that speaks to the best of our tradition, which is including and expanding and building a democracy. that expands the capacity that we have. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, i'm happy to take questions, eager to take questions which i understand there are mics at both sides.

>> sitting in the middle, please come to the aisle, thank you. question over here. >> so thanks for a great talk. my question is related to how you get everybody and their individual issues to align this greater issue, right, whether it's either health care, environment, the lists go on. it seems like there is an emotional piece. how do i place my emotional fervor around climate change and if leslie, the bigger issue is the first issue. it's hard for me to get emotional about this bigger one and take that same emotion and pour it into this underlying piece. that is my discussion, my question. >> right. so and this is a general problem that people have described

around this reform movement for many years. i think the first step is to recognize something about how you cannot get what you want. i don't think it's enough to think about how i can't get what i want. i don't think the personal selfish perspective is sufficient here, even if your selfish perspective is about a public policy issue that you think is great for the world. i think the other part about it is to recognize why it is wrong and when you see why it is wrong, when you see that it is wrong because it has disenfranchised us. it has taken from ordinary americans a fundamental part of what a democracy is, equal representation, it has taken that away. there is a certain anger that grows with that. think about the protest in hong kong again. that was a purely procedural protest, purely about procedural issues, they didn't have the democracy yet.

the very idea that they would be excluded from the first stage of the election was enough to motivate them to say to hell with this, we are not going to accept this as a democracy. and so the conception of it being unjust and wrong was what motivated as much as them thinking they couldn't even map out from the perspective you were talking about which issues they wouldn't get past, right. it was the injustice, the immorality about that way of thinking about it. i think it's not hard to see why our system is like that. what's hard to do is to get people to be as passionate about changing it, not because they don't see it's wrong, but because they don't see it's possible to change it. and so if you, if we can find the way to link the recognition, heck, i'm not going to get anything anyway, with, and there is some thing, this is insult added to injury.

then i think there is a chance to begin to coordinate. now i don't want to convince you to give up your work on solar or climate change. those are incredibly important issues. regardless of what the issue is, i don't want to convince you to give it up. i do want to convince you to tithe. i want you to give 10% to this cause. if you can get everybody to tithe, to give 10% to this cause, then there is enough to imagine this cause taking on the fight that it has to take on. and this fight in the end is actually not as hard as other fights we have taken on and won. for example, racism, which, of course, we haven't won, but we spent a long time making extraordinary progress with a really hard problem because you don't just wake up and no longer -- are no longer racist. it takes generations to put that out of the d.n.a. of a society. this issue is just the problem

of the incense incentives of running a campaign. there is no candidate running for congress today who would lament giving up the world where they sit like a pigeon in a cage and peck on the phone to get the person at the other end to give them the money they need. nobody likes this system. it's just about creating the incentives where they can see they can win in a different way. so this is nots hard a problem in some very important sense. i think if we can t justice recognition beyond the simple injustice, something beyond the simple injustice, i hope, i think that's the only way we can make the progress happen. you have been fighting for the mic again. >> i don't have any additional questions. thank you, i'm convinced on like the tithe of the 10%. i've been convinced for some time. it was just hard to -- not just do both, but that there's an

emotional piece there and i think there is something great about everybody working together on that underlying piece, so thank you. >> thank you. >> next question on this side. >> hi, i can't think historically of any government that isn't built to protect the interests of the elite and even then the grass where there was better income distribution -- that was where silverlight's -- civil rights were certainly not in place for many, many people who lived in this country. i'm wondering if you could address that and whether some of the people's movements in this country, the occupy movements or the current marches all over the country after the shooting deaths aren't a more effective way of scaring politicians. >> i don't think there is a golden history. there are particular periods which worked better, but didn't work better for all issues. even at a time when i think congress was not as

captured by money as i think it is now, it certainly was incapable of dealing with civil rights because of the vietnam power of democrats in the senate from the south. so there is never a point in our history where you can look back and say things were just grand. what do we want to thank follows from that point? because i do think we can see in our history ideals which still resonate with us, many that we have discarded fortunately like disenfranchisement of women or the failure to recognize the equality of race. those are gone as ideals. but the ideal of this equality of citizenship was from the founding an ideal which we can still collect and use. madison, when he described our democracy, he said we would have a branch that would be "dependent on the people alone." we do not have that now.

