Trump: I Have The Police, The Military, and The Trump Bikers

President Donald Trump has caused another firestorm with a menacing statement to conservative outlet Breitbart that things will get “very bad, very bad” if his supporters among the military, police, and bikers are pushed too far. Once again, while one can come up with a non-threatening meaning, the President’s comments were widely interpreted as countenancing violence. These are the type of comments that are driving a deep wedge into the electorate with roughly half of the voters saying that they are resolved to vote against the President.

In an  interview with Breitbart published on Wednesday, Trump stated “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

It is certainly possible to argue that Trump was saying that left groups like Antifa are threatening people and they could push people too far. He could also argue that he was speaking purely politically that the groups are going to rise up in the polls to reject the rhetoric and policies on the left. However, that is not what was conveyed when you cite three groups who raise the image of physical force. Indeed, given the role of the police, military and bikers in the news in Venezuela, it was a uniquely poor time to make such a statement.

What do you think?

302 thoughts on “Trump: I Have The Police, The Military, and The Trump Bikers”

  1. Trump knew who he was messaging, the blood and soil Breitbart types. Trump knows he can count on hate, racism and just plain propaganda to keep his cult in line. Trump’s behaviour is sure to escalate because of his incompetence in office.

    1. He’s right. And we are 100% with him. I have a bicycle too!
      If it jumps off, we get mobile, agile, and hostile very quickly.

      The statement is not a lawless statement; rather, it is a warning to lawless actors.

  2. A mentally incapacitated man.
    A sick person.
    What is wrong with the U.S. allowing a sicko into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    A Democrat, would not get this length of time to rant and rave, without serious actions being taken.



    1. Guiness:
      To those suffering madness, the sane man looks mad. Usually you can tell a madman by all the capitlaiztion in his commentary.

      1. “Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and
        epochs, it is the rule.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~

    2. “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

      – “Slick Willy”

    3. Americans have decided to revert to the old days where lawlessness is preferred over common sensible laws. The POS that was put in office has resorted to calling for people to hurt/murder those of color, those that are disabled, the elderly and poor and many others and he somehow found a base that believes this type of thing is ok. They don’t care that other countries make fun of the US and the leader that has been picked because they know him as an unstable insane man who will do anything to get what he wants. Leaders of the communist countries love him because he praises them and they know they can use this dumb SOB because all he needs is praise to make him happy. We have lowered the standards of America by putting this mental case in office and allowing him to be in that office for this long is unbelievable.

  3. You’re a Dem, You’re a Dem.
    You’re a Dem all the way….
    From your first cigarette.. to your last dying day.

    Get on a bike and go hit the road.
    Watch all the hoosiers playing with toads.

    It’s time to get ready…
    It’s time to get rough.
    Get rough and ready when you have seen quite enough.


    Hit the road Jack!
    Don’t you come back no more no more!
    Hit the road Jack!
    Don’t you come back no more.

    Well. I’ll remember the single day..
    When Turley got stuck in an apple way.
    The people get tire of BS talk.
    It’s when they decide their gonna walk.

    Hit the road Jack… etc

  4. The president is ignorant or a liar – yeah, the Republicans “played this – and a pussy wanna be tough guy. People still defending him have lost too many brain cells or never had them.

  5. “What do you think”, I think this article is BS and you have accomplished what you set out to do “pit one against the other”.

    1. ha, trust me, people are already pitted one against the other.
      Trump is a guy who can see it and say it.

  6. The level of hysteria over this is as absurd as it is annoying but please everyone – right and left – let’s all dutifully follow the shiny, bouncy, ball and sing along with the talking points of the day whether they come from the CNN or Fox News hymn book.

    I suspect before Rome was overrun (that’s right, Rome didn’t fall so much as the deals they cut with northern hordes fundamentally transformed their society from the inside, eventually leading to the split between the Eastern and Western Empies) the toga-clas were glued to their cell phones, oblivous to it all, and chattering endlessly, needlessly, about nonsense such as Trump’s comments.

    To sing along for a moment: if Trump is to be called to account for these comments, what of Warren, O’Rourke, Harris, Hirono, et al, who have all recently made “dangerous” statements?

    1. O’Rourke and Warren threatened opponents with brown shirts? I want to hear about this!

  7. “What do you think?” J. Turley
    Whadda bunch of Maroons, in the Oval Office, and in your cheering section!
    Is this an experiment in blogging, ala Milford?
    Do you Ever actually look?
    Are you embarrassed by the following?
    Are you oblivious?

    1. Bruce, Milford paid college students enough to buy a nickel bag of Mexican brown. Everybody knew the joy-buzzer was fake torture.

      Res Ipsa Loquitur, however . . . now that’s genuine, authentic torment. The Doo-Dah man promised us all a long weird trip. Is there a tort? What do you think?

      1. It’s certainly been one. Always thought the old “May you live in interesting times” bit wasn’t a curse, but an E Ticket, so I took one. Still watching the most riveting show in the Universe, “Will Humans Evolve”, ain’t seeing it, Voting for polydactyl cats for the next “intelligent” speci.
        Certainly a tort! Like salsa with that? Justice is in ill repute below the 49th.
        Build the Northern Wall Quick!
        Your goning to need it to keep the marks in the bin, and we don’t need them to disrupt the balance of sanity here.
        Thank You.

        1. You’re Welcome, Bruce. Now about that Northern Wall . . . Do we have to pay for it? Or should we send the bill to Mexico?

          1. Well, it is to keep out all those multi-cultural types, the majority of whom have actually Had the experience of various wars before they arrived over the last century not thru Hollywood, and want no part of it. But I’d chip in! And so would many others around the world… I’d send the bill to medicare, and threaten ya’ll with forced Canadian News broadcasts at dinner time. Your digestion would improve, maybe even that elusive grip on perspective & reality down there.
            A break from 24hr F.E.A.R. Inc.
            The clock is ticking, but its the Earth that’s going to deliver karma to your children, and mebbe you. Talk to them, I think they’re going to be speaking today.
            I’m off for a nap, retired crash test dummy here. 92% humidity here -4c, my bones are dealing karma for my working life and playtimes back at me.
            Nice to have a cogent convo here, be well.

