Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, International, Media, Politics

Nigerian Army Shows Video Of Trump Suggesting That Soldiers Should Shoot Rock Throwers To Defend An Alleged Massacre

Many of us were critical of President Donald Trump’s statement that he told U.S. soldiers to shoot migrants who throw stones.  It took little time for authoritarian figures to latch on to the statement.  Nigeria’s army played the video of Trump to justify its shooting of protesters resulting in as many as 49 deaths. In the meantime, National Security adviser John Bolton gave a speech in which he praised Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new president, as a “like-minded” leader.  The incident is reminiscent of Trump’s praise for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who is an international pariah for his orders to police to murder drug suspects and his bragging about his own killings.  Bolsonaro is a notorious figure who is a demonstrated racist, sexist, and homophobe who praises military dictatorship as well as torture. He also said that he would prefer his son be dead then gay.

Nigeria simply showed the tape with the instructions of “Please watch and make your deductions.”

The video shows Trump saying “We’re not going to put up with that. They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back . . . I told them (troops) consider it (a rock) a rifle. When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexican military and police, I say consider it a rifle.”

Nigerian troops opened fire on protesters. Muslim groups say dozens were killed while the government claims 6.

The United States has steadily lost moral standing in the world, particularly after the Bush Administration’s torture program using waterboarding, which was also cited by authoritarian countries like China to defend their own torture practices.

Shooting rock throwers has been a controversy in Israel.  It would not on its face meet the standard in the United States under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), where lethal force was limited to a circumstance where “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”  Rock throwing has not been treated as categorically a case of “significant threat of death or serious physical injury.”

 

138 thoughts on “Nigerian Army Shows Video Of Trump Suggesting That Soldiers Should Shoot Rock Throwers To Defend An Alleged Massacre”

  1. A flying carp in the Mississippi River, if it hits your head in just the right spot, can kill you.

      2. Make it be know to Bob Mueller that FT is ready to turn state’s evidence against Mueller & his govt mafia gang. LOL:)

    2. Well then Trump should immediately send the army to protect us from all those flying carp. And instruct the troops to shoot them, since you never know when they might fly.

  2. Goliath was the agressor. But really, you’d defend gunning down women & children because some ahole threw a rock? Good to know. No military person would shoot & no officer would give the order. If they did, they’re open to criminal prosecution. Good luck with your fantasy of gunning down asylum seekers. Does it give you a woodie?

    1. TF:
      Love guys with straw man arguments. First, we’re talking rocking throwing punks not their human shields. Second, a thrown rock is a deadly projectile as one of our border patrol agents found out when it killed him. Third, any soldier will be lawfully following orders if firing on armed belligerents, your facile analysis of the law notwithstanding. So get over your happy dance-virtue signaling and grow up. The world’s a tough place as most every nonpajama boy understands. Sorry about the defective upbringing but life has a way of teaching and Maybe one day you will understand, too. Here’s something to get you started in a flash card kinda way: You attack American soldiers or law enforcement you get a response. A long lasting one. As for the woodie, sounds like typical teenage projection.

      1. mespo – what the POTUS is doing is trying to funnel them thru the ports of entry. That will narrow the crowd to two or three at a time. You let the women thru first and then you can deal with the rock throwers.

    2. TF……….Excuse me, Ace, but wouldn’t it seem a little more accurate if it were “Tuck Frump”?

  4. Rock throwing has not been treated as categorically a case of “significant threat of death or serious physical injury.”
    ***************
    Tell it to Goliath.

  5. The Professor in his ivory tower believes that throwing a brick at someone’s head isn’t life threatening. I would like to see Turley play border patrol agent and see how quickly he shits his pants. Lefties are all talk and incapable of defending themselves or their loved ones. Leave the fighting to the real men, Jonathan.

