Rep. Goldman Calls for Trump to be “Eliminated” After Decrying his “Inflammatory Rhetoric”

Even in his freshman year, Democratic New York Rep. Dan Goldman has proven one of the most controversial members in Congress from attacking witnesses to inadvertently undermining the Biden defenses. The latest controversy involves a call to “eliminate” Donald Trump after accusing him of using “inflammatory rhetoric.” He has since apologized for his own language. Despite being one of the many past targets of Goldman’s wrath, I do not believe that Goldman was calling for violence. It was what I call “rage rhetoric” in my book The Indispensable Right. However, the incident shows the perils of criminalizing political speech.

Goldman remains a favorite on MSNBC where he rarely fails to disappoint viewers with his brand of smash-mouth politics and rhetoric. It was, therefore, somewhat ironic for Jen Psaki to interview him on the inflammatory rhetoric in this election on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki.”

Goldman responded:

“rhetoric is really getting dangerous, more and more dangerous, and we saw what happened on Jan. 6, when he uses inflammatory rhetoric. It is just unquestionable at this point that that man cannot see public office again. He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.”

Some have called for Goldman to be investigated by the Secret Service. Others have called for a censure resolution. I do not agree. It was clearly reckless rhetoric and not a true threat.

Yet, the incident shows how inflammatory terms are often used in politics. In the very same sentence in which Goldman denounced “dangerous” rhetoric, he proceeded to use dangerous rhetoric.

Rep. Goldman has been one of the most vocal voices for prosecuting incitement based on such language. In an interview with NPR, Goldman (who was counsel in the Trump impeachment) defended the use of such rhetoric as the basis for impeachment or prosecution:

“there’s all sorts of speech that is criminalized. You can’t – you know, you can’t use hate speech. You – people – in all sorts of crimes. You can’t send death threats across, you know, the Internet. There are so many criminal laws that do criminalize speech, and so the notion that the president of the United States somehow has a First Amendment right to be protected by the government for his speech doesn’t make any sense. It’s a backwards argument, and it’s a loser.”

As a threshold observation, the interview shows how dangerously ill-informed Goldman is on the First Amendment. He claims, as have other Democratic members, that “you can’t use hate speech.” That is demonstrably and completely wrong. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. You cannot commit hate crimes.

Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.

I have previously criticized the calls to criminalize Trump’s Jan. 6th speech as inimical to free speech. On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and denounced Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric as well as similar rhetoric coming from the left. However, the calls for criminal charges ignore the danger to free speech.

While Trump used language like going to “fight” for his cause in the protest on the Hill, he never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

If Trump called to “eliminate” Pence or Pelosi, it would have no doubt been added to calls for prosecution. Indeed, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. Even though no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.” Others have suggested premeditated murder charges in his unhinged environment.

I am glad that Rep. Goldman apologized and I wish Trump would have retracted some of his prior language. However, rage rhetoric is a reality in our contemporary politics. We need to continue to denounce it on both sides, but it will produce even greater costs if we cross the Rubicon into criminalizing political speech.

189 thoughts on “Rep. Goldman Calls for Trump to be “Eliminated” After Decrying his “Inflammatory Rhetoric””

  1. Hold the phone… not Trump being accused of inciting an insurrection or riot for his speech on January 6th….so why not this big mouth nimrod?

    The Professor is right….there is a line but where it lies is up to the whim of the prosecutor and not etched in stone in clear unambiguous carving.

    I know what “eliminated” can mean….dumped from the team roster, losing a game in a tournament, or being killed….like so many were on October 7th.

    Now of course who would ever consider Goldman a danger except to himself but still….words have meanings and with the Loon Wing of the Democrat Party….one never knows!

    Some Secret Service Agents need to do a sit down Interview of Goldman….following and advisement of his Fifth Amendment Rights and do a proper investigation of this latest example of why friends should not let friends vote Democrat.

  2. Generally speaking, many voters of opposing political parties actually get along very well. In my neighborhood Trump voters are friendly to Biden voters.

    One big problem is the politicians (leaders) seem to try to divide us by appeasing to the extreme fringes of both parties, then pitting us against the other side.

    Maybe the reason the leaders are trying to divide us is they don’t have to be fiscally responsible? They keep loading our grandkids up with debt while we fight each other.

    Most voters I know vote out of fear, not for the candidate that best represents them (the other guy is so dangerous vote for me).

    1. Presidential elections in the U.S. sadly are just this side of voting for who prom king should be. The press notoriously avoids actually covering policy, instead devoting the huge bulk of their time and energy to sheer politics.

      It’s the only pathway for the right to collect power.

  3. When rhetoric turns to violence-ideation, it is a sign that freedom of speech has pre-empted the responsibilities of speech.

    The ability to think freely, creatively and constructively can only be maximized for the many at the expense of clamping down on the fanatical few who exploit speech freedoms to intimidate and dupe. I know, it’s a difficult line to draw (especially legalistically). But history shows time and again, when zealots take hold of the infospace, they destroy the atmospherics needed for creative problem-solving, inflame paranoid distrust, and set the table for violence. After the paroxism of violent conflict subsides, the same problems remain to be solved that ignited the conflict. Negotiation has merely been put off by lashing out with violence, sapping energy, trust, irreplaceable lives and time squandered.