        2. bruce……the first vote Obama cast as a junior senator was a vote FOR the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
          Also voting Yea: Hillary, Schumer, Biden and almost all Dems. ( and re approved in 2013)
          Sorry, kid.

          1. Democrats don’t oppose all fences on the border, but they do oppose campaign stunts and ego monuments pretending to be policy.

            1. Anon……They oppose it because Trump is for it. They were the anti-illegal people before Trump came to power. I’m surprised you don’t see that.
              Caesar Chavez, whom I met in the early 1980’s, vehemently opposed illegals. All liberals were…. …until Trump. It’s really sickening to watch their hypocrisy. That’s why I got off of that plantation in 2008.

        1. No, that’s The Tambourine Man. Nobody knows for sure what The Doo-Dah Man is supposed to mean. Theories on the question range from “a womanizer” to “a gambler” who supposedly put his money on a bob-tailed nag. Maybe Stephen Foster was the Doo-Dah Man. Or not. What do you think?

    2. brucespoint………Yeah, a democracy can be disturbing, right? The free flow of competing ideas and critical thinking is just not your cuppa tea, I guess.

      1. Competing ideas, you are a joke. Your ideas have been disproven forever but unfortunately your ignorance lives in.

        1. ynot…..LOL my “ignorance lives in”? Lives in what?
          I am amused, and flattered that a little ol’ granny housewife such as myself can irritate the hell out of you. Good lord. I’m harmless, son.

          1. Little Miss Goody Two Shoes harmlessly accuses Democrats of killing newborn babies while trafficking in illegal voters from Guatemala and Honduras.

            Little Miss Goody Two Shoes is a festering pustule of harmlessness.

  8. Behind most every male interaction is the threat of violence. That’s just a psychological fact. It’s a good thing in that it moderates behavior and keeps interactions civil. Trump is just baring his teeth in the face of incessant provocations from the Left which, by the way, initiated the “resistance” and direct confrontation of Trump and his supporters. It’s a warning mechanism to provocateurs that they can go too far. It’s natural behavior and I applaud Trump for setting boundaries on this mindless anatagonism by the Left. Trump is simply saying you can push people too far and then you get what you get. The Left thinks they are immune to violent reprisal. They aren’t and that’s good for them to know as they try to assert their will over others. We’re a revolutionary country and we fight that revolution every generation. It’s no sin to say you’ll violently fight for your rights against those who would take them. That’s the basic premise of America. It was the codified words of a famous Virginian speaking af a church in Richmond that Trump echoed:

    “There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

      1. No he is not. He’s just thumping his chest. Because . . . [“?”] . . . (I have no idea why Mespo thumps his chest like that.) . . . Virginia. Maybe. He loves his home State.

        1. andrewworkshop is a hard-core Trump supporter. Ha-Ha! We’ve got you fighting amongst yourselves, now.

          1. I’m a hardcore reality supporter. He obviously isn’t. I’m not an ally of every fan in the stadium. Getting the ticket is too easy for that.

            1. workshop’s major statement on this particular thread began thusly, “The level of hysteria over this is as absurd as it is annoying . . .”

              He did digress into a few quaint notions about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire having been caused by Romans inviting the barbarians in. But then workshop pulled the rabbit out the hat with his peroration: “if Trump is to be called to account for these comments, what of Warren, O’Rourke, Harris, Hirono, et al, who have all recently made ‘dangerous’ statements?”

              If you could convince him that Trump’s antagonists are a barbarian horde, then he might sign up for The Continental Army 2.0. (with thermonuclear weapons). Hoorah!

              1. Just don’t ask workshop to join Bikers for Trump. Motorcycles are very dangerous. Andrew could easily hurt himself or worse.

                1. I am just a bicyclist for Trump. And i hardly ever ride. How about a Walker for Trump?

                  1. Mr Kurtz…..Or being on a walker?
                    I have three different ones I use.
                    Hey, wsit a minute…..they’re all colored red!
                    hmmmmm….. veddy interestink!

    1. mespo………Wonderful comment! Those words, yours and Henry’s, give me chills and are inspiring.

      1. Cindy:
        Henry understood brave men’s souls. Only cowards mystified him.

  9. It must be strenuous for Turley, et al, to have to keep telling us what Trump really means vs the words that keep coming out of his mouth. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled programming of blaming “the left” for everything he does.

            1. Ynot………”Dude”??
              Let me guess, you’re wesring skater’s shorts and shoes, baseball cap turned backwards, sharktooth necklace, and possibly a stud in your ear (stud, meaning jewelry, not a guy )
              and your best friend has a last name as a first name. Right?

              1. So the festering pustule of harmlessness, tooling around the blawg in her Trump-branded MAGA-walker, felt the need to belabor the otherwise obvious point that one cannot wear “a guy” dangling from one’s ear lobe. Because harmless little old grannies are wont to imagine that potent young studs might not yet know exactly which orifice they are supposed to pierce. Right?

          1. No, you apparently feel I am incapable of having a discussion on any topic besides race. When I’m invol ed in a discussion on another subject, and not discussing race, you take it right back there as a way to dismiss my opinion. #Sad

            1. In the lore of Virginia, the statement, “Give me Liberty or give me Death,” cannot be properly owned without dismissing the opinions of African-Americans on the grounds that their remote ancestors supposedly chose the wrong option and notwithstanding the shameful history of Death that was dealt unto them in droves for the sake of The White Man’s Burden.

              Oops. I’m not supposed to talk about that. Let’s talk about flowers and gardening or vegetables and gardening. I like sweet peas for both purposes. But you have to choose which purpose to let the bines fulfill. And you have to nip the buds to get more flowers. Unless I’m doing it wrong. L4D

    1. What about that time Trump said if they bring a knife we bring a gun? Or the members of his adminisration that talked about putting their boots on the throats of big business?

      1. Andreworkshop:
        Like I said — and you scoffed at — behind most every male interaction is the threat of violence. You really need to read more and do some. mouth exercises before inserting your foot.

