No, Trump Did Not Endorse a Military Assault on People 'Simply Because They Oppose His Candidacy'

The former president's authoritarian tendencies are alarming enough without inventing new outrages.

"Never before has a presidential nominee—let alone a former president—openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy," New York Times reporters Lisa Lerer and Michael Gold say in a "news analysis" published on Tuesday. They are referring to former President Donald Trump's comments in a Fox News interview with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. Yet nowhere in that interview did Trump suggest that "the military" should be deployed against American citizens "simply because they oppose his candidacy."

Bartiromo asked Trump whether he was "expecting chaos on Election Day" if "you win." Elaborating on that possibility, she mentioned "outside agitators," "50,000 Chinese nationals in this country," "people on the terrorist watch list," and "13,000 murderers"—alluding to the former president's false claim about "convicted illegal alien murderers" who supposedly "are now on the loose."

Trump's response:

I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within—not even the people that have come in and destroyed our country, by the way, totally destroying our country. The towns, the villages, they're being inundated. But I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day.

I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they're the—and it should be very easily handled by—if necessary, by [the] National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen.

Trump's take on what might happen if he wins the election is certainly alarmist, especially since he imagines that police won't be able to handle the "chaos," requiring assistance from the National Guard or maybe even "the military." Rep. Byron Donalds (R–Fla.), a Trump ally, rightly rejected the latter suggestion in a CNN interview on Tuesday. Although it "could be appropriate" to use the National Guard, Donalds said, "obviously we don't want to have the United States military—we're not going to have that—be deployed in the United States. That's been long-standing law in our country since the founding of the republic."

Still, it is clear that Trump, contrary to the gloss offered by the Times, was talking about rioting by "radical left lunatics," as opposed to peaceful protests or other forms of dissent. But in reporting that Trump endorsed a military assault on his critics, the Times was echoing other news outlets.

"Trump suggests using military against 'enemy from within' on Election Day," a CNN headline said. The Hill described a "backlash" against Trump's "suggestion that U.S. troops could be used to go after 'radical-left lunatics' following the presidential election." Trump "wants the military used against Americans who don't support him on Election Day," Vanity Fair's Bess Levin claimed. "Trump sparks outrage after calling for army to handle enemies on election day," The Guardian reported.

"Trump suggests he'll use the military on 'the enemy from within' the U.S. if he's reelected," said the PBS headline over an Associated Press story. That one does not even superficially make sense, since Trump would not yet be president in Bartiromo's scenario. Similarly puzzling: The Times claimed Trump's comments about Election Day riots suggest he "would use the power of the presidency to crush those who disagree with him."

These misleading takes reflect the familiar tendency of Trump's most vociferous critics to exaggerate the evidence of his authoritarian instincts by quoting him out of context. That tactic is counterproductive, since it invites anyone who is even mildly skeptical to dismiss the broader case against him as fact-free hyperventilating. It is also unnecessary, since there are plenty of legitimate reasons to worry about Trump on this score.

In his interview with Bartiromo, for example, Trump invoked "the enemy from within" several times. The first reference was to the "radical left lunatics" who might cause "chaos" in response to his election. But later, after Bartiromo asked how Trump would "guard against the bureaucrats undermining you in a second term," he offered a broader definition.

"We have two enemies," Trump said. "We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these countries, because if you have a smart president, he can handle them pretty easily."

As an example of "the enemy within," Trump cited Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.), who managed Trump's first impeachment and is now running for the Senate. "The thing that's tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff," he said. "Think of it. This guy is going to be a senator." Trump described Schiff as "a total sleazebag" who has "put our country" in "danger."

Portraying a political opponent as a traitor to his country and an "enemy within" is bad enough. There is no need to suggest that Trump, if elected, would be inclined to order a military strike on Schiff's office.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

Adam Schiff is ethically estopped from whining about being called a traitor to hos country.

[Square = Circle]

If only he had ethics.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

That will never happen. He even bursts into flames when entering holy ground.

[B G]

If he had ethics, the CA Dem party wouldn't be cramming him into the Senate seat.

Even within their own ranks, it's not that easy to find a successor who shared Dianne Feinstein's general antagonism against individual rights and the limits placed upon government power by the U.S. Constitution.