    This is why taking up one-sided advocacy to expand and secure “free speech” as JT does will backfire horribly by overshooting. The sweet spot is book-ended somewhere between the twin evils of repressive censorship and unbridled, manipulative fanaticism. Both set the stage for authoritarian rule — censorship to keep the authoritarians in power — and fanaticism by replacing them with “our authoritarians”. And be sure, those who rise to power through trickery and deceit will use it in every way possible to hold onto power once there. Do you know how they’ll defend their version of thought-control?…..the freedom to choose what to believe (subjective, self-interested reality) and the freedom to then act on one’s beliefs.

    JT is handing our future to the master manipulator-infowarriors in failing to recognize the limits of free-speech (which are defined by its responsibilities). I wish more like JT could engage with the topic of speech responsibilities (such as honesty, modesty, and constructive ideation). Then we can have thoughtful debate about how to distribute that responsibility widely enough so that speech norms are broadly owned and upheld, and cannot be centralized by authoritarian types.

    Freedom without responsibility is the pathway to anarchy/tyranny.

    1. You make a valid point speech being defined by its responsibilities, then go on defining responsibilities such as honesty, modesty, and constructive ideation (forming ideas?).

      How would you put limits on any speech that’s not insightful? Would calling someone a long down critter and I’m coming to smash you (honesty)? Or you sure are pretty can I smell your hair (modesty)? Put no limits on speech that isn’t physically or economically harmful to another, uttering emanations’ have no place to claim harm (constructive ideation).

      When others endeavor to limit what can be said danger is advised!

    2. Pbinca – this is false.

      Society actually thrives best overall with the greatest freedom of speech.

      To the extent that bad speech has consequences that is ONLY in our own individual choices.

      Freedom does require responsibility, but aside from responsibility for ACTIONS – and particularly VIOLENT actions , that responsibility is imposed by the rest of us as individuals acting freely.

      There is no thoughtful debate needed, you are free to say what you please, and I am free to reply as I wish or to make any other free choices I wish in response to your speech.

      We punish dishonesty by chosing not to trust those who lie. We punish immodesty by choosing not to associate with those whose speech we do not wish to be associated with.

      We reward creativity, ideas that work. We punish failure by choosing not to support it in the future.

      What we may not do is silence those we disagree with.

      If you can not grasp why this is important all you need do is look at the mess censorship made of covid.

      A proper respect for free speech would have allowed all issues to be publicly debated – often by the best representing each view.

      We would have learned alot far sooner.

      We would have learned that the harms associated with covid public policies were far greater than any possible good.

      We would have learned that Covid is a product of the hubris of man, not the punishment of nature or god.

      We would have learned that covid itself was far too contageous to stop.

      We would have learned all of this and more – because we would have heard the arguments from both sides of every issue, and we would not have had the views not liked by those with power muffled by government, by the press, by social media.

      We would have learned the truth about each speaker – not some twenty something just out of school journo’s idiotic ideas of who can be beleived on complex subjects, But the actual qualifications of each presenter as well as the strength of their arguments.

      1. John, take a look around you at the myriad of laws which criminalize different kinds of dishonesty….perjury, lying on your tax return, SEC securities fraud, unproven medical device and drug claims, making a false police report, Volkswagon’s scamming of EPA testing, Bankman-Fried’s crypto-scam….should I stop here?
        Sports betting frauds, the Atlanta teachers convicted of RICO for mickeying student test results, FAA airline maintenance fraud, bigamy, identity theft and fraud, product safety laws, campaign funding laws.

        You say that “Society actually thrives best overall with the greatest freedom of speech” — I’ve just listed 16 areas where dishonest speech (and written docs) illegal. These laws enjoy wide public support. Society actually thrives with the greatest freedom of HONEST and RESPONSIBLE speech. You can’t have the type of organized living with dishonest actors given the freedom to dupe others.

        Take the 2020 “whopper” let loose by Antony Blinken and Mike Morell (“Hunter’s laptop was Russian hacking”).
        This was a massive public fraud that affected the outcome of a Presidential election…many of us believe it tipped the election. Do you favor that example of free speech? … by political campaigns, with assistance from govt. officials and media giants….to DUPE the voters? What about using deep fakes in 2024 as a standard and perfectly legal technique of political competition? In favor of that, too?

  4. Prof. Turley

    The only fundimental problem I have with Rep. Goldman’s remarks is their hypocracy.

    Rep. Goldman is free to say whatever he wants. As is Trump.

    Frankly, I have problems with your “rage rhetoric” criticism. In Brandenburg and progeny SCOTUS has tried to setout a bright line for speech that can be illegal. The only plausible place for any line much less a bright line is very close to actual incitement to violence – and that iw what the court has chosen.