        1. If true, irrelevant since the President is not just talking to men, doesn’t have the nuts to get in a dark alley, and we are a nation of laws, not juvenile fantasies like his and yours.

          1. NOT:
            Let me know when you’ve mustered the intellectual candlepower to refute and argument.

            1. It would be a waste on you but I love your bravado much like tRump’s. How are those bone spurs behaving?

            2. For untold generations Woman has selected man for tameness and for the sake of boosting the differential reproductive success of Her children even whilst patiently training Her first household pet, man, to the art of child rearing.

              Unfortunately, the maladaptive recessive genotype known as “Alfie” cannot ever be completely eliminated from the population without precipitating the eventual extinction of the population. Whence The Alfie genotype may well be an odd sort of auto-destruct mechanism built into the human genome. Otherwise, it’s just another congenital defect.

        2. Mespo does have an infatuation with the tough image he has of himself. The scotch has gone to head. Tough double-bump boy is always ready to duel.

  10. Will there be a repeat of The Democratic Convention 1968, held August 26-29 in Chicago, Illinois?

    Tens of thousands of protesters swarmed the streets. By the time Vice President Herbert Humphrey received the presidential nomination, the strife within the Democratic Party was laid bare and the streets of Chicago had seen riots and bloodshed involving protesters, police, national guard, military MP, and bystanders.

    Chicago DNC Convention rumble 1968 video

    1. From the Wikipedia article on the Selective Service System:

      The seventh and final lottery drawing was held on March 12, 1975, pertaining to men born in 1956, who would have been called to report for induction in 1976. But no new draft orders were issued after 1972. On January 27, 1973, Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird announced the creation of an all-volunteer armed forces, negating the need for the military draft.

      [end excerpt]

      Jerry is a bit slow to catch on to things. In fact, it is not immediately clear that Jerry will see the connection between draft resistance during The Vietnam War and the riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968.

        1. The Chicago Police are not here to create disorder. They’re here to preserve disorder.

          Besides, What trees do they plant? What tress do they plant?

          1. LD4 is a bit slow to catch on to things. In fact, it is not immediately clear that LD4 will see the connection with riots when Chicago Mayor Richard Daley gave the orders, “shoot to kill.”

            [end excerpt]

            1. No draft, no anti-war movement. No anti-war movement no riot at the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

              Did you forget your own question already, Jerry?

              1. “Anonymous” says No draft, no anti-war movement. No anti-war movement no riot at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Did you forget your own question already, Jerry?

                The answer is No…What is your question Anonymous? Is that you LD4?

                1. Yes. I’m in the bit bucket blockade again.

                  Your question was, “Will there be a repeat of The Democratic Convention 1968, held August 26-29 in Chicago, Illinois?”

                  My answer was No, because no war, no anti-war movement and no draft resistors to lead an anti-war movement into a riot at the 2020 DNC.

                    1. Late4Dinner says: March 15, 2019 at 4:08 AM

                      Jerry is a bit slow to catch on to things. In fact, it is not immediately clear that Jerry will see the connection between draft resistance during The Vietnam War and the riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968.

    2. One of Mayor Richard Daley’s finest achievements was cleaning the trash out of the parks.

      Chicago was a better place back then, by far. Hundreds of thousands of former citizens have voted with their feet against what came after.

      1. The crime rate in Chicago in 1968 was at least double the crime rate today. You just don’t know anything, Matlock.

  11. Now all of Trump’s surrogates who benefit from that huge tax cut will flood the media & “interpret” Trump’s comments, explaining that his tough people only defend themselves when confronted by those who are against fascism or who try to execute babies after they are born,

    Bikers, police, & soldiers–these people have the power to shoot you, imprison you, and run you over. He should have also mentioned MBS, who can chop you up while you are still alive & burn the pieces.

    Given what’s just happened in Christchurch, the mass murder with the killer saluting Trump as his inspiration, you can see what’s happening not just here but globally.

      1. “BREAKING: The New Zealand Mosque shooter says in his manifesto that he admires Donald Trump because Trump is “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.”

        1. “While we have no confirmation from police beyond “multiple fatalities”, New Zealand media have consistently been reporting unconfirmed estimates that fatalities are between 9 and 30, with 40 people injured.”

          Also from The Guardian.

      2. Update

        “40 dead, 20 injured” (as of this time)

        “New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed 40 people have died in today’s shooting, with 20 injured.” -The Guardian

    1. blue…….using your “logic” we’d better round up Jodie Foster, Robert DeNiro, and others who’ve supposedly caused some people to flip out and murder or attempt to murder others.

      1. You do know that Foster and DeNiro were actors playing parts in a fictional movie. Don’t you, Bragg?

        No. Wait. I get it. Totally. By Bragg’s “logic” Trump is just another actor playing a fictional president in a Hollywood movie.

        1. DeNiro’s part was based on a real character who wanted to kill the prez. Hinckley said he was influenced by those characters.
          But President Trump is by far the most popular scapegoat for you, it seems.

          You know, having a scapegoat means never having to say you’re sorry…………..

          1. And Trump’s presidency is based on a foreign character who wanted to lock up his political rivals. Trump said he was influenced by that character.

          2. This is the president talking like a mob boss – again – and you defend him?

      1. From Merriam Webster: Definition of boarder

        1 : one that boards
        especially : one that is provided with regular meals or regular meals and lodging
        //Mrs. Eads was able to rent the upstairs of a house that faced the river. It was evidently large enough for her to take in boarders and so bring in some income.

        — Henry Petroski

        2a : a person who rides a snowboard : snowboarder
        //More and more adult boarders are appearing on the slopes of Western ski resorts …

        — Ben Davidson

        b : a person who rides a skateboard : skateboarder
        //Skateboarding is the fastest-growing extreme sport in the United States, with more than 3 million new boarders taking up sport in 2003.

        — Michael Lisi

  12. Excerpted from the Breitbart article to which Turley linked:

    Trump told Breitbart News in an exclusive lengthy Oval Office interview that Ryan blocked issuance of subpoenas to people he thinks should have been investigated on the political left, and now that the Republicans no longer have the majority in the House, people Trump says Ryan protected may have gotten away with whatever they did that warranted investigation.

