we favor talks, logic, negotiations, and understanding. a revolutionary person is somebody who contributes. a revolutionary means a person who likes moderation. a revolutionary means somebody who puts up resistance, somebody market, on the world actually compete. a revolutionary person is somebody who is hopeful somebody , who is dynamic somebody who , likes reconstruction. a revolutionary is a person who wants to reconstruct iran. build iran. it is one who wants to give iran more dignity. a revolutionary wants to show the kind, to introduce the real and kind feature and image of islam. a revolutionary person wants to all ofe whole world that those in the region who are killing people under the name of islam, they are not muslims, neither are the revolutionaries, anybody who today removes a danger from the country, lawrence off danger that person , is a revolutionary. anybody who takes a step towards national progress that person is , a revolutionary. anybody who works towards the unity of iran, that person is a revolutionary. today, we sh

and from there farm logics was born. tech platform connecting farmers to large institutional kitchens born out of the farm to table movement. >> we all go to restaurants and see the local farms on the menu. that is a wonderful concept that really engages us and allows us to understand where our food comes from. when a chef puts a local farm on the menu it educates us about our food. >> reporter: the chicago-based company has done $8.5 million in sales with more than 200 farms across the country. pea pod, the online grocery service, and food service giant arrowmark, which has placed her in more than 1,000 schools nationwide, including the chicago public school district. >> it's helpful for us because consumers are more and more looking for transparency in the food that they buy and the food that they eat. and so they want a safe way to understand where and a trustful way to understand where they're getting their food and where it's being supplied from. >> reporter: linda estimates they've fed more than 500,000 kids so far

it's logical to make this radical decision. have you said to the lord, "lord, everything i am and everything i hope ever to be, i give it to you?" if you want to have one foot on one side of the fce and one foot on the other side of the fence, you want to be a christian over here, but live in the culture over here, you are in for a very discouraging and defeating experience. it is not possible to do that. so here's the first thing: make a radical decision. here's the second thing from romans 12: make a rational determination. "and do not be conformed to this world." let me explain to you what that means. there are two words in this text. one is confoed and the other is transformed. conformed means that you are allowing the world to pressure you into being like they are. isn't it interesting, men and women, what we tolerate today that we would never have tolerated in another time in our lives? how does that happen? that happens because we allow the world around us to squeeze us into its mold. the bible says in order for us to ge

vote for logic. will be a vote for law. and will be a vote to safeguard and stand up for your rights. that vote on election day means that people are interested in rebuilding a country, rebuilding the country based on dialogue. our votes do not go -- is not for those who want to turn their back on the law. we're not voting for those who go for bickering and wrangling and extremism. we vote for hope. we vote for a modern and free iran. we will build iran. the grandeur of the iranian nation, our national grandeur, we will bring that grandeur to the max and to a place where it deserves through unity and with god's grace. may god bless you all. i would also -- i would also like to thank all foreign guests attending this ceremony. >> defendant department officials are on capitol hill this morning to update members on congress on afghanistan national security forces. we'll have live coverage at 10:30 eastern as they testify before a house armed services subcommittee. until then we're going to show you a portion of this week's def

i'm telling you, a little rational,logical thought, and everythingis resolved. well, i'm glad you sorted that out. ahh. ok. don't forget thursday we start our unit on squeezing relatives out of the family business. hey, uh...hey, you. hey. you know, um... cleo laineis giving a concert at the newingauditorium. hey, no kidding. no. who's cleo laine? well, she's oneof the greatestjazz singers in the world. i saw her do porgy and bess. it gave me the chills. i saw porgy and bess. it was performed by leland high's pta. thelma feinstein as bess. it gave me the hives. mr. feinsteinprobably enjoyed it. oh, absolutely. well, he was porgy. embrace me my sweet embraceable you she's givinga performance tonight, and i've gottwo tickets. do you want to go? actually, uh, lauren's coming back tonight, so... oh. well, that's fine. marty, we got to talk about this. no, no. that's ok. i'm going to gohave my legs waxed. look, we can't keep avoiding it. let's just forget this whole thing. i can't believe any of this. how do youthink i feel? i don't know how you feel. that's the prob