    I do not even support “condemning” as you frequently do Trump’s inflamatory rhetoric.
    Why ? Because despite the nonsense for the left – Trump’s language is commonplace – among democrats, among people in conflict generally.

    Democrats, posters here – left and right commentators, pundits, political strategists, people in legal battles, conflicts of all kinds COMMONLY result in implied violence and implied or vague threats. While it would be nice if we were all more civil – that is never going to happen – and it is not new.

    The political language of our founders was a violent as anything today.

    There are no easy to draw lines.

    All too often the result is we condem the language of those we disagree with and are oblivious to the fact that those we agree with – even ourselves are doing exactly the same thing.

    Let Trump say what he wants.

    Let Goldman say what he wants.

    Go after Goldman for his very real and obvious hypocracy, not the fact that his language is laced with conflict words.

    1. John B. Say, It’s “hypocrisy”. FYI

      “I do not even support “condemning” as you frequently do Trump’s inflamatory rhetoric.”

      Just because it’s “commonplace” doesn’t mean you can’t condemn it. It’s not the rhetoric itself. It’s the implication behind it that is condemnable. Inflammatory rhetoric used extensively and over time as a whole can and does lead to incitement of violence. It’s not just single use of words that can be a bright line in calling for incitement. I can also involve intentionally using rhetoric over time and repetition to incite violence.

      Inflammatory rhetoric can be used to create increasing animosity and rage like a pressure cooker and all it takes is just an implied or vague trigger to “persuade” an already agitated mob or group into violence. Trump may not be directly telling his supporters to be violent, but he certainly knows how to manipulate a crowd by using inflammatory rhetoric and ‘incite’ violence thru the use of words implying it in lieu of direct incitement. That’s why Turley or others condemn Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric. Because they know what he’s doing and they know what he intends to do with it.

      1. It is also violent rhetoric to acccuse someone of: being a Putin accomplice or Russian asset; intending to overthrow the federal government; encourging violence against federal officials through sly innuendo; leaking highly classified information to foreign parties; planning to stay in office illegally after his second term ends; “destroying democracy”; and many other alleged crimes. The real atmoshere in hate in this country is caused far more by the relentless, unhinged propaganda campaign against Trump than by the loose lips of a low-life like Dan Goldman.

      2. It’s the implication behind it that is condemnable.

        But you insist in punishment for inference.

        A paragraph that starts with “fight like hell” and ends with “march peacefuly”, implies what? YOU, nor any one can say the mind of the speaker. YOU are only able to infer.
        You get it wrong . . . again

  5. Jonathan: Dan Goldman is claiming DJT’s increasing inflammatory rhetoric is a danger to our Democratic institutions and he should never see the inside of the WH again. That is what Goldman meant by the use of the word “eliminated”. The Q is whether there is any basis for Goldman’s claims. I think there is cause for extreme concern.

    At a rally in New Hampshire DJT said this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”. DJT used the “vermin” term again in a Truth Social post.

    And how does DJT want to eliminate the “vermin” if he becomes president again? His campaign has made it plain. DJT plans to use the government to go after his perceived enemies–weaponizing the DOJ to prosecute the Bidens and lawmakers who investigated and impeached him. There are also plans to use the US military to stamp out any dissent. DJT believes he is above the law and there are no limits on his power.

    DJT increasing inflammatory rhetoric mimics the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, historian and author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present”, says DJT “is accelerating his incitements of hatred, now adding the dehumanization of his targets and using language that closely echoes Fascist rhetoric”. Hitler also used the type of incendiary rhetoric in referring to the Jews. He called them “vermin” that needed to be “eliminated”. And we know what Hitler meant by the use of those terms–it resulted in the Holocaust! And how do we know DJT is taking a page from Hitler’s playbook? His own spokesperson, Steve Cheung, told NPR: “Though Trump’s language echoes language Hitler used, many people listening might not draw the connection”. I think DJT’s supporters will draw the right connection–that violence is acceptable to put DJT back in power.

    And DJT violent rhetoric has resonated with his followers. In a recent NPR poll 23% of voters said: “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”. Has DJT ever, even once, denounced this violent rhetoric by his supporters? Never!

    But you cling to the specious claim that DJT has never called for violence. When DJT called on his supporters (the Proud Boys and other violent groups) to show up on J6 because it would be “wild” he had a plan. He knew a strictly “peaceful” protest would not stop the counting of electoral votes. That’s why he told the crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”. Trump got what he wanted–a violent insurrection to try to overthrow the government to keep him in power. And contrary to claims made by DJT supporters, DJT never called out the National Guard to stop the violence. He watched with approval the violence unfolding at the Capitol. It was almost 3 hours before he called on his supporters to go home “peacefully”–and that was at the point when the insurrection was being put down.

    All of your attempts, and those of DJT’s MAGA supporters in Congress, at revisionist history won’t change the facts about J6. Historians have already written an accurate description of what happened on J6. And when DJT faces the jury in his criminal trial starting in March of next year before Judge Chutkan he won’t be able to use your revisionist description of J6 as a defense!