    Trump said that House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and his predecessor and fellow conservative Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) wanted to be tougher with the left, but that Ryan would not let them.

    [end excerpt]

    Trump’s complaint against Ryan is what prompted Trump’s fantasy about the police, the military and Bikers for Trump defending Trump against Congressional Democrats and their pesky investigations. Hillary Clinton’s gonads were a hell of a lot tougher than Trump’s gonads.


    Even in conservative media Trump comes off as the buffoonish bully he is in mainstream media. Funny how that goes.

    Trump considers the presidency whatever he can make it. He’s just improvising a reality show. That was Trump’s employment for more than a decade.

    Trump gives no thought to longterm repercussions on nation and government. In his mind polarization is ‘clever’ politics. That’s what ‘smart guys’ do. ‘Only saps strive for greater good’.

    Trump’s only interest is the Trump fortune. Beyond that Donald Trump is largely disengaged.

    1. P. Hill refuses to stop making sense. Isaac Basonkavich would say that it’s a thankless task. Thanks, Mr. Basonkavich. Thanks, Mr. Hill.

    2. Polarization is a natural dynamic in group forming. Old groups give birth to new groups. New groups have different norms. This is not grandpa’s Republican party anymore. What is awakening now, Carl Schmitt called the concept of the

      “For Schmitt, the political is reducible to the existential distinction between friend and enemy. [2] Schmitt attacks the “liberal-neutralist” and “utopian” notions that politics can be removed of all warlike, agonistic energy, arguing conflict existed as embedded in existence itself, likewise constituting an ineradicable trait of anthropological human nature. Schmitt attempts to substantiate his ideas by referencing the declared anthropological pessimism of “realistic” Catholic (and Christian) theology. The anti-perfectibilist pessimism of Traditional Catholic theology Schmitt considers esoterically relevant to the inner ontological being of politics and political activity in the contemporary world, modern people subconsciously secularizing theological intellectual ideas and concerns. Schmitt criticizes political “radicals” as basically ignorant, deluded, pseudo-messianic in mentality, and oblivious to the stark, hard knowledge of unveiled human nature, its esse, encoded in ancient theology, wherein Original Sin held central, axial place, intertwining his own ideas of meta-politics with a reformulated “metaphysics of evil”.[3]

      Publication history
      The Concept of the Political was first published in 1932 by Duncker & Humblot (Munich). It was an elaboration of a journal article of the same title, published in 1927.[1] The 1932 version has significant, and controversial, revisions. However, it is likely that these revisions were made in response to the reaction of Leo Strauss.[3]”

    3. Peter you are right that polarization is a key concept in politics. Trump has embodied this. He has never read Carl Schmitt I am sure, but, Leo Strauss knew him and read him and argued with him. Strauss left Europe and came to America and taught at U of Chicago. But back to Schmitt’s concept of the political, for a moment. from standord’s “”plato” internet survey of philosophy:

      “Schmitt believes that political enmity can have many different origins. The political differs from other spheres of value in that it is not based on a substantive distinction of its own. The ethical, for example, is based on a distinction between the morally good and the morally bad, the aesthetic on a distinction between the beautiful and the ugly, and the economical on a distinction between the profitable and the unprofitable. The political distinction between friend and enemy is not reducible to these other distinctions or, for that matter, to any particular distinction — be it linguistic, ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. — that may become a marker of collective identity and difference (CP 25–7). It is possible, for instance, to be enemies with members of a hostile group whom one judges to be morally good. And it is equally possible not to be engaged in a relationship of mutual enmity with a group whose individual members one judges to be bad. The same holds, Schmitt thinks, for all other substantive distinctions that may become markers of identity and difference.

      This is not to say, however, that one’s conception of moral goodness or badness, for instance, will never play a role in a relationship of political enmity. Any distinction that can serve as a marker of collective identity and difference will acquire political quality if it has the power, in a concrete situation, to sort people into two opposing groups that are willing, if necessary, to fight against each other (CP 37–8). Whether a particular distinction will come to play this role is not determined by its own intrinsic significance but by whether a group of people relies on it to define its own collective identity and comes to think of that identity, as based on that distinction, as something that might have to be defended against other groups by going to war. Since the political is not tied to any particular substantive distinction, Schmitt argues, it is naïve to assume that the political will disappear once conflicts arising from a particular distinction no longer motivate opposing groups to fight. Political identification is likely to latch on to another distinction that will inherit the lethal intensity of political conflict (See ND). But wherever a distinction has political quality, it will be the decisive distinction and the community constituted by it will be the decisive social unit. Since the political community is the social unit that can dispose of people’s lives, it will be able, where it exists, to assert its superiority over all other social groups within its confines and to rule out violent conflict among its members (CP 37–45).

      Schmitt claims that one cannot judge, from an external perspective, that a group is morally unjustified in defining its own identity in a certain way and to introduce political enmity, with the attendant possibility of killing, to preserve that identity. Only members of a group are in a position to decide, from the perspective of an existentially affected participant, whether the otherness of another group amounts to a threat to their own form of life and thus potentially requires to be fought (CP 27; See also CT 76–7, 136). Schmitt’s reasoning implicitly relies on a collectivist version of the logic of self-defence. …

      A political community exists, then, wherever a group of people are willing to engage in political life by distinguishing themselves from outsiders through the drawing of a friend-enemy distinction (CP 38, 43–4). A group’s capability to draw the distinction between friend and enemy does not require, Schmitt holds, that the group already possess a formal organization allowing for rule-governed collective decision-taking. A people, thus, will have an existence prior to all legal form as long as there is a sense of shared identity strong enough to motivate its members to fight and die for the preservation of the group…. (CT 126–35).”

      anyhow you can see, Carl Schmitt has a long and strong influence, and powerful existential logic for the sovereign, though few would admit it.

      If you have never heard of Leo Strauss, this article describes him

      I tell you, Schmitt had the deepest understanding of politics in the 20th century. He was as important to politics, as his contemporary Martin Heidegger was to philosophy.

