Trump Asked to Define ‘Conservative’ – His Answer Has Some Supporters Worried

Donald Trump, when asked to define a conservative, responded first by saying it is someone who is risk averse, then adding it is someone who wants to conserve.

While a guest on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, the candidate went on to liken his evolution to being more conservative politically on many issues to the journey former President Ronald Reagan took.

Face the Nation host John Dickerson asked Trump how he responds to the charge GOP rival Sen. Ted Cruz and others level that the businessman has not been a consistent conservative. “Usually, I just invoke the name Ronald Reagan,” Trump replied.


“I mean, Ronald Reagan was a fairly liberal Democrat, and he evolved over years and he became more and more conservative. And he was not a very conservative person, but he was pretty conservative. And he ended up being a great president,” the candidate added.

Cruz does not believe Trump’s comparison to Reagan is accurate. “I would note that Ronald Reagan spent decades as a principled conservative, spent decades traveling the country sharing his conservative, free-market views [and] defending the Constitution,” Cruz said.

“Ronald Reagan did not spend the first 60 years of his life supporting Democratic politicians, advocating for big government politics, supporting things like the big bank bailouts, supporting things like expanding Obamacare to turn it into socialized medicine,” the Texas senator added. (Read more from “Trump Asked to Define ‘Conservative’ – His Answer Has Some Supporters Worried” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

  • ChillyinAlaska

    Cruz and Rubio have a serious question if they meet the eligibility for natural born citizen, and Rubio is an advocate of amnesty. Cruz has not been forthright about loans from Goldman Sachs and also now to have been responsible for John Roberts on the SCOTUS. Where is the media vetting of these two candidates so we can find out more NOW about them, instead of constantly trashing Trump?

    • bohdanknianicky

      I wouldn’t make a big deal out of Goldman Sachs. Can’t hold Cruz responsible for John Roberts ( a disappointment) because the blame should be cast on congress for they vetted him. Reagan, Bush appointees turned out to be a disappointment also. Cruz is hated for not going along with the traitors. Dig a little deeper, make the tough choice, and please vote for the candidate of your choice. P.S. No, I’m not running. : – (

    • MikefromNC

      All of those “issues” are bogus attempts to distract voters from the truth, at least with Cruz.
      He is 100% eligible.
      He left the Goldman Sachs loan off of one election form after listing it on another. It isn’t like he stole money or something.
      You want vetting? How about somebody waking up to the reality of Trump and who he is?

      • sandraleesmith46

        So lying is okay with you in a POTUS/CIC? Wow, what a patriot… NOT!

        • speedle24

          Who the hell is lying????

          • sandraleesmith46

            Cruz and Rubio for starters, but the whole slate is, actually.

        • MikefromNC

          What lie?

          • sandraleesmith46

            The LIE that he’s natural born, when he was born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father, for starters.

          • MikefromNC

            There are 2 and only 2 classifications of citizens. Natural born and naturalized. There is no third option, no matter how hard you may try to pretend.
            Cruz was a US citizen at birth, requiring no naturalization process. Hence – natural born.
            This isn’t nearly as complex as you people are trying to make it.

          • sandraleesmith46

            WRONG again. Since the intentional misreading of the 14th Amendment, there’s been a third category; native, but not natural born. To be natural born your father MUST have been an US citizen at the time you were born, AND you must have been born on US soil; Cruz was neither. Rubio and Jindal were born on US soil, but to NON- US citizen parents, therefore are native, but also not natural born!

          • wandamurline

            He was not born to two U.S. citizens and he was not born in America and his parents were not with the military setting….Rubio’s parents were NOT US citizens when he was born in America….I do have questions about both….we already have one in the White House who is not natural born.

      • wandamurline

        Did you know that his wife holds an upper position with Goldman Sachs, but is on leave? Just saying.

    • sandraleesmith46

      Good to see you’re on the right track with that pair too, but don’t exonerate Trump either; he has stood with Dems and their principles, much more and for a very long time, than he has in the “conservative” camp. In some ways, he reminds me of Hitler, tapping into the anger and frustration for personal gain, more than a true patriot and conservative. BTW neither Cruz nor Rubio is natural born, so both are Constitutionally ineligible.