    1. Speaking of threats to America, another Democrat groomer caught with child porn.
      Protect our children.

      “Democrat ex-Maryland Mayor Patrick Wojahn Gets 30 Year Prison Term over Child Porn Material”

      The Democrat ex-mayor of College Park, Maryland, Patrick Wojahn, was sentenced to 30 years in prison Monday over possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material.

      Wojahn plead guilty to more than 100 counts connected to the pornography.

      The onetime regular White House guest and “mentee” of Pete Buttigieg was first arrested back in March on 56 child pornography possession and distribution charges, as Breitbart News reported.

      The 47-year gay Democrat faced multiple counts of possession of exploitative child material and 16 counts of distribution of exploitative child material, a press release from the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) said.

      The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children first alerted the department that a social media account operating within the county was distributing “suspected child pornography” on February 17, according to the PGPD.

      Police said they investigated the matter and found the social media account with the screen name “skippy_md” belonged to Wojahn, Fox 5 outlined.

      Investigators believe Wojahn used a virtual private network (VPN) to mask his location when accessing the social media account.

      The disgraced mayor resigned from his position on March 2 and arrest came soon after.

        1. Upstatefarmer, your obsession and false accusations calling me a “groomer” are bordering on slander. Bearing false witness is unchristian.

          I’m glad that he got prosecuted for his crimes as he should be.

    2. “In a recent NPR poll 23% of voters said: “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”.”

      You sir, are a liar and a hypocrite. I guess you are the sole arbiter of when resorting to violence is ok, since you said, ON THIS VERY BLOG, that “democrats support violence when its for the right cause”.

    3. DJT plans to use the government to go after his perceived enemies–weaponizing the DOJ to prosecute the Bidens and lawmakers who investigated and impeached him. There are also plans to use the US military to stamp out any dissent. DJT believes he is above the law and there are no limits on his power.

      ALL. OF. IT. IS. A. LIE.

    4. And DJT violent rhetoric has resonated with his followers. In a recent NPR poll 23% of voters said: “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”.

      And I say, where are the other 77%. Are you Dennis McIntyre so stupid as to the natural condition of man. Man’s lust for power, that you believe the State has your best interest at heart, never considering, the power hungry care only for their pursuit of more power?

      “And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
      Thomas Jefferson.

  6. In 1969 November 21; Judge Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. was rejected by the U.S. Senate, as you might have guessed he was nominated by a Republican. The democrats during confirmation made disparaging comments of his character: “anti-labor, laundered segregationist, ethically insensitive and so much more”. Judge Haynsworth was quoted as saying after the rejection, ‘I knew there might be a problem because I was a Southerner, but I never expected anything like what happened.’ Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. said the vote was “political” and unjust. After the rejection numerous senators wrote letters of apology for questions his ethics which he stated later where useless as his head was the one being pounded.

    I bring this up as proof the Democrat Party in its \entirety/ has not changed since who know when but proof at least since 1969!

    Just a small side note: Israel-Hamas ceasefire 2008, 2012 and now maybe 2023. Sun Tzu: “The art of war is of vital importance to the State’, ‘It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin….’ The art of war is governed by five constants: ‘The Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, The Commander, Method and discipline.’

  7. It is vital that Leftists be given complete freedom to verbally and physically attack the opponents of Leftism in whatever manner they deem necessary in our esteemed and sacred Banana Republic and under our beloved and cherished two-tiered system of justice.

  8. An earlier comment by Ollie states,
    “Notice how they will say our democracy. That’s not country possessive, it’s party possessive.”
    Thank you, Ollie. I could not agree more.
    The possessive determiner “our,” -as in, “our democracy,” certainly implies that only those sheep who dutifully follow the shepherd are members of The Enlightened, The Chosen party.
    If not, they are dispensable; they must be eliminated from the Big Tent.

      1. Lin,
        Well said.
        When Democrats do it, it is the patriotic thing to do.
        When anyone else does it, it is a threat to their democracy/party.

  9. When it comes to lying, gutter politics and inflammatory rhetoric, no one beats David Brock’s Far Left “Media Matters” hate group. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, following Elon Musk’s lawsuit, has opened an investigation into MM for fraud

    Ken Paxton announces investigation of media group following Elon Musk’s lawsuit

    After a report from Media Matters showed advertisements from major brands appeared next to antisemitic posts on X, the company sued the media watchdog group and its reporter. The Texas Attorney General’s Office plans to investigate the nonprofit for potential fraud.

    Paxton said his office would investigate allegations that Media Matters — which he referred to as a “radical anti-free speech organization” — had violated Texas laws protecting consumers from fraud.

    “We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square,” Paxton said in a statement Monday evening

    1. For clarification, the actual fraud is two fold.

      First by its own admission MM opened fake accounts, then followed anti-semetic and Nazi groups deliberately creating an anti-semetic feed, and then screen shot any adds that appeared which by their own construction had to appear next to anti-semetic posts.

