PBS NewsHour full episode August 23, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: tariffs, tweets
and turmoil. President Trump’s threats to China send markets
tumbling, as the embattled chair of the Federal Reserve warns trade tensions could weaken
the economy. Then: black skies over Brazil — accusations,
international outrage and calls for action as the Amazon burns. And from anecdote to analysis, getting to
the bottom of how U.S. foreign aid actually works to help lift people out of extreme poverty. DEAN KARLAN, Northwestern University: I was
really struck by how little they knew about whether they were generating an impact. And there really was just nothing resembling
evidence and data that was being used to inform these kinds of decisions. JUDY WOODRUFF: Plus, it’s Friday. Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru are here to
analyze President Trump’s attacks on China and the U.S. Federal Reserve chair, the state
of the 2020 Democratic presidential field, and the legacy of conservative philanthropist
David Koch. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The trade war between the U.S.
and China escalated today, sending the financial markets into a tailspin. It all came as President Trump leveled his
fiercest criticism yet at the chairman of the Federal Reserve. China first announced it is imposing new tariffs
on $75 billion worth of American goods. Soon after, the president said he wanted U.S.
companies to stop doing business with China, tweeting: “Our great American companies are
hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China.” The Dow Jones industrial average plunged today,
losing 623 points at the end of the day. It closed at 25628, a drop of more than 2
percent. After the markets closed, the president announced
his own retaliation even higher tariffs on more than $550 billion worth of Chinese goods
that will kick in during the fall. At the same time, Mr. Trump used unprecedented
language today to attack Fed Chair Jay Powell for not clearly announcing another interest
rate is coming — interest rate cut is coming. “My only question,” he said in a tweet, “is,
who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?” — a reference to the leader of China. Before those tweets, Powell had signaled that
the Fed may cut rates in the fall, but also warned of risks from the trade war. It has been, as you can tell, a dramatic day. Catherine Rampell joins us now. She is a special correspondent for us and
she’s a columnist at The Washington Post. So, Catherine, I hardly know where to begin,
but let me start by asking you about the effect of these tariffs announced by China in the
morning, and then, at the end of the day, the president, President Trump, announcing
higher tariffs on China. What does this all mean for the economy? CATHERINE RAMPELL, The Washington Post: So,
China’s retaliatory tariffs, which is what they were, right? They were in response to tariffs that Trump
himself had announced earlier this month that will go into effect in September and December. China’s retaliation, its tit-for-tat retaliation,
was widely expected. We didn’t know exactly what form it would
take. So, that, in and of itself, probably won’t
change the narrative or feelings of confidence, or lack thereof, all that much. However, the question is, would things escalates
further? And that is what we saw at the end of the
day. That’s what markets were worried about throughout
the day, after Trump himself initially tweeted that some sort of vengeance was in the offing. And you can imagine that that, in and of itself,
will weigh on confidence, as well as, of course, raise costs for importers, retailers, consumers,
manufacturers, and other Americans. JUDY WOODRUFF: And then you combine that Catherine
with the speech today that Jay Powell, the chairman of the Fed, made at this gathering,
meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where he talked about the slowdown that the Fed is
expecting, to what extent he’s expecting, they’re expecting that. And he coupled that with a difficulty that
he suggested the Fed has in dealing with trade difficulties. And I’m just going to quote quickly. He said: “There are, however, no recent precedents
to guide any policy response to the current situation. Moreover, while monetary policy is a powerful
tool, it can provide a subtle rule book for international trade.” What does that signal? CATHERINE RAMPELL: What that means is that
the Federal Reserve knows that its job is to do its — do right by the economy, right,
to fulfill its dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices. But it can’t control everything. And, in particular, it can’t control risks
such as policy decisions that the White House is making regarding escalating trade tensions,
not only with China, but with other countries around the world. So what Chairman Powell was trying to convey
is that people still should be confident in the trajectory of the economy. And while there are risks out there, they
are aware of those risks, they will do their best to adjust policy in response to them,
but they can’t be sort of a Holy Grail kind of backstop. And they can’t counter every single possible
risk, particularly ones that are sort of self-inflicted at this point. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you layer on top of that
President Trump’s — I think the most vivid example of his criticism of Chairman Powell
was today, when he said, who’s the greater enemy of the U.S., Chairman Powell, Jay Powell,
or the head of China? What are we to make of this? What does this say to Americans, to the business
community? CATHERINE RAMPELL: I think it says a few things. First of all, this is highly unprecedented
on many levels. Right? Chairman Powell was Trump’s own pick. Powell, of course, is also at the independent
— politically independent Central Bank. And we need to bear in mind that, historically,
at least for the last several decades, the White House has had a norm of never commenting
on Fed policy at all, let alone sort of cyber-bullying, I guess, members of the Fed or threatening
to fire them, as Trump himself has done. I think the way that markets might be interpreting
all of this is with a bit of nervousness, because, again, the Fed is trying to convey
that you can count on us, that whatever risks are out there, we will do our best to counter
them. But, at the same time, the president is trying
to discredit the Fed and, one might argue, sort of scapegoat them. I mean, he’s explicitly said that, right? President Trump has said that any weaknesses,
any frailties within the economy are the Fed’s fault. So the Fed is in this very difficult position
where they’re trying to inspire confidence. They’re trying to maintain both their actual
political independence and their perceived political independence. And they want make sure that, if they go ahead
and further cut rates, as Powell sort of suggested was likely during his speech today, that they
are doing it because they think it’s in the best interest of the economy, and not because
they’re caving to political pressure. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just finally, quickly,
Catherine, when the president tweeted today that American companies — he said, I’m ordering
American companies to stop doing business in China, does he have the power to do that? CATHERINE RAMPELL: I am not aware of any authority
that the president has to do that. He can make life more difficult, of course,
for companies operating in China. And the American Chamber — or the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the National Retail Federation and others have basically said, it’s impossible,
essentially, for us to forego these markets. It’s impossible for us to reroute all of our
supply chains, especially on short notice. And the fact that Trump is raising tariffs,
escalating these trade wars, makes all of those decisions even more difficult. But, no, they’re not going to voluntarily
leave these places, if they haven’t already. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Catherine Rampell
joining us on this pretty remarkable day in the financial markets and as we look at World
Trade. Catherine, thank you very much. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: This evening, President Trump
will be leaving Washington for Southwest France, for this weekend’s G7 summit of world leaders. Our White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor,
is there ahead of the president’s arrival. So hello, Yamiche. Given all that’s going on today, it makes
one wonder if these leaders are prepared for the unpredictability around President Trump. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, world leaders were
already bracing for the president to be an unpredictable part of the G7 here in France. And now they’re even more anxious, given the
fact that the president has gone after the Federal Reserve chair and he is now escalating
the trade war with China, saying that he is going to be escalating tariffs on them. And the important thing to note is that President
Trump has had several raucous G7s. Last year, he refused to sign the joint communique