  14. But, in contrast to Democrats, not one policeman, soldier, or biker would see a newborn baby lying on a table and walk over to it and kill it in cold blood.

      1. Really, anonymous? Tell the Dems. It’s allowed by law in several ststes.

            1. Cindy Bragg says: March 15, 2019 at 12:58 AM

              But, in contrast to Democrats, not one policeman, soldier, or biker would see a newborn baby lying on a table and walk over to it and kill it in cold blood.

              Cindy Bragg says: March 15, 2019 at 1:31 AM

              Really, anonymous? Tell the Dems. It’s allowed by law in several states.

              You literally claimed that several states allow killing newborn babies in cold blood. Those were your words, Bragg. Own them. If you mean something else other than what you literally said, then stop beating around the bush and say whatever the blazes you really meant to say, Bragg.

                1. That’s incorrect. Once born, the “newborn” would no longer be a threat to the health or life of the mother and so would have to be found lacking “fetal viability”, or someone is going to jail.

                  “…The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

                  In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

                  Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk — which was inconsistent with a part of the Roe decision, as we explain later…..”


                  1. Anon….they removed from the NY Public Health law the saving of the baby if it is born as a result of an abortion…You can now kill it if mother and doctor agree
                    That’s why .Sen. Ben Sasse tried to get his bill passed that would punish doctors that kill a live baby and don’t try to save it!. The Democrats BLOCKED it!!! They killed the bill in the Senate.
                    please read about it because the msm buried that story!

                    1. I posted what the law says. The criteria are health and life of the mother or fetus lacking viability, all attested to by competent medical personnel. The mother and doctor have to agree that is is not viable and if they violate that law they can be prosecuted.

                    2. Anon……Yes, I know who Will is…..The Bush money and support.
                      That is Wlll’s ticket to stsying in power. Gotta win those elections and csn’t run an ele tion without $. In Texas, you cross thd Bush family at your own peril if you want to stay in GOP politics.
                      Didn’t you hear Cruz complaining about that?

                  2. Anon….regarding Will Hurd…..He’s a Bush guy. George helped him get elected and re-elected…….therefore, he is not going to back the wall.
                    He’s loyal to Bush only, not what’s best for Texas and this cou try

                    1. UH, Will Hurd is a GOP congressman representing the longest stretch of border with Mexico of anyone. The Bushes have no power over him and his district voters do. If as you say, those on the border agree with Trump, Hurd is cutting his own throat, acting on principle, or both. Or, he might be representing his constituents.

                      “…The voters most likely to think that President Trump should declare a national emergency and build a wall without congressional approval live in the Northeast. To be precise, 37 percent share this opinion in the region farthest from the southern border. In the Midwest, the figure is 34 percent; it falls to 25 percent in the West.

                      In that same mid-January poll, the pattern shows up again on the question of whether we need a wall across the entire U.S.-Mexico border. A little more than half of voters in the Northeast favored such an approach; it was 48 percent in the Midwest and 41 percent in the West….”


        1. Sorry, you are allowed to spout your opinion—no matter how discombobulated or divorced from reality—but you are manifestly not allowed your own facts. Here in the world of reality where facts, truth and evidence have concrete, verifiable meanings, the bleating regurgitations of whichever wingnut wackjob who further disgraced himself by appearing on Pravda Faux News and poured more nonsense into your empty vessel of cognitive bias reveals you to be little more than a gullible rube, dupe, klan wannabee, pocket-traitor or grifter on the make; just another pitiful relic of the dwindling few who still haven’t figured out the con. So sorry for your loss, and your condition. Pro tip: hannity thinks you’re a fool, also—he’s figured out what that ticking sound is.

          This is to “when these smarty pants git unner my skin, why, I just start makin sh*t up for the hell of it” cindie

          1. M…….it’s heartbreaking that one has to actually argue with adults about saving a baby thst is viable.
            Science has changed since Roe!!!! With ultrasounds came new information about fetuses……!
            If you hate babies, at least study the science!

            1. Saving a baby that is viable is not an issue, nor is it legal anywhere in the US to not save one..

              1. Anon……I can’t copy and paste on this ipsd, but please read about Sen. Sasse’s senate bill!!!
                It was a dark day for any Democrat who wants to be thought of as compassionate.
                My husband is a constitutional scholar and was sickened!
                But none of the msm evening news anchors even mentioned it!

              2. Anon……..viability is the magic word. That’s what Justice Blackmun and the court wrestled with in ’72.
                Today with ultrasound, science has drastically changed since the seventies.
                A baby in the womb can recognize it’s mother’s voice at 22+ weeks………Some babies are seen sucking their little thumbs weeks before that. We now know some can feel pain. And now a baby’s heartbeat can be detected at 5 to 6 weeks.
                Violently ripping that child from it’s mother’s womb is barbaric.With science we have no excuse to call a baby just a mass of tissue… in the 70’s.

                1. An infant’s viability is properly addressed by medical personnel and the mother. I’m sure you would not want Sen Sasse in the room with you dictating treatment when dealing with a heartbreaking situation like a baby without a brain or in unending pain until they expired, at which time you and your family might be bankrupted and your other children completely traumatized.

                  1. Anon……you seem like such a nice guy. I believe you are above the talking points for the Dems. If a mother feels, mentally, that she can’t take the baby they’ll kill it Her mental condition is part of the deal.
                    Which political party has taken the most natural thing for a eomsn to do….. carry a child, and talk her into getting rid of it during pregnsncy?
                    Getting rid of her own child. Who does that?
                    75% of down syndrome fetuses are aborted in this country. Congratulations, Democrats.
                    The next time you watch those sweet faces at the Special Olympics, think about that. In countries like Iceland it’s reaching 100% of ds fetuses aborted. They’re so proud. No “retards”, I guess they’re thinking.

                    1. We are not talking about babies that are a mere inconvenience. They must be not viable. I don’t know anyone that talks mothers into “getting rid” of a baby.

                      Downs syndrome would not qualify as an un-viable baby.