    1. If some punk or punks in close proximity threw rocks at me or a loved one while at the same time trying to invade my house, I’d have no problem putting the crosshairs on them and no jury would convict me. Trump’s on solid legal ground. The argument that some Nigerian warlord uses the video to fire up his troops is about as persuasive as arguing that we should ban fast cars because bank robbers dont use them as intended.

        1. “a brave fool”

          In other words YNOT you are ready to have your house invaded by rock throwing punks. You sound like a coward that wouldn’t defend his family when they needed it. Run away and hide while the woman and children face the consequences.

          1. He’s an adolescent, like three other commenters who frequent this joint. There is no family to defend.

            1. “He’s an adolescent”

              You think so? I would hate to have to depend on these jokers for my safety. Do you think they hide behind women and children like the caravan does?

            2. adolescent = anyone who takes on the wretched one and some of his despicable views

              But hey: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” Said to mespo, Allan and the wretched one.

              1. That is not the definition of adolescent Anonymous. You should learn to use a dictionary. Better yet, sue for whatever schooling you paid for and use that money to go back to school and get an education.

          2. “Run away and hide while the woman and children face the consequences.” So says Allanucklehead.

            1. Anonymous, we now know who wears and has worn the pants in your family. Certainly not the men.

          1. Some of mespo’s “alpha males”:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html

            https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/scott-beierle/

            “Beierle Was a U.S. Army Veteran & High School English Teacher..” He shot up a yoga studio yesterday, killing three, including himself and wounding approximately six others.

            And let’s highlight America’s Proud Boys: more of those fine “alpha males.”

            (New York Times headlines: “U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It. For two decades, domestic counterterrorism strategy has ignored the rising danger of far-right extremism. In the atmosphere of willful indifference, a virulent movement has grown and metastasized.”)

            I’ll bet that mespo’s alpha males are proud proponents of torture, as well.

    2. Ivan – I think JT needs a trip to the border for a reality check. A ride-along would do him good.

  6. Bolsonaro is a notorious figure who is a demonstrated racist, sexist, and homophobe who praises military dictatorship as well as torture. He also said that he would prefer his son be dead then gay.

    There’s a reason sentences like this have the sound of static. You might reflect on why.

  7. I do not agree that the use of deadly force against rock throwers is a categorically unreasonable use of force. That would be highly dependent on circumstance. A young person throwing a rock at another one person from a great distance, perhaps not as much but a crowd of close-quartered adults doing the same at one person is significantly more lethal.

    One also should recognize that throwing rocks at people was a form of execution in the past.

    1. Hi Darren,

      I’m not sure what news Prof Turley/posters have been following here lately.

      Infowars, likely Trump also, had/has videos of the invaders Armed & Attacking the Mexican Police/Military last week.

      Also I hope everyone has investigated/ seen for themselves the Project Veritas undercover videos & the Infowars reports.

      https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-01/dont-ever-repeat-beto-aides-busted-funneling-caravan-funds-undercover-sting

      Infowars has the docs showing these invasions are being funded by the UN, George Soros, Mastercard!!!, among many others.

        1. Wally,

          I’ll be sure to mark you down as not a fan of Infowars, Trump or those of us of the Just Right political persuasion.

          1. Well, the place could use some high comedy; do you have any breitbart, alex jones, or infowar materials about Benghazi, Uranium One, Whitewater, or the dead guy in the park, or the foreign chick with some computer thingy? Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

            this is to “and I’m also ‘off the grid’, don’t wear underwear, and buried my mom’s silver in a shoebox in the backyard” okie

        1. You’re welcome Cindy.

          The last few years it seems there’s more important news stories on the news agitators I follow then anyone can keep up with.

          But reading the current USA’s Progressive/Democrat party National Socialist movement news sites/releases appear as if they live on a different planet then the Just Right National Capitalist Trump supporting news sites/releases.

          (BTW: It makes me very concerned Prof Turley seems not to understand this current battle field as. Maybe he has a different angle on the issues then I understand?)