>> absolutely, what is more logical. the only reason we weren't allowed or required before was because of the execution it follows lift the the exclusion opens it up. >> in the ented is it symbolic. if there was a series of wars or smaller wars seeing no one has been drafted since 1993. >> it's symbolic. do you think we might be more thoughtful about using the armed forces. it's all good. leading to talk about who is serving. >> let's go to the hypothetical. a craft is re-instated and some day we go to war. is there support for women that are not volunteers. what are we talking abouting women have been in combat for decades. we were there when people thought we weren't there. it's about recognition of the fact. you were volunteers. absolutely. what we are talking about is comfort level with the fact that we were there. that's part it of. the recognition that we have done it. we of course the question. do you know what i'm thinking about. there was a sergeant in my unit. in survival school. he stood up during a dehli comm

the areas they've just captured and as in many long military campaigns, truces are part of the logic of warfare. on the other hand if the president vladimir putin feels that the diplomatic cost in terms of his reputation and questions of the refugees, becomes too high, he might lean on the regime to seriously enforce a ceasefire. at this point today the evidence leads towards saying the russians and iranians will continue this campaign even if we have a week or two of rest >>> every time i hear a know fly zone suggested, i wonder if the u.s. would put itself in a position to shoot down a russian plane in a third party territory. wouldn't that be a pretty high wire act? >> now that they've into syria, the risks of that kind of incident would be much higher. not only the russian combat aircraft but also surface to air missiles are very capable. at this point that is risky. on the other hand if the west wants to bring something to the table and forcing a no fly zone or a broader safe zone, if you will, will be one step. another step would be to do what the u.s. did in afghanistan and th

she tells me it's logical because of the expense of going through two more trials when matthew a sexual assualt case in fairfax. gil harrington says it's compassionate for them because it's been 6 1/2 years since morgan disappeared and it's been daunting for them. matthew's hearing will take place wednesday at 1:30. a henry county man is lucky to

melissa: absolutely good logic, alan. thank you very much. david. david: joining me with more on these crazy markets, paul christopher, head global market strategist at wells fargo investment institute. paul, first of all, how much longer do you think markets will be tracking oil? >> i think markets are going to be tracking oil until oil puts in not just a bottom but starts to show signs of a rally. stocks will stay connected to oil till then. all gets back to global growth concerns. david: talk about growth. because a lot of people are wondering whether this market bounce we've had over the past week is due to a stronger economy or at least a stronger economy in the u.s., maybe not global. or is it that the market is just giving in to the fact that the fed has admitted it gives up, it will do what the market wants it to do? >> well i haven't seen the fed make such a willing statement yet but i do think that it is going to take a while before the global growth concerns are bonn. china is still out there as a worry for some people. really supply, oil

logically, this bill is completely ridiculous. cynthia: those in favor of dropping the 14-year-old age requirement for handguns say its about giving rights back to the >> me i want to take my , daughters out and teach them proper handgun safety along with proper long gun safety. i should be able to do that simultaneously. cynthia: nathan gibson's girls have been shooting since they were 5-years-old and fighting to change the law. they were ecstatic to see it pass. >> my kids aren't curious of guns anymore. they know what it does and they aren't going to play with it. we have taken that curiosity factor away. cynthia: the bill now moves on to the senate. stacey: other gun bills approved today include allowing loaded firearms on snow-mobiles and atvs, legalizing the use of suppressors on guns, and allowing people to use their guns in a state of emergency. also at the statehouse the iowa , senate today passed to so-called right to try bill. now goes to the iowa house for it -- and now goes to the iowa house for debate. ripplethe bill

and he's very logical. >> reporter: trump supporters had their own theories about others defecting. >> i think people got frustrated because he didn't show up to the last debate. >> you think that turned people away for him? >> yes. >> reporter: to borrow a phrase, voters may have decided to dance with donald, but marry marco or another traditional candidate. >> he says a lot of the things we all think. but when you're trying to think who you need to lead the country, you have to go with what seems to be more logical. >> pulling in new hampshire shows donald trump with a much larger lead in that state. the field has eight days to learn whatever lessons they can from here in iowa. reporting in des moines, garrett haake, wusa 9. >>> donald trump claims he is not getting enough for his performance. today, trump said the media is not covering his second place finish properly. ask that he came in a strong second in iowa. even though the experts said he couldn't do well there. both republican mike huckabee and democrat martin o'malley announced they are suspending their campaigns after a po