we have dependent on the people plus dependent on these funders. the one on to be clear and he meant "not the rich more than the poor." so that is an ideal that we can use to point to the democracy we should be pushing for. now, you ask a fair question. are more radical revolutionary changes more effective? and so far, i do not think so. now that anything has been affected, but so far i think that we have seen is that when pushed to the extreme like that, this enormously powerful system responds in an incredibly brutal way. we could look at what happened in even occupy east bay or forget occupy. think about the brutality of the response to what aaron did. this system is enormously powerful for dealing with what

they view as deviation. that is what commits me to inside the norm -- the morals of the system -- we have to use the system to change it. now, i'm happy to be proven wrong and the more radical solution to achieve what we all are aiming for. i'm not saying that people should give up on the more radical, but i think we need to recognize a path that doesn't require tearing down everything. there is the path. i think it's possible and doesn't require, indeed even invite people to give up fundamental commitments. i could give a version of this talk to a group of republican, -- conservative republicans and i think find a way to show them as much the commitment of ending the corruption of the system as much as people care about climate change or whatever people on the left would care about.

i don't think it is as extreme in the brutality in this system which could be done if we found a way to speak across the divisions and push in a way that united in the way that i'm trying to describe. >> question over here on the right. >> i guess i want to go back to the article 5 conventions that you were talking about earlier. what i get from a lot of the political changes that were promised like financial reform, campaign finance reform, we get promised one thing and it works it's way through and by the time it's done, it's gutted of any actual power or real meaning. my question is what does this amendment you're envisioning look like and how do we get the change that we're actually demanding? >> so you're describing the product of a system where money has an enormous influence

because it's learned how to ercise its influence over the system. the thing they are afraid of when talking about an article 5 convention, no one knows how to control over that entity. that is not to say there is no reason to believe that that entity would produce fantastic ideas. in fact, there is a lot of reason to worry about that entity producing terrible ideas. what i described here wasn't the product that the great ideas would come out of that process, but instead that that process puts enormous pressure on congress to try to stop that process and it does that by giving the political movements what they want. so the last time we came close was a balanced budget convention calls in the 1970's and 1980's. we became very close. congress adopted a whole series of reforms that responded to that push and stopped the push

by that response and so all that i'm saying right now is that we should recognize this as another tool to create the kind of pressure for reform that right now doesn't seem to exist because they're happy to run the system the way the system has been run for the last 20 years. and the best evidence of that is, we have an election, the first thinthat happened after the elections a passage of a bill that basically undoes the financial reform that the dodd frank, critical part of the financial reform -- the derivatives, raises the contributions you can make to parties from individuals so you can give millions of dollars to parties that you couldn't before. all of that is done by democrats and republicans recognizing they need to do this to return the favor to those that just brought them to power. that can't change unless they are terrified about the consequences of that. one dimension of that terror is coming from that unspecified

power from an article 5 convention. >> next question on the side. >> thank you so much for your time and all of your work on this issue. at the crux of it, you said we need 15 senators and 45 representatives to flip. i think it is feasible and tough in this pulls live -- polarized political environment. two questions from that, tactically is it better to insulate this issue from the p are best policy -- here based politics or try to channel those forces behind this issue? second, most more thanly on a more actionable level, to build trust between members of congress to try and bridge that gap, what sort of informal mechanisms or institutions can we establish? exchanging constituent letters to the editor, it may be too california for you, but maybe a group meditation session. [laughter] >> look, i was here for nine years. i can get the meditation stuff,

too. this is a really critical point that it is hard especially for progressives to embrace that we need more than progressives to win. that's not to say we have to compromise anything, but to the -- but it is to say that we have to recognize that fundamental reform only ever happened at the constitutional level if it's cross partisan. that's to say i don't want to get these 15 senators not by saying we're going to kick out 15 republicans and get 15 democrats even if democrats would love that, we only get 15 senators or 10 maybe, maybe it's enough for 10 if we can get republicans to begin to talk about this issue. what we know is that if you talk, get republicans in a context where they're not worried about losing the seat to a democrat. to choose between a republican candidate who cares about reform and a renteria candidate who doesn't, the reform candidate