With Schiff they get the added bonus of a guy who's desperate for any pretense to become the Joe McCarthy of his generation. Anyone with a meaningful interest in protecting "the republic" would have DQed him just for the number of times he lied about having "personally seen proof" of collusion between the trump campaign and Putin's gaggle of twitter bots/D-list memes that supposedly altered the 2016 election outcome.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 1 year ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Schiff is one of the last truth-tellers in Congress as he stood up to the MAGA Swamp and called out Fatass Donnie’s Russian collusion starting in the Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 culminating in Helsinki where Fatass French-Kissed Vlad then shit on US intelligence in favor of the Kremlin.

[Square = Circle]

Schiff still has that smoking-gun evidence, and he's going to lay it on us any minute now.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

turd still lies.

[B G]

Funny that he never offered to show his evidence to Mueller.

Two years after Schiff claimed to have personally seen conclusive proof, Mueller's investigation said that none could be found anywhere they looked.

[Chumby]

Those walls haven’t closed in yet have they.

[Mother's Lament]

"Schiff is one of the last truth-tellers in Congress"

Maybe Buttplug really is parody.

[Chumby]

Team Biden-Harris just authorized US military to use deadly force on American citizens.

https://vigilantnews.com/post/dod-directive-expands-domestic-military-authority-to-include-lethal-force-document/

[mad.casual]

Here's candidate Biden threatening F-15s explicitly against his right-wing opposition and here he is turning the same rhetoric up to 11 by including nuclear weapons.

Unless Biden is referring to private F-15s and private nuclear weapons, which wouldn't exactly make sense for a Presidential candidate to direct, one can only assume he's explicitly talking about unleashing the military on law-abiding American citizens who oppose him policy-wise.

[Don't look at me!]

But he’s just a kindly well meaning old man with a poor memory.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

No jury would convict if he dropped a nuke on Boise.

[Dan S.]

He's not saying he would do it. He's saying that *IF* it were done, weapons protected by the Second Amendment would not be of use against it. It's an attempt to discredit the purpose behind the Second Amendment. Still not a good thing, but not actually threat.

[mad.casual]

First, you're either wrong or being dishonest. The 'if' he says is "If you want to keep America(ns) safe...". He's explicitly proposing to take away weapons of self-defense under threat of military action. It's not even as subtle as "Sure is a nice business you have here. It sure would be a shame if something happened to it." and the predicating action of "keep America(ns) safe" is not inherently violent, illegal, or immoral.

Second, the criteria from Sullum’s article that he fails to address is “Never before has a presidential nominee—let alone a former president—openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy”. With or without the "if", airstrikes and nuclear weapons were openly suggested. Notably, suggested with a candor that wouldn't be suggested against Russia or China or pretty much any other people or nation in the world.

More critically, why are you deflecting and pettifogging on behalf of a leader spit-balling about nuclear/air strikes on his own people? Especially a “just fire the shotgun through the front door” leader? We aren't talking about using an ID to buy groceries, 'one rough hour' or grabbing women by the pussy here. We're, more explicitly than any of those issues, talking about broadly depriving people of the ability to defend themselves or their country under threat of military attack.

[mad.casual]

The funniest part about it is there are tiny little "magical" phrases that he could've sprinkled in that would totally exculpated what he was saying.

Things like "criminal" or "take over" or "by force" but, in both cases, he didn't say that and in one made it clear that they were defending themselves. A statement that should have even the pro-Palestinian protestors up in arms, if they weren't already in the bag for the DNC and globalist socialism.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh come now. You've forgotten the First Rule of Reason Commenting:

Any outrageous statement made by Team Blue should be taken with deadly seriousness.
Any outrageous statement made by Team Red should be taken as an unserious joke, misinterpreted, taken out of context, planted by Antifa, or otherwise afforded the benefit of the doubt - UNLESS that statement makes Team Red look really bad, in which case, pull a both-sides-ism.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

You mendacious fvck, you are literally guilty of the opposite of this regularly

[B G]

Don't forge the "dark Brandon" speech where Biden called trump supporters "domestic terrorists", which under the Obama/Threat Matrix doctrine could mean they're all legally targetable for assassination via drone-strike.

[Mother's Lament]

That's (D)ifferent.

When they order the DHS, FBI and CIA to spy on journalists, PTA parents, Pro-Life Catholics and opposition candidates and their campaigns,
and when they order internet companies to censor political speech,
and when they hide exonerating evidence during trials of political opponents,
and when they put political opponents on TSA watch lists,
and when they charge the leading presidential contender with ludicrous, made-up charges, and try to bankrupt him,
and when they try to force the leading presidential contender off the ballot through dubious rulings by corrupt judges,
and when they hold a honest to goodness Hollywood directed show-trial in DC,
and when their rhetoric is so hateful and outrageous it inspires assassination attempts and deadly attacks on the the leading presidential contenders supporters,
and when they ban proof of identity at polling stations and let foreigners vote...

they're doing it to sAvE oUr dEmOcRacY.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Fuck you sullum? Trump got rid of as much regulation as he could. What authoritarian minimizes his power?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Facts don’t matter to the TDS zombies. Only narratives. The only Reason Sullum pushed back here is it is easily refutable. He doesn’t want to ruin his narrative with too obvious of lies.

