. >> in my view, this legislation would be quite uncontroversial. and a more normal political moment. in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interest ahead of any personal spite for the president. >> leader mcconnell met with the president at the white house. after the meeting, the mr. trump "totallys quote, prepared for a very long the government shutdown." hadice ruth bader ginsburg two malignant nodules removed from her lung. no further treatment is planned. and85-year-old is resting is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. more headaches for british holiday travelers. flights were

. >> in my view it would be quite uncontroversial. quite uncontroversial in a more normal political moment. >> one person close to the white house says that the president is melting his own administration down. it is on track for the worst year since the '08 financial crisis. we're going to speak to him in a moment, but garrett hake is joining me now. that is where the drama is for the moment, senators still voting on whether or not to proceed with debate on the continuing resolution. it includes border wall funding, what is the status and why has it been going on for so long. >> it is tight right now, the nos are leading it, it is tight and it is open so long it speaks to the sloppiness of this whole endeavor. senators have gone home they have to get back. in large part we're literally waiting for connecting flights back to dc. there is some drama, potentially here, jeff flaik it could fail, i think it is probably still more likely that we see this succeed than move on to the regular vote. r. >> all right, gary, do you know what diff

. >> in my view, this legislation would be quite uncontroversial. and a more normal political moment. in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interest ahead of any personal spite for the president. >> leader mcconnell met with the president at the white house. after the meeting, the mr. trump "totallys quote, prepared for a very long the government shutdown." hadice ruth bader ginsburg two malignant nodules removed from her lung. no further treatment is planned. and85-year-old is resting is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. more headaches for british holiday travelers. flights were suspended at again after unconfirmed reports that another drone had been spotted. all dayhut down thursday and part of wednesday night when authorities say drones repeatedly violated the airport perimeter. services are being held in scotland and the united states to remember the 270 panam killed when a passenger plane exploded 30 years ago today. an intelligence officer was convicted of the terror attack in 2001. he was released on compassi

quite uncontroversial in a more normal political moment. in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interest ahead of any personal spite for the president. i support the additional border security and disaster aid that the house added to the bill. i'm proud to vote for it. mr. president, it's not a radical concept that the american people's government should be able to control the people and goods that flow into our country. it's not a radical concept that physical barriers play an important role in achieving security. unless there is a caucus of lawmakers who go to bed at night with their doors wide open that i'm not aware of. what is radical, mr. president? what is way out of the mainstream? is this absurd premises of the open borders far left that achieving basic stability and law enforcement on our southern border is somehow in itself without compassion? or discriminatory or immoral? fairness and compassion don't mean only enforcing some of our laws half heartedly. fairness and compassion mean we fulfill our governing duties

in my view, this legislation that would be quite uncontroversial. quite uncontroversial. and a more political moment. in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interests ahead of any personal spite for the president. i support the additional border security, and disaster aid that the house added to the bill. i am proud to vote for it. now, mr. president, it's not a radical concept that the american people's government should be able to control the people and the goods that flow into our country. it's not a radical concept that physical barriers play an important role in achieving security. unless there is a caucus of lawmakers who go to bed at night with their front doors wide open that i'm not aware of. what is radical, mr. president? what is way out of the mainstream? is is this absurd premise of open borders, achieving basic stability on our southern border is somehow come in itself, without compassion? or discriminatory? or immoral? fairness and compassion don't mean only enforcing some of our laws half-heartedly. fairness and compassion mean we fulfill o

uncontroversial. common sense, bipartisan priorities. a core duty of any nation's government. here is the interesting thing. recently that seems to be the case. back in 2006 democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill including then senator obama and my friends the democratic leader from new york. what about more recently? earlier this year the democratic billion fored $25 physical barriers in his negotiations with the president. as the white much house is reasonably requesting right now. that was earlier this year. republicans in the house and senate believe the house provision for $5 billion in border funding was additional disaster funding was completely reasonable. i was glad to vote to advance that legislation yesterday. my colleagues and i are proud to stand with the american people on this subject for the safety of american families and the health and security of our community. democrats have rejected that reasonable request. they have refused to meet president trump halfway and of th

that is how uncontroversial that decision was. ruth ginsburg, a large focus of her thoughts on this throughout her career including during women's rights, equal protection litigation in the 70s it was about not getting too far in front of the american people because it is -- >> host: is there a question? >> guest: take a minute. we have a lot of folks that want to ask questions. >> i would appreciate it if you would address a more complete, full interview of what she was getting at and getting at in also on gay rights and same-sex marriage where basically the court followed her advice which is they didn't do a national ruling the first time out, isn't that right? they waited until a large number of states. >> on same-sex marriage, and the rest of the question, other than saying 30 or 40 pages. i understand the strong views and how to address it correctly. and trying to emphasize there is a difference between one's political views and mine are clear on abortion. and what the court's proper institutional role is. >> swinging too far