          The Infowars crew has been running overtime for months. It’s up live now as of 3 pm CST 11/3/2018

          I wish I could post the intro, later, but we’re 30 min’s in & I’m posting the link now as much of the report is yet to come.

          Dr Steve Pieczenik is supposed to be on after 4 pm CST.

          Anyway, we’ll all find out the lay of the new land in around 3 days.

          https://www.infowars.com/live-saturday-infowars-news-coverage-3-6pm-ct-huge-breaking-news/

    2. @Darren, you remember this:
      PICTURED: Border Patrol agent, 36, killed by ‘rock throwers’ in ambush attack near US-Mexico border in Texas that also injured his partner

    3. Darren,
      You might have heard about the case in Pasco, WA. a few years ago.
      The guy was throwing rocks at vehicles at a busy intersection during rush hour.
      It was winter, near dusk.
      When the cops showed up, he started pelting them with what were described as softball-sized rocks.
      There were said to be a couple of officers injured, but I didn’t see any description of the extent of their injuries.
      I think they tazed him, to no effect. He took off running with 3 cops in a foot pursuit.
      He spun around very quickly and was shot and killed at that point.
      The cops had their flashlights on him as they were chasing him….it was completely dark at that point.
      The intial footage shown was taken with a cell phone camera and played on TV.
      I don’t think that dash cams caught the foot chase, or if they were even activated at any point.
      One TV station played a slow motion, enhanced version of the video…that video clearly showed an object in his hand, and he was lifting his arm up with the object as he was shot.
      It was another rock, but I don’t know if the cops running after him where able to make out what he had in his hand.
      I think they were may within c. 10 feet from the guy, catching up to him as the guy spun around.
      There were people saying “it was just a rock”, but they weren’t the one chasing him and having to make a split-second decision.
      I was staying about 20 miles from the area were this happened, and had been at that very intersection less than a week earlier.
      There was extensive local and regional coverage.
      I don’t know if the cops on the scene knew this guy and his history. He had recently served 6 months in jail after facing charges of hitting a cop with a chair and trying to grap his gun.
      He may have taken a plea deal to get a 6 mo. sentence.
      There are a lot of Mexicans in the area…a lot of them work in agriculture, slaughterhouses, etc.
      This guy was a Mexican national who had lived as an illegal alien in the area for about 10 years.
      If his prior conviction didn’t get him deported, I don’t know what it takes to deport someone who’s in the U.S. illegally.
      It’s rare to learn the status of the Mexicans and other Hispanics when they’re arrested/ convicted; in this case they did cover that aspect of his residency.
      If area law enforcement keeps stats on the number of legal/ illegal residents arrested, or even bothers to take additional action based on residency status, it’s almost never covered in the media.
      Anyway the column and your comment reminded me of the Pasco incident. I think he was estranged from his family, but that they settled with the city and cashed in.
      The cops were cleared; under the circumstances, I think that was the proper decision.
      Given the nationality of the guy shot and the “it’s just a rock” attitude, there were some protests against the PD.

      1. Tom, I am familiar with this case. Unfortunately I cannot comment due to a conflict of interest.

    4. Darren,
      A scene in The Life of Brian is about an execution by stoning that doesn’t go according to plan.

    1. Well, website posting is working now.

      Re: ” Shooting rock throwers has been a controversy in Israel. It would not on its face meet the standard in the United States under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), where lethal force was limited to a circumstance where “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Rock throwing has not been treated as categorically a case of “significant threat of death or serious physical injury.” ”

      Prof Turley,

      Excuse me please, you/others Wrongly identify those coming into the USA as “migrants”, they are not migrants.

      The facts show they are part of a larger “known Violent” “Invasion Force” that the authority to deal with them falls to the Trump’s administration as a Real Time National Security Threat.

      And if Trump fails to deal with that threat then State govt’s had better step in & take care to remove that on going threat.

      ……..