He still hasn't admitted to Pelosi turning down troops on J6.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

He hasn’t admitted to Trump being correct about crime going up

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/10/16/stealth_edit_fbi_quietly_revises_violent_crime_stats_1065396.html

[sarcasmic]

Trump got rid of as much regulation as he could.

He did. I’ll give him credit for that. He slowed the rate of growth of regulations while he was in office for sure. Better than the opposite.

The rest is just a show. It’s like UNO. He plays a reverse, but then the next president plays the same card, reversing the reverse. If he gets elected he’s got another reverse card. Nobody ever wins because they can both play any card they want even if it isn’t in their hand.

What authoritarian minimizes his power?

Slowing the rate of growth is like letting up a little on the gas while you're heading towards a cliff. We need some fucking brakes. The rest is just a game.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Your rationalizations for your hate are quite retarded.

Notice how you have to give credit for facts, but still hate him for your imaginations.

[sarcasmic]

Are you off your medication? Are you taking medication that you shouldn’t?

How long was the list of federal rules when Trump entered the White House, and how long was it when he left? That’s where the burden of proof lies for those who claim he cut regulation.

How many federal employees were there when he entered the White House vs when he left?

What about federal spending?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

The rest is just a show. It’s like UNO. He plays a reverse, but then the next president plays the same card, reversing the reverse. If he gets elected he’s got another reverse card. Nobody ever wins because they can both play any card they want even if it isn’t in their hand.

Your imaginations. Are you not aware of what you wrote dumdum?

I do like how you've turned into a dumber shrike and don't know how spending works.

Speaking of which. Boehm had an article on his spending the first 3 years. Guess what that article said 70% of the growth was.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Personal attacks? How unseeming.

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas!

[BillEverman]

Well, to be fair, Hitler, the poster child for authoritarianism, didn't institute gun control. Rather, he eased the restrictions on guns that had been put in place under the Weimar Republic...but not for disfavored groups, only for those who were sympathetic to his cause. So yes, authoritarians can and will sometimes strategically reduce control of some people in some areas in order to obtain more power and control in general.

[Incunabulum]

Oh, *now* you noticed, Sullum.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

He hasn't noticed the FBI crime stats update yet.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

He never will…….

[TJJ2000]

And in other news.
Water is wet.
The leftard-media has been playing that game for YEARS.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...As an example of "the enemy within," Trump cited Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.), who managed Trump's first impeachment and is now running for the Senate. "The thing that's tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff,"..."

To anyone but a TDS-addled steaming pile of shit like Sullum, this is pretty much self-evident: Weaponizing the impeachment process against political opponents makes Schiff dangerous to the country.

[MoreFreedom]

Sullum judges Trump on Trump's words, not Trump's actions. And Sullum fails to see the enemy within, which includes all of the Democratic and RINO politicians claiming Trump was a Russian spy, puppet, or collaborator. There was collusion among government officials in making up defamatory lies about Trump to get him out of office, which I guess is OK for Sullum. How about Christopher Wray, Adam Schiff, Mayorkas, Garland and others who've been deceitful? Sullum doesn't see any "enemy within" but Trump's words get Sullum alarmed. Typical TDS.

There's a lot about Trump not to like, such as his targeted tax break offers, including bringing back SALT deductions from federal income taxes. But they're better than Harris' promise to raise taxes, and give racially discriminatory handouts.

[Lester75]

Trump may not be a Russian puppet. He is a big admirer of 'strong' Vlad and his methods. Here are some of his quotes on Putin:

"He's running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country," Trump said in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Of his invasion of Ukraine:
He is “pretty smart,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday at a Florida fund-raiser, assessing the impending invasion like a real estate deal. “He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions,” he said, “taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”

He's also conferring with Putin right now:
Oct 15 (Reuters) - Former President Donald Trump declined to say on Tuesday whether he had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin since leaving office in 2021 but said if he had done so it would be wise.

I think Trump if elected will stop supporting Ukraine and let Putin storm that country. The Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians better strengthen their borders, because Trump is not an enthusiastic supporter of NATO either. All Putin needs to do is claim there are enclaves of Russian speakers that need to be liberated and Trump will believe it.