. >> in my view, this legislation would be quite uncontroversial. and a more normal political moment. in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interest ahead of any personal spite for the president. >> leader mcconnell met with the president at the white house. after the meeting, the mr. trump "totallys quote, prepared for a very long the government shutdown." hadice ruth bader ginsburg two malignant nodules removed from her lung. no further treatment is planned. the 85-year-old is resting

-question-mark the easy uncontroversial questions. [laughter] what i say about chastity in the book coming from our backgrounds evangelicals especially baptist they think of abstinence that is so negative in chastity is positive we are all called to practice chastity regardless of her situation whether we are single or married or struggle we are all to practice chastity i think faithfulness and fidelity so within the marital relationship they practice that in so many ways not just physical but intellectual or emotional emotional affairs and photography problem and all the things that may not result in actual adultery but are now examples of chaste behavior toward one another and what i discuss in this chapter is a late 19th century the setting with no confirmation of the relationship in the novel but the whole point is that it isn't just about the physical act it begins in the mind and heart and emotion with the lust of eyes and life and all the things that can result in unchaste behavior. in terms of your section one - - your second

she is trying to save you know that you can get good deals, something that is actually crucial and uncontroversial. i want to stress that she is certain that the uk will have a better trade policy and there is enthusiasm for that under other world leaders. her job now is to sell this as hard as she can do that different factions of her own party. she needs to convince the brexit supporters who are perhaps 80, 90 strong in opposing this deal that actually this is their only guarantee in getting brexit in the first place. it does she insist the meet many of their demands, and she will be warning them from now until december 11 that if this is defeated in the house of commons, then a kaput brexit endeavored a —— and then it could put brexit in jeopardy. if this was voted down, then the only route left for the uk would be to leave without a deal. these are mixed messages, and she has to persuade her own party. and laura asked her about the latest resignation today pointing out that more people oppose the deal than supporting it. she isjust repeating the same message as an she? —— isn't she? ba

. >> let's start with the easy and uncontroversial questions. [laughter] . >> what i say about chastity is in the book again coming from our backgrounds, evangelics is abstinence which is not the same thing as chastity but it is so negative and chastity is positive. we are all called to practice chastity regardless of our situation whether we are single or married or struggle we are all to practice chastity the closest synonym is faithfulness and fidelity. because they practice that in so many ways but intellectual ways the emotional ways we talk about emotional affairs and the pornography problem but all the things that might not result in actual adultery but not chaste behavior and the novel that i discussed in this chapter is late setting there is no confirmation of the relationship in the novel. there is a great novel but the whole point is that chastity isn't just the physical active begins in the heart and in the emotions i talk about it the pride of life and all the things that could result in unchaste behavior. i do think that contracept

personnel, terms of his own conduct was uncontroversial. vonnie: and managed to get out of the first gulf war. war, he putent to together an international coalition of 31 countries and he had the world behind him. including the soviets. inre was a broad consensus place around the world. it was not controversial. the way he ended the war was. he did not want to continue the slaughter. it was a most cruel. he felt by leaving saddam hussein in place, it would leave stability in the middle east, which was the opposite decision from the one his son made. the view was if you replace the dictator, the lessons of europe would hold and you would have democracy. that did not happen. vonnie: some of the person else that became important, colin powell, were already in the bush'suring george h.w. presidency. talk about the cold war. i came to an end. >> that is his accomplishment. the end of the iron curtain and the countries coming out behind it and the collapse of the soviet union. his belief was if the united states tried to impose a new world order,

i deem those values to be uncontroversial. i am certainly on the size -- on the side of mattis. however the president is the commander-in-chief and he deserves not to be undermined. to a certain extent, trump wantigned that he did not to be in the middle east. he is following his campaign promise and i think it's honorable that james mattis has resigned rather than trying to undermine that policy from within. i hope that this undermines the argument that there's a conspiracy that there is a deep spate and that the president is in charge. of the story part is the president announced he is withdrawing troops syria. he is withdrawing troops from afghanistan. they are being withdrawn from afghanistan on the eve of a thedown the 20 taliban and afghanistan government. none of this seems to of been talked about with just about anybody. ,hen you read the tea leaves the mood in washington, is this something that shows, yes, the president is making good on his campaign promises, or does it make him look like a president who moves without thinking through what he is doing a really followin