she says she's glad the lawyers were able to successfully come to what she describes as the most logical and compassionate resolution. she tells me it's logical because of the expense of going through two more trials when matthew a sexual assualt case in fairfax. gil harrington says it's compassionate for them because it's been 6 1/2 years since morgan disappeared and it's been daunting for them. matthew's hearing will take place wednesday at 1:30. a henry county man is lucky to alive tonight after his mobile home exploded in flames while he was inside. he has third degree burns over most of his body. wsls 10's colter anstaett spoke to the neighbor who pulled the man to safety. this morning, lillie paige arnold and her husband were at 71 graham park drive trying to salvage what is left after the mobile home was destroyed by a fire saturday morning. lillie and her husband own the trailers in the mobile home park. lillie paige arnold/propert y owner "we gonna clean it up. we aint going to put nothing back here." the fire marshal's office says the fire broke out around 9:30 a.m. when the ma

mark: stuart, it seems to make sense to me from a matter of logic. is it smart people working for other campaigns, why do you think people are not saying what you are saying? why are these campaigns not doing what you are saying? what could be the countervailing argument? stuart: i suspect it is denial. i thought donald trump would lose. he lost in iowa. i thought people could jump on that. look at what donald trump did in south carolina. he called george bush a war criminal and attacked a pope in one of the most religious states in the country. you basically have a guy running in republican primaries a combination of michael moore and christopher hitchens. that is an opportunity. you should be organizing faith leaders to attack him for not respecting the role of faith in the public square. you should be sending iraq vets to his rallies to confront him for calling george bush a liar. he is not going to self-destruct. you have to frame the argument. people will listen. this idea that donald trump has 35% or whatever and those people are not going to m

if the logic of obama's new lawyers is less secure than the logic of bush's old lawyers, the questionsed in "power wars" is why that should matter, given the new lawyers conclusions in shaping this ever malleable law are almost always the same. the rebuttal of obama's defenders is curious. as charlie has mentioned, some of obama's lawyers who had earlier criticized bush's nasa security policies before obama took office now insists that the real criticism of bush's policies is based not on civil liberties concerns but on rule of law concerns. they contain as charlie points out, they never really objected to the substance of bush policies at issue, such as bulk surveillance but only to the process by which those policies were implemented. such as lack of congressional approval. their real objective in the obama administration they suggested simply to restore rule of law more respectful a process. it's an interesting attempt at distinction but i think it's gotten through difficulty. first, it's, understood the concept of the rule of law is not that narrow. as most people use the term, wi

. >> trevor: if we're to go, working on that logic, if someone wants to say it would happen the oppositeing we're fighting a war. >> and we do say that. >> trevor: yes, fight ago war. and if someone were to do it the other way around, if, god forbid, a bomb were to be placed in a vehicle of an enemy combatant, somebody fighting in that war, and let's say a civilian got killed by that, would we still say, oh, yeah, that's war, or do we now say, no, no, that's terror when it's coming this way but it's war going that way? (applause) >> trevor, we're fighting an enemy that denies the very essence of the geneva convention which is fun fundamentally whatu described, the distinction between combatants and noncombatants. they deny that distinction for their victims and themselves -- all true believers are fighters, are jihadists. >> trevor: that's correct. now, look, war is always ugly. there is damage. innocents die. my responsibility in defending the nation is to defend the nation to the best of my ability and to minimize with every ounce of my being harming anyone we're not truly mad at. ther

it accepted the logic of sovereignty. the consequence is either the colonies are the vassals of parliament or they are totally independent. it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the parties of contact that we be reduced to a state of vassalage. we were thus independent. questions and set it up by giving them this -- hutchinson set it up by giving them this alternative. the colonies had to be distinct states from the mother country, united and connected only through the king in one head and common sovereignty. the smarts and extraordinary moment in the history of the debate. by 1774, all of the leading , allot pamphlet writers the intellectuals had confronted with the same choice. all in or all out. totally under parliaments authority or totally outside of it. .ut not from the british crown all these leading colonists set forth a radically new conception of the empire. each of the 13 colonies was totally independent of parliament, but each retained and allegiance to the king as the common link in the empire.