    • speedle24

      Bullsh-t. The eligibility issue of Cruz and (Rubio??) is nothing but a democrat diversionary tactic, and Donald should have his ass kicked for promoting it. Cruz is clearly the true conservative in this race, Rubio is not that far behind, and Trump is talking a good game in that regard. I will vote for any of them that gets the nomination, but let’s not pursue these silly ass side issues that take time away from learning about IMPORTANT views of the candidates.

      • wandamurline

        Really? Rubio’s parents were NOT US citizens when he was born in America….there is a difference between naturalized and natural born….Cruz was born to only one US citizen in Canada….his parents were not in the military….again, naturalized not natural born…..we already have one ineligible in office….are we going to support the Constitution or are we going to become a nation of no boundaries and no laws?

      • RightInCali

        Even if you’re right, the Dems would make a huge issue of it. Cruz needs to get a firm court ruling. Preferably Supreme Court.

        Remember, the Senate Dems held hearings on McCain’s eligibility in ’08 while whitewashing Obama. They’ll do the same again. Wjy do you think the MSM has been so silent about this?

      • stellar1

        Rand Paul is the Only on with any Sense…

        • Molly Pitcher

          Rand Paul is a good guy, but his past support for amnesty will sink him, and his endorsement of McConnell was seen as a betrayal. Time to vote smart and coalesce behind the conservative that has a chance, Cruz. Otherwise, we end up with an establishment choice of Rubio.

    • Molly Pitcher

      He disclosed his loans, just not on both forms, they were not a secret. Also, Roberts was confirmed in 2005, when Cruz was Solicitor General in Texas, and had no part in the confirmation hearings, All he did was give an opinion at the time.

  • David Lumin

    Sorry Joe. There is conservative, then there is far-right wing nut job. I consider myself conservative on a fiscal note, and moderate on social issues. Donald Trump’s words are like music to my ears. He is not afraid to step on toes. I don’t want another cookie cutter Republican, or another politically correct sellout politician.

    We need someone who is NOT afraid to say what is on his/her mind. We need someone who can get rid of the gridlock in Washington.

    We need someone who is tough on immigration. Tough on ISIS. Knows how to get things done, or hires the best to get it done.

    The last 2 candidates that has come out of the Republican party have been a joke. Even conservatives, can’t clearly define what conservative values are, as there are so many different variants in the party of what that actually means.

    Vote for who you want in the Caucus or the Primaries, however, if you don’t support the nominee, then I don’t want to hear them complain about Hillary or Bernie.

    • RWS

      Mr. Lumin, the question is not so much the recentness of Mr. Trump’s conversion as the sincerity of it.

      • David Lumin

        You show me a sincere politician, and I’ll show you someone who won’t be re-elected. Politicians lie. Politicians cheat. Politicians steal. And a good one will adapt themselves to loudest voices of the day.

        Everybody knows that the only reason the Republican party has the majority it has atm, is because of the census gerrymandering. If they want that to remain after the next census, they need to start producing politicians who are NOT all the way out in right field.

        • speedle24

          I am pretty sure that Cruz and maybe even Rubio are “sincere” politicians. Even Trump is “sincere” about what he intends to do. What he is not saying is informing the public of the collateral damage from his “reforms”. And that is very wise of him.

      • David Lumin

        I’ve said this a couple of times over the past few days. Do you want to win the White House, or do you want a pastor?

        If you want to win the White House, we need someone like Trump. If you want a pastor, get Franklin Graham to run.

        I’m tired of wishy-washy soft, whiny, crybaby politicians, who throw its own party under the bus, who make backroom deals that ignores the rest of our voices.

        If you actually looked around, you would know that the Republican party only represents 28% of the American electorate these days, The party needs the support of blue dog democrats, and Independents to win the White House, and you are not going to do that with people like Rubio, Jeb Bush, Cruz, or Chris Christie.

        • speedle24

          I agree that the religious aspect should be left out of politics, but don’t kid yourself. We lost the last election (Romney) because a lot of these religious voters would not vote for Romney. We can’t win without them on board. Most of these “independents” are liberals at heart and will drift to that candidate every time (regardless of the conservative candidates religious views).