does better. the strategy that suggests is begin to think about safe republican seats where there is a chance to talk about republicans who care about reform. so one example is dave bratt who beat eric cantor, a completely safe republican seat, a guy who spent almost no money called eric cantor a crony capitalists. those are fighting words for a right-wing republican -- crony capitalists is evil. that's exactly what this corruption is, it's the production of crony capitalism. it corrupts government and capitalism. that is what right-wing republicans think about it. that credible fight complicated by other issues like immigration that people on the left are very upset about, i am too, that way of framing it makes it a credible republican concern as well. i think the only way we win is if eight to 10 republican victories happen around this,

not because democrats have beaten them, but because republicans have begun to generate their own version of this. this election cycle, the pac supported the only republican candidate in a nation to make elections funding and to propose public funding of elections. that was an essential part of what jim rubin's campaign in new hampshire was about. and that influence has now begun to spread. republicans have talked about introducing a very large voucher bill, a $200 voucher bill which would radically change the way these campaigns are funded. this is the slow progress for things to happen on the right. if a slice of republicans, not begin to open up the possibility of that as a feature of their platform, then the coalition to win is possible.

that's how it's always been. think about the progressive era -- teddy roosevelt is a republican. bob lafollette is a republican. taft is a republican. the progressive movement is democrats and republicans, not just a bunch of democrats. democrats have very conservative southern democrats who are not progressive in any sense at all. so that recognition of the need to find a way to knit together different political perspectives focused on this fundamental issue is what we have to discover. it is so counterintuitive to us and it's not even clear organizationally, it's possible, i often think that the business model of progressive organizations is inconsistent with the business model of winning because the way we want to talk about this issue is designed to make the other side hate us. so we want to talk about it, how terrible corporations are and how evil it is to have money in the system.

those of might be true statements, but if you talk like that, you're certain turn off 40% of americans of what you're talking about. is there an authentic and true way to talk about this that doesn't necessarily turn them off? the parallel that becomes more and more parallel to me about this is think about the civil rights movement. so the late 1950's and early 1960's, there is a fundamental divide in the civil rights movement. one part, the part we associate now with malcolm x thinks the way to win is to build as much fury american african-americans -- among african-americans for their cause as possible. if that includes violence, it includes violence. god knows there has been violence for hundreds of years against african-americans. that's what it takes, that's what it takes. the other part of the movement which we now associate with martin luther king is the part that says, look, we have to speak so the other side can hear us.

if we go out there and engage in violence, the other side doesn't listen anymore. they say let's deal with the violence. if they go out there with nonviolence, engage in a way that celebrates the best of our traditions, they have to listen to us. so wheyou watched -- our parents and grandparents watched african-americans being hosed and bullied with dogs and beaten on the bridge in selma, they responded by recognizing this was inconsistent with values that they had. they were speaking in a way the other side had to hear. i think that's what we have to do here. we have to find a way to talk so the other side has to listen and hears us and agrees. as i have done this, i have spoken to people on the right about this and there are people here on the right, there is a recognition that this common problem -- this is a common problem. we have a common enemy even if we don't have common ends.

we have to find a way to organize against that common enemy and that objective includes recognizing, it's not about beating republicans. it's about bringing republicans and democrats to recognize the corruption of the system. >> question over here on the right. >> i loved your speech tonight. i have been with you for eight months and i'm sticking with you, but i've a question because the first half of a talk explained that i've absolutely no chance of making any change. i'm in the bottom 90%. the top .02% can veto any issue they want to veto. the second half you explained to me that in three or four years we could probably push through the one issue that the the top of .2% most wants to veto. what youeft out was what the top 2% was going to do to stop us. that's also what got left out before the last election.