      Article IV | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information …
      Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
      Search domain http://www.law.cornell.eduhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

      1. Haha. How’s the weather there on Pluto?

        this is to “everbuddy in my neck of the woods knows that 9-year-olds get really violent when they invade a candy bowl” okie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – wherein the NPC’s script goes completely off the rails. At least the glitch was short, so it should be easy to repair.

  9. A human is strong enough to throw a two pound stone at someone, hit them in the side of the head, and kill them. Ask Roger Stone when he is at the Hardrock Cafe.

  10. Gee I have an idea, stay in your home country, don’t “bum rush” American borders, apply legally for entry into the U.S. and never ever throw stones at police or troops.

  11. HOW MANY DEAD DUE TO DONALD TRUMP’S MOUTH AND EGO? Well, let’s see now, there’s the 11 who were killed at the Pittsburgh synagogue, and now 49 in Nigeria. Fatso and Faux News, his personal television outlet, have the blood of sixty people on their hands so far. The synagogue killer was inspired to kill Jews because he believed the Faux News/Trump claim of a migrant invasion financed by wealthy Jews, including George Soros. Now, it’s people in Nigeria who feel emboldened to equate rock-throwing with shooting a gun or rifle.

    Just how many more people have to die to feed the ego of the obese genital grabber who craves the adulation of racist xenophobes because he wasn’t his daddy’s favorite? What does it take to wake people up to the reality of the stench occupying the White House?

    1. HOW MANY DEAD DUE TO DONALD TRUMP’S MOUTH AND EGO?

      An understanding of causality has never been your strong suit, Natacha.

      1. Did you read the postings by the synagogue killer? Did you? If you did, you know he did it because he believed that wealthy Jews were supporting a migrant “invasion”. That false story came from Trump/Faux News.

        See Turley’s post, above about sanctioning shooting people who throw rocks. What did I get wrong?

        One of your problems is that you believe everything Faux News puts out.

        1. What I would rather do is throw rocks at the left they a much more deserving target but we lumped ballot s not bullets with not fire bombs and not rocks. The left just keep on shooting. Live ammo in their weapons and blanks in their comments.

        3. Anonymous – to protect our troops and border patrol, I sanction deadly force against rock throwers. THIS IS A NO-THROW ZONE!!!

      2. Far far less than the hundreds of thousands killed by the mouths of the War Monger Party since 1909 when the progressives took over. . Want to get really embarrassed? I can re post the entire list for 1909 to the present as presented by your own publications . I find that usually shuts up stupid comments like that and causes a name change. Ready Set Go! Woodrow Wilson. War I, The invasion of Russia, The invasion of Siberia. No Demo has ever gone without a war or conflict including Carter (Guatemala and Honduras) FDR had the most and the most killed, LBJ. Next and Truman follows. All due to their mouth and ego.

        1. Michael Aarethun – don’t forget Wilson was responsible for the invasion of Mexico, overthrow of the government of Haiti, several other revolutions in South and Central America. Oh, and he is responsible for desegregating the American Armed Forces.

          1. No, desegregation was in 1948, at Truman’s order.

            American troops occupied Hispaniola and had an expeditionary force in Nicaragua. As for Mexico, it was just raids on a territory which had partisan forces but only a notional central government.

            1. Wretched Spam Filter – Wilson was responsible for the segregation of the armed forced. Typed too fast. My bad. Good catch.

              1. Paul………wasn’t Wilson the president of Princeton before becoming president of U. S. ?

                1. Cindy Bragg – and that counts because? He was more racist than most Southerners.

                  1. Yeah….that was my point…Ivy League. They have always looked down on Southerners.

    4. “there’s the 11 who were killed at the Pittsburgh synagogue”

      Anonymous, you have a disgusting mouth.

  12. SIDEBAR

    “Oprah Winfrey Campaigns for Black Woman”

    Professor Turley implied that sexism and racism, or discrimination, are illegal and unconstitutional, understanding that if an American

    cannot discriminate, he cannot be free as freedom is discrimination and discrimination is freedom.