    • sandraleesmith46

      How can you be “conservative” on fiscal issues, yet “moderate” on the very foundations of those fiscal issues: SOCIAL issues?

      • speedle24

        It is a matter of restraining yourself on divisive issues such as abortion in which the population is pretty evenly split. There are many single issue voters on each side of this issue that will most certainly capsize anyone’s political fortunes who takes a hard stand. Why focus on divisive issues when there are so many other issues to coalesce on?

        • sandraleesmith46

          Sorry, but when the social issues are the very reason why we have the fiscal issues, that won’t fly! Get off the fence and take a stand!

          • speedle24

            Social issues are “not” the reason we have fiscal issues. Fiscal issues are caused by a very simple phenomenon, cognitive dissonance. That is to say progressive liberals spending money they know they do not have. That, my dear, is what causes fiscal issues.

            My “stand” is to take care of the issues that are most important to me. That would be fiscal health of the country and the safety of my family, my friends and my country. Social issues take a back seat to those concerns, and I am going to support someone that I believe will provide the best answers to those problems.

      • David Lumin

        It is simple. Not all social issues have to do with MONEY. Social issues like same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage does nothing to increase government spending. Do I believe that we need to cut back on welfare spending? Absolutely!!!!! But before we can cut back on welfare spending, first we have to create an environment where people can get jobs. Once there are jobs, then we can start cutting welfare funding.

        Once we get federal money out of PP, then we can leave abortions alone. The Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional. It is settled law. If people want to kill their offspring while it is in the womb, then let them answer to God.

        That is how I am a social moderate. I don’t care what other people do that is legal, as long as my taxes don’t go to fund it.

        • sandraleesmith46

          Money is at the root of all of them, some with an added dolop of power, but all have MONEY as the root!

  • CaptTurbo

    Are we ready to trade a half black tyrant for a white one? Go Cruz!

    • sandraleesmith46

      So you prefer an Hispanic tyrant? Right. LOOK at this man’s associates and his CFR status! He’s NWO all the way!

      • ArmyCombatVet

        Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible and neither is Rubio! Cruz born in Canada, didn’t renounce his Canadian citizenship unit he wanted to run of the White House, which means he wasn’t a Constitutionally eligible natural born citizen due to divided loyalties. His father was a Cuban national when he was born and his mother also had divided loyalties as she was living in Canada, on their voter roles and as such had divided loyalties! Naturalized citizen is the best they can hope for. The exception is being in the military, stationed on an American fort or port and born on that facility as they are considered American soil, see McCain! This has nothing to do with Cruz as a senator, he was eligible for that and he would make a great attorney general but he obviously never read the Federalist Papers that our founders relied upon when drafting out Constitution and Declaration of Independence, with a heavy reliance on French philosopher Vatel and his Law Of Nation, which Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Madison had copies they referred to as the bedrock of our founding documents!

        • MikefromNC

          You wrote…
          “but he obviously never read the Federalist Papers that our founders relied upon when drafting out Constitution and Declaration of Independence”…

          Hey genius, the Federalist Papers were written AFTER the Constitution.

          If there was any doubt about your cluelessness – it has now been removed.

          • ArmyCombatVet

            I wasn’t going to reply to you because genius, as you put it, the clueless one is you! The Constitution was originally authored in 1787 but not ratified until 1790 and prior to ratification the Federalist Papers, all 85 essays were being written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay because there were issues with the original intent of the Constitution preventing ratification. The Federalist Papers written and submitted in 1788 were tantamount to correcting the issues with the Constitution so it could be ratified which it was in 1790! Who was one of the authors of the essays in the Federalist Papers………James Madison the author of the Constitution. The founders read and used the essays in the Federalist papers to address concerns keeping the Constitution from being ratified and it finally was in 1790. Therefore the Federalist Papers were written before ratification of the Constitution and provided the impetus to birth the Constitution as the law of the land! Including the Declaration of Independence in my response was in error, something that happens to us geniuses from time to time! That being said, as far as Sen. Cruz is concerned, according to a real genus on the Constitution with four Ph.D’s including Harvard Law School as well as the pre-eminent legal scholar in America he stated that Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible to run for the oval office. Dr.Edmund Vieira noted that our founders relied on the French philosopher Vattel who authored The Law of Nations in 1758, the pre-eminent and most respected publication on the rights of man and requirements in founding a Constitutional Republic. Each of the key authors of our founding documents had a copy originally acquired by Dr. Franklin! Vattel was clear in that the citizenship of the father was that of the son. Ted Cruz father was not an American citizen when he was born and he was not born of the soil of America, a requirement to be a natural born citizen. He was born a citizen of Canada on Canadian soil and didn’t give up his Canadian citizenship until he saw it as a road block, as divided loyalties would allow him no chance to run for the White House. But that history excludes him as a candidate for President. Dr. Vieira is noted as the top Constitutional scholar in America! Rubio is also not quailified to seek the office as his parents were not of the soil, not citizens when he was born!

