My record of opposition to illegal immigration is unquestioned.
Certainly, I don't think I can ever be accused of being soft on crime.
Do we elect a man because of what he stands for, because of where he stands on the issues, because how he makes the nation feel?
I don't think that Donald Trump's gonna look at his approval numbers and say, "Wow, the American people don't want what I want to do. I better change." I don't think he's gonna change his agenda. To have put up with all of this to date already says a mouthful. It already explains a lot to have put up with this, to have not lost his cool. And, by the way, on all of these tweets and all these allegations, all these predications, he ends up being right.
No bill that authorizes slot machines or casinos will pass my desk.
I don't think that we'll support any state that is prepared to discriminate against the citizens of Connecticut.
There will not be a billion-shekel cut to education on my watch.
I am philosophically opposed to raising the retirement age. I misspoke and said I was not philosophically opposed.
But I'm not particularly aligned with the Democratic Party's policy agenda.
Normally, I would seek to compromise, but not on immigration policy.
It is true he has never originated anything that would savor of progressiveness, but he has been close enough to this administration to know what it stands for.
TR was referring to William Howard Taft whom he had picked as his successor to the presidency.
I think that unlike W Bush who was an actual evangelical and sincerely so (my family knew the Bush family), of course Trump will disappoint when it comes to evangelicals. I'm not talking about personal behavior but policy.
We need to stand over our policies when negotiating a programme for government.