that the others signed. As a result, the French president, Emmanuel
Macron, said there won’t even be joint communique floated this year. That’s really the president then changing
the way that international organizations and international groups are functioning. The president also pushed for and successfully
got added to the G7 schedule a meeting about global economies. President Trump wants to use that meeting
to talk about how strong the American economy is, and really talk about the fact that there
isn’t a recession coming, even though some economic — economists are really worried
about that. He wants to also say that European leaders
need to be pushing their economies to grow faster, and that the U.S. is really a leader
on the economic world stage. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, in fact, Yamiche, we know
the world leaders are planning to talk about their concerns about a global slowdown. Do they have a plan in mind for what to do
about that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: World leaders are very,
very worried about the economic slowdowns that are happening all across the world. I have been talking to foreign experts about
this. And they say not only is the U.S. looking
at an economic slowdown, but there’s China, there’s Germany, there’s Japan. All of those countries are looking down the
line and seeing risky issues with their economy. The president doesn’t have the same ideals
as a lot of the world leaders that are coming here to France. A lot of them want to use the power of their
— of the meeting of the G7 to work on trade issues, to work on climate change. The president doesn’t have the same views. So, there are a lot of people saying that
this is really the G6, plus one, which is the United States. There isn’t right now a clear idea of what
world leaders want to do to try to stop these economic — economies from slowing down. But what we see is people really coming here
with a lot of anxiety. JUDY WOODRUFF: And finally, Yamiche, and very
quickly, we know they’re also going to be talking about security issues around Russia,
around Iran. Do they have a clear plan in mind for either
one? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump has been
using misleading information about why Russia was kicked out of what used to be the G8. They were kicked out because they annexed
Crimea, which was a sovereign part of the Ukraine. President Trump has been using the false claim
that Russia was kicked out because President Trump (sic) got outsmarted. It’s still unclear whether or not world leaders
are going to be open to the idea of even talking about Russia coming back into the G7, because
experts tell me Russia’s behavior hasn’t changed. Add to that the fact that the French president,
Emmanuel Macron, wants to talk about the Iran nuclear deal and wants to use the G7 to ease
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The president is going to be sitting down
with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the U.K., and they’re going to be talking about Brexit
and that issue. So it’s still early to say how the security
issues are going to shake out here. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, a lot to keep an
eye on you. Yamiche Alcindor there reporting for us, the
G7 meetings getting under way tomorrow in Southwest France. Thank you, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: The
government of Brazil moved to deploy troops tomorrow to rein in raging wildfires across
the Amazon rain forest. William Brangham reports. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Large parts of the Amazon
are being engulfed in record-breaking flames. More than 9,500 fires have broken out this
past week. Today, under increasing pressure to address
the crisis, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro talked of sending in the army, saying — quote
— “That’s the plan.” He had conceded yesterday that the situation
is dire, and that his government lacked the resources to fight it. JAIR BOLSONARO, Brazilian President (through
translator): The Ministry of Justice can send 40 men to combat the fight, but do you understand
that, 40 men? There are not enough resources. We are in chaos. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Forest fires are common
in Brazil this time of year, but their numbers have skyrocketed to more than 75,000 this
year. That’s up 80 percent from 2018. And the smoke from them has turned Sao Paulo’s
midday skies into total darkness. Bolsonaro has said, with no evidence, that
nonprofit groups started the fires to undermine him. But scientists point to three main causes
all stemming from human activity that are driving this crisis, first, rampant deforestation. A staggering amount of the Amazon rain forest
gets cut down intentionally. In June alone, an area half the size of Rhode
Island was lost. Much of the logging is illegal, and driven
by rising agriculture in the region. Fire is routinely used by farmers to clear
out the brush for farming and grazing. Droughts have also played a key role. They occur naturally, but scientists say climate
change is likely making them worse and more frequent. The right-wing populist president has relaxed
environmental protections and prioritized opening up the rain forest for development. Bolsonaro has called the fires an internal
matter for Brazilians to resolve, but international pressure for action is mounting. French President Emanuel Macron plans to highlight
the crisis at this weekend’s G7 summit with world leaders in France. And Macron threatened to withdraw French support
for a trade deal between the European Union and South American countries, including Brazil,
if immediate action is not taken. Ireland quickly followed suit. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m William Brangham JUDY WOODRUFF: The Assad regime in Syria scored
another victory today in its long fight to reclaim control of the country. Government forces seized a cluster of towns
in northern Hama province. That’s just south of Idlib province, the last
major rebel stronghold. A Syrian military offensive in the region
has killed more than 2,000 people and forced half-a-million to flee since April. In Hong Kong, pro-democracy protesters formed
a human chain tonight. People linked hands across the Chinese territory. Organizers said it extended 25 miles to show
solidarity and appeal for international support. It was inspired by a human chain in the Baltic
states 30 years ago today. Some two million people took part in that
event to protest Soviet control. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is
free tonight after a month in a Moscow jail for calling a protest without government permission. Russian authorities clamped down on the mass
protests earlier this summer, detaining 1,400 people and arresting dozens of leaders. Navalny walked free today, vowing to keep
up the pressure and warning of new repression. ALEXEI NAVALNY, Russian Opposition Leader
(through translator): Now we see the final stage of degradation of this political regime,
who used to exist thanks to lies and falsifications. Now we see that lies and falsifications are
not enough. It proves that the authorities have no support. They feel it and fear it. JUDY WOODRUFF: The protests began after Moscow
barred nearly two dozen independent candidates from running in city elections next month. They are seen as a possible litmus test for
national elections in 2021. Back in this country, the Trump administration
asked the U.S. Supreme Court today to rule that federal law does not bar companies from
firing workers just because they are gay. The Justice Department argued the 1964 Civil
Rights Act was not intended to ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender
people. The department made a similar argument last
week in a case specific to transgender rights. There is word that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
was treated this month for a tumor on her pancreas. A court statement today said the tumor was
malignant, but localized. It said there is no evidence that the disease
has spread and no need for additional treatment. Ginsburg is 86. She has had several bouts with cancer since
1999. One more Democratic presidential candidate
dropped out of the running today. Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts
had focused on mental health issues, but failed to gain traction in the crowded Democratic
field. Moulton is now the third candidate to quit
the race in recent days. And David Koch has died. He was a billionaire businessman, one-time
vice presidential nominee, and conservative mega-donor. John Yang looks at his life and legacy. JOHN YANG: David Koch helped his brother Charles
expand the Wichita-based Koch Industries into one of the largest privately-held corporations
in the world. He quickly became a notable figure in elite
New York social circles. The business eventually became the fuel behind
one of the highest-spending political action groups in modern American politics, Americans
for Prosperity. NARRATOR: Americans for Prosperity is responsible
for the content of this advertising. JOHN YANG: The anti-tax, pro-small government
