just I just a thought for you guys to chew up you over Charlie, I, like David Fringes, peace on this, circuit slapping down Chicago for trying to to impose a handgun ban. Again it was glorious.

Not only does David French is good on this, but because he quoted liberally from the majority opinion by Diana Sykes and made the point that the The left just will not give up on this, and in first they try to hand Gunnbiorn who struck down by Mcdonald than they try to rule which only allowed those who had passed the test my home guns and then they banned anywhere, where you could take the test, and this time there to impose all sorts of regulations on the test locations, which amounted I once again to a ban if it goes through very well? How in racial discrimination, in cases, for example, the city or the state are hit with twenty five thirty, fifty million dollar fines, but when it's a second amendment or first amendment violation, they award lowest fees and lowest fees only as well with a red. My pick is the Derek scissors peace

and a new issue which is part of the cover package. Annie, writes about China's trade and I found it very a useful because a lot of us in light of what happened in the election, are trying to think a new a little bit on trade and scissors. May the case we have much more leverage over China Then most people think and lays out o k first specific, retaliation against unfair chinese trade practices, particularly the theft of U S intellectual property and how China closes off various sectors of its economy. To us. That's all the time we have today thanks in thanks right hand, thanks Charlie, we are the editors thanks for listening. And will see you now time when we discuss the first week of the Trump years.