    Question:

    1. How many minorities live on Professor Turley’s street?

    2. Is it not racism and sexism when Oprah Winfrey, a black female, campaigns for a black female?

    1. Oprah Winfrey can be racist and sexist but Americans can’t.

      That dudn’t make any sense!

      Professor Turley should be forced, by a rabid George Washington University Law School student mob, to take down the painting of

      the American Founders at the top of his blog page.

    2. Given the makeup of DC about half. Marxine Waters is a better example. She lives outside her district in a neighborhood that is 95% Caucasian.

      1. Proving that Americans have every right and freedom to discriminate and/or be racist or sexist while it is illegal to cause damage or injury to another person and that defamation is actionable.

  13. I am officially neutral between Israelis and Palestinians, don’t wish to take sides,

    but I can understand why Israelis take Palestinian rock throwing (slinging) very seriously. Do you want these guys to sling rocks at you? I suspect a rock from one of these can crush a skull easily

  14. TRUMP’S MOUTH IS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

    Every day Donald Trump tweets or utters something that is absolutely reckless for a U.S. President. No wonder he gets such dismal coverage in the mainstream media. No journalist, with any self-respect, can possibly overlook Trump’s routine, unhinged rhetoric. Yet Trump supporters think the problem is really mainstream media! And that alone illustrates the damage Trump has caused.

    One can see that damage in the comments of Trump supporters on this blog. Last weekend said deplorables attempted to promote a shockingly odious form of revisionist history. ‘Nazi Germany’, they claim, ‘was actually a liberal movement’! And ‘contemporary American liberals are philosophical heirs to Nazi Germany’. These preposterous claims were justified with references to abortion and big government.

    This revisionist Nazi history DENIES that Jews were the so-called ‘liberal elite’ of 1920’s Germany. In fact, a major grievance of Nazis was that Jewish liberal elitists had taken over Berlin. Therefore to claim that ‘Nazis were liberals’, is essentially a DENIAL of Jewish victims. No serious conservative would have made this claim 3 years ago. But in the Trump era, millions of Americans are unmoored from the truth. This has been the Trump effect.

    One hopes that Donald Trump will exit the world stage as soon as possible. But his damage to America’s discourse will ripple for years. An entire generation has learned that the truth can be whatever echoes. Genuine leftists may adopt this principle to promote a Cultural Revolution not unlike 1960’s China. Nations often move from one extreme to another. When unhinged rhetoric becomes the norm, anything is possible.

    1. I sure never said the Nazis were liberals. They certainly were anti-liberal.

      However, it is not correct to call them conservatives either. They were considered left of various other parliamentary adversaries in the elections which brought them to power.
      And they showed many features which were not conservative at all. I will tick off a few

      1– technocratic elites
      2– socialists, engaged in massive government work programs like building the autobahns, advanced regulations protecting workers from workplace hazards, advanced numerous different social welfare programs of many types, built up national economy with aggressive government spending….. quite a bit of socialism there!
      — secular regime often at odds with religious authorities
      4– central government dictated policy to the Lander (states) and violated principles of federalist decentralization favored among conservatives

      So, it is just as disingenuous to call them conservatives as it would be liberals.

      1. Kurtz: Hitler aspired to be a great conquerer along the lines of Napoleon Bonaparte and Frederick The Great. In that regard Hitler was actually very quaint; his mind was in the 18th Century. Germany, however, was well-educated with many talented scientists and engineers. So Hitler was perfectly happy to harness their talents.

        But Hitler’s base of support (the rank & file Nazis) were generally small town conservatives who viewed Hitler as the only leader strong enough to make ‘Germany Great Again’. And Hitler probably was the only leader capable extinguishing the communist threat that was prevalent in 1920’s Germany.

        With regards to centralized government, that was totally essential in building a massive war machine and unifying Germany under absolute Nazi rule. A centralized government is necessary for any superpower; regardless of politics.