group poured hundreds of millions of dollars into conservative candidates and causes, often
through untraceable so-called dark money contributions. MAN: The president’s doing a mediocre job. JOHN YANG: The oil-and gas-based Koch network
spent just under $400 million on the 2012 election, an unparalleled sum at the time
that filled the airwaves with attack ads. NARRATOR: President Obama’s health care law
is actually one of the largest tax increases in history. JOHN YANG: Targeting President Obama and the
Affordable Care Act, while long denying climate change. DAVID KOCH, Co-Founder, Americans for Prosperity:
I’m basically a libertarian. JOHN YANG: In a 2014 interview with ABC’s
Barbara Walters, Koch defended his political contributions. BARBARA WALTERS, ABC News: Do you think it’s
fair that just because you have billions of dollars, you can influence elections? DAVID KOCH: Well, I contribute to public candidate
campaigns, and there’s a federal limit on how much you can contribute to each individual
candidate. I obey the law in that regard, and feel I’m
doing it properly. JOHN YANG: Limits on corporate donations to
political candidates had been lifted four years earlier, the result of the Citizens
United Supreme Court battle that the brothers had helped fund. The Koch brothers famously didn’t endorse
Donald Trump in 2016, over concerns about free trade. But their group did target several Democratic
senators in the 2018 midterm elections. In addition to politics, Koch gave millions
to cancer research, some PBS programs, and a full wing of the Smithsonian’s Natural History
Museum. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang. JUDY WOODRUFF: And still to come on the “NewsHour”:
Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru examine how President Trump rattles the financial markets
and European allies; the science of giving, what works and what doesn’t and eating the
world’s poorest individuals; plus, backstage with Atticus Finch — the star Broadway’s
“To Kill a Mockingbird” gets into character. As we have been reporting, President Trump
continues his disputes with China and the Federal Reserve, as economic jitters grow. And three Democratic presidential candidates
have now bowed out of the 2020 race. Here to help us understand the politics of
it all are Shields and Ponnuru. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and
Ramesh Ponnuru of “The National Review.” David Brooks is away. And hello to both of you on this Friday night. We have got a lot going on and a lot to talk
about. Mark, I’m going to start with you. Today, we started out with China announcing
higher tariffs on, what, $75 billion worth of American goods, somewhat expected. But then the president unleashed a barrage
of criticisms, not only on China. By the end of the day, he had slapped new
tariffs — said he was slapping new tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese
goods. He was attacking the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, and on and on. What are we to make of it? MARK SHIELDS: I wish I knew, Judy. I really do. I mean, it’s a performance of staggering instability,
more than anything else. You look at the president attacking his own
chairman of the Federal Reserve, and comparing — saying that his damage to the United States
is greater than that — greater threat than that of Chairman Xi. Quite honestly, China is a human rights abuser
of historic dimensions. There’s million people who are Muslims right
now in reeducation camps. There’s religious persecution abroad. I mean, this is so unfair, unjust, and inaccurate. But, in a larger sense, domestically, it’s
unnerving to the United States, to those who want to invest in the country, employers who
want to hire, want to expand. They’re looking for predictability. They’re looking for stability. They’re getting absolutely none of that. Three times this week, the White House changed
its position on a tax cut. I wish I knew. I bet Ramesh has a lot better answer. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, massive instability,
Ramesh? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, the president’s tweets
today attacking the Federal Reserve chairman that he himself appointed, declaring China
an enemy, but possibly not as much of an enemy as that appointee, were — they were appalling
tweets. But one of the points he made was absolutely
true, which is that China has abused the trade system, its intellectual property theft, forced
technology transfers. Those are real abuses. The problem is, Trump has created a problem
for himself. He has backed himself into a corner. He has made a big part of his identity that
he is going to be the president who, for the first time, takes those abuses seriously,
holds the Chinese to account. And he’s finding that, the way he’s done it,
going unilaterally, going with — in with vague demands, without even a unified team
of his own negotiators, is not working. And I think that is the frustration that is
boiling up in these tweets and now boiling up in actual tariffs. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, can we write it off
then to just frustration with the problems that he’s had inside his administration? I mean… MARK SHIELDS: Judy, every presidency — and
I have been through 11 of them now — is basically a mirror reflection of the man at the top
— and eventually will be a woman at the top — but the strengths and weaknesses of that
individual. This is — Donald Trump, the pattern is familiar
by now. He finds somebody, they’re the best, because
he knows the best, and the best people want to work for him, and he hires them. He praises them to the sky. They get in trouble, he loses confidence,
he banishes them to the outer darkness. I mean, outstanding Americans, like General
Jim Mattis and others have just served, served their country, and been gone. I mean, so the instability begins right at
the top. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, I mean, even on top of
that, which is something I discussed earlier with Catherine Rampell, Ramesh, and that is
his ordering, in a tweet, ordering American companies to stop doing business with China. I mean… RAMESH PONNURU: And, of course, presidents
can’t do that. Presidents don’t have that kind of authority. But I suppose, if you’re the sort of person
who thinks that, as president, you should just be able to say something, and it happens,
that would add to your frustration. JUDY WOODRUFF: But does this help him politically,
all this? RAMESH PONNURU: I don’t think so. I think that it is undermining the economy. The reaction of the stock market suggests
they don’t believe — the people with real money on the line do not believe that this
is going to produce Chinese concessions that are going to be worth it for the economy going
forward. And I do think that, as fashionable as it
is to say that nothing can dent President Trump’s approval ratings, the one thing that
could is a weakening economy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying this could… (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: Let me just pick up on Ramesh’s
point, because I think it’s a good one. Judy, in the final analysis, it’s a personal
assessment people make of their president. And there is a very simple four-part question
that has been asked for the past 45 years. I like the president personally and I agree
with most of his policies. I like the president personally, disagree. I dislike the president, don’t agree, dislike
the president, agree. With Ronald Reagan, 75 percent of Americans
liked him, liked him. That is formidable job when you’re trying
to unseat somebody. JUDY WOODRUFF: Whatever they thought of his
policies. MARK SHIELDS: That’s right. Even Bill Clinton, going through the Monica
Lewinsky and impeachment, was at 73 percent approval rating, and with 65 percent liking
him. Donald Trump, Donald Trump, with the lowest
unemployment in 50 years, has 30 percent of Americans who like him, who like him. So that’s the benefit of the doubt he has
going. And I just — I really think he’s in enormous
political trouble. And I think he understands that, and I think
that’s anxiety-generating in him. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s turn — I mean,
there’s a lot to say about all that happened today, and the Federal Reserve and China,
but let’s spend a few minutes talking about the Democrats. Ramesh, we lost three more of the — I guess
you could say the candidates who hadn’t really caught on this week. Today, Seth Moulton, the congressman from
Massachusetts, announced he’s not running. But you still have a good 20-plus candidates
in the race. Where does this Democratic race stand right
now? Has it firmed up? Is it — is it all over the map? How do you see it? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think that Vice President
Biden has shown stronger staying power than people might have thought, even after that
first debate, where he seemed to be rattled by Senator Kamala Harris’ attack on him. He has maintained his leadership at the polls. He’s maintained, I think, very importantly,
a multiracial coalition. You don’t need one of those to win a Republican