[Daddyhill]

Apparently it was Bartiromo, not Trump, who injected into the interview the idea of possible chaos on Election Day and a list of potentially subversive and violent groups such as Chinese nationals (most of whom are probably graduate student TA's). Trump's response seems to suggest that he isn't worried as much about them as about "people from within", "some sick people", and "radical left lunatics". It's not clear if he's worried about the lunatics rioting on or after Election Day. In general, however, lunatics aren't good at organizing much of anything, let alone an out-of-control riot. He thinks Adam Schiff might be one such lunatic, but the idea of a sitting congressman or senator organizing or engaging in a riot is ludicrous (unless you count Josh Hawley).

It would have been helpful if she had pressed him a bit to name more of the lunatics and what they might actually do, but of course Fox doesn't work that way, and Trump would have brushed her off in any case. He didn't even mention Antifa or BLM, his favorite bete noires, as possibly sick people. The problem for him is that he can't or won't name names. So he sticks to vague references to some undefined or unlikely group that might be out to get him, citing no evidence at all and naming no names other than some he's harbored grudges against for years.

The only people who have actually tried to get him have failed in the attempt, and we don't know anything solid about their motives (as an aside, it would be helpful if most assassins and shooters could be disabled and interrogated rather than killed). Perhaps they were both lunatics, which only goes to show that lunatics generally can't get the job done. If he should be worried about anything at this point, it would be what might or will happen if he loses the election. He already knows he has loyal bands of pit bulls who will be standing down but standing by on Election Day.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...So he sticks to vague references to some undefined or unlikely group that might be out to get him, citing no evidence at all and naming no names other than some he’s harbored grudges against for years..."

How long have you been under that rock, TDS-addled shit pile? Did you miss the bogus impeachments and the lawfare?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

So those vague references are federal indictments and that undefined group is the Biden DOJ. I think I've heard him name names.

[Minadin]

Hawley 2024 and until the Democrats give us a viable candidate, so, there's that. Have you looked at what he's running against?

How many Trump assassins have been taken out? 1 of 3? Weird how we haven't heard much about the other two. Like, Tim Walx bug-eyed at the debate weird.

[Ron]

Remember when Harris verbally supported BLM/Antifa rioters who Trump did have to call the national guard out to stop.
she is a prime candidate of one of those enemies from within. her and all those allowed the riots to fester like Walz. there are plenty including the senator who said if Trump wins they were going to article 25 him on their own hearsay Kangaroo court.

[B G]

BLM as an organization might have collapsed under their own self-inerest and corruption.

Antifa doesn't actually exist, at least according to everyone I know who supports Antifa...

[creech]

In 1957, President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to escort some Black kids to school. Would it then be improper to send U.S. troops into riotous situations that could not be handled by the Nat'l Guard or local cops?

[Longtobefree]

Well, yes.
But that was a SITTING president, not a candidate or former president, so it doesn't count.
The Ministry of Truth relies on very specific uses of words.

(also, oh by the way, he segregated the 101st before sending them in, only using the white troops)

[Brett Bellmore]

"The former president's authoritarian tendencies are alarming enough without inventing new outrages."

The fact that they keep inventing new outrages suggests that's not really true. Maybe your impression of his authoritarian tendencies is skewed a bit by the cumulative effect of years of invented outrages?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Next you're going to tell me people have to create race hoaxes to push narratives.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I'm Jesse Smollett and I approve this message.

[Minadin]

I'm Jacomb Sullumette, and I also approve.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Next you’re going to tell me people have to create race cat-eating hoaxes to push narratives.

there, fixed it for ya

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Huh? Trump was slagged for not sending the National Guard to protect Congress on Jan 6 when he actually did and the military refused to obey. Now he's once again proposing to use the National Guard, and you whine about it being unnecessary?

[B G]

Don't forget that the Congressional leardership kept the Capitol complex surrounded with razor wire and armed troops for 18 months after Biden took office. Maybe they wanted anyone who came to DC trying to get "refugee" status to feel more at home with a reminder of the kind of regime that people risk their lives to escape from?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I wonder who else does this.

These misleading takes reflect the familiar tendency of Trump's most vociferous critics to exaggerate the evidence of his authoritarian instincts by quoting him out of context.

