I think article linked below on reading level is important to note in regards to this.
https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/28/this-surprising-reading-level-analysis-will-change-the-way-you-write/ By keeping his language simple, he is able to reach, and have his keywords understood by a larger American audience. Of course understanding speech and reading are slightly different, but it's word choice still becomes important.

As this video notes. Trump is a salesman. And he's selling his crap expertly well. He circumvents the answer with babble that never actually answers the question. He never answered if it's un-American to have a religious litmus test to allow people to visit the US, he just says we have a problem, and implicates all the people of one faith in that, which ISIL itself said sometime ago was their goal, to turn the world against all of Islam to make it easier to recruit and radicalize more people... which is off topic. He doesn't address the point of the question, he sort of skirts it and generalizes it into his overall framework. One could argue that yes, saying there's a problem is itself an answer to the question, but it isn't a direct answer.

I don't know as if he's intentionally talking at that low a level though, or if he's just his style period.

It'd also be interesting to see if Hitler's run-up to being elected, if he used similar style. That is if he used a simple style to appeal to the masses. Not just Hitler, but other leaders of his ilk. I choose Hitler here as more an example of an elected leader gone wrong, that had mass appeal to his people, but later regretted to the point of shame.

Even if Britt's famed Warning Signs of Fascism isn't fully accurate by all scholars (and I'm aware he doesn't actually have academic scholarship) many do come close. I think most can agree that it requires at least Extreme Nationalism, warmongering, a loss of civil liberties and rights (Patriot Act, wanting to increase the spy power of the NSA, etc), corporatism a merger of the state and corporate power, racism (Britt's warning signs says sexism, but I think racism is more apt and I don't think what people normally think about sexism applies, though we need more of a racism slash something, to note those who "sin" differently than others, such as the gays).

To address your points:

>> Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?
GW is not up for re-election and to the best of my knowledge Jeb had nothing to do with writing the Patriot Act. He supports it, but almost all the candidates do. I'm not a huge fan of Jeb, but he actually seems like the smart one in his family. Would still prefer him not to be president.

>> Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?
@newtboy already addressed the so-called "email-gate" or whatever. As for "lying, manipulative"? You're kidding, right? She's a politician. They're all lying and manipulative. Ultimately, I think Hillary will probably get the democratic nomination and while I'm not a huge fan, she's an order of magnitude better than any of the republicans.

>> Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.
So what? "Socialist" is not a bad word. Many of the highest ranked countries for citizen health and happiness are socialist. America needs to grow the fuck up and get over it's childish clinging to McCarthyism. A bit of socialism would do it the world of good.

>> Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.
Ben Carson, "intelligent"? Are you fucking kidding me? The guy's borderline insane. How he ever got to be a surgeon baffles me.
This is a guy who thinks that "Joseph built the pyramids to store grain", that doesn't understand fucking magnets, er, gravity and believes evolution was ‘encouraged by’ Satan. He's a fucking moron.

>> That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan...
to fuck everything up? Seriously, Trump is an idiot and would be the worst thing to happen to the USA (and by extension the world) in decades. His ignorance is matched only by his ineptitude.

>> As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason..
a) I don't think he's great, he's been a huge disappointment and
b) he's irrelevant to this debate
but anyway...

>> His healthcare plan failed(look it up)
I did and it hasn't.

>> America is now over $18 Trillion in debt.
I wonder if the previous president starting two wars has anything to do with that?

>> And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting
Way too big a topic to address here. Post on another video if you want to discuss it further.

>> I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...
He's not, he wouldn't and better than an invertebrate with a brain only barely recognisable as such is not a sufficient bar for the presidency.

To quote my view, which I mistakenly sent to Chaos Engine:


Who would you have Americans elect?

Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?

Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?

Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.

Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.

That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan. Excluding "Feelings" and "Moral Obligation" and any other overused progressive excuses that simply cloud the fact that there is no fact there, his plan/s would work, and are necessary if America means to continue its lead as the second greatest nation on Earth(Sorry America, national pride, you know?).

As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason... His healthcare plan failed(look it up). America is now over $18 Trillion in debt. ...And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting... His speeches never really address anything tangibly, its all "Feeling" and fluff(watch the one where he addressed the attack on France).

I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...

Who would you have Americans elect, sir?

Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?

Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?

Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.

Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.

That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan. Excluding "Feelings" and "Moral Obligation" and any other overused progressive excuses that simply cloud the fact that there is no fact there, his plan/s would work, and are necessary if America means to continue its lead as the second greatest nation on Earth(Sorry America, national pride, you know?).

As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason... His healthcare plan failed(look it up). America is now over $18 Trillion in debt. ...And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting... His speeches never really address anything tangibly, its all "Feeling" and fluff(watch the one where he addressed the attack on France).

I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...

He's certainly not the worst of the Republican candidates. I agree with his positions on the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, drone strikes, militarizaton of police and immigration.

However, I disagree with him about abortion, gun control, the environment, tax policy and healthcare.

On the plus side, at least he seems to accept the reality of evolution and sorta-maybe-dunno accepts climate change.

So, best of a bad bunch, but I'm far from a fan.