but the question and his desire and its's a logical one and wha it could provide in terms of sensor or engagement capability. again we've not made any movement or decision on this. i would, i would characterize it as we're discussing and considering options. but, again, you know, it was built as a faefcility and nothi more and before it transitions beyond that you have to see a whole department agreement and approach on that. [ inaudible ] >> i don't have a cost. there are many different levels of capability that could be considered. >> [ inaudible ] . >> i'm sorry can you repeat the question again. i got more on the west coast. the answer is no. 44 x 17, as you know, the effort on the kill vehicle on the redesigned kill vehicle is progressing and is far future, beyond the c 2 block 1 which we'll test later this year in terms of what we plan to do with that kill vehicle back to the ce 1 fleet and then any more beyond that i think you would see us requested in that design. we continue to, in the new design if we were to go beyond 44. the program plan is 44 x 17 with capability of the rx

it is hard to think of it in logical terms. anything else? >> do you think that hamilton giving away this shot thought that burr would give away this shot? >> you know, i think that is a very good idea. but you would think he would say something about it. i think that is a setup for some rather inconsistent behavior. what excuse can you kill someone which it isn't war time or any threat to you? you can't get heads of these people but looking at it from where we do this is bizarre. it is hard for a bizarre question like that to untangle the logic because we cannot see it or grasp the fundamental motivation. i can never place byself in that situation and i don't think anyone in this room could either. [inaudible question] >> i use both names in the book. she was the daughter of general skyler who was one of the al n baba bany family that ruled new york. when eliza appeared before hamilton at a christmas party in the wilderness during the war he is transfixed. you don't know what he is seeing. is he seeing money? is he seeing beauty? is he seein

and -- bipolar logic and false the economy. it's crazy and nonsensical and will inevitably -- false dichotomy. it's crazy, nonsensical, and will inevitably end up before the supreme court. tony: it's a mixed bag. congress needs to act, to be quite honest. you are an apple shareholder. you have some of your wealth in apple stock. do you think the apple business would be hurt if they changed the privacy rules and allow the government to get into this? tony: in the short-term, no, but for the medium and long term, i think there would be some damage to the brand, and that the big concern. paul, all of these other technology companies are lining up with apple. facebook, microsoft, google. they are lining up against you. -- why'd hethink think these companies are doing that? -- why do you think these companies are doing that? paul: they see where this is inevitably going. legality of extra attached to public or private networks is going to go away because it's indefensible. in a society with laws and legitimate court orders, you cann

it from where we do, this is bizarre and it's hard for bizarre situation like that to untangle its logic because we just can't see it greatly can't grasp the fundamental motivation come at least i can. i can describe it and i can discuss it but i can't get it and i could never place myself in that situation and i don't think anybody in this room could be there. >> can you talk a little bit about -- [inaudible] >> well eliza or call betsy. i use use betsy in the book another's use eliza. she was the daughter of general skylar who is one of the great albany families that ruled new york and as well as being a rich landowner that he was heavy in the revolutionary army. when eliza appeared before hamilton and had a little christmas party in the wilderness during the war, he is absolutely transfixed. you don't know what he is seeing. assisi money or is he seeing beauty or is he saying kindness or what? it's not obvious and he had written this odd letter that i go on about in the book to his great friend john lawrence who is a fellow aid in which he described in detail their characteristics of

but the question and his desire and it's a logical one and what could be done and what could it provide in terms of either sensor or engagement capability. again we've not made any movement or decision on this. i would, i would characterize it as we're discussing and considering options. but, again, you know, it was built as a test facility and nothing more. and before it would transition to anything beyond that you'd have to see a whole department agreement and approach on that. [ inaudible ] >> i don't have a cost. there are many different levels of capability that could be considered. >> [ inaudible ] >> i'm sorry can you repeat the question again. i got more on the west coast. the answer is no. 44x17. as you know, the effort on the kill vehicle on the redesigned kill vehicle is progressing and is far future, beyond the c2 block 1 which we'll test later this year in terms of what we plan to do with that kill vehicle back to the ce 1 fleet and then any more beyond that i think you would see us requested in that design. we continue to, in the new rkb design if we were to go beyond 44.