      The 2nd fraud is that Journalist Shellenberger attempted to reproduce MM’s work – greating a fake account and subscribing to the same anti-semetic and nazi accounts, And FAILED to reproduce the juxtaposition of major corporate adds and anti-semetic posts.

      So it appears that MM both misrepresented to major advertisers how they obtained the add proximity they were using to deprive X of revenue,
      AND they appear to have committed fraud in that even the method they eventually acknowledged does not produce the results they claim.

      Personally I find the whole thing hillarious as the current head of MM has been called for antisemitism (not anti-zionism) repeatedly in the past.

      This could prove destructive to MM.

      Musk has very deep pockets. He is looking to sue MM. It is likely he will get to discovery. It is highly unlikely that MM can survive its internal operations being brought into the light.

      Could not happen to a more deserving outfit.

  10. An otherwise impressive background for very rich kid but on his website the following quote says it all: “He oversaw the drafting and publication of the Select Committee’s 300-page report on the investigation, ‘The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report’, which exhaustively detailed Trump’s efforts to extort Ukraine for his personal benefit.” There’s not a word from him about President Biden’s or Hunter’s “personal benefit” from Ukraine.

  11. Wow, the level of cognitive dissonance this morning is off the charts. Even professor Turley is getting flak for asserting that both sides need to hold their own accountable for the inflammatory rhetoric that is being thrown about. We can thank Trump for making it new norm in politics. I mean, it’s a staple of all his rallies. It’s the reason why his supporters go to them. To hear that kind of rhetoric.
    Just in the last two weeks alone Trump has been excoriated for his full on fascist rhetoric aimed at his political opponents. In fact, the right is totally in love with violent and vengeful rhetoric, and let’s not forget their favorite, the apocalyptic fever dreams of civil war and the “destruction of america” that has been ‘coming’ and has still not arrived and never will.

    Unfortunately as Turley correctly points out is the fact that it’s still protected speech. Fortunately it’s still subject to consequences for exercising it. The 1st amendment doesn’t protect against the consequences or absolves one from the responsibility that comes with it. Sadly republicans don’t like taking responsibility for their rhetoric, but get upset when they get called out on it. Hence the cognitive dissonance present on this comment section. Really, it’s off the charts.

    1. We can thank Trump for making it new norm in politics.

      I would normaly say Wow, to something so bereft of content, buy to you this is just another day that ends in y

      Your ignorance of history is openly on display with your every comment. You know nothing of past political rhetoric.
      The rest is just as mindless trolling

      1. Iowan2,
        It is all Sleezvez knows. His ignorance. His perpetual lies. His trolling. He is a vile, evil, worthless human being with no redeeming qualities.

        1. C’mon farmer. You meant to say vermin. Lol.

          In reality, Svelaz just says things you don’t like to hear.

    2. No Svelaz, we can not thank president Trump for this.

      What drives left wing nuts like you nuts, is that Trump is doing to you, what you have done to republicans throughout my entire life.

      Trump read Alinsky’s rules for radicals and is using them successfully against you

      Turn about is fair play. And you could not be more desrving of Trump’s attacks.

      One of the reasons for Trump’s popularity – even among people who did not vote for him is best expressed by Lincoln regarding Grant.

      “I can not spare him, he fights”.

      The left has engaged int he politics of personal destruction throughout my lifetime.

      There is not a consequential republican candidate since I was born that has not been called a nazi but the left.

      I have never voted for Trump. I do not think he was the great president he thinks he was.
      I have many policy disputes.

      But I am absolutely ecstatic that Trump is living rent free in your brains, that you can not get him out.
      And I fully support his efforts to burrow more deeply and drive you insane.

      You absolutely deserve what you have gotten in Trump.

      1. John Say,
        Well said and excellent take down of the child groomer, Sleezevez.
        This article goes a lot along with your comment: Why Democrats Became The Totalitarians They Warned Us About
        “The Democratic party and the Biden administration have become precisely what liberals said Trump would be, and they have attacked the foundational principles of our democracy in the name of protecting them.”

    3. I hear fascist rhetoric from the left all the time.
      I have never heard anything fascist from Trump.

      As is typical you are clueless as to what fascism is.

    4. In all the time I have been here – YOU have never taken responsibility for your rhetoric.

      You claimed that Trump’s rhetoric is fascist.

      Musollini – the father of fascism defined fascism as “everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”

      Please cite a single remark of Trump that fits that ?
      Conversely democrats, the left, the media are CONSTANTLY channelling actual fascism.

      Something is not fascist because you do not like it.

      A political candidate threatening to follow the law, the constitution – the requirements of the social contract, is NOT fascism.

      The president swears an oath to uphold the law and the constitution – not only the parts he likes.

      When Trump “threatens” if elected to enforce laws you do not like – that is not fascism.
      If you do not want presidents to enforce some laws – repeal those laws.

      If you do not want the president to use the power of government against his enemies – do not use the power of govenrment against enemies.

      Trump is constantly threatening to:
      Uphold the law and constitution.
      act as president exactly the same way that democrats do.
      Do to the left what they do to others.