                  2. Anon…………Down Syndrome fetuses in America are being aborted because they have DS……….nothing to do with viability.
                    The amniocentesis test is performed usually from 14th week–to 20th week of pregnancy.
                    In this country, at least 75% of fetuses thought to have DS (because the test isn’t perfect) will be suctioned out of their mother’s wombs, with little limbs torn apart as those sweet babes resist the procedure.

                    Your political party has no problem with that information.
                    Such heartless people.

                    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

                      The next stages occur in phases, from 26-36 weeks, and then, finally, the last stage of lung development doesn’t even begin until 36 weeks. That last stage occurs during the last month of pregnancy and even though it might seem like the baby is “done” by then, there is actually a tremendous amount of growth that happens in that last stage of lung development. During that last month, the baby’s lungs do the majority of developing that they need to function outside of the womb, so that’s why it is so important to do everything possible to let babies develop and choose their own birth dates, unless medically necessary to deliver early.

                    2. A different issue from your previous one – late term abortions, which are those after 24 weeks.

                      Whether my wife and I would decide to abort a DS or a fetus with other severe problems would be very difficult, I don’t know the answer – maybe she does – but I’m glad I don’t have to run it by Sen Sasse and you and I would hope you appreciate my not trying to get in to the room with you and your family and doc. These are not easy decisions nor made cavalierly.

            2. Jibber-jabber such as “saving a baby” has as much use to this topic as the day glo bozo has for a book or ethics. For there are no “babies” involved whatsoever. The constitutionally-protected right of women to make their own reproductive decisions tangentially touches upon zygotes or fetuses. A “baby” is defined as “a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.” Obviously, no rational person is therefore advocating any actions to be taken against a “baby.”
              In reality, the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s constitutionally-protected right to control her own body by making her own decisions on birth control. Thus, a person who understands that a campaign to return women to second-class citizen status or chattel property is a non-starter would by necessity need to resort to hiding behind the make-believe bodies of imaginary children in the hopes conning the know-nothings, lemmings, and gullible rubes into supporting their false position. That position resonates only amongst that aforementioned demographic cohorts; and of course, the additional cohort composed of misogynistic haters of women and those who truly seek to return to the “good ole days” when women were in fact the chattel property of their nearest male relative. I can only provide the facts, I can’t understand them for you. So sorry for your loss and your condition.

              this is to “dammit, he figured out the game” cindie

              1. Mark….If we can call you human, then we can call a fetus a baby.
                Blackmun and the Ct in 1972 made their decision based on science knoewn back then.
                Like the global warming argument, the science re: pregnancy has changed immensely, mostly because of ultra sound. Fetal heartbeat detected at 6 weeks……..that’s called life.
                I’ll say it again…..if Democrats/liberals thought of fetuses as iilegal immigrants, abortion would end tomorrow

                1. Fetuses don’t vote any more than illegal immigrants vote; not at all.

                  P. S. Let us know when “science” can use ultrasound to detect the political party affiliation of a fetus.

    1. How can you even post such an absurd statement to accuse people of murder? Are you this desperate to support a guy who doesn’t even give you a second thought? Police kill children all the time. Our govt rips them from their mothers and puts them in cages leaving them unprotected and vulnerable to sexual assault. Deal with reality.

      1. blue………..what parent puts their children in harm’s way…..obama did the same thing, btw.
        if you people thought of fetuses as illegal immigrants, abortion would end tomorrow.

        1. Parents who are fleeing war-torn countries such as Guatemala and Honduras are taking their children out of harm’s way. If you people thought of asylum seekers as newborn babies lying on a table . . .

          1. only about 15 % are asylum seekers. All you Dems see are potential votes Period. You don’t care about children if you scoff at the death of fetuses and aborted babies that live. You are heartless barbarians.

            1. And you’re an exposed nerve ending. How painful it must be for you to type your comments. Would you like a nice ice-pack on your . . . Oh! No! That will only make your agony louder.

                1. Does your mother know that you post prank blawg comments in your sleep, Bragg?

                    1. You presume that my mother is still alive because you claim presumptuousness as your birthright???.

                2. Does your mother know you hate for a living, Cindy? Is that who taught you to hate? Sorry for your upbringing but it is never too late to become human.

                  1. hate is the counterpart to love. if you can feel one, then you can feel the other too. hate is manifestly part of what it means to be human.

                    only a moralistic fool who doesn’t own his own sense of hate talks like you do.

                    1. I reserve my hate for deserving individuals not segments of the population.

                    2. the liberal’s moralistic creed! He only hates deserving individuals! not “segments of the population.”
                      this gets to what I said yesterday– always the talk of individualism on defense, then the talk of groups when they’re on offense!

                      So the liberal does not hate segments of the population— except the following segments of course:

                      fascists nativists racists etc etc
                      “the 1 % rich”
                      Bible Belt believers
                      white male oppressors
                      the patriarchy etc etc

                      those “segments” are not hated just what? reviled, perhaps?

            2. Bragg said, “All you Dems see are potential votes.”

              No, Bragg. Illegal voters is all that you see when you look at people crossing the US/Mexico border. Because, you can only see what Trump tells you to see; namely, illegal voters crossing the border illegally. Trump is lying to you, Bragg. Illegal immigrants don’t vote. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly knuckling under to Trump’s lies.

              1. L4D…. LOL I swear I have no idea what you are talking about when you ssy Trump lies and I’m under his influence.
                I do my own independent reading and thinking. I live in Texas. We have information down here…The illegal epidemic is real.
                I’m just grateful Trump believes US and what we’re experiencing, not the other way ’round.
                See? It’s called ” being a grown-up”.

                1. Bragg said, “All you Dems see are potential votes.”

                  L4D said, “Illegal immigrants don’t vote.”

                  Bragg said, “I have no idea what you are talking about.”

                  Let the record show that Bragg has no idea what Bragg is talking about.

                2. I’m from Texas and I know that there is no emergency whatsoever, with the exception of what our current government is needlessly inflicting on the undeserving. You’re also merely a member of the herd. Your “independent readin’ n thinkin” is likely nothing more than logging onto infowars, Breitbart, or Pravda to lap up some fantastical, fear-mongering outrage to share with the other oldsters down to the feed store and tractor-repair shop. Pro tip: to remedy your condition, it’s first necessary to recognize your condition. Neither “Right” nor “wrong” are the property of any one political party; a truism which I doubt has ever penetrated through your self-imposed fog. Some might pity the fact that you’ll never know; as for me, I just want you and your ilk to keep on keepin’ on and do what you do. For such will allow we true American Patriots will rescue our beloved country that much sooner.