homeland, controlling our borders and protecting the american people would be bipartisan priorities, uncontroversial, common sense, bipartisan priorities, a core duty of any nation's government. and here's the interesting thing, until very, very recently, mr. president, that seemed to be the case. back in 2006, democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds, hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border, 26 democrats voted for the bill including then senator obama, then senator clinton, and my good friend the current democratic leader from new york. but what about more recently? earlier this very year, this year, mr. president, the democratic leader offered $25 billion for physical barriers in his negotiations with the president. five times, five times as much as the white house is reasonably requesting right now. that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the house's provision for $5 billion in border funding plus additional disaster funding was completely reasonable. i was glad to vote to advance that legislation yesterday. my colleagues and i

was to be uncontroversial. barack obama voted for the wall and democrat voted for a partial all back in 2007. he made it a symbolic issue because now what democrats associate the wall with is president trump immigration rhetoric. therefore they will never vote for something that a goes with that. he made it almost impossible by his over rhetoric and making it a symbolic issue. tom: antoine, you are shaking your head. people will vote for the border and obama that we need to protect her voter but now no one wants to protect the border. >> people in the right and the right wing media want to pull together border security and the wall. border security is one issue and checking their campaign box with donald trump is another issue. democrats want what we know we want because we did it when barack obama was president was comprehensive immigration reform that includes . tom: no one wants that. >> but here's the missing link. they did it because the republicans do not want to do it. trump receives billions of dollars

uncontroversial. common sense bipartisan priorities. a core duty of any nation's government. and here's the interesting thing. until very, very recently, mr. president, that seemed to be the case. back in 2006, democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds, hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill, including then senator obama, then senator clinton, and my good friend, the current democratic leader from new york. but what aboutier this very yea year, mr. president, the democratics offered $25 billion for physical barriers in his negotiations to the president. five times, five times what the white house is reasonably requesting right now. and that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the house's provision for $5 billion and border funding, plus additional disaster funding was completely reasonable. i was glad to vote to advance to legislation yesterday. my colleagues and i are proud to stand with the american people on this subject for the safety of american families and the health a

that is how uncontroversial that decision was. ginsberg focus is a radical leader including doing her women's rights equal protection litigation and it talks about going too far in front. >> there are a lot of questions is there a question. >> we have a lot of folks in line. >> i would just appreciate it if you would address of what she was getting at and also on gay rights and same-sex basically the court followed her advice they did do that the first timeout is of that right? they waited to a large number of states. >> i agree with same-sex marriage they were more incremental i do think that is correct. i'm not sure how to address the rest of your question other than by saying i understand it's a controversial issue people have strong views i wrestle with how to address it correctly and really trying to emphasize the difference between one's political views and the court's proper institutional role. >> i'm going to this side. i'm swinging too far to the right. [laughter] what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you h

guest: i think there's ape chance for some picks, maybe heather could get confirmed if it's seen as uncontroversial. but i think it's more likely that democrats are going to want to have full hearings, and you not going -- you're not going to want to do that right before new year's. >> host: we'll let helen join the conversation, arlington, virginia. you're on with steve dennis, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, hi, good morning. i had -- i guess it's more of a question. i know that people are anxious to push through things with the wall before people leave, but it's my understanding, and i'm not sure i have it right, but there's an anti-semitism bill that they want to push through? i don't know the number of it or not.t. and i know, obviously, the israelis are potentially helping us with building any potential wall. i'm wondering if you could maybe speak a little bit about that and what you may know about -- >> host: steve dennis, is that something you cover? >> guest: i'm not aware of that bill. i mean, itm is, you know, maybe -- i'll have to go check it and look it up. basically, right now is the end o

controlling our borders and protecting the american people would be bipartisan priorities, uncontroversial. common sense. bipartisan priorities. a core duty of any nation's government. and here is the interesting thing. until very, very recently, mr. president, that seemed to be the case. back in 2006, democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds, hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill, then senator obama, then senator clinton and my friend, the current democratic leader from new york, but what about more recently? earlier this very year, this year, mr. president, the democratic leader offered 25 billion dollars for physical barriers in his negotiations with the president. five times, five times as much as the white house is reasonably requesting right now. and that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the house's provision for $5 billion for border funding plus additional disaster funding was completely reasonable. i was glad to vote to advance that legislation yesterday. my colleagues and i

quite uncontroversial in a more normal political moment. in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interests ahead of any personal spite for the president. i support the additional border security and disaster aid that the house added to the bill and i'm proud to vote for it. now, mr. president, it is not a radical concept that the american people's government should be able to control the people and the goods that flow into our country. it is not a radical concept that physical barriers play an important role in achieving security, unless there is a caucus of lawmakers who go to bed at night with their front doors white open that i'm not aware of. what is radical? , mr. president, what is way out of the mainstream? is this absurd premise of the open borders, far left, that achieving basic stability and law enforcement on our southern border is somehow in itself without compassion? or discriminatory? or immoral? fairness and compassion don't mean only enforcing some of our laws halfheartedly. fairness and compassion mean we ful