        1. But Hitler’s base of support (the rank & file Nazis) were generally small town conservatives who viewed Hitler as the only leader strong enough to make ‘Germany Great Again’.

          Again, Peter, the math is impossible. This has been pointed out to you. If you understand the math, you’re lying. If you’re too innumerate to understand simple arithmetic, you should shut up. The conservative vote during the Weimar period amounted to about 15% of the German public, of whom about half continued to vote for the National People’s Party after 1928. The swing to the Nazi Party after 1928 amounted to 30% of the German electorate. Here’s the equation Peter: (7.5 / 30) = 0.25. The Nazi’s were drawing off every element of the political spectrum except those who were easy meat for the Communist Party.

          1. Wretched, you keep pulling statistics out of nowhere with no reference to source. Yet you expect readers to accept, without question, whatever math you’re promoting.

            The Nazis, to my knowledge, didn’t achieve any majority in the elections that brought Hitler to power. So their base of support may not have looked that strong on paper.

            But I know that Hitler’s base was NOT urban liberals. So ‘what’ are you arguing?? ‘Who’ do you think composed Hitler’s base of support??

            1. Many of them at that time were international socialists but it depends on which group you are referring to in the statement. urban this and that is an insufficient description. The most common and most false is that propagated by See the Elephant and similar sources written by a left wing extremist and Berkeley Professor of Cognition Lakoff, Wacoff or something like that first name George who works for Soros writing sort of training manuals which contain a lot of plagiarism. Stolen then disguised as reframing.

              The actual political meaning changes as the parties ini power change. Insiders tend to be conservative turf protectors and outsiders tend to be liberal in their methods of gaining power.

              Much more useful are Constitutional Republic Party and the Socialst Autocracy Party with, at present the independent Constitutional Centrists a as it says in the center.

              Not the center point between Marx and Engels but in a Representative Constitutional Republic The Constitution itself.

              Never never never use the other sides definitions it is a fast way to lose. Democrat, Democracy and Democratic a good example. they aren’t , it isn’t, and they are by no means democratic.

              1. Michael, I don’t know how George Soros comes into this or ‘why’ you’re referencing him. Numerous historians have written about Nazi Germany. And I’ve been reading about that period for more than 40 years. I’m not relying on any ‘leftist’ narratives commissioned by George Soros!

                What’s more, most of your comments here are incoherent; just vague references to ‘socialism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘socialism’. It would seem you’re promoting the revisionist history I addressed above.

            2. Wretched, you keep pulling statistics out of nowhere with no reference to source.

              Germany’s historical election returns can be had with a click of a mouse. IFES has been in formal partnership with Wikipedia for some time so their data is loaded there.

              1. Wretched, ‘who’ was Hitler’s base of support (in your estimation)? You say that over time his support grew in range. I’m not surprised. Again, as I stated, the communist threat seemed very real to Germany in the 20’s.

                But every historian of note has described the Nazis as a right-wing, nationalistic movement. Only in the Trump era has this description been challenged.

                And I strongly suspect that Trump supporters feel a peculiar obligation to protect the term ‘right-wing’. In fact, a Trumper I debate on Facebook essentially said as much. He actually equated ‘right-wing’ with ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. So I scarcely doubt that the Trumpers on this thread are thinking the same.

                1. Peter, you know nothing of history. You know, in your cack-handed way, how to reach for something to make some sort of partisan rhetorical point. Again, the problem is that the only thing you know is when to cheer and when to boo.

                  The distinction between ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ in the context of political disputes during the long 19th century varied some from one place to another. You can set up a diptych;

                  1. Landed interest / military v. commercial and industrial interests

                  2. Orders and ranks v. common citizenship.

                  3. Monarch v. elected assemblies

                  4. Narrow suffrage v. broader suffrage

                  5. Antique forms v. rationalized forms

                  6. Mercantilist v. physiocratic

                  7. The Church v. masonic lodges

                  And so on.