      That is NOT fascism,

      And the only way it possibly could be – is if YOU were uber fascists.

      1. “Something is not fascist because you do not like it.”

        Yup. But that is how the Left defines it. The way the words fascist and Nazi are slung around by the Left is tiresome…and proving dangerous as we watch the supporters of terrorists compare Israel and its supporters to the Nazis. They are simply looking in the mirror.

  12. I am an Independent voter. I have always thought the dem party were pompous a-holes not half as smart as they think they are, and seeing those two confirms that post-Obama that is an acceptable part of their public image. Nothing like elites with 1/4 or less of your life experience or intelligence telling you what you ‘really’ think, or how you ‘actually’ feel. Great White Savior Syndrome is now in full effect for the dems regarding anyone and everyone, they are tyrants. They will push us down as far as possible because we are idiots to them, they know best for humanity writ large, and not to worry, they will swoop in and save us after we have been sufficiently punished and have seen the light (their light).

    Raise your hand if you never asked half-witted, over-degreed tools likely raised by nannies to determine the course of your destiny. Pre 2008, this sort of thing used to cost them elections here and there. Now I wonder if anyone could possibly undo their damage on every level or if we simply must watch the flames devour everything in sight. Make no mistake: it is ALL on the dems and their voters who vote like they are taking a homecoming survey trying to get in with the ‘cool’ kids.

  13. Democrats played a part in weakening the constitutional system and incentivizing Trump’s abuses of power. Democrats need to own this in order to solve it.

    Obama (who I supported) refused to prosecute Bush leaders for violating Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty. Obama refused to look back – the premise of any justice system is holding past crimes accountable.

    Today in 2023 Guantánamo Bay prison is still open and at least 40,000 Americans blacklisted – still blacklisted in 2023. About 90% of Gitmo detainees had no links to terrorism and few were ever on any battlefield against any American or Coalition troops.

    This is the result of both political parties. Maybe Democrats should start here!

    1. Not only did Obama refuse as you have said. Contra those on the left, Obama repeated, even expanded on the misconduct of the Bishies.

      And Biden is expanding on Obama.

  14. Goldman is right in the sense trump’s political presence has to be eliminated. Trump is literally the guy the framers were trying to protect against. He’s a guy who has never won a popular vote and seeks to drastically re order the Constitution into one that’s fully auth oritarian. By all rights, if he were elected again by the electoral college he should absolutely not be granted a security clearance due to his past behavior re classified documents while in his solitary term in the oval office. The country does not need a compromised by foreign entities agent in the White House again, all the double agent operations feeding trump false info such that it can be used against the Russians have been used.

    So Goldman, who Israel policy aside, I’m generally a fan of, is guilty of imprecise language perhaps, but generally on the right track.

    1. Trump is literally the guy the framers were trying to protect against
      IF that were true, you could point us to the constitutional protections, on place and ready to be exercised. Obviously your statement is woefully inaccurate.

      By all rights, if he were elected again by the electoral college he should absolutely not be granted a security clearance
      Security clearances are not a constitutional power. It is an invention of the Executive Branch. That means the President has plenary power to issue and strip clearances. (you’re not very bright.) BTW, ALL presidents are elected by the Electoral College, It is one of those protections from democracy, the framers installed.

      1. Security clearance is a requirement of the job. To have a president unable ro attain clearance, especially one whose interest in the job is entirely tied to plundering the treasury for personal gain, would be laughably insane.

        I don’t put it past this nation though…

        Trump won’t have the power to rig the election that he had in ’20 though. Reason he’s so wound up by the prospect of election fraud is that he tried his best to ‘win’ the election through it a couple times.

        Bottom line, a president has to be cleared to hear the daily briefings regardless of the lack of those daily briefings a couple centuries ago.

    2. Goldman and you are wrong. You are wrong specifically because Trump is a symptom not a cause.
      Trump’s voice is the voice of hundreds of millions of americans the left has pissed off.

      If you eliminate Trump – he will be replaced – likely by someone You see as worse.

      It is not Trump the framers sought to protect us against – it is YOU.

      It is those who would expand government beyond all reason.

      Our founders created the electoral college for good reasons. I would further note that the ONLY office our founders elected by popular vote was the house of representatives. Senators were appointed by state legislatures.

      Our founders were NOT big fans of popular votes. They were way to concerned about voters being driven by passion not reason.

      Further the Electoral college was structured as it is deliberately – and deliberately as the differences in the apointment of house and senate members.

      The founders used different methods to favor different power structures and pit them against each other.

      They created a powerful federal govenrment and then restrained it by giving a raft of different minority groups the power to thwart the excercise of that power, So that federal power could not be excercised without supermajority concensus.

      That is antithetical to everything the left stands for.

      1. Boom!! Spot on. I wonder what the Founders would think about members of Congress who spew hate and call for the destruction of trusted, long-time ally such as we have with the Squad. I once said we should just ignore them, but that’s what the German public initially did to Hitler to and his goons.