            So you can gloat that you took an opportunity to call me clueless . I presume you were looking in the mirror at the time! As opposed to you I’m not only a combat veteran but also hold a PhD from a major university as well as two undergraduate degrees, am a strict conservative, have a carry permit and the skill set to employ it if necessary. The military trained me well and I pushed on in life to reach my goals. My oath of office will never be violated by me as opposed to our crooked politicians! Bye now genius!

          • sandraleesmith46

            I doubt that’ll penetrate the fog of “emoting” hero-worship, but it was a great rebuttal. Yes, Viera did say he was ineligible, rightly so. Saw that in NWV, before Cruz had actually dropped his Canadian citizenship. And so did Emerich Vattel, about 1750, when he wrote Law of Nations.

          • MikefromNC

            But that isn’t what you wrote, is it? You said the Federalist Papers were relied upon in the drafting of the Constitution. That was wrong when you wrote it and it will remain wrong no matter how you try to twist it. It is obviously impossible to use something that doesn’t yet exist to help draft a document.
            I know the Federalist Papers and the Constitution well. Your explanation isn’t necessary. If your “PhD” is in history you are due a refund.

          • ArmyCombatVet

            Look I’m tired of dealing with you, the Constitution as it was written in it’s final version and ratified in 1790 was not the Constitution until then, it was a work in progress as the federalist papers caused numerous changes in the body of the Constitution before ratification. Therefore it was’t the Constitution but a work in progress until ratification in 1790! You can insult me if you want to play that sophomoric game but your the one who needs a refund when it comes to an adult discussion. Maybe it just bothers you that I have accomplished everything I set out to do in my life against all odds. What have you ever done for our nation? What have you sacrificed….hmm? You get some childish glee in trying to prove me wrong but in truth I was correct because we didn’t have a ratified Constitution until 1790, two years after the Federalist Papers were written and submitted for review by our founders! Stop with the sophmoric gotcha BS and act like an adult. Your not dealing with some punk kid and trying to insult me to make yourself fell like a big man, that dog don’t hunt! How about you get a refund on manners when engaging in an internet blog!

            PhD wasn’t in history sorry to disappoint you but attempting to insult me on an internet blog, really? I’ve run into many a loser in my day, welcome to the club!

          • ArmyCombatVet

            Why don’t you come and take my PhD from me, hmm big man. You obviously don’t know the Constitution and the Federalist papers well because the Constitution wasn’t ratified prior to 1790 due to the federal papers! You just can’t handle the fact that your hero Cruz is not eligible but the fact remains that the founders did the right thing before they were comfortable ratifying the Constitution as law. Your a just another internet blog hero who loves to hurl insults at those who have proven you wrong! Dr. Vieira concurs with me, America’s top constitutional scholar!

            Oh, and don’t bother responding, I have no patience for your childish insults little man. I assume you are a man, one who never served our nation but hurls baseless insults at those of us who have!

          • MikefromNC

            Seriously? How mature.
            Oh please don’t hurt me – i’m so afraid of you. Right.

            You have no idea how or where I served; because i choose to not go around bragging and trying to impress people with it.

            Look, I’m sorry that your PhD doesn’t tell you the difference between drafting and ratifying. But I can’t just create intellect where there is none.