presidential nomination. You do to win a Democratic presidential nomination. And, right now, he’s doing better among blacks
and Hispanics than he is among white voters. And there’s nobody else really at the top
level of the party who can say that they have got a similar really broad coalition. So he’s riding maybe a little too much on
electability. Maybe he doesn’t have enthusiastic support. But I still think you might rather be him
than any of the other candidates. JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see this Democratic
race? MARK SHIELDS: Well, Bob Strauss, the great
Democratic chair, said once that the toughest thing is not to announce that you’re running
for president and throw your hat in the ring or take a chance. The toughest thing is to admit you have lost
and to withdraw. And that takes an awful lot of guts to do
it. And so the people who left, Hickenlooper in
Colorado and Inslee in Washington, were people of accomplishment. I mean, they have been governors. They have been mayors. They had a record of achievement. I mean, my bias for executors vs. legislators
is admitted. And so I think they’re — they’re a loss to
the party in that sense. And Congressman Moulton launched a challenge
to Nancy Pelosi for the speakership, and in the presidential nomination, did just about
as well. And they all have to get back to trying to
get elected, as with Senator — Mayor — Governor Hickenlooper is trying to do right now in
Colorado. JUDY WOODRUFF: So he’s running in Colorado
for the Senate. MARK SHIELDS: He’s running in Colorado for
the Senate. So, no, I think, Judy, that Ramesh’s analysis
is pretty solid. Joe Biden is running on electability. The only drawback to electability is, you
have to win. And if you don’t win Iowa and you don’t win
New Hampshire, then your electability, even though it looks good in November, is undermined. I think anybody who looks at the Democratic
race has to be impressed by what Elizabeth Warren has done. She came in under the worst circumstances,
self-created, and forswore any big money. She’s managed to… JUDY WOODRUFF: Took a lot of criticism. (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: Took a lot of criticism, has
raised — has raised money, has generated enthusiasm and great response. And her numbers are up. And Kamala Harris’ numbers, she went after
Joe Biden. She was the one that hit them. She belled that cat. And she’s paid for it. I mean, — she’s her own numbers have shrunk
in the meanwhile. JUDY WOODRUFF: Last thing I want to ask you
both about is what we just heard in that report from John Yang. And that’s the legacy of David Koch. Here you have a multibillionaire, Ramesh,
who gave millions and millions, I don’t know what the total is, to conservative causes,
as well as to charitable causes. What’s his legacy in American politics? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think that he was
able to move the needle on some issues, not so much conservative issues, as libertarian
issues, where a lot of conservatives weren’t with him. But he was a principled libertarian. And he supported drug legalization. He supported… JUDY WOODRUFF: Which a lot of people don’t
remember. RAMESH PONNURU: That’s right. Supported same-sex marriage. He gets a lot of criticism from the left,
but, because of those principles, he was willing to work with liberals on those issues. I think, though, his death comes at a time
when that philosophy is waning in America. JUDY WOODRUFF: The libertarian… (CROSSTALK) RAMESH PONNURU: The libertarian philosophy,
the small government philosophy. You see Republicans like Donald Trump moving
in the direction of tariffs and immigration control. And you see Democrats moving in the direction
of national health insurance, Green New Deal. So you do wonder whether this death is maybe
a little bit more symbolic. MARK SHIELDS: I met David Koch in 1980. He was a vice presidential nominee on the
Libertarian ticket, a party that was dedicated to the abolition of the federal income tax,
abolition of child labor laws, and the repeal of Medicare. He is proof of the golden rule in American
politics. He who has the gold rules. They put in hundreds of millions of dollars. They put in dark money. It was — it against any disclosure. JUDY WOODRUFF: Money… MARK SHIELDS: Money that was not revealed. JUDY WOODRUFF: … was unlabeled. MARK SHIELDS: And, Judy, whether you’re talking
about opposition to clean air laws or clean water laws, under libertarian philosophy,
yes, but there’s no question about it, the air is less clean and the water is less clean. And I just — I just think that with the dark
money, you talk about climate change. You saw Brazil today. The two are bookends, that and the Koch brothers
and what they have done politically. JUDY WOODRUFF: But your point, Ramesh, is,
the money moved the needle, at least to some extent, on some of these huge issues. MARK SHIELDS: It did, elected a lot of people,
a lot of state legislators. RAMESH PONNURU: And advocacy as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, Ramesh Ponnuru,
good to have you both. Thank you. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. RAMESH PONNURU: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: The foreign aid dispensed every
year by the U.S. amounts to about 1 percent of the total federal budget, but that tiny
percentage is often a giant political target. In recent weeks, some in the Trump White House
tried again to stop some foreign aid funding, before the president stopped the effort. The criticism? It’s a waste of money and doesn’t work. But, in Ethiopia, some economists recently
sought to test different anti-poverty programs. And, as Fred de Sam Lazaro reports, finding
out what works makes it easier to find out how to help. Tedros Kesete and Taame Tesfaye have a daunting
job, tracking down hundreds of the poorest people in Ethiopia. They’re looking for specific individuals who
took part in an anti-poverty program more than five years ago, all this in an area with
few street addresses and even fewer street signs. TEDROS KESETE, Data Collector: When you walk
around two hours, and you didn’t get the household, the head, you feel so angry at that time. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Around the world, one
in 10 people gets by on less than $2 a day. In Ethiopia, it’s more than one in four. And due to the changing climate’s impact on
agriculture, subsistence is only getting harder for most people. Polls in the developed world show broad support
for anti-poverty aid. But there’s one major obstacle, according
to development expert Rachel Glennerster. RACHEL GLENNERSTER, U.K. Department for International
Development: A big concern that people have is, I would like to support the ultra-poor
if I knew that there was something that I could do. And I think most people’s suspicion is, oh,
aid is wasted or aid is not effective. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For decades, there was
little evidence either way on the effectiveness on anti-poverty programs. Almost no one was studying the impact, especially
long-term impact, of the various approaches to humanitarian aid. Economist Dean Karlan got his start working
for a micro-credit program in Latin America. DEAN KARLAN, Northwestern University: I was
really struck by how little they knew about whether they were generating an impact. Should they add training to what they were
doing? Should they be lending at this interest rate
or that interest rate? And there really was just nothing resembling
evidence and data that was being used to inform these kinds of decisions. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So in 2002, Dean Karlan
founded Innovations for Poverty Action, a nonprofit organization that applies rigorous
research methods to anti-poverty aid. In Ethiopia, Tedros is part of the team helping
experts like Karlan understand which programs actually help the poor. Half of the villagers Tedros is tracking down
received an anti-poverty aid package seven years ago. The other half didn’t. You draw the analogy in your approach to what
happens in medical trials. Explain that to me. DEAN KARLAN: If you want to know whether a
certain pill works, you can’t just have a bunch of people who have a problem, give them
the pill, and see if they get better, because there’s lots of reasons why ailments go away
or get worse, and things like that. And so you have to have a placebo group. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Five hundred villagers
were randomly assigned to the treatment group, and another 500 to the control group. Tedros and his colleagues assessed both groups’
well-being at the outset, then at one, three, and now seven years later. The question is, did those who received help
do better, and, if so, how much better and for how long? RACHEL GLENNERSTER: At the most fundamental
level, the ultra-poor program and the research around it is asking, can you take people who
are in the very worst situations, and put them on a different path in life? FRED DE SAM LAZARO: This was a multipronged
intervention. Each household received four different kinds