      2. The electoral college was established to protect slave owners from being democratically stripped of their ‘right’ to hold slaves. And yes, the electoral college is what determines the Victor in presidential elections. It’s a backward and fatally flawed system as it gives disproportionate weight to a minority of voters.

        If the founders were not fans of popular votes entirely they would’ve instituted a version of the electoral college in state and local elections…, but instead it took Jim Crow to do that along with navel gamers such as yourself to believe in your own drivel.

        I absolutely agree with you trump would be replaced by another authoritarian as trump is just the end result of Nixon’s southern strategy…

        Thing is, and this continually catches me by surprise, you guys fell so hard for a con man from New York. As we can see from the Republican primary, you guys love the personality of trump as much as you believe in authoritarianism because you believe your rights won’t be taken away by it. ‘Other’ people’s rights will be taken away, the people you don’t like…

        Funny thing about dictators though…, they’ll turn on you too just as quickly as those you hate.

        1. Top 10 of the dumbest posts ever. The electoral college didnt give a minority too much power. It gave them some power. And your reasoning “they’d use it locally too” is also either stupid or ignorant. A state isnt a union of several sovereign districts or counties. Districts select their reps by popular vote. States select their senators by poplular vote. States select their choice for president by popular vote. We are a union of several sovereign states. It was designed that way.
          The electoral college isnt one state one vote. Your “majority” gets their fair say.

        2. “you guys fell so hard for a con man from New York.” This statement show a profound misunderstanding. Many of us on the Republican side can see Trump’s flaws and weaknesses. I would have loved to support a fresh face like Tulsi Gabbard, if she had switched parties, or Vivek Ramaswamy. But that is impossible while Trump is being politically prosecuted by the stooges of the Democratic Party in multiple jurisdictions. We are forced to stand by our former President, not because he is a Republican (he was never a good Republican), but because he is an American citizen.

        3. “If the founders were not fans of popular votes entirely they would’ve instituted a version of the electoral college in state and local elections . . .”

          The federal government does not control state/local elections. Kings do that.

          The more important point is the Left’s chronic attacks on the electoral college for the presidency.

          The Left doesn’t like the electoral college or state electors because it thwarts their desire to “get Trump.” That and they want a dictatorship of the majority, with them as the Voice of that majority.

          The historical fact is that the use of state electors (an electoral college) was debated thoroughly at the 1787 Convention. The use of state electors to select a president was then *written into the Constitution*:

          “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . .” (Article, S1) (It’s creation was *not* a result of Jim Crow.)

          The Founders included state electors in the Constitution as a further check on the power of the majority.

          You are entitled to your own opinion about the electoral college. You are not entitled to your own history or facts about it.

        4. It’s a backward and fatally flawed system as it gives disproportionate weight to a minority of voters.

          Are you aware, we are the UNITED States of America?

          Not the United People of America?

          The States. Not the people are in control.

          Its no wonder you are on the wrong side of all these discussions. Your Constitutional knowledge is not just defiecient, but always in conflict with the actual words of the Constitution.

          In essence, those powers not enumerated in the Constitution, are the domain of the STATES or People.

          When there is a conflict, those two entities control. NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

      3. John Say,
        Well said especially this part, “It is not Trump the framers sought to protect us against – it is YOU.”

    3. Nearly every policitian, and certainly nearly every president, for roughly the last century and a quarter, is what the Framers were trying to protect us against. Everyone who promotes more government is.

    4. Trump is currently leading in the popular vote – in several polls significantly – and not just in swing states.

      Further TWO things are occuring concurrently that are building towards a tsumani problem for democrats.

      The first is regardless of Trump – absent improvements that Biden is not capable of and that are just not going to happen – Biden can not get re-elected.

      I can address all the numerous reasons, but what actually matters is that voters are very sour on him. And this is NOT likely to change.

      The efforts to target Trump have backfired. In fact they have backfired badly.

      The court cases against Trump are making him a martyr. People are waiting for the poroof that Trump has done something besides piss off the left. They are still waiting. They need not like Trump to lose faith in the left.

      The keep Trump off the ballot movement is DOA – multiple left wing nut judges have ruled against it.

      While the constitutional arguments matter, as do the fact that trying to remove Trump makes democrats look desparate.

      A further massive problem with removing Trump is that Biden STILL loses. The efforts to remove Trump in Colorado and Michigan faltered as polls showed that if Trump was removed – RFKjr would win those states – dramatically.

      Increasingly it appears that democrats have a 2024 problem that goes way past Trump.

      Biden loses to ANY republican candidate. In many instances Biden now loses to any third party candidate.

      Biden’s only road to 2024 Victory is starting to become hope that enough third party candidates enter the election that he can win states byu very narrow pluraliites, or that he can throw the election into congress.

      Those are increasingly long odds.

      Increasingly it is becoming clear that in ALL possible outcomes – Biden comes in 2nd or possibly third.

      I was not surprised that the Israeli/Hamas war has destroyed Biden support among young voters – after all these are voters protesting in favor of Hamas.