                  In Germany, as in other countries, to this dispute was added the Social Democratic dispensation (derived from the trade unions, Marxist in most areas, not all) and the social Christian dispensation (after Rerum Novarum). You also had the agrarian dispensation.

                  All of this is orthogonal to the sort of motors which drive volkisch and revanchist movements, much less to the sort of vector which generates fad-driven movements of any kind in societies under stress. The notion that the Nazi electorate ca. 1932 were ‘conservative’ voters is a nonsense statement. There’s a simple reason for that which you wont take your fingers out of your ears long enough to listen to: there weren’t enough conservative voters in 1924 to generate that electoral support the Nazis acquired. There’s another reason: no one interested in promoting a conservative dispensation is going to vote Nazi to get that done. They’re going to vote Nazi for some other reason and put their ordinary objects aside for an interim period of time. The Nazis were promoting a mobilization state in service to Adolph Hitler’s politico-geographic fantasies and his anthropological fantasies. Anything a conservative German might have held dear was in abeyance, perverted, or destroyed in the process. What do you think Count v. Stauffenberg was on about?

                  This isn’t that difficult, Peter.

                  1. Yeah, Spastic, the Nazis didn’t have enough support to win in 1924. That’s about the only part of your comment that is readable.

                    The rest of what you’ve written s just nonsensical gibberish that’s supposed to sound like it was written by some weighty wonk. As I’ve noted before, you pull this all the time and it’s gotten very lame. You’re just beating-off, Spastic. That’s all you’re doing with this pseudo, wonky gibberish.

                    1. Peter Hill – the National Socialists Party’s fortunes rose and fell with the economy of the country. Good economy, they didn’t get many votes. Bad economy, they got lots of votes.

                    2. As always, Peter. I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

                    3. Spastic, Tabby, whoever you are. I read The New York Times and Washington Post every day. Those papers are written by high-paid, talented writers. I have no problem comprehending their work.

                      But this ‘voice’ you effect, in rebuttals to me, is the deliberately boring math nerd. The smarmy nerd with an equation to support any claim. Typically his claims are Libertarian. It’s a funny character but insincere for discussions.

                      I have found that true with Libertarians. They’re always smarmy nerds pretending their math supports Republican talking points. They’re not Republican, though! That’s always the disclaimer.

                    4. Now you’re descending into self-parody. This really is not that difficult to understand, Peter, but it flies right over your head.

            3. A strong plurality in a multiparty election shows electoral strength. They had as good a democratic mandate as any.

        2. Again German conservatives were not the same as any other brand of conservatives. BUT what is the same is the trail from International socialism led first to the creation of progressive socialists and then National Socialists. Same start point, same goals, same basic beliefs.

      2. Conservative and liberal are shopworn phrases but one fact is conservative or a liberal in Germany’s WWII era were quite unlike those in modern day America. Even here the most common definition means those who oppose us when the left says ‘conservative.’

    2. Peter, you lied repeatedly, mischaracterizing the source of the Nazi Party’s support and the circumstances in which it acquired that support.

        1. That was not my claim Peter. I can explain something to you Peter. I cannot comprehend it for you.

        2. “Wretched”

          It’s perfect; a good fit. He finally came up with a suitable name.

        3. Peter Hill – it would be accurate to call the Nazis National Socialists. Now, if you think socialists are liberal, then that is on you.

          1. Paul, East Germany called itself “The Democratic Republic of Germany”. But did anyone consider them a ‘real’ democracy?? No..!!

            Trump’s slogan is “Make America Great Again”. Does that mean America had lost it’s greatness ‘before’ Donald Trump..?? Does that mean most American’s believe Trump can lead us to a new peak of greatness..?? No..!!

            Trump was elected by only about 27% of the total electorate. And his approval numbers have been consistently mired in the high 30’s to low 40’s. The point is that political movements will use any phrase or slogan they think will suit their interests.