i didn't hear much about it. i'm not going to ask you to fill in that blank. what i'm going to ask you to do, ask you why is you don't remove the filter between the top of mayday and the bottom of mayday because i cannot find out what your discussion intellectually up top and how you make your decisions and i cannot contribute to it. i have tried. you have nice people that deal with my emails, but there is a real strong block just like our democracy. >> well, let's separate the issues for a second. let's talk about how it's feasible first that the group that is disadvantage, the bottom 90% or whatever you want to call it, can mobilize and have power to destroy the thing which the top might care to most preserve. let me start by reinforcing the intuition that it's a really incredibly hard problem.

my friend, jim cooper, a democrat from tennessee, described capitol hill as a farm league for k street, k street where the lobbyists work. what common business model among members of congress and staffers in congress to become lobbyist. they make more money, they make tons of money as lobbyists. the annual salary increase was 1,452%. if you're on the inside and you imagine your future as a lobbyist, somebody comes along, and they say, yeah, we have an idea of changing the system fundamentally so lobbyists can't be paid that much anymore, you're not likely to be encouraged to support that reform. the insiders have very strong power to resist that reform. i completely agree with you. it might well be that there is nothing to be done, might well be.

so what do you do in the face of what might well be? i get from many people all the time the argument can't be done, so don't do anything about it. that's a really tempting idea because it's really costly to do something about it. it's really painful. it's really hard. i have got young kids. they're not happy that i'm trying to do something about it. let me tell you, when i look at the temperature in new hampshire next week and this is a nice idea, let's not do anything about it. something you might know when i was a kid, i was a republican. i grew up, but i was a republican when i was a kid. [laughter] here is what you hear republicans say all the time. we love our country. as i have gotten up and grown up

and being a liberal, i hear liberals say it, too, it's not just republicans. we used to chant that, we love our country, love our country. as i have become a law professor and looked at the great parts of our tradition standing next to the terrible parts, but the great parts, i feel that love, i feel that love. what i know about love and you know about love is what love means is you never give up regardless of what you face. i wrote this at the end of my book, the story of this woman standing before me in a dartmouth speech saying you convinced me, professor, there is nothing that can be done. it is hopeless. there is no change we could ever achieve. as i said in the book, i was terrified it was a total fail because i don't want to produce that reaction in people, but the image that came to me was of my son, my then only son who i love

and imagine a doctor saying to you your son has terminal brain cancer and there is nothing you can do. so what would you do? >> you have avoided my question entirely. i agree with everything you said. >> i have taken the first part which i'm saying what would we do. >> i said that wasn't my question. >> so you't don'nt me to continue the story. [laughter] let's strike a deal. quid pro quo. great. so the point to this is, should be obvious, the point is if you feel this, you're going to do their going to do this regardless and we are going to work and you said you are going to work, too. the second part, how do you organize and regulate this one entity trying to help in this project? >> i think we're not permitted

inside right now and we will win if you harness the rest of us. >> right. so what i described and dropped the sxsw project on top of was a process that will invite exactly this project to figure out how we recruit. i think the only -- there is no justification. the only explanation that i would offer is just understanding the incredibly -- incredible constraints of ginning up and executing in a month a project that tried to take on what we tried to take on. there is a million mistakes to learn from. we're trying to learn at least from half of those mistakes as quickly as we can. i eagerly want to find a way to bring in as many as possible. but i also know from the staff that was there, that there is only so many hours and only so

much we couldn't get it done. i take your question and that i answer it as a pledge from you as a quid pro quo that you step up and be a part othat. that's exactly what i profess the shift has to be. it's how to recruit people to do the work person to person as opposed to how do we recruit television stations to do the work and -- yes, i agree, thank you. >> we have time for one last question, but before we get to that, i just want to invite everybody immediaty after the program to join us in the atrium for a dessert reception and it book signing. we have time for one last brief question. >> i am both a donor to mayday and a donor to the pack. in 2008 as getting marijuana legalized was a sideshow, ignored, presidential candidates did not want to talk about it. and because of the ballot

proposition, we now have five states in which it is now legal. i'm curious about how come a similar rategy isn't being used for campaign fans reform so -- campaign finance reform so the state has a real system and, wow, this works really well, we can emulate this in other states and get something on the ground kneeled instead of waiting for congress. >> is a great strategy. it's being pursued to push at the state level to create, and the local level, to create the these anticorruption ordinances. they succeeded in tallahassee and they're pushing ones in montana. i totally support this idea. i so believe we don't have time. we don't have time for 40 states to come around to get their local house in order before we take on the challenge of congress. we don't have time because we don't have the opportunity, a way to address the issues to