so i logically asked for for an intelligence assessment to support that argument.llow along i asked what assessment has been done to reflect that guantÁnamo has increased terrorist recruitment. finally, mr. president was there any and all data to to support the administration's argument that national security threats will decrease if enemy combines are held in the united states, common sense will tell you that it would increase. two months later the response confirmed my assumptions. the department of defense had no intelligence products. none. no intelligence products, no data to provide to support the president's argument that gitmo serves as a recruiting tool and that moving detainees to the mainland would increase security and decrease the terrorist threat to the united states and all of the other claims. my colleagues, this plan really confirms what many of us already know. there is no safe alternative. not in kansas, not in colorado, not in south carolina, nowhere on the mainland is there a secure and responsible alternative. if there were, this president wou

sure you could become the nominee without brandishing that aforementioned hatchet. >> there may be logic, if he's right and john kasich isn't part of this, and it's a three-party race, plenty of people in the establishment want someone to take on trump. the other thing is, i think hoe's a little concerned. i'm just guessing here, that if he takes on trump now, trump comes back at him hard with paid media. rubio doesn't have enough time or money to defend himself. >> all right. over the past couple of days, there has been a lot of talk about the republican nomination boiled down to a three-man race, donald trump, marco rubio and ted cruz. that leaves out the only governor left standing in this race, ohio's john kasich. who caused a little commotion today with a curious comment in fairfax, virginia, which he seemed to have read from a page ripped straight from a binder full of women. >> how did i get elected? i didn't have anybody for me. we just got an army of people who -- and many women who left their kitchens to go out door to door, and to put yard signs up for me all the way back when

says it will change somewhat, but this hasn't been a logical year. >>> let talk about factors such as likeability. you noted bill clinton, when president obama was elected. i don't get that sense on the democratic side now. >> well when supporters fall in love with the candidate they usually win. this year they are falling in line. the supporters are going with the likely nominee but most people really aren't in love with her. voters will stay home? >> they'll stay home or won't be active. >>> is there one candidate that could take down hillary clinton? because it went back and forth between trump and cruz. un-theoretically hillary clinton could beat any of them. >>> have you ever seen anything like this? >> oh, god no. this is the craziest year anyone can remember and some people would say it even a scary year because there's so much chaos, i mean can you imagine any of the candidates last night negotiating with foreign leaders? again, i understand it from rubio's and cruz's perspective,. >> they have to shine. >> but again, no one looked very presidential. >> do you think this lack

it will defy logic through the course of this year. new hampshire may be different because it is new hampshire and more people looking at national polls. more people are aware of puppy monkey. and that's the environment, folks tis challenging and so much is made of the rubio performance and his repetitive. and christie popping on him as well. and he could and should. and all candidates and that is on the democratic side have rehearsed talking points. i think the voters are smart enough to sort it out. magry, new hampshire voters, they can vote in either primary. a senator who is raising a lot of excitement in new hampshire. do they vote for sanders or go with the race that most people are saying more exciting, the republican side? >> sanders comes from a neighboring state and in that part of the country, he may have jews we don't foresee. but it is the independents that are moderate has hillary clinton claimed to be as kasich and bush might be. and so again, i think the question remains to be seen. trump continues to drum on. he was ta

ink.ink w everything i am saying seems ludicrous and radical, but to me it seems rep -- logical where they are heading. we heading?re >> a . heading to ae all new way. paradigm shifts, etc.. michael: the new new normal is going to look a lot like what the old normal did. the government said, let's run a huge deficit. that will have side effects. if you start seeing that, you will have effects and at the same time you will have impact on the labor market. why should you allow other people to migrate to your country. there are lots of very retrograde side effects to what i am talking about but logically looking further ahead than the negative interest rate at the moment, i cannot see how we can avoided unless you see something radical helping elsewhere. the monetary side says, stop working basically. we are getting diminishing returns. absolutely, or negative. rishaad: stick around, michael. taking a break. looking at a striate, one of many countries facing the bear market. one seems to be a bit of a bright spot. with that video, the details live from sydney next on asia edge. ♪ >> welc

where have we heard this logic before? from conservatives?ll legislation ends up restricting their liberty and denying their equal citizenship. you are just catching on to this? have you looked at the minimum wage laws, professors? it creates general dependence, professors and how regulating big business hurts employees more than the companies, professors. enough with the professor stuff. when lawmakers try to protect people they almost always hurt them. why don't they look at history when assessing the liberal laws? that would be too consistent. >> kennedy, did you get my reference to the story professor, professor, professor. >> that's the one with tom hanks, right? >> it was katherine hepburn and she keeps calling professor over and over. the laws, these have unintended consequences. >> they are catching on when it suits them. that's why lovers of liberty realize when you over regulate it is the unintended consequences that you did not have the fore sight to stop in the first place and that's what economies and individuals and that's an ou