of help over two years. They got to choose a productive asset, valued
at 360 U.S. dollars. Most chose goats, for milk and for more goats. Some chose oxen. Still others chose bees. They were encouraged to save money at a community
bank, with no withdrawals permitted until their balance equaled the value of the assets
they’d been given. They received staple foods, valued at $8 U.S.
per month, to help get through the lean season and grow their new business. In Ethiopia, the control group also received
this aid. Finally, the treatment households received
weekly visits over two years, training them to manage and market their asset and coaching
them on general life skills and confidence. I asked Karlan if it was important to do all
these things at once. DEAN KARLAN: The idea is maybe if you provide
some money to somebody to start a business, but no training in how to run that business,
then it doesn’t work so well. And so the answer is, no, no, no, do both. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So a lot of factors cause
a person or a family to be in poverty, and, likewise, to attack the poverty, you need
to have a multipronged approach. DEAN KARLAN: That’s right. That’s right. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Not everyone is eager
to help Tedros collect data on Karlan’s experiment, particularly the control group, which received
no assets. TEDROS KESETE: You interviewed yearly, but
you didn’t give anything until now. They said like that. But the goal is to collect pure, accurate
and clean data. And I think I do it. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The data collected by
Tedros and dozens of his colleagues is transmitted back to Innovations for Poverty Action, which
partners with Yale University and Northwestern University. That’s where Dean Karlan’s team of academic
economists takes the baton. Their work must be equally painstaking. This data analysis is complicated. And you had some families in the control group,
or you had all the families in your control group that didn’t get any assets. Many of them did very well. What is that telling you? DEAN KARLAN: We can take any story, one data
point, and then we can tell a story from it. Find one household that was ultra-poor beforehand
and got this program and now is doing much better. Suppose, instead, you wanted to tell a story
about aid being horrible and aid being wasted. Well, we can find a household that was doing
really, really badly beforehand, in extreme poverty, got this program, didn’t work. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So a lot of the marketing,
if you will, or the accountability has come in the form of anecdotal information, as opposed
to methodical study. DEAN KARLAN: So there’s always going to be
data points you could pull to tell whatever story you want. And the answer comes from looking in aggregate
at the data and looking at the patterns. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And once Karlan’s team
finished crunching the numbers, a clear pattern emerged. One year after the program concluded, there
were significant gains in all major measures, revenues, savings, food consumption, and total
assets. And policy-makers are listening. Encouraged by the graduation programs results
to date, the Ethiopian government has already scaled the project from 500 households to
8,000, according to Mulugeta Berhanu, a longtime aid officer in Ethiopia. MULUGETA BERHANU, Relief Society of Tigray:
They have the plan to increase this to 150,000 households in the coming five years. So, research, they have really great impact
in convincing policy-makers. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: It’s not just Ethiopia. The program’s multipronged attack on extreme
poverty has been tested in a six-country study. It proved beneficial and cost-effective in
Ghana, India, Pakistan, and Peru, but not in Honduras, where disease wiped out the chickens
that most families chose us their asset. RACHEL GLENNERSTER: The evidence is really
quite strong that this approach of combining a package of different interventions to help
the ultra-poor is very successful. It’s been successful in a range of different
countries and over a long term. It tells us that people who are really poor
can have a radical change in their life. TEDROS KESETE: When you see, like, these things,
you feel happy. You love what are working, and you feel glad
what you are doing. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: I asked Dean Karlan if
his scientific methods can help bridge the dramatic partisan divide over foreign aid. DEAN KARLAN: Anybody who ever tells you that
all aid is wasted is wrong. And anybody who tells you that all aid works
is wrong. The answer is, well, let’s find out. When does it work? When does it not? What are the patterns? Let’s do the things when it works, and let’s
stop the ones that don’t. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For the “PBS NewsHour,”
this is Fred de Sam Lazaro. JUDY WOODRUFF: Fred’s reporting is in partnership
with the Under-Told Stories Project at University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. We will be back shortly with how Jeff Daniels
captures the character of Atticus Finch in the Broadway hit “To kill a Mockingbird.” But, first, take a moment to hear from your
local PBS station. It’s a chance to offer your support, which
helps to keep programs like ours on the air. (Break) JUDY WOODRUFF: For those stations staying
with us, when comic genius finds a friend. Steve Martin & Martin Short tell Steve Goldbloom
about That Moment When they connected off screen to create magic on stage. MARTIN SHORT: We are very close friends. I mean, we will vacation together, we’re gonna
go on a vacation next month, with families. STEVE MARTIN: Not ours. MARTIN SHORT: Not ours. STEVE MARTIN: Just some families. MARTIN SHORT: Different families. Your family. STEVE GOLDBLOOM: Can you describe the
moment when you first met? MARTIN SHORT: I went to Steve’s house to pick
up a script for Three Amigos. I couldn’t believe how great
and beautiful this house was. A Picasso here, and a Bacon there, and I said
to Steve, how did you get this rich? ‘Cause I’ve seen your work. You remember what you said? STEVE MARTIN: I said could you the script
I’m already sure! (laughter) (hopeful piano music) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: Welcome to That Moment When,
I’m Steve Goldbloom. We were excited to welcome the humble comedy
legends, Steve Martin and Martin Short, currently touring in their latest special, Now You See
Them, Soon You Won’t. MARTIN SHORT: What an honor it is, for me
to be standing next to a man who is a novelist, a playwright, a musician, a composer, and
a legendary comedian. STEVE MARTIN: And let me say, what an honor
it is for me, to be standing next to the man who is standing next to that man. (audience applause with laughter) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: We talked about their careers,
and their more than 30 years of friendship, which started on the set of Three Amigos. Well you’ve talked about being in films that
when you’re in the trenches of a movie, you get very close and then there’s this routine
of just never seeing people again, and that you made a conscious decision not to let Steve
go. MARTIN SHORT: That’s true. You are intensely involved in everyone’s gossip
and if they’re having an affair on set, you want to hear about it. And then you never see them again, but sometimes,
you say I don’t want to lose that person, and certainly that was the case with Steve
and myself. STEVE MARTIN: Yeah, we got along, MARTIN SHORT: Yeah. STEVE MARTIN: We had instant comedy rapport,
and actually at that time when I first met Marty, he had just had a
little girl, and I remember being jealous of the little girl, ’cause she was gonna take
time away from me (both laugh) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: Was there a lack of competition,
would you say, between you two as comedians? STEVE MARTIN: I don’t think we have any competitive
streak. MARTIN SHORT: In general, I don’t remember
feeling upset that Steve was funnier at dinner, or something, ’cause it never happened. (both laugh) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: When I watch you together,
I notice that there’s like a laugh every 15 seconds, how mindful and conscious are you
of the stretch of time between when you talk and the audience laughs? STEVE MARTIN: I’d say we’re extremely conscious. MARTIN SHORT: Extremely, yes. STEVE MARTIN: You know, when I, this has nothing
to do with you, but when I was MARTIN SHORT: Well, can I get a coffee because
whatever you’re gonna say trust me, I’ve heard it. STEVE MARTIN: No. When I was writing The Jerk, with Carl Reiner,
and uh (Martin claps) thank you, Michael Elias and Carl Gottlieb,
our goal was to have a joke on every page, and I think that we think that way too. STEVE GOLDBLOOM: I feel this is unanimous,
you two are the greatest talk show guests in history. In fact, Martin, you were considered the greatest
by a magazine MARTIN SHORT: Oh well. STEVE GOLDBLOOM: I mean not that it’s a competition. STEVE MARTIN: No, it’s not a competition,
