Time Magazine chose Donald Trump as the 2024 Person of the Year. Time explains that they choose the most consequential person, not their favorite person. For people who aren’t a fan of Donald Trump, note that Hitler and Putin have also been featured.
From the transcript, a few things stood out.
Well, I think we ran a flawless campaign. It was, it was really quite something. I called it 72 Days of Fury. There were no days off. There were no timeouts. If you made a mistake, it would be magnified at levels that nobody’s ever seen before. So you couldn’t make a mistake.
At 78 years old, that is an incredible pace to maintain. That’s a hardy pace for anyone.
It’s telling that Trump said “we ran a flawless campaign.” It’s appropriate for a candidate to acknowledge the team and share the credit.
Mr. President, some foreign officials have expressed concern about sharing intelligence with Tulsi Gabbard, given her positions in support of Russia and Syria. Would her confirmation be worth the price of some of our allies not sharing intelligence with us?
The idea behind that question from the interviewer is just stupid. I’ve heard the “Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset” from progressive friends, so it makes sense to ask it, but the idea is ludicrous.
And I get along with Russia. I get along with a lot of people that people would think I wouldn’t get along with, but we get our way because I’m for this country, I’m not for other countries. By the way, do you want Hors d’oeuvres or anything?
That was a shitty attack line in prior campaigns also. Demonizing or declaring a foreign leader to be a war criminal makes it difficult to meet and talk through issues. One of Trump’s strengths is that he is understands that, and is always willing to meet.
My attraction for Trump stems from that little line, “I’m for this country”.
It’s charming that he offers hors d’oeuvres to the reporter. The reporter should have said yes just to see what shows up. That would be another data point. Trump didn’t say appetizers, so it wouldn’t be chicken wings or sliders.
No look, I don’t—I don’t disagree with everything in Project 2025, but I disagree with some things. I specifically didn’t want to read it because it wasn’t under my auspices, and I wanted to be able to say that, you know, the only way I can say I have nothing to do with it is if you don’t read it. I don’t want—I didn’t want to read it. I read enough about it.
Progressives brought up Project 2025 pretty often. Trump was smart not to read it, so he couldn’t be sidetracked to defend or discuss it. Obviously he could have read it, then lied about that, but I don’t think he did. Had he read Project 2025, Trump would need to weigh in, take charge and guide the project. He didn’t need that.
Asked about immigration and deporting people, Trump was canny in his response.
We have people coming in at levels and at record numbers that we’ve never seen before. And I’ll only do what the law allows, but I will go up to the maximum level of what the law allows. And I think in many cases, the sheriffs and law enforcement is going to need help. We’ll also get National Guard. We’ll get National Guard, and we’ll go as far as I’m allowed to go, according to the laws of our country.
Trump is clearly sending the message that he will use every resource available, but is aware that there is no assumption by the corporate media that he will only use appropriate resources. He wisely emphasized that he will remain within legal constraints.
This exchange about the Kamala Harris campaign was short and accurate.
Speaking of Kamala Harris. What do you think were her worst mistakes in the campaign?
Taking the assignment. Number one, because you have to know what you’re good at.
Trump said, “Taking the assignment.” I’d like a follow-up question. Who gave Harris the assignment to run for president? Perhaps that is too literal. Harris was in an untenable situation that wasn’t likely to work out for her.
This was also short and sweet.
I’m going to shift to foreign policy. Have you spoken to Vladimir Putin since your election?
I can’t tell you. I can’t tell you. It’s just inappropriate.
That wasn’t a bad question, but Trump was brief and honest in saying he can’t go into it. Trump doesn’t think it’s prudent to answer this question either, but he does explain why.
If Ukraine doesn’t agree to a peace deal that you have said you will broker, will you cut military, humanitarian, and intelligence assistance to them?
The reason that I don’t like to tell you this is that, as a negotiator, when I sit down and talk to some very brilliant young people: young, young, young, young. Compared to me, you’re very young. But when I talk to people—when I start I think I have a very good plan to help, but when I start exposing that plan, it becomes almost a worthless plan.
From a negotiation standpoint, that’s a 100% true. That isn’t fun for the reporter, but a negotiator wants to go in with the other parties having no idea where the lines are drawn.
In the prior Trump elections, the progressives and corporate media sent the message that Trump was a loose cannon, and would destabilize the world. This time, it’s clear that Trump has no interest in going to war, and finds the wasted lives and infrastructure to be a terrible loss.
It makes it so bad. And I had a meeting recently with a group of people from the government, where they come in and brief me, and I’m not speaking out of turn, the numbers of dead soldiers that have been killed in the last month are numbers that are staggering, both Russians and Ukrainians, and the amounts are fairly equal. You know, I know they like to say they weren’t, but they’re fairly equal, but the numbers of dead young soldiers lying on fields all over the place are staggering. It’s crazy what’s taking place. It’s crazy.
Corporate media promote the idea that Trump is a bullshitter. I just don’t see it. He does have a circuitous way of speaking, but he can be refreshingly candid.
Iran recently plotted to have you assassinated. What are the chances of going to war with Iran during your next term?
Anything can happen. Anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation.
Or this exchange.
Do you trust Netanyahu?
I don’t trust anybody.
The entire interview is like that. Drawing conclusions about Trump by reading corporate media leaves people with a false impression. That’s why good and smart friends can have a completely different opinion of Trump. Conservative media is similarly flawed. They throw out red meat to get Trump’s base all fired up. This post cherry picks what I find persuasive.
Take the time to read the entire transcript. In general, go to primary sources. Watch an entire interview, and don’t be too confident that you are right about any of it.
Reading the transcript is different from watching an interview. In the 1960 presidential election, a common observation is that people who watched John F. Kennedy debate Richard Nixon, voted for JFK. Nixon looked sweaty and sinister. JFK was young and good-looking. People who listened to the debate broke for Nixon.
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he will be our next president. Some people are treating him like he already is. In four years, we will see how this interview holds up.