Sullum? Sullum? Sullum?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

So the problem is not that the media and the Biden/Harris regime openly lie about Trump every day. The danger is that this hyperbolic misinformation will lead people to distrust the media and wonder if all of their reporting is bullshit. Of course Sullum crossed that line a long time ago and all of his screeds are pure bullshit. But he's just an irrelevant sad little man. The big danger is that some might begin to doubt the NYT and NPR when they warn us about Trump's really really scary authoritarian tendencies. Not to worry Jacob. Nobody outside of your little NYC/DC bubble gives a shit what the NYT and NPR say about anything. Look at their ratings/readership. And nobody even inside your bubble gives a shit what you think about anything anymore. So carry on and just keep cashing those checks for as long as you can.

[Chumby]

Remember when editors used to join the comments and have discussions. Those days are behind us.

Though methinks some have alt accounts and come in to defend Kamala.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Bailey tried. But it turned out some commenters actually knew more about the subject than he did and he gave up. Sad. Maybe his strategy just needed more testing.

[Chumby]

I think Brian did a few times and maybe a couple others around a decade ago.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Well Brian had an unfortunate interaction with some unsavory commenters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Bet Gillespie is Nelson.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

I do think Nick is a big enough bitch to be Nelson. Probably more like Boehm or Sullum.

[Heraclitus]

If Reason has to write articles explaining Trump's sloppy language that tells you something. Remember, this is the same guy who rhetorically meanders with each passing sentence. Give that grounded fact, it's not fair to supply the context for him. He said what he said and did not clarify. He then goes on to lump Schiff in with them when clearly Schiff is not going to be rioting.

This is unwarranted steel-manning. Okay, so that is settled, but if you still want to give him the benefit of doubt you have to grapple with the fact that this guy can't put together a coherent response. Is that someone we want negotiating with heads of state?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Parody.

See the Act Blue talking points are out though. This narrative is all over Act Blue accounts.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Seems like we've waited 3 and a half years for Kamala to put together a coherent response. But rest easy. She will bring so much joy to her negotiations with heads of state that it will usher in a beautiful new world of peace and love. Wow. This troll shit is really easy. You actually get paid to do this?

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

TDS-addled steaming piles of lefty shit like this look at Biden and Harris and then project the disasters which they are onto Trump. And expect those without brain damage to accept the lies.
Like turd, a liar with a heaping helping of stupid besides.
FOAD, asshole. Make your dog happy.

[Zeb]

And where is the alternative candidate who can put together a coherent response to basic questions?

[SIV]

What's really needed is to deport the DC Reason office all back to Los Angeles Reason office

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Or Santa Barbara.

[Social Justice is neither]

Don't reward them, if you're sending them back to Cali then make it Fresno.

[AT]

Too bad Chase Oliver is LGBT pedo. And likes killing babies. I don't know how he hoped to win with those two millstones around his neck.

But that's kind of credit to the whole "losertarians just like to complain, not actually ever be serious about anything" argument, isn't it.

[Commenter_XY]

Chase Oliver is the epitome of the 'Unserious' candidate.

The LP is borderline shambolic, and that pisses me off. It used to be much more serious; philosophy-focused and credible. Today it is a polite freak show. I no longer have a home in the LP.

It is so disappointing.

[Vernon Depner]

"obviously we don't want to have the United States military—we're not going to have that—be deployed in the United States. That's been long-standing law in our country since the founding of the republic."

I seem to recall something about some unpleasantness in the 1860s that was an exception to that.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, we will just use the Right's favorite 'fake but accurate' strategy...

"Oh sure, the Haitians in Springfield aren't *literally* eating cats, but only an autistic loser would try to nitpick tiny details instead of examining the much larger problem of immigration in this country..."

"Oh sure, Trump didn't *literally* say that Nazis are fine people, but only an autistic loser would try to nitpick tiny details instead of examining the much larger problem of the Right playing footsie with unsavory extremist groups..."

"Oh sure, Venezuelan gangs didn't *literally* take over the *entire* town of Aurora, but only an autistic loser would try to nitpick tiny details instead of examining the much larger problem of immigrant-related crime in this country..."

"Oh sure, Trump didn't *literally* say he would use the military against citizens, but only an autistic loser would try to nitpick tiny details instead of examining the much larger problem of Trump's hostility towards pluralism generally..."

So, we can either focus on tiny nitpicks, or we can examine the much broader issue. But if you're going to do it for one side, you should do it to both sides.

[Don't look at me!]

Poor sarc.

[Vernon Depner]

the much larger problem of the Right playing footsie with unsavory extremist groups…”

As opposed to the Left, who publicly engage in full coitus with violent extremist groups.