in my view, this legislation would be quite uncontroversial, quite uncontroversial in a more normal political moment, in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interests ahead of any personal spite for the president. i support the additional border security and disaster aid that the house added to the bill, and i'm proud to vote for it. now, mr. president, it's not a radical concept that the american people's government should be able to control the people and the goods that flow into our country. it's not a c.d. concept that physical barriers play an important role in achieving security unless there is a caucus of lawmakers who go to bed at night with their front doors wide open that i'm not aware of. what is radical, mr. president? what is way out of the mainstream? is this absurd premise of the open borders far left that achieving basic stability and law enforcement on our southern border is somehow in itself without compassion or discriminatory? or immoral? fairness and compassion don't mean only enforcing some of our laws halfheartedly. fairness and compassion mean that we f

in my view, this legislation would be quite uncontroversial, quite uncontroversial in a more normal political moment, in a moment when both parties put the obvious national interests ahead of any personal spite for the president. i support the additional border security and disaster aid that the house added to the bill, and i'm proud to vote for it. now, mr. president, it's not a radical concept that the american people's government should be able to control the people and the goods that flow into our country. it's not a c.d. concept that physical barriers play an important role in achieving security unless there is a caucus of lawmakers who go to bed at night with their front doors wide open that i'm not aware of. what is radical, mr. president? what is way out of the mainstream? is this absurd premise of the open borders far left that achieving basic stability and law enforcement on our southern border is somehow in itself without compassion or discriminatory? or immoral? fairness and compassion don't mean only enforcing some of our laws halfheartedly. fairness and compassion mean that we f

uncontroversial. common sense, bipartisan priorities. duty of any nation's government. here is the interesting thing. until very recently, that seems to be the case. 2006 democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill including then senator obama and then senator clinton. currentgood friend the goo democratic leader from new york. earlier this year, this year, the democratic leader offered $25 billion for physical barriers in his negotiations. the white as much as house is reasonably requesting right now. that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the provision order funding in plus disaster funding was completely reasonable. colleagues and i are proud to stand with the american people on this subject. for the safety of american families and the health and security of our communities. , this time, democrats have rejected that reasonable request. they refused to meet president trump halfway and provide even resources they were willing to provide ju

uncontroversial. common sense, bipartisan priorities. a core duty of any nation's government. here is the interesting thing. until very recently, that seems -- seemed to be the case. back in 2006, democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill , including then senator obama and then senator clinton. and my good friend the current democratic leader from new york. what about more recently? earlier this year, this year, the democratic leader offered $25 billion for physical barriers in his negotiations. five times. five times as much as the white house is reasonably requesting right now. that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the house's provision for $5 billion in order funding plus disaster funding was completely reasonable. my colleagues and i are proud to stand with the american people on this subject. for the safety of american families and the health and security of our communities. but this time, this time, democrats have rejected that reasonable

homeland, controlling our borders, and protecting the american people would be bipartisan priorities, uncontroversial, commonsense bipartisan priorities, a core duty of any nation's government. and here's the interesting thing : until very, very recently, mr. president, that seemed to be the case. back in 2006 democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds, hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill including then-senator obama, then-senator clinton, and my good friend, the current democratic leader from new york. but what about more recently? earlier this very year -- this year, mr. president -- the democratic leader offered $25 billion for physical barriers in his negotiations with the president. five times -- five times -- as much as the white house is reasonably requesting right now. and that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the house's provision for $5 billion in border funding plus additional disaster funding was completely reasonable. i was glad to vote to advance that legislation yesterday. my coll

homeland, controlling our borders, and protecting the american people would be bipartisan priorities, uncontroversial, commonsense bipartisan priorities, a core duty of any nation's government. and here's the interesting thing : until very, very recently, mr. president, that seemed to be the case. back in 2006 democrats were perfectly happy to support hundreds, hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the border. 26 democrats voted for the bill including then-senator obama, then-senator clinton, and my good friend, the current democratic leader from new york. but what about more recently? earlier this very year -- this year, mr. president -- the democratic leader offered $25 billion for physical barriers in his negotiations with the president. five times -- five times -- as much as the white house is reasonably requesting right now. and that was just earlier this year. republicans in the house and in the senate believe the house's provision for $5 billion in border funding plus additional disaster funding was completely reasonable. i was glad to vote to advance that legislation yesterday. my coll