motivate everybody to want to turn out and do something here like climate change or health care or equality or some way of finding a common purpose, again, these are not things that can wait. so as much as i am eager to see those things succeed, i would not say that means we shift our focus and not also try to pursue this. we recognize that that might mean those don't move as quickly, but i think as they move together, they feed on each other. i think what we saw out of the victory in tallahassee was a extraordinary revival of the belief in part of the country that there was change possible. that helps us to work at the national level, too. so it's a great strategy. it's just one more complementing strategy we got to be able to adopt. i'm incredibly grateful you would come out and spend your time with this. i'm hopeful that you will carry some of this forward to others and join at least one of these,

maybe two, all three, and yes, there are some boots left in new hampshire waiting for people to fill them, so come join us if you would like. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> tonight on "q&a," deborah troublelks about the with lawyers, a critical look at the legal profession in the united states, high cost of law schools, and a lack of diverty in the profession. >> i think we need a different model of legal education. one that includes one-year programs for people doing as ane work, two-year option for people who want to do something specialized. three fl years for people who want full, generalractice legal education. it is crazy to train in the same way somebodwho was doing

routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and someone who was doing mergers and acquisitions on wall street. we have this one-size-fits-all education that is extremely expensive. the average cost is $100,000. that you can train everybody to do everything in the same way, a license to practice in two states and i wouldn't trust with all to do a divorce. at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." with the sudden death of president harding, vice president calvin coolidge takes office. she influenced the taste of american women by becoming a style icon. she married a man named silent cal and never spoke to the press but brought issues to --

but brought attention to issues she cared about. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. republican presidential candidate donald trump held a news conference thursday in new york city. he announced he signed a loyalty oath by the rnc to support the 2016 republican nominee and pledged not to run as a third party or independent candidate. followed anference meeting. he talked about other candidates in the race. he also talked about changes to the immigration system. this is just under 30 minutes.

mr. trump: thank you very much, everybody. this is some turn out. my great honor. a chairman just left, as you probably know. he has been extremely fair. the rnc has been absolutely terrific over the last two months. that is what i have wanted. i have wanted fairness. i do not have to be treated any differently than anybody else. i just wanted fairness from the republican party. we are leading in every single pulpit a new poll came out today where we are over 30%. we have actually hit numbers as high as 35% and 40%. frankly, i felt the absolute best way to win and to beat the democrats and very easily, i think it, beat the democrats no matter who it is hillary or anyone else, and i think hillary will have a hard time, frankly, with what is happening getting to the starting gate.

the best way is if i win the nomination and go directly against whoever they happen to put up. for that reason, i have signed the pledge. [applause] mr. trump: so i will be totally pledging my allegiance to the republican party and the conservative vegetables for which it stands and we will go out and fight hard and we will win. most important like, we will make our country great again, because that is what it is all about. [applause]

mr. trump: with that come are there any questions? [indiscernible] mr. trump: this is a self-funded campaign. we have our heart and soul in it. i do not need money and i do not want money. this will be a campaign like no other, i think. i am not controlled by lobbyists or anybody. i'm controlled by the people of the country in order to make our country great again. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] mr. trump: i really got nothing. the question was, what did i get for signing the pledge? absolutely nothing, other than the assurance that i will be treated fairly. i have seen that over the last few months. they really have been very fair.

no, i have no intention of changing my mind. >> [indiscernible] mr. trump: the big thing that has changed, and it has been obvious to all, after i announced, we went up like a rocket ship. no one said i would run and they said he will not run. i did that. the papers, in terms of the company, turned out to be spectacular. it is a great company. i built a great company. all the others turned out to be very well received. the thing that changed is the fact that i went to the number one place very quickly after i signed and after i, in this building, notified everybody that i would be running for president. the biggest thing is that i went early to number one and the rnc has treated me with great respect. that was very important. yes.