                  This is to “but them dusky fellers were prolly talking about me in that wierd language, ah reckon” cindie

                  1. Mark M… to thd housewives/mothers on the border……or the ranchers and land owners……There is a crisis.

                    1. Talk to Will Hurd, GOP congressman representing 800 miles of border and opponent of Trump wall.

                  2. an emergency is not just a fast moving one, it can also be a subtle one. the illegal immigration and border situation is every bit as much an emergency as some of these other past presidentially declared emergencies


                    Dubya even declared a “national emergency” to punish associates of the loathsome Robert Mugabe. How does a petty african bush tyrant, howeve murderous in his own neck of the woods, constitute an American emergency?

                    You can go down the list and find a lot of other equally less compelling socalled “emergencies” that most Americans had no clue about!, and which had zero effect on us. Like Mugabe.

                    By comparison the border situation is definitely an emergency and Americans are definitely concerned about it. Finally a president that responds to what the other half of the electorate actually cares about besides what all the supposed experts say.

                3. There is no conversation with people like her. In the time you attempt to refute one of their false accusations they will make up five more. Unless you are arguing for fun, it’s pointless.

                  I argue for fun a lot, and also I argue for money. Here, just for fun.

                  1. Cindy Bragg says: March 15, 2019 at 12:58 AM

                    But, in contrast to Democrats, not one policeman, soldier, or biker would see a newborn baby lying on a table and walk over to it and kill it in cold blood.

                    Mr Kurtz says: March 15, 2019 at 11:55 AM

                    There is no conversation with people like her. In the time you attempt to refute one of their false accusations they will make up five more.

                    The festering pustule of “harmlessness” known as Cindy Bragg made at least two false accusations, beginning with the one cited above: That Democrats kill newborn babies in cold blood. When that false accusation was refuted, the festering pustule of “harmlessness” known as Cindy Bragg claimed that Democrats see illegal immigrants as votes for Democratic candidates. When that false accusation was refuted, the festering pustule of “harmlessness” known as Cindy Bragg claimed not to know what L4D was talking about.

                    Now the one who argues both for sport and for money claims that “There is no conversation with people like her.” But Matlock’s wish will never be fulfilled. There will be conversation with L4D. Relentless, merciless, dogged conversation with L4D. There’s no place to run. No place to hide. Your exposed nerve endings will be packed in ice. It will hurt. OMG. I’m salivating. Nyum, nyum, nyum. Ha-ha!

    2. Cindy, that’s a false slander. If anyone did that they world be arrested and convicted and rightly so.

  15. Whoaaa, everybody’s all upset yet again over something provocative that Trump has said. Let’s face the reality of this… The left has been responsible for a considerable amount of violence, with particular reference to the antifa goons. We have seen the left lie, calling those of us on the right racist, bigoted, etc., ad nauseum. Look at Jussie Smollett, look at the Covington kids issue. Look at Kavanaugh. Now go back, look at the behavior of the left with other presidents. With Trump, they’ve just ratcheted up their discreditable behavior by several degrees, but we’ve seen these false accusations before from them, we’ve seen this kind of behavior in the past. It’s just that now, with President Trump, many on the right feel emboldened to stand up for themselves finally, realized that it’s OK to stand up to the bullies.

    A lot of us are fed up with this sort of behavior. I can safely say that every conservative reading this has taken some crap from someone on the left, undeserved crap. The left seems to be itching for a fight, and what I read in Trump’s words Is a warning that the left should perhaps face the reality that the people who are really tough are on the right. Trump has also made it clear that the right has been very patient, particularly given the treatment that we have received.
    Here’s a little story for you… I grew up in a small mining city in northern Ontario. One summer during the mid-70s, a biker gang indicated that it was going to come in to town and run roughshod over the community. On a legal basis, there was not a thing that the police could do to protect the city until these thugs broke the law. At that point it would be too late. So the word went out… There would be a great many men at the city limits, on an unofficial basis. No badges, no uniforms. My father was one of those men. It was made very clear to this gang that any biker who tried to cross that line would be thrown back across it in some degree of pain, along with their motorcycles.
    The bike gang did come north but stopped 5 miles short of the city limits. They took over an abandoned farm property, trashed it, burnt down the buildings, and left the area after the weekend was over.
    Were their rights violated? Damn right they were, they had a legal right to enter the city. Was what these men did wrong? I don’t believe it was. They were protecting their city and its people in the only way they had available to them.

    These criminals had indicated their intent, and were advised of the consequences. Had they entered the city, the consequences would’ve been considerably greater because innocent townspeople could have been harmed.
    How do I know that? About 15 years later, after political correctness had reared its ugly head and many of the men had turned into mice, another bike gang did come to the city. There was considerable violence surrounding their presence, including gun fights in a city in which that simply did not ever happen.

    We are now looking at a situation in which the left is actively threatening the peace and security of many of us on the right. They’ve made no secret of their distain for the first and second amendments. They have clearly indicated their willingness to trash the economic system that has brought so much wealth and security to America. They lie constantly in their attempts to discredit people with different political beliefs. Perhaps it’s about time that the right stands at the city limits and makes it clear that nobody is going to pass that line.
    President Trump is only addressing the reality. If the left does not start to behave itself, it may be up to the right to teach them how.

    1. The reality is that Trump is a pansy and a sissy and a whiny little cry baby. Trump’s comments in his interview with Breitbart were prompted by the investigations that House Democrats have launched into Trump as well as former Speaker Ryan’s refusal to cave in to Trump’s request for House Republicans to launch investigations into Trump’s political rivals in The Democratic Party. All bullies are cry babies. Some cry babies are not bullies. Trump is a bully and a cry baby. That’s the reality.

      1. ha ha well very good, your hate grows, we can smell it, we can hear it, we can read it!