            Take ‘Right To Work’, for instance. Does that phrase mean that workers don’t want the benefits of collective bargaining? Does that phrase mean workers would rather make less money than their union counterparts?? No..!! Again, political phrases and slogans are concocted for propaganda purposes.

        1. “Hail trump”??????

          I don’t think so.

          Trump needs to go. Let’s hope that Democrats prevail in the midterms and then we can look towards setting things right in this country by making Trump a one-term president.

          1. “Let’s hope that Democrats prevail”

            Right, then we can watch unemployment rise and salaries fall. Then we can watch them tear the first Amerndment apart.

          2. Anonymous – what makes you think the Blue Wave would be large enough to take 2/3s of both the House and Senate? That is what they would need to override a Presidential veto.

    4. Opinions and unhinged rhetoric no matter how often repeated never become facts. A fact that escapes the programmers of The Collective be they National Socialist, International socialist or progressive socialist

  16. What is telling is who steps forward and takes a bow when a fascist like Trump gets into office. The vermin come out from under their rocks. These Trump supporters sound more and more like a lynch mob as this hatred and blame is exposed.

    1. antifa, those are the leftist black bandanna’d ruffians, they habitually throw glass bottles,
      filled with piss, so that if they don’t hurt someone as intended, then at least they will break and stain the objects of antifa assaults with a noxious fluid

      look it up if you doubt me

      thrown rocks can and do kill people plenty. remember catapults?

      a rock and a pebble are not the same thing, anyways

    2. ” These Trump supporters sound more and more like a lynch mob”

      Trump supporters are simply voicing their opinion that stupid ideas like those you push forward are stupid. They are not lynch mobs like we see from those on the left like Antifa. Take note how leftists can meet and lecture all over the country without riots yet conservatives are prevented from doing so by violent groups like antifa supported by the left.

    1. Only idiots who’ve never made a consequential decision in their life make remarks like this.

      You enforce the law or you don’t. Enforcing the law requires…force, and sometimes lethal force. There is no 3d option here. No one’s forcing them to mob the border and they have no business doing that. If they want a dose of lead, it’s on its way.

  18. Nigeria uses stoning to death as punishment. If our troops just stand there while the invaders just push through as they did in Mexico, there will be an overwhelming onslaught of “migrants” bursting into our country. What would stop a military force doing the same? Oh, the 2nd Amendment.

        1. Hannibal got his slingers from the Balearic Islands. They were renowned slingers. His heavy cavalry from Numidia; but his tactics were his own and he almost defeated a nation several times the size of Carthage.

            1. There wasn’t really any siege equipment in those days. That came later. The Romans defeated the Carthaginians in the previous war using grappling extensions on their ships that hooked and held the ships together so the Roman troops could board and the Carthaginians couldn’t maneuver. Hannibal occupied various areas of Italy for fifteen years but could never put together an alliance with enough cities to put together a force strong enough to besiege Rome. Hannibal was unbeatable in the open field due to his heavy Numidian cavalry and superior tactics. Ironically the Roman general, Scipio, that defeated him outside of Carthage used Hannibal’s own tactics against him. The basic flaw in the Carthaginian plan for conquering that area of the Med was that it was too far afield. Rome was in the middle of it all. Carthage was on the rim.

              1. issac – I am quite familiar with Hannibal, I took a course in Ancient Warfare and Hannibal was one of the generals covered. We used nothing but original sources. However, I need to correct you on a point, the Carthaginians had developed the catapult by 399 BC and Hannibal did not cross the Alps until 218 BC. The Carthaginians had also invented siege towers and battering rams, which had been used earlier at Syracuse.

      1. shafarnullifidian – by the time you get to David and Goliath, you are talking at least the same history you would get from reading Ramses II hieroglyphics. There was a King David in the king list. Was there a Goliath? Maybe? Maybe not? Great story though. And the source of three (count them three) great statues. 😉

Comments are closed.