no, i see no circumstances under which i would tear up that pledge. >> [indiscernible] mr. trump: you don't have to be met when you're at 2%. [laughter] mr. trump: it is one of the things, that is the way life works. i like governor christie, by the way. the chairman asked if he could come up you saw him here in little while ago. i was greatly honored that he did come up, frankly. >> [indiscernible] mr. trump: well, i think when you get right do to it, we are a nation that speaks english. i think while we are in this nation, we should be speaking english bear that is how assimilation takes to whether people like it or not, that is

how we assimilate and how we go onto to the next phase in the next stage. i am not just talking about spanish. i'm talking about from various parts of the world. that is how they will become successful. integrate. i think it is more appropriate to be speaking english. yes. one of the things i want to do, and i feel strongly, it is a country based on borders and our counies based on laws. when people come into the country illegally, we should not allow that. thiss not from south america, this is not from mexico. it is all over the world. when people come a legally, we cannot allow that. i want people to come legally. i want very much to take care of our border because our southern

border is a total mess. that has been proven. interestingly, a couple months ago when i announce, i made strong statements about the crime and the problems happening. i have been proven right and many people in this audience have actually apologized to me, which i very much appreciate. they have not done it publicly but these are minor details in one day they will. the fact is we are a nation that wants and needs orders. we are a nation that wants and needs and is based on laws. we will make sure that takes place. with that being said, i want people to come into our country legally. i want to have a big, fat, beautiful open-door paradigm want people of great talent to come in, for silicon valley. i want engineers and physicists. i want people with great talent to come into the united states. when people graduate from college, you can be number one

from your classic harvard, or number one at yell, or the school of finance, or princeton, or stanford. immediately, if you're not a citizen of the united states, you get thrown out of the country. we want those people to stay. we want people of great talent to be in the united states, to work here, and ultimately to become citizens. i do not know enough about it to comment. what she jailed? i do not know much about it. go ahead. that is absolutely false. i win at golf, that, i can tell you. yes? well, i understand how the

system works may be better than anybody. i understand the political system and also very much a system of coming in for illegal immigrants. do not forget, if i did not bring up the subject of illegal immigration, you would not be asking the question or no e would even be talking about immigration. immigration and in particular it illegal immigration, has becom a big factor. a lot of bad things have happened with respect to crime since i brought it up. but if i did not bring it up, immigration would not even be a subject that we are talking about and it happens to be a very important subject. i have to say this. it can also be a very positive subject. because i believe so strongly in immigration. we have to stop illegal immigration and we have to look forward to great immigration done in a legal manner. if i did not bring it up, nobody would be talking about it. go ahead. >> [inaudible]

mr. trump: there is gridlock in congress right now and that is because there is no leadership at the top. you have to be able to lead you have to get people into your office, go to them, anyway you want to do it. but you have to be able to leave. there is no leadership at the top and signing executive orders is not the way our country was supposed to be run. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i do not want to talk about that here. it is inappropriate. yes, sir, go ahead. tom brady?

he is a very good friend of mine. he is a great eye, an honorable and honest guy and a truly great athlete. he is really a very good friend of mine and i just spoke to him a little while ago and he is so thrilled and happy. tom brady, i think what they have done is terrible. he has been exonerated as i understand it, because i just heard about it. i'm very happy for tom. they are having a rough year, let's face it. go ahead. in europe, they have tremendous problems. people going in and storming. it is a huge humanitarian problem. i will just say this. the united states has tremendous problems of their own. we have infrastructure that we have two fixed or bridges and roads and everything is falling apart. our nation is in such trouble. that is why being a builder and a great and successful builder, i think will greatly help. we have so many of our own problems, including the wall, which we will get built.