            How does one qualify to be “America’s top constitutional scholar”? i can provide a long list of highly credentialed constitutional scholars and lawyers who completely disagree with him.

            By the way, he also said Obama wasn’t qualified. How many years has he been president now? He was apparently qualified, as much as I wish he wasn’t.

        • sandraleesmith46

          I know; preaching to the choir here. I’ve been saying all this for ages; it’s MikeyfromNC who’s not getting it!

          • ArmyCombatVet

            Sandra what can I say, little Mike refuses to deal with the real definition of a natural born citizen as required for an Oval Office run. We already have an imposter illegally occupying the oval office. If we fail to learn from history, we are destined to repeat it is as noted by a famous American philosopher of the last century! He made a point to put me down and I made a point of putting him straight. The pre-eminent leading constitutional scholar in America is DR. Edwin Vieira, holder of four PhD’s from Harvard including Harvard Law. He is THE authority on the Constitution! He stated clearly and unequivocally that Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to run for the oval office. He cites among a number of references, the book the founders relied upon when they wrote the Declaration if Independence but especially the Constitution. Washington, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, and Jefferson all had copies of the book, Vattel’s Law of Nations. It was the guiding light in authoring the Declaration of Independence and more importantly in authoring the Constitution! Cruz, a Harvard Law grad, has to know he’s not a natural born citizen because more than anything else he is not born of the soil of America nor was his father a citizen when he was born and he held dual citizenships, Canada and the United States. He is naturalized, there is a difference. Dr. Vieira is the leading authority on the Constitution!

            Hope this helps!

          • sandraleesmith46

            I was right with you on all points. Washington felt it was so important to have Vattel’s book that his copy was actually overdrawn at the library by the time they finished. I read Dr Viera’s statement well over 2 years ago on NWV, to which he’s a fairly regular contributor, and many of his other papers as well, on citizenship matters, as well as other issues. All that you stated is spot on, best I know.

          • ArmyCombatVet

            Hey Sandra, facts are inconvenient truths that people like little MikefromNc cant’t deal with so they use twisted reasoning and insults to defer dealing with their own lack of intellectual truth! Comments they wouldn’t have the stones to make to your face! I’ve dealt with a couple of people like him before in person, not a great outcome for them. Educated or not, you get in my face and my training becomes readily apparent. Fortunately they decided caution was the better part of valor! The preferred outcome!

          • sandraleesmith46

            Yes sir, I know; I run into the likes of him quite often. They’re emotionally stunted adult-children, for the most part, who have never dealt with anything in their lives.

      • MikefromNC

        You are so clueless.
        Cruz referred to the CFR as “a pernicious den of snakes”.
        You are totally making crap up out of thin air.

        • sandraleesmith46

          What he SAYS on the campaign trail and what he DOES in reality are 2 wholly unrelated things; he joined the CFR to get his name on the Senate ballot.

          • MikefromNC

            Cruz never “joined the CFR”. You are simply lying.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Wake up and smell the coffee, over there in the Appalachians! He did and so did his wife, as is most often the case.

          • MikefromNC

            Your evidence?

          • sandraleesmith46

            He holds the office of Senator, doesn’t he? Hasn’t anyone gotten his name on a ballot for a national level office, in almost a century without doing so.

          • MikefromNC

            So you have no evidence. What a surprise.

          • sandraleesmith46

            100 years of history is pretty strong evidence; and NO, I’m NOT going to lead you to it! Find it yourself, like I did! Failure to do so will only prove I’m correct about your lack of patriotism.

  • bohdanknianicky

    Making money is a talent most people don’t possess and not everyone wants to make tons of money.
    Conservatism is a value based on principled beliefs. It is not necessarily tied to money.
    Trump is an Obama incarnate and not to be trusted.

  • MikefromNC

    Not only is Trump not conservative, he doesn’t even know what it is.
    Someone who wants to conserve? Seriously?

    • actually it is.. to conserve, traditonal values , to conserve the constitution
      to conserve the ideals and visions of the founders.. yes conservative = to conserve .. the flip side is Progressive, to progress from to move on basicly to leave traditional values , constitution, and ideals behind to move on to something different. So yes i am a constitutional conservative, and i want to CONSERVE the America that our founders intended…

  • [email protected]

    He is the only one that was man enough to discuss a wall or Muslim infiltration, the only one. Anyone that forgets that on voting day is a fool.