they defended polygamy on social logical and biblical grounds.if you read the whole testament has anyone here read the hottest and? [laughter] a couple of you. okay you'll find that it's in favor of polygamy. so this is something that was pointed out by mormons. another person by the visit was in favor was martin luther some of you may have heard of him. he had something to do with the founding of protestantism. he was in favor also on the biblical grounds because he had read the old testament. it seemed like god was in favor of polygamy. the latter-day saints was an latter day saints was an enemy of the state. they were perpetrating treason against the government and a total subversion of the republicanism. some people even said it wasn't a religion at all, and e-echo that we echo that we have in the debates of islam with a claim that it is and a religion at all it is a political demonstration. this cultural war involved all three branches of the government. five presidents delivered speeches and the speeches and the first supreme court opinion

if, in fact, the republicans in the senate take a posture that defies -- the constitution defies logic is not supported by tradition simply because of politics, then invariably what you will see is a further ability ofon in the any president to make judicial appointments. and appointments to the supreme court as well as the federal bench become a complete of polarizing politics. more and more vacancies and the court systems breakdown. the credibility of the court itself diminishes because it is viewed simply as an extension of our politics. this is a republican judge or a democratic judge. as opposed to a supreme court justice that is supposed to be standing above the politics taking place. i understand the posture they are taking. i get the politics. i'm sure they are under enormous pressure from their base and constituencies around this issue. i've talked to many of them and i've told them i am sympathetic. , there is not a lot of vigor in the position. they are pretty sheepish about it when they make those comments. so we will see how it plays itself out. and let the job american pe

this is the logic we are hearing. we have the media saying if trump wins iowa, caucus winners never win the presidency. if they didn't they would say how can he win the presidency without iowa. melissa: if you look at the fact he didn't spend any money. he wasn't slated to win iowa. he's clearly not a religious man. how strong he did was remarkable. >> i agree his playing the faith card was totally insincere. andrea: marco rubio had an incredible night last night. he did really well. he outperformed the polls. but the rubio camp said he would do better than we thought. har require' an exciting time for him to be able to make his case. for him to make the case, he continues that on. i know we'll hear from him later. andrea: off to new hampshire. that should be fascinating. democrats had a busy night in iowa, too. hillary clinton and bernie sanders locked in a dead heat with no official winner declared yet. such a slim victory, is that a loss for the former secretary of state? foxnews.com/out numbered. tell us what you

. >> using that logic, you should be conceived on donald trump's birthday. >> yes, here i am. >> yes.ong? that would be a winner. that child would never lose. final question from sean. >> a recent poll found that 53% of women would break up with their boyfriend if they don't get a gift on valentine's day. do you feel they've making the right decision? >> yes, as a matter of fact, tell cheapskate to hit the road. >> i love how he answers his own damn question. but i have to disagree with sean. you don't want to be alone. don't break up with them. you'll end up like this. if women want gifts, they can buy them for themselves. i'm going to go and personallyo buy myself a gift at k jewelers. every kiss begins with k. >> i think it's really impressive that since opening in 1916, they've gone from one store to 900 locations nationwide. >> what is this? what is this? >> every kiss begins with a k. or if you're racist, k, k, k. >> closing statements? >> yes, thank you, greg. in the great words of tina turner what's love got to do, got to do with it. everything. thank you, god bless america. >

mark: stuart, it seems to make sense to me from a matter of logic.hy is it smart people working for other campaigns, why do you think people are not saying what you are saying? why are these campaigns not doing what you are saying? what could be the countervailing argument? >> i suspect it is denial. i thought donald trump would lose. he lost in iowa. i thought people could jump on that. look at what donald trump did in south carolina. he called george bush a war inminal and attacked a pope one of the most religious states in the country. you basically have a guy running in republican primaries a combination of michael moore and christopher hitchens. that is an opportunity. you should be organizing faith leaders to attack him for not respecting the role of faith in the public square. you should be sending iraq vets to his rallies to confront him for calling george bush a liar. he is not going to self-destruct. you have to frame the argument. people will listen. this idea that donald trump has 35% or whatever and those people are not going to move, i