health care is a mess. look at obamacare. premiums have gone up 55%. people are saying, this is turning out to be a disaster. deductibles are through the roof. the deductibles on obama care is through the roof. we have a lot of problems and we have to take care of our vets here and we have to build up our military. just the other day, the general said the army is in the worst shape in its history in terms of repaired miss. for them to be in bad shape, with the way we are and the world hating us, you look at hillary clinton, and i have said, she is the worst secretary oftate in the history of this country. in all fairness, because of the agreement that is about to be finalized with iran, john kerry may very well take her place. i think that agreement is a disaster for the country, for

israel, for the middle east. it will lead to nuclear proliferation. everything about it and we do not even get our prisoners back. you say, who negotiates a thing like that? that will not happen with president trump. one or two more questions. yes. you will see later. they do not want to hear it. yes, go ahead. could you stand up, please? >> [inaudible] mr. trump: all i want them to do -- yes, and say hello to roseann and greg. great people. i would say simply, i just want to be treated like everybody else. i was a big contributor. no one knows the system, but i was on the other side and i was the elite and i was the

fair-haired person. once iran, i was a little bit of an outsider. i became an outsider because i was running and i was not supposed to run p or dime a businessman and people give me great credit as being a great businessman but i'm not supposed to be running for office. the fact is our countries being killed on trade by china, by japan, by mexico. i am not knocking those countries. their leaders are much much smarter than our leaders. they are absolutely killing us. china, taking our jobs, taking our money, taking our base. think of this. we oh china $1.4 trillion. and we are paying them interest. we all japan, with all the cars coming in, the same amount. $1.4 trillion. it is like a magic act. they send the cars in, take our jobs, they do everything and we oh them money. that will not happen with me. it has been a long time.

go. well, jeb bush is a very nice man. i will be honest i think he is a nice person. i think he is a very low energy person and i do not think that is what the country needs to i hear he will spend a lot of money on negative advertisements on me. honestly, look, he's getting the money from special interests. he is getting the money from lobbyists and his donors. and they are making him do it because he is crashing in the polls. i do not know what will happen. if you spent $20 million or $25 million on negative ads, i do not know. i know my life will continue. i just do not know. he probably has to do that, although it would not be the way i have done it. one of the things i am most honored about is that so far, everybody that has attacked me has gone down the tubes. you have lindsey graham attacking me p was at 3% and he

is now at zero. you have perry attacking me and now he is out of the race. he is at zero. rand paul attacked me. rand paul is down to less than 2% and he attacked me. jeb bush also went down, very big. i don't know. he's going to spend lobbyist money and special interest money. remember this. they have total control over jeb and hillary and everybody else who take that money. nobody knows the system better than me. they have total control. you understand it very well because you have been covering it for a long time. those people putting up those millions of dollars have total control over your candidate. i will tell you this. nobody is putting up millions of dollars for me. i'm putting up my own money. [applause]

mr. trump: in fact, i feel a little foolish. people are offering me millions and millions of dollars care when you are in first place, you can collect so much money. i keep turning them down. i feel like, am i a fool? i feel very foolish. when i was in iowa last week, i said, what do you think? a big lobbyists offered me $5 million for my campaign. i said to the crowd in iowa, a great crowd of 4000 people, i said, can i take it, and what you believe, i will not do anything, i promise you and's ready you, when i do anything. they all stood up and said, no, no, do not take it. i am the only self funder, i am putting up my own money. there have been five or six super pac's where people are forming super pac's for trump. i have nothing to do with them. you are not allowed to have anything to do at them. i do not know what they will do it hopefully, if they do something, it will be nice.

i do not know anything about them are in a nutshell, i am funding my own campaign and no one else's. when people advertise, and i hope the voters can see this, every negative advertisement they see about me is paid for by lobbyists and special interests. remember that. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: our country could be doing much better. all bad trade agreements. an army that is not prepared. we have a military that needs help, especially in these times spirit we have nuclear weapons that, you look at 60 minutes, they do not even work, ok? the phones do not work. they are 40 years old. they have wires that are no good here nothing works. our country does not work.

everybody wins except us. we need victories in the country. we do not have victories anymore. our country will be great again, but right now, the country has major problems. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: yes, carly. i was in favor of her being in the debate. i think she should be. i do not like the fact that there are 11 people now as i understand it. they're not getting rid of rand paul or somebody. they shoulbecause it is too many people. when you have a 11, you will not hear me or other people talking, and i think that is too bad. i think 11 is a lot of people, but i was very happy she got into the debate. quite frankly, she deserves to be in the debate. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i like maybe he is inclined not to get into the race.