but when that came out in the New Yorker, June 17th, MARTIN SHORT: No, calm down (heavy breathing
noises) STEVE MARTIN: 2017, of course, MARTIN SHORT: In, out, in, out STEVE MARTIN: No one was happier than me. And I had to deal with it. STEVE GOLDBLOOM: How much preparation goes
into, say, a David Letterman appearance? MARTIN SHORT: For me, a lot, I mean, I would
send 20 pages to the same producer. ‘Cause I felt scoring on Letterman was the
happiest you could feel for the next month STEVE MARTIN: Yeah STEVE GOLDBLOOM: Well that’s the thing, after
Letterman, you had this ritual of going out with Paul Shaffer? MARTIN SHORT: I’ll say we must now go to the
3 hippest, most fabulous places in New York, yeah (Steve laughs) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: As a work couple, you spend
a lot of time together, who has the louder inner critic? MARTIN SHORT: I’d say Steve. STEVE MARTIN: Yeah, I’d say that’s probably
true. MARTIN SHORT: If I prepare a lot for a talk
show or something, and then for some reason, I’m off, or the host is off, or we don’t connect,
then I feel there’s nothing I could have done more, and then I feel fine. STEVE MARTIN: I’m the opposite. (Martin laughs) STEVE MARTIN: No, if it doesn’t go down well,
I get kind of depressed, and like “What happened” and try to analyze it. MARTIN SHORT: Early on, I realize that, for
me, to be tense, I would see myself back on something and I think I’m not helping myself,
so I willed anxiety away. My brother died when I was 12, my mother died
when I was 17, my father at 20, when you go through those tough experiences, you’re either
empowered by it or victimized by it and somehow, I think
I was empowered by it. If someone didn’t laugh at me putting my hair
up in a point, I didn’t really care. (both laugh) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: I know there was moment,
Martin with you, when you were on SNL, that you wanted to watch some tape back and somebody
said “Give it a rest. Just move forward.” (Steve laughs) MARTIN SHORT: Yeah that was Davie Wilson,
the director, I was gonna get VHS tape. STEVE MARTIN: That’s what we used to do, when
we first were doing Saturday Night Live, Lauren and I, and some members of the cast, would
go up to his office and watch the show again. MARTIN SHORT: Oh my god. STEVE MARTIN: Yeah. MARTIN SHORT: His point was, it’s done, it’s
finished. You can’t judge it like you— STEVE MARTIN: Well, he’s not taking into consideration
self love. MARTIN SHORT: That’s true. But it would turn into possibly self hate. (both laugh) STEVE GOLDBLOOM: This is a special question,
for Martin, is there a moment when you recognized the genius of Steve, and of course this question
is special because it was submitted by Steve. (both laugh) MARTIN SHORT: I met Steve in 1985, 10 years
after, STEVE MARTIN: By the way, I object to the
phrase, genius, I don’t agree with that. I can’t just sit here. But anyway, go ahead. MARTIN SHORT: By the way, you’re not alone STEVE MARTIN: Yeah, yeah MARTIN SHORT: I think it kinda takes a genius
to open to the people around him to make him even better. The whole package is a genius. STEVE MARTIN: I actually remember a moment,
I can’t identify the year, but, we were gonna look at his special, it was so extreme. (Martin laughs) And I thought, wow, you are really unafraid. And I remember that, remember thinking this
is really bizarre, I’ve got to respect this guy more. STEVE GOLDBLOOM: Steve, you’ve said before
that people think they want to see you revive old material with an arrow through your head,
and you say they don’t want that, they just think they want that. Why do you think that? STEVE MARTIN: That arrow, we’re talking
about the late 70s, when I was doing my stand up comedy, it was kinda a Zite Guys thing,
and if you extract it out of the times, to me, it’s not as funny, and also when you do
an old bit, you sort of get automatic laughter or automatic applause, but it’s not
real laughter. I don’t even remember how to do it. I don’t even know where I was coming from. When I look at it, I go, was that funny? I don’t know. STEVE GOLDBLOOM: If you could add a third
wheel to your act, who you haven’t worked with, who would it be? MARTIN SHORT: For Box Office, I’d say Bieber. (Steve laughs) STEVE MARTIN: I’d say Jerry Seinfeld is too
good, so we don’t want him. MARTIN SHORT: (Martin laughs) Yeah, yeah. STEVE MARTIN: John Mulaney, maybe, as a younger
voice. MARTIN SHORT: He doesn’t need us. STEVE MARTIN: No he doesn’t need us either. (upbeat, hopeful piano music) JUDY WOODRUFF: You can find all episodes of
this series on Facebook Watch @THATMOMENTWHENSHOW (Break) JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: A new look for a classic
American story is captivating audiences on Broadway. It’s Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,”
reimagined for the stage by Aaron Sorkin. Actor Jeff Daniels, who stars as Atticus Finch,
recently told “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert the play is like a right hook to the chin
of white Americans. Earlier this year, Jeffrey Brown sat down
with Daniels to discuss his approach to the role. It’s part of our ongoing arts and culture
coverage, Canvas. JEFF DANIELS, Actor: Always remember, it was
a sin to kill a mockingbird. What do I do after this, really, you know? I mean, this is not the role where you’re
on the phone to your agent going, get me out of this. Get me out. This is not that. The first thing you have to do is all the
work to get ready for tonight. In this case, it’s been two years. If you haven’t done all that preparation,
all that memorization, all that study, all that — the hard work of creating and failing
and missing, you have to have done all that, so that you can throw it all away. And then you walk out. And I just look for simple little feels. He’s not me. I had it when I was a boy. I love the fact that I’m not Atticus Finch. But I got to get it. It’s whatever you can do to trick yourself
into thinking you’re him. And it’s — it’s really just pretend, make-believe
for adults. It’s no more complicated than that. So I get the suit on. And that’s a suit I would never wear. JEFFREY BROWN: Right. So that’s immediately not you. JEFF DANIELS: And it feels different. So let it feel different. The glasses, take a look yourself in the mirror
with those glasses. And then how would he stand? And he’s — and I think of words. And these are just words that have come through
my head that helped me get to there. It’s upright, upstanding. There’s the right way. And there are all the other ways. You go out before that closing argument. You have been — you can just feel yourself
change, where you just — you stand up straighter. And there’s a thoughtfulness. JEFFREY BROWN: You just move your chin… (CROSSTALK) JEFFREY BROWN: … too. JEFF DANIELS: Yes. There’s a thing that happens. JEFFREY BROWN: Mannerisms like that? JEFF DANIELS: Like, there he is. He’s right there. Now it’s like you’re inside the suit, inside
the guy. And then when it works best, you don’t do
anything more than that. And then the show starts, and you walk out. And you let him walk you out. You let him take you. And you’re out there going, remember that
cue, and you got to cross here and all that. And that — but that becomes like a voice
over here. And then you kind of know it. And when its best is when you get lost, and
you’re out there in the Mayella testimony, and you’re banging on this girl who just lied
to you on the stand. And you don’t let up. And you forget the audience. You have to forget the audience. And it’s just you and the other actor. That’s — and it’s Atticus. And next thing you know, you’re done with
that scene, and you don’t remember doing it. And it’s not because you have done it 170
times. It’s because you were in it. And that’s — that’s when you know you were
someone else. You saw him. You heard him. That wasn’t a slip of the tongue. Tom Robinson said exactly what he meant. In fact, he said it twice. Because he forgot his place, because he forgot
who he was, what he was? No, because he remembered. A man will have his dignity. It’s stage first, audience second, which isn’t
necessarily Broadway. Broadway is audience first, I’m going to come
at you with… (CROSSTALK) JEFFREY BROWN: … to the audience. JEFF DANIELS: … my performance, chicken
wings. I’m going to — here I am. Here I am. And I’m also going to do the — talk to the
actor I’m in the scene with. I’m the opposite. I’m right here. You just happen to be — you might want to
lean in, because I’m not really going to come to you very much. We said early on, we want to pull them in. We don’t want to go to them. We want to pull them into our world. And the style of acting in “Mockingbird” lends
itself to that. JUDY WOODRUFF: And on the “NewsHour” online
right now: The staying power of the mega-hit song “Old Town Road” defies one of the most
profound changes in the music industry over the last 20 years. We look at how math can explain its breakout
success. That’s on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here on Monday. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and have a great weekend.