[Vernon Depner]

We'll have to defer to your personal experience with what autistic losers think.

[B G]

[“Oh sure, Trump didn’t *literally* say he would use the military against citizens, but only an autistic loser would try to nitpick tiny details instead of examining the much larger problem of Trump’s hostility towards pluralism generally…”]

If anyone with a "D" after their name in the news had said exactly what trump did, the "reputable" media and "fact checkers" would be tripping over themselves with "important context" that he was asked about the specific possibility of violence breaking out, and that calling in the National Guard to restore order "if necessary" (meaning local law enforcement gets overwhelmed) is pretty standard practice in most cases.

Ironically use of the Guard seemed to be relatively uncommon during the 2020 "summer of love" when the "mostly peaceful" demonstrations devolved into riots, or when there were something like 100 consecutive nights of vandalism, destruction of government property, and attempted arson at the Federal Courthouse in Portland (or when someone actually did set fire to the apartment building where the Mayor lived in that city), or when 40 buildings were completely destroyed and 60 more damaged during "mostly peaceful" protests in Kenosha. Must have been because the "authoritarian" was safely out of office by that point?

I know it's not the same as a candidate calling his opponents "dangerous", but where was any shred of disapproval in the wake of Biden's "Dark Brandon" speech when he got up on a stage that looked it had been designed by the production team from the movie adaptation of "Pink Floyd: The Wall" and called trump supporters "domestic terrorists"?

thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3632191-the-dark-brandon-rises/

[MWAocdoc]

WASHNGTON, DC – October 17th, 2024 – “The first two signs required by the recently implemented ‘Truth in Politics’ law were posted at two locations today: the Republican National Committee Headquarters at 310 SE 1st St; and the Democratic National Committe Headquarters, 430 South Capitol St SE. The signs contained the following language required by the CFR: ‘Warning! Fact Free Zone (CFR 1776.911,D,4(e)iii)’ in red with blue and white lettering."

[windycityattorney]

No adult is so stupid as to not realize Trump's method of operation here. What is he running on?

Is not the overwhelming and constant theme FEAR? The radical left commies are trying to DESTROY our country. The murdering/raping illegals streaming across our border by the millions are going to DESTROY the country and murder your children! The chinese military aged men are going to destroy the country! EVERYTHING IS GOING TO END AMERICA! And only by electing me, Trump, your savior will this apocalypse be prevented.

Weak minded simpletons may fall for this. And maybe the polling suggests Trump has to ramp up the fear to 11 constantly to have a chance. But it does get a bit tiring. Perhaps he should have a town hall of only his supporters gathered together so he can non answer a few questions and stand on stage like a clown and sway to shitty music while filling his diaper for 40minutes straight?

[See Double You]

Is not the overwhelming and constant theme FEAR? The radical left commies are trying to DESTROY our country. The murdering/raping illegals streaming across our border by the millions are going to DESTROY the country and murder your children! The chinese military aged men are going to destroy the country! EVERYTHING IS GOING TO END AMERICA! And only by electing me, Trump, your savior will this apocalypse be prevented.

Of course, fearmongering is not unique to Trump, especially to the "TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER!" and "OUR DEMOCRACY IS IN PERIL" crowd, which consists of the current administration and every Democratic politician, along with their sheep.

While I don't care for any of that shit, Trump is leagues better on the economy and has a much better track record of appointing liberty-friendly judges. It isn't even close. But I get it, you're a Democrat from Chicago, so you've got to bleat the Party's talking points.

[windycityattorney]

Trump is charged with numerous felonies relating to his 'threat to democracy.' The fucker conspired with countless people to overturn an election for fucks sake. He sat around on his fat ass while his supporters spread their own shit all over the capitol and beat police officers. He almost got his own Vice Prez murdered and when notified of this, laughed it off "maybe he deserves it." He is clearly a narcissistic psychopath.

But he is good on the economy and judges? SO FUCK IT? Elect a criminal because he does things that you think are good? Maybe it isn't him who is the narcissistic psycho but all of his followers?

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

Haha. It’s funny how bitter you are. The next 4 years are gonna be fun.

[CharlieG]

Those are the same people who criticize Trump for not calling in the US military on January 6.

[Vernon Depner]

An adequate police presence would have prevented the problems on Jan. 6. No need for the military.

[holmegm]

"As an example of "the enemy within," Trump cited Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.), who managed Trump's first impeachment and is now running for the Senate. "

Um, well, yes, I think someone who tries to weaponize the legal system against their political opponents could fairly be portrayed as an "enemy within".