        It makes you feel good to call him bad names, doesn’t it? Feel that loathing in your heart– it’s called hate. Feel it, it makes you feel strong, and alive doesn’t it? Feel it Late, feel that bitterness to the Orange Man, let it grow!

        It will give you the strength to lie when you say, it’s only Trumpers who hate!

        1. There is something wrong with you if you don’t find the words and deeds of Trump vain, repulsive, shallow, bullying, and transparent. One can reasonably react with disgust, hate, gagging mechanism, whatever. He is an obviously despicable human being. I know my now deceased life long Republican mother would throw somebody like him out of her house. She could tell a lying con man when she saw one and she was tough.

          1. I’m sure she was a lovely lady. My mom didn’t like him either at first. Now she’s getting the picture. It’s a whole new ball game anon. Read my posts about Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, it explains quite well the social dynamics in play.

    2. Interesting tale. I’m sure that such a sequence of scandalous events is absolutely blanketed with accounts published in reputable media sources from that time. What sources should one refer to in order to further understand these shocking and outrageous happenings? Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

      This is to “anonymous who is (maybe) from Canada (or not)”

    3. Poor you. Right wing violence is the leading cause of terrorism in the US, New Zealand just gave us another lesson.

  16. Here’s the full quote from Trump’s interview with Breitbart as excerpted from the Breitbart rticle to which Turley linked:

    “So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.”

    [repeated for emphasis] “Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.”

    [end excerpt]

    I submit that the part of Trump’s quote that I repeated for emphasis is the operative part of Trump’s quote. Trump appears to be actively imagining the need for a military and a paramilitary defense against the investigations being conducted by Congressional Democrats. Trump has lost it. Completely and totally.

    1. It’s so much easier to put words in his mouth than to try and understand what he actually said, isn’t it?

      1. Those are Trump’s words. Nobody can be as block-headed as you are pretending to be, Moran.

      2. Please say what your understanding of Trump’s words in the Interview are.

    2. You call it insanity. I say what Trump has now is “clarity.”

      “The charges are unjustified. They are in fact, and in the circumstances of this conflict, quite completely insane. In a war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action. There are many moments for ruthless action — what is often called ruthless, what may in many circumstances be only clarity — seeing clearly what there is to be done and doing it directly, quickly, awake, looking at it. I will trust you to tell your mother what you choose about this letter. As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid, lying morality, and so I am beyond caring.
      You have all my faith. Your loving father.”

    3. so you are saying, his methods have become unsound?
      it’s all a matter of perspective. hear from a grocery clerk:

      “Well, you see Willard… In this war, things get confused
      out there, power, ideals, the old morality, and practical
      military necessity. Out there with these natives it must be
      a temptation to be god. Because there’s a conflict in
      every human heart between the rational and the irrational,
      between good and evil. The good does not always triumph.
      Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called
      the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a
      breaking point. You and I have. Walter Kurtz has reached his.
      And very obviously, he has gone insane.”

      “Yes sir, very much so sir. Obviously insane.”

      “For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment – that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species, perhaps even creates species. And as a matter of principle we are ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong) are the most indispensable to us, that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live – that if we managed to give up false judgments, it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life. 2 To concede the fictional nature of the conditions of life means, of course, taking a dangerous stand against the customary feelings about value. A philosophy which dares to do that is for this reason alone already standing beyond good and evil. — F. Nietzsche, BGE #4

      1. The commenter whose nom de plume is Mr. Kurtz is now pretending that he can no longer tell the difference between himself versus the fictional characters that gave him his nom de plume. Or is he merely pretending??? Has Kurtz become Kurtz for real?????

        I doubt it. He’s still trying to talk himself into his fake insanity. Kurtz will never become truly bat guano insane. Because Kurtz will always know that Kurtz is not really Kurtz. The same as everybody else knows that Kurtz is not really Kurtz.

  17. Excerpted from the second article about Venezuelan bikers to which Turley linked:

    The colectivos have their roots in the Cuban-inspired guerrilla forces that battled Venezuela’s staunchly anti-communist governments in the 1960s. After that conflict, some former rebels returned to poor neighborhoods determined to spread socialism through community activities – offering classes, showing movies, giving out free bread – and to protect residents from corrupt police.

    Something tells me that Bikers for Trump might not be on the same page as The Colectivos in Venezuela. OTOH, it’s doubtful that Bikers for Trump would enjoy any more support from the police and the military than Trump does. And why is Trump imagining the need for armed forces to defend Trump from Democrats in Congress? Is Trump going Nixon on us already?

    1. It sounds more like you’re going stupid on us then Trump is going Nixon. Try not to imagine scary things, you snowflakes have a problem with that as we have seen.

      1. Trump is the one imaging that the investigations being conducted by Congressional Democrats are scary things.

        It is inevitable that Trump will cry like a little school girl, Moran.

  18. Waal, at least he didn’t say “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

  19. He is threatening anyone who disagree with him with physical violence. Imagine the president threatening the American People.

      1. “So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.”

    1. Understand for a moment what “Justice Holmes” clearly did based on the body of his work. If you’re familiar with it then you know what i mean. I’ll speak for my own viewpoint now, which was informed partly by him and his era.

      The laws are systematic rules for the imposition of violence by the government on the people.

      Every lawgiver threatens the people with violence. Didn’t Moses himself command stoning for violation of various dictates he received from a burning bush?

      The law here Trump refers to, is the one where the abused dog bites back.

      Maybe I will toss in some Jack London quotes later for fun.

      1. The commenter whose nom de plume is Mr. Kurtz will never erase the line between fiction versus non-fiction. Because the unexamined life does not actually exist, never actually existed and never will actually exist–no matter how seemingly worthy of living any given unexamined life might be or become. One must needs examine the worthiness of living any such supposedly unexamined life in order to choose to live that previously unexamined life. The unexamined life is a formally untestable hypothesis. All lives worth living are examined ones. Otherwise, the supposed worthiness of living the unexamined life remains untested and possibly unfounded. The unexamined life IS the non-existent life. And that remains the line between fiction versus non-fiction that cannot ever be erased.

Comments are closed.