100 thoughts on “PBS NewsHour full episode August 23, 2019

  1. The democrat party and the corrupt mainstream news media are siding with the Communist party of China.😏😏😏😏😏😏😏

  2. Ding dong the Koch is dead! When a conservative dies, the world gets a bit better, because resistance to both progress & the future is reduced.

  3. Russia's economy is the size of New York's. They produce nothing of significance. They have no business being invited to this summit. Also, if the west cares about the rule of law they will keep these lawless fascists out of the g 7 summit.

  4. If conservatives had their way slaves would still pick cotton, women couldn't vote, & everybody wouldn't have health insurance.

  5. @11:30 "Trump claims [Russia was kicked out of the G-8] because Trump got outsmarted"

    I'm going to need to see the source on that. Trump claiming he was outsmarted… lmfao totally sounds like something the world's biggest egotist would say. What the hell is Yamiche smoking?

  6. Navalny is a hero. It is a travesty that the US President has better relations with the fascist Putin than he does with a freedom fighter like Navalny. Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

  7. Wow! Trump wants to cut foreign aid, but Israel get 3 billion per year in US aid! So he's a friend of Israel???

  8. Did anyone catch the mistake. The female reporter says trump when she wanted to say Obama. Check out at 11 mins

  9. Bolsonaro is an ignorant fool. The rainforests need to be declared world heritage sites and be guarded by the U.N. The destruction of theses forests impacts the whole world and each person on this planet regardless of where they live. The leaders charged with protecting these important forests have woefully failed and should be booted from having any say. It should fall to the rest of us to take responsibility.

  10. The uncertainty is what will pmurT do when it sinks in that he can't dictate where people do business. In what form will his tantrum be.

  11. Congress should come back just for a special session to impeach this guy he is going to ruin us each time this dumbfucker opens his month the markets gets scared and goes down 🤬🤬🤬. IMPEACH TRUMP BEFORE ITS TOO LATE 🤬🤬🤬.

  12. IMPEACH….not only is this Incompetent narcissistic IDIOT hell bent on destroying the stop gaps and norms….He is most certainly SHORTING the market for personal gain. DUMP THIS TOAD and THE TURTLE….Take back American Norms. And he is going to the G7……OMG.

  13. At least something good worldwide in business and politics occurred today… a crappy ass Koch died. I hope there is a hell for the greedy pile of 💩 and crook❗👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼✌🏼👍🏽☺️

  14. Who's the Greatest THREAT…



    4 All those HENCHPEOPLE
    4 All those Unindicted Co Conspirators


  15. Bolsonaro is the biggest, unscrupulous shameless con-man, criminal and drug trafficker who has managed to become president, doing nothing for Brazil, throughout his military and political career. Nothing positive should be expected from him. He has shown throughout his life by his actions his abominable and criminal nature. His daily diatribes consistently reveal his idiocy, poverty of spirit, his evil and poisonous nature. He disrespects the tradition of honesty and decency of the Brazilian society. He is an embarrassment for the country. Bolsonaro has no ability or intelligence to govern. He only knows how to destroy. The troglodyte Bolsonaro is drunk on his ignorance and has no knowledge of the history of Brazil, its people and institutions. Unfortunately, he continues to spew out his stupidity and hatred for the world to see. Bolsonaro and the militia are destroying the nation and the Brazilian people without impunity. He is one of the greatest tragedies in the presidential history of Brazil.

  16. please apologize for the Americans who didn't vote for that idiot, Drumpf.. and global warming Is the first thing, because extinction don't care about GDP. wake the F Up!! mother earth won't stand for this abuse much longer. ALL people who care about their civil rights, need to do A 180% turn, and get with saving the world, civil rights, and me to, AND whatever else you think is important, is really pathetic when you hold it up to extinction of all life.

  17. Unless Trump's cabinet, the Demns or GOP effectively stops Trump's madness very soon, the rest of the world will begin to act vigorously. What are the elected officials waiting for? Both parties betray the American people.

  18. You are supported with American hard worker taxpayers money including my tax, you should condemn the dictators in the world Who are using the slave labor to export garbage goods and dictatorship to the world. Your show made the world dictators such as communist government in China very happy. Your words are the same words said by the news media controlled by The communist governments.

  19. Since Mueller made it clear that this POTUS can face prosecution if not re-elected and such an event means he is very likely to go to jail, and since it is looking very unlikely that he is going to win 2020, Donald's state of mind and behaviour is much more like a turkey which has become aware of the approach of Christmas. This does not at all bode well for the rest of us considering that this particular turkey has access to even nuclear launch codes!

  20. Imaging these scenarios:

    1. I go to supermarket and buy ~15 kinds of produce. All of them come with pre-packed form plates and plastic bag. I can't keep up storing all of them a couple of times a week (1500 = 30 x 52 weeks and a lot of form plates…)
    2. I brought my own shopping bags to supermarket. While checking out, the staff won't put the stuffs in my own shopping bags, so I'm busy of packing my own groceries because the staff claims i dob't pay for the bags. The staff say that they only pack for the customers who buy the the new bags.
    3. While checking out, i say to the supermarket staff "no bag please" while the staff automatically pick a plastic bag and is ready to pack my staff. The staff tossed away "that brand new plastic bag" into the trash can right away. I say "but…"

    We need to a lot of educations here really. I can't do it alone!

  21. Stop beating around the bush and say it: president trump is a crazy motherfucker. Narcisistic crazy fuck. The chosen one? Are u fukin kidding me?

  22. Shields & Ponnuru are a bunch of morons. They haven’t a clue what is really going on with the world issues, the Fed, and China. These poor slobs believe MSM rhetoric owned and operated by the DNC. The MSM is the enemy of the people. There are two Economies, the Fed, and the people of the US Economies. Soon all will be revealed and many of these naysayers will be looking for a job, as they have tried to hurt the people of the US, including these 2 arrogant individuals.