      What has surprised me is that Trump is winning the under 35 vote.
      Aparantly enough of young people grasp that is it unlikely this war would have happened had Trump been president.

      Pro-Palestinian Young voters are picking Trump over Biden – not because they like Trump. or because they think Trump would support Hamas or abandon Israel, But because they Grasp that the fact that Trump backs israel does not matter if Trump as president avoids the war.

      We are in the midst of a significant political re-alignment in the US. And Trump is riding that re-alignment.

      Trump has successfully appealed to both the military vote, and the antiwar vote.
      Military and blue collar voters grasp that Trump will stand up for them. The military has effectively split between soldiers and brass – the brass hates Trump the soldiers love him. Soldiers grasp that Trump is not sending them off to die unless critical US interests are at stake.
      Trump is not going to squander their lives and Bush, Obama and Biden have.

      And the anti-war vote grasps that while Trump seeks a strong military he is properly reluctant to use it unless necescary and even then the goal is to reach an end and get out of the conflict.

      Trump is the first president since Ford to not drag the US into a new conflict.

      That is a really big deal. Trump is not perfectly aligned with anti-war voters, but he is better aligned than any other candidate – including third parties.

      Regardless Trump is now getting enough of the ProHamas vote the far left vote to beat Biden in the under 35 cohort.

      Whether you like it or not – The odds of Biden winning are dropping rapidly and for many reasons.
      Weak economy,
      doddering fool,
      messed up foreign policy
      lack of competence

      Each of thse problems is growing not shrinking.

      Biden not only can not beat Trump.
      Increasingly he can not win at all.

      I have said repeatedly Biden is giving james buchannon a run as the worst president in US history.

      This election is rapidling turning into a question of whether Trump can get the magic number of EC votes to win – Biden can not.

      The most recent NBC poll has Trump with over 290 EC votes and a 6pt popular vote lead.

      1. Trump has a slight lead within the margine of error in polls one year out from an actual popular vote. C’mon Johnny, facts matter.

    5. In a prior post I noted that Biden is increasingly out of the 2024 election NO MATTER WHAT.

      This increasingly takes the wind out of the efforts to weaponize government against him.

      The weaker that Biden is the weaker DOJ is the weaker even left wing nut courts are.
      And espeicially left wing nut courts. As they are far more sensitive to polls than to the constitution or rule of law.

      The weaker Biden becomes the more desparate efforts to “get Trump” look.

      Several credible analysis’s note the FL case is DEAD. It can not possibly get to trial before the election. and probably will never go to trial.

      Willis’s case is collapsing in front of us. The “guilty please” instead of strengthening her case have obliterated it.
      There is no there, there, there is no criminal conspiracy, there are no consequential crimes.

      The destruction of Willis’s case directly effects the DC case – they are fundimentally the same case.
      Smith can not do better than Willis on the same lack of evidence.

      Further Republicans are benefiting from a slow drip in EVERYTHING.

      The slow drip of Biden’s corruption.
      The slow Drip of Biden’s increasing doddering.
      The slow drip undermining the J6 narative.

      Yesterday I saw MULTIPLE videos demonstrating that the J6 protests were peaceful – even at the west Tunnel, until the CP tear gassed themselves and then the crowds.

      The crowds forced the barriers at the west tunnel – Not to get into the Capitol – but to get away from the tear gas that was “accidentally lobbed into the middle of the crowd. The crowd rushed AWAY from the tear gass – in all directions, And ONE of those directions was through the west entrance barriers that the CP had abandoned – because they too were trying to escape from the tear gas they had lobbed into themselves.

      Within less than 30 sec the west entrance went from static peaceful protests, to FIRST the CP abandoning the barriers and rushing to the entrance, To the crowd bursting through the barriers to escape the tear gas and then SLOWLY converging on the west tunnel AFTER the barriers were down.

    6. “He’s a guy who has never won a popular vote “

      Well, there’s another left wing lie repeated by an ignorant lefty.

      He won many popular votes. Each of the several states he carried in both elections. In fact, he won more popular votes than either of his opponents. 30 in 2016 and 26 in 2020.

      You see, there is no national popular vote. Each state has its popular vote and uses that to assign its electoral votes for president. And thats not a play on words. Your BS is.

      People made up a meaningless term to try to make a straw man argument, and hoped there would be plenty of ignorant people willing to peddle it. They were right.

      If you dont know why the national “popular vote” you speak of is meaningless, i can explain, but i’d rather you just figure it out yourself.

    7. “So Goldman, who Israel policy aside, I’m generally a fan of”

      You like “own goal” Goldman?


    8. “The country does not need a compromised by foreign entities agent in the White House . . .”

      You mean like the current occupant who received at least $5 million from China, a communist dictatorship?

  15. If the Palin ad with crosshairs on a map qualifies as a death threat, as the Dems claimed, certainly this does.

  16. Tucker Carlson predicted that the Left would try to assasinate Trump if their Lawfare strategy seemed to be failing.
    Maybe we have reached that point.

Leave a Reply