i think it will depend on what happens with hillary clinton. a lot of people think she will not be able to make it legally from a criminal standpoint to the starting gate. i do not know that to be true. i think it depends on what happens with her. i think if she gets out, he will gein. if she stays in, he might not. who knows? >> [inaudible] mr. trump: he is not supposed to be here. he was here. he was up in my office. he got the pledge and we are very happy about that. i told him, i said, i do not think it is appropriate for you to be here. you guys will end up saying he is endorsing trump. that would be inappropriate for him. i would suggest, frankly, i am fine with him not being here. i do not want anyone to think he is endorsing. as far as jeb is concerned, i watched him this morning on

television and it is a little bit that. don't forget, he was supposed to win. and he just does not have the energy. what he does have is a lot of money, given to him by special interests, donors, and lobbyist. i just hope if he spends money on advertisements, which he might not. i would spend money on positive ads about himself. if he knocks me, a semi-people leave, and maybe they are at a point whe they will not leave because they are fed up with this country, but i think they will go to people other than jeb. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i don't know. right now, i am interested in jobs. one, on cnn, i should not say that, but they did a poll. number one on the economy,

number one on jobs producing. i mean number one by many times. i am so intent on putting people back to work in this country. we have 93 million people that are not in the workforce right now. 93 million. when they give up looking for a job, they take him off the stats. they take him off the statistics. we have 93 million people. we have 50 million people between poverty levels and welfare and our country can be great again to we have to put people back to work. one or two more. >> [inaudible]

mr. trump: ok. what i bring my children into the administration? they are very capable. the answer is probably not. the second part is no longer pertinent. back there, go ahead. kanye west, i will never say bad about him. you know why? he loves trump. he goes around saying, trump is my all-time hero. he says it to everybody. kanye west, i love him. maybe in a few years, i will have to run against him. he has been so nice to me. you people have seen because i have been a counterpunch or peer and i hit people when they hit me, only. and kanye west has been so great. i would never say bad about him because he says such nice things about me. >> [inaudible]

mr. trump: no, my supporters are really supporting me because i am very competent. they know i will not let china rip us off. i will not let japan rip us off. japan is devaluing the yen, very hard for caterpillar and other companies to compete against their big tractor maker. we will not let this happen anymore. you talk about a trade imbalance. they have, in japan, the biggest ships you have ever seen pouring cars into los angeles. pouring the men. i've never seen anything like it. we send them bees and they do not even want it. in this building, i have the largest bank in the world, brighter than these elevators. it is a bank from china, by far the biggest bank in the world.

i get along great with china and japan. mexico, i people of love the hispanics, i have thousands of hispanics right now working for me. over the years, i have employed tens of thousands of hispanics, many from mexico. i have unbelievably great relationships. and in the package that we gave you, you will see there is a poll. i'm number one with hispanics -- you saw that. look -- for our country to be great, we have to be able to make great deals. we will be great to the vats. our military will be unbelievable -- all those things -- we will get rid of obamacare and let with something much better and much less expensive. we will get rid of it, repeal it, it will be out. it should have never happened. but we are going to take care of our country and we are going to bring back jobs and we will bring back wealth to the united

states so we can afford to save social security, which i will save without cuts, so we can afford to do the kind of things we have to do to make america great again. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much, and here is your pledge. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] mr. trump: it is a bubble waiting to explode and i have been saying that for a long time. what they are doing to china is a bubble waiting to explode -- and just rubberstamping. when it is a bubble, we can't be

brought down by the bubble. they have done things to cause it. we can be brought down. thank you, everybody. thank you, thank you. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, this is a very -- an amazing man. great as you know, a speaker of the house of indonesia. easier to see me. one of the most powerful men, and a great man, and his whole group is here to see me today, and we will do great things for the united states, is that correct? you are likely in indonesia >> >> yes, thank you. [applause]

>> tonight on q&a, the trouble with lawyers, critical look at the legal profession in the united states. the high cost of law schools and the lack of diversity in the profession. >> i think we need a different model of legal education. we need one that includes one your programs for people doing routine work, to your programs programs, and three full years for those who want the full general education. same crazy to train in the way someone who is doing routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and somebody who is doing mergers and acquisitions on wall street. of legalsize-fits-all education