The authoriuty for the nsa warrentless wiretapping was given by executive order,,by bush...in 2001. 12 fucking years ago. The patriot act was signed by bush 41 days after 9/11...The ACLU sued over these policies in 2003. Michael moore devoted 10 minutes of his movie to it in 2004. It was WIDELY REPORTED in 2005 that the nsa was monitoring domestic phone calls and collecting and reading email and phone records. 9 fucking years ago..The nsa has been building billion dollar data centers, they are not fucking invisible buildings that only wonder woman can see. NONE OF THIS HAS EVER BEEN A FUCKING SECRET. Obama and congress just reauthorized all these OLD FUCKING BILLS. It took 12 fucking years for the mindless fox news fucking morons to catch up to what liberals have been saying since at least 2004. here is the ny times, from two thousnd..fucking..five.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

The authority for warrentless wiretapping was given by Bush, by an executive order ,TWELVE YEARS AGO,,before Obama was even in the senate. The patriot act was signed by Bush 41 days after 9/11. Obama wasnt even in the senate then. That the nsa had access to phone and email servers was known, at least 7 years ago,, and many, many, media outlets reported it. Why does everyone suddenly care now??! Oh,,because fox news got upset, now all the teaparty idiots suddenly caught up with the rest of the fucking world....welcome.

To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

Maybe they call it the "Patriot Act" because it takes an act of patriotism to stand against it?

Aye, there's the rub. Who's at fault for successful candidates who become disappointing office-holders... candidates who make promises they, alone, don't have the power to deliver (thereby just saying whatever it takes to get elected), or people who vote for said candidate, actually believing he/she can/will do everything they promised to do? So many (all?) of our elected officials, including Obama, are simply best-of-a-bad-lot, emotional, or litmus test selections. "Hope" was a brilliant campaign slogan. What else can we do?

You want to impeach Obama, choggie? (@chingalera) Why? We probably dislike him for very different reasons, but he'd just be replaced by another pod-Pres, no assembly required (strings pre-attached). I could get behind a Grayson, Warren, or Kucinich, but the machine would never allow such a monstrosity to exist, as it's still trying to self-correct from the last two deviations. Like you said, nuke it from orbit, double-tap, start over, same docs. Only way to be sure. Hopefully it won't come to that, but I have little hope for a country more familiar with McDonald's dollar menu and Kanye's Twitter than said docs that started it all. Is our children learning? Nope.

@dystopianfuturetoday Lefties don't see this as a scandal. At least I don't. Scandal or not scandal is not the issue here, and I think the term diminishes just what has been more fully illuminated in the last week for many people. The way the government of/by/for the people/people relationship has devolved into warden/inmate; the way money has infected and rendered ineffective our political process; the complete dissociation of electorate and elected, the lie that is representative government; the treatment of those who risk everything to expose abuses of our privacy and other freedoms (all legal, as interpreted by the abusers); Patriot Act... greatest product name ever marketed. For me, this was the straw. I've had it.

"If we are going to fix it, it will require thought, discussion and hard choices.

Check. Check. Public will bears easy choices. Pen or sword? Now, there's a hard choice.

The Patriot Act was intentionally put into place in a time of war and uncertainty. It should have been a much bigger deal at that time. I find it funny that the people who are so afraid that our guns are getting taken away had no outrage over this back when it was passed. So willing to give up their freedoms when a R is in office, cause if you don't you're unAmerican or have something to hide.

It's reminds me of the outrage over the embassy attack in Benghazi. That is such a big deal, but the 12 times embassies were attacked when bush was in office are not?

My short life has taught me that, sadly, true heroes are never recognized by history. I wish that weren't the case for the sake of this man, Bradley Manning, and Julian Assange.
I hope I can pay some tribute in my meager line of work to these people that will make some lasting memory of their sacrifices.

That aside, I'm really surprised that this story is in the news at all. It does sound like these interviewers are downplaying things a bit, but overall this feels like the same kind of story that, 5-10 years ago, the media would have gone out of their way to display indifference entirely.
That's... some sign of hope I guess?

Last thing: Ugh. @8:30-ish, Greenwald says ".. Even back then... ... nobody had any inkling that the government would use the Patriot act... ... to collect data [from every American]..."
Sorry, I'm bad at proper quotation, but that's the gist of it, and I don't know of anyone in my generation who didn't see that right off the bat.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, or one of the less-grounded members of this community (you all know who you are!), and I'm not trying to make this out to be the good/bad/evil scenario, i.e. Emperor Palpatine et al. I use "government" as a collective, general term, however I felt it was apt in this context given that people strictly within the government, and maybe lobbyists to an extent, are responsible for these various decisions that have led us to this point.
No, they don't seek power for it's own sake, but the handful of objectives I listed in my last post are a sampling of what might drive an organization to pursue power fervently.

There does seem to exist a greater, definitively single-minded pursuit of lessening the civil rights of US citizens since the turn of the millennium, in an attempt to have more power over them, and while "government" at large generally fumbles over itself when it attempts to get all the parts moving together as one, I believe you can see the broader cooperation happening here. From inclusion of said US Tech companies roles, the nation-wide abuse by the police force, aggression of US border patrol agents, random TSA checkpoints on some state highways, and the statements made by the president and his staff, which only seem to serve to blow off civil concerns with one breath while granting increased power to these same entities with the next.

At this point in a country's history, it seems to me that the only thing that can change the course of an entire nation is decisive action by it's citizens on a scale that would simultaneously qualify as an act that justifies all their overreaches of power. And I don't mean in any way acts of violence, but if there were a 5-million-man-march on the capitol tomorrow to show a mass appeal for reason and demand accountability, I believe it would be used as an example of why the government is pursuing such surveillance to begin with.

Sorry this is long winded, but lastly, I wouldn't feel too bad about Obama's allegedly targeting only foreign individuals. To me that felt like damage control to appease the US populace rather than an affront to foreign nationals. They said the Exact. Same. Thing. about the Patriot Act, and that was being used to arrest US citizens for minor infractions by local law enforcement not 6-months after it was passed. Disgusting.

Clearly the reasoned debate plan failed to stop the patriot act so lets go with some flair this time and kick start a giant ass monument for this man's heroics.