  • Nels

    At best, a conservative is someone who wants to roll back the clock to what his great grandparents saw as radical leftism. In modern parlance, a conservative is someone who is defending the work of his communist granny from those who are trying to go further than granny went.

    So, Trump isn’t a conservative? Excellent! Today, conservative means someone who wants to conserve the damage that liberals have done in the past. Maybe he doesn’t have an emotional attachment to the leftist radicalism of the 1930s. Maybe he’d be willing to undo some of the damage that Woodrow Wilson did in the teens of the last century.

    If Trump is a nationalist rather than an internationalist, if he is a populist rather than a conservative who wants to conserve our current high level of government, Trump might be an excellent choice. A big part of Trump’s appeal is that he is NOT a conservative, and is not going to feel compelled to surrender to the anti-Americans like the GOPe, who have anointed themselves the only True Conservatives. If McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan and Boner are conservatives, then we need to ensure that there is never another conservative elected to any office, because conservative means radical anti-American internationalist … like McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan and Boner.

    Perhaps the most important point is that no politician is going to fix things. Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Bernie, Hillary … what difference, at this point, does it make? Trump might destroy the GOP and make room for a nationalist party that would put American interests first. The GOPe and the Dems are internationalists who are attempting to destroy America and Americans for fun and profit. This is why we see the GOPe abandoning Cruz for Trump: they are trying to set up a win for another internationalist (Rubio, Hillary or Bernie) to ensure that no nationalist wins. They believe that if they abandon Cruz, Cruz voters will go to Rubio and that will dump Trump.
    Trump is willing to talk about keeping mohammedans out. Trump is willing to talk about building a wall across our southern border and making Mexico pay for it. Trump is willing to talk about a great many things that the internationalists don’t want to talk about. He is talking about preserving our nation, and that makes him 100% different from the GOPe and the Dems, who are talking about preserving the mohammedan terrorists they are importing from any resistance Americans might make to being destroyed.

    • sandraleesmith46

      Do you want America, or the USSR? Because it sounds to me like you want the LATTER!

      • Nels

        You are not tall enough for this ride.

        • sandraleesmith46

          I’ve been tall enough for this ride for about 6 decades, sonny; I went to school when a thing called civics was still being taught and when American History was as well.

          • Nels

            Everything I wrote went right over your head. You seem to have read the opposite of what I wrote. You are too short for this ride.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Oh, I got it, loud and clear; and I was pointing out that you were just plain WRONG!

  • ONTIME

    If you cannot defend the Constitution, the Rule of Law, the Bill of Rights put forth by the founding fathers, then you are not the man…We want less intrusive and manageable government and we will find a way to make it so………. .When in the course of human events……….

  • reggierobertson

    In 1988, Trump was at the Republican convention supporting George Bush!
    Trump like many of us has supported candidates from both parties!

  • Linda

    So Trump is a family man ? How many wives has he had ? How many has Cruz had ?

  • Brian Artzberger

    Trump is not and has never been a Conservative. A conservative follows The Constitution and advocates for smaller, less intrusive and wasteful federal government.

  • TruthToBeTold

    Yes, “conserve” the United Staes Constitution.

  • CaptTurbo

    Trump would probably have to get back to you on that question. He has some really good people. … He’d need help on it because he’s not a Conservative.

  • Carol

    To me its someone who follows the constitution….anything else is fake….which defines most of congress.
    And Trump is as far as you can get from conservative.

  • klgrube

    Even Michael Reagan balks at this comparison. Good grief. Trump isn’t even in the same league as Ronald Reagan.

  • ssol4569

    Since Socialists took over the Democrat Party and moved even further to the left, that is exactly what is happening to the Republican Party as the moderate Democrats join the GOP. We’ll have more and more lefty’s by the day!

  • duffy91

    Ronald Reagan was never a liberal Democrat. He was a conservative Democrat, then as the party “left him,” he switched to the Republican Party, that better fit his ideology and principles. This is very basic knowledge for most Americans, which Mr. Trump apparently lacks.