    By the way, PBS is sponsored by the MSM, and their narrative. The MSM will soon be out of business, as the propaganda machine comes to a screeching halt. We the People need transparency and the agenda of the MSM is owned and operated by the people who wish to enslave us. Wake up people, either you want to hear the truth, or, you wish to be cows to the slaughter, it’s all about choices. We choose President Donald J Trump, to protect the people of these United States, love it, or leave it.

  23. PBS Newshour What happend to this show? it has change so much! Disapointed ,i really liked the ethnic lady from 1 mouth ago. it feels like cbs now 😢

  24. Real news scares trumpanze's
    Remember what trump said
    " don't believe what you 👀 see Don't believe what you read
    Only believe what I tell you"
    Just like Hitler. He said the same thing.

  25. Trump has UNDONE the EPA and Environmental Protections. He has undone our Nuclear Treaties, exposing us all to more danger. He has courted Putin, Kim, Bolsonaro, and Duterte. He is wrecking Trade, and is
    going to cripple our Economy, with the highest debt in History, and recession looming

  26. Koch was a denier of the climate crisis, spent his fortunes on buying politicians and corporate media to deny the climate crisis, and then he dies leaving the rest of us to fight the fire he started from his abject greed.. I hope he rots in hell.

  27. The President is doing a wonderful job. He is forcing American companies to bring back jobs to America. Under NAFTA and LBOs, America exported 7.5 million manufacturing jobs. Firms like Goldman Sachs and the Rockefeller Investment Group made a fortune.

  28. america shaking down countries for money, we can guess, foolish 'foreign Aid', the dumb neanderthals trying to buy and rule the world isn't working

  29. "China is abusing the trade system" just means "I don't like the deal we're getting in China".

    look up "forced technology transfer": It literally means VOLUNTARY exchange of technology for access to markets. Orwellian, huh? Unfortunately, this is how "leaders" like Ponnuru and Trump (and no word from Shields) can exploit out-group suspicions, and happens on both sides, feeding on its mirror reaction.

    Instead of reacting with more nationalism and protectionism (too late), we should always and forever push for more personal freedom in China, and in the US. We have to trust that preserving personal freedoms will give us the edge we need to always meet challenges from more organized/authoritarian states. Mostly because if we don't try, the world may never know if personal freedoms are sustainable.


  31. Yeaaaaaaah i am gonna take trump to the hell road punchhhh till i kill him i got trump in the hell hes so baddd yeah he can't say we are baddd yeah trump is a boule of shittt he suck i got trump in his back and puch with my horse yeah………… if u read this play old town road music without words my version

  32. President Trump is a remarkable human being and did, do and will do a lot for US and for this world. God Bless Him and all Americans and also this world! We need help…. now!

  33. The real question should be – Why is the Federal Reserve controlling markets in the first place?? – That's the true problem here. The Federal Reserve has controlled every aspect of our lives for the last 100 years. So tell me again, how is this Capitalism?? Sounds a lot like Financial Feudalism to me.

  34. All the adjectives you used are hyperbolic and alarmist. Can the media pull it the fuck together please? This isn't a joke you aren't a reality show!

  35. All the world leaders are waiting to see how Trump make a fool of himself. They are not anxious because his word has no weight or credibility.

  36. The “G6” should ISOLATE THIS CRAZY MENTAL SICK before he makes even more DAMAGES in this world and American people just accepting this !

  37. Bolsonaro has taking money from Germany for years and now Bolsonaro is saying there is no money…have you put the money in your pocket for financing your elections?

  38. The greatest criminal capitalist who left the world today on fire with his support of oil compagnies…he should go to HELL!

  39. Almost every product that we use or consume in America comes from China..including toilet paper and condoms…and that fancy, expensive cell phone that you're holding in your hand right now…More TARIFFS=Higher PRICES…✈️

  40. Each individual has the right to say and write what they THINK….when I say that THE WORLD SHOULD ISOLATE TRUMP WHO IS A MENTAL SICK PERSON MAKING MORE DAMAGES IN THE WORLD….I meant it and you should respect this reality!

  41. Economy will go into recession if Trump is re-elected for 2nd term. Why all of sudden the world became such turbulent place after Trump came in power? Everyday when you turn on radio or TV, it's Trump Trump Trump.

  42. God has put President Trump in as our President. So Trust our President and Pray for him. Look at all the good he has done already. It is all coming out. Remember it took decades to get us in this situation so you need to give him time. Thousands have been arrested for sex trafficking and look at all the fentenal that we have stopped. millions. Please just Pray. All the news is fake believe me. You all will see that they are owned by the Cabel and are told what to say. They have never once said anything good for what he has done. The President says what he does for a reason. You all must trust him. if not then believe what you want.First one to meet with North Korea. Think of what he has already done.Stop listening to the news. There is no global warning. It's all lies by the DS.

  43. Love president Trump honestly, wishing president Trump healthy, long live and strong keep America and the words safe

  44. i don't fuck with the owner of this news. fuck what this news thinks. youre no one cunt. id rather listen to myself scream

  45. China, will disembowel itself b6 fighting the USA. China should be expelled from the WTO, because they are dishonest, and using dishonest currency manipulation, and cooking its books.


  47. “For many years China and many other countries has been taking advantage of the United States on trade, intellectual property theft, and much more. Our country has been losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to China with no end in sight.”

    “Sadly passed administrations have let China get so far ahead of their trade that it has become a great burden to the American taxpayer. Our president, me, can no longer allow this to happen. In the spirit of achieving fair trade we must balance this very unfair trade relationship. China should not have put new tariffs of $75 billion dollars of United States products, politically motivated!

    “Starting on October 1, 250 Billion Dollars, of goods and Products from China, currently being taxed at 25%, will now be taxed at 30%. Additionally, the remaining 300 Billion Dollars of goods and products from China, that was being taxed from September 1st at 10%, will now be taxed at 15%. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

    In closing, “For all of the fake news reporters”, and this means you PBS, “that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!”

    Donald J. Trump
    President of the United States of America

  48. “For many years China and many other countries has been taking advantage of the United States on trade, intellectual property theft, and much more. Our country has been losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to China with no end in sight.”

    “Sadly passed administrations have let China get so far ahead of their trade that it has become a great burden to the American taxpayer. Our president, me, can no longer allow this to happen. In the spirit of achieving fair trade we must balance this very unfair trade relationship. China should not have put new tariffs of $75 billion dollars of United States products, politically motivated!

    “Starting on October 1, 250 Billion Dollars, of goods and Products from China, currently being taxed at 25%, will now be taxed at 30%. Additionally, the remaining 300 Billion Dollars of goods and products from China, that was being taxed from September 1st at 10%, will now be taxed at 15%. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

    In closing, “For all of the fake news reporters”, and this means you PBS, “that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!”

    Donald J. Trump
    President of the United States of America

  49. ahhh . .. the trump years. Halloween will be extra scary this year…. for the adults. The children, thankfully, live in ignorant bliss. Oh except those at a trump rally. ( those bubbles get a nasty poppin' )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *