Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote: The guy is a fascist.
I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do?
Depends on the person. Some people are quite enthused by fascism/fascism-lite so you’re fighting a losing battle there.
I think it’s a fundamentally flawed strategy personally, it assumes that communication and messaging are the problem, I’m not sure it is.
What are the problems that are driving people in that direction, and can we fix those grievances without compromising on certain values?
There’s nothing you can do with a person whose main issue is too many brown people with messaging alone, especially if they’re not honest about that being their real gripe. You either implement policies to reduce the numbers of brown people, or you don’t because that’s not something you think is desirable to do.
It’s not a US-specific phenomenon either, there’s plenty of it in Europe, and I’d assume beyond in areas I’m less familiar with.
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote: The guy is a fascist.
I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do?
Depends on the person. Some people are quite enthused by fascism/fascism-lite so you’re fighting a losing battle there.
I think it’s a fundamentally flawed strategy personally, it assumes that communication and messaging are the problem, I’m not sure it is.
What are the problems that are driving people in that direction, and can we fix those grievances without compromising on certain values?
There’s nothing you can do with a person whose main issue is too many brown people with messaging alone, especially if they’re not honest about that being their real gripe. You either implement policies to reduce the numbers of brown people, or you don’t because that’s not something you think is desirable to do.
It’s not a US-specific phenomenon either, there’s plenty of it in Europe, and I’d assume beyond in areas I’m less familiar with.
I think those are really valid points, especially if the voter agrees with the fascist politician on certain key political issues. I guess one could attempt a discussion about the "veil of ignorance" and posit something like "what if the other politician - the one who you disagree politically with - wanted to use the same tactics to push the opposite agenda and silence you with military force", but not everyone cares about thought experiments or fairness.
On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote: I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it.
Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets.
Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur.
I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best.
"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time."
because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option.
The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease.
And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country.
You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things.
It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that.
No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying.
Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" + Show Spoiler +
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
You said:
If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time.
I'm saying that (and the similar ones coming out of Kamala's camp/corporate lib media) is a silly attack because everyone knows you don't even believe it.
As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not.
The guy is a fascist. Trying to come after him for not being an energetic enough fascist (when everyone knows Democrats would vote for a turnip) is just the kind of desperate attacks I'm talking about being prompted by bad public (and likely worse internal) polling for Harris.
That's not how journalism works. People would be far less willing to share information if they had to do it publicly, especially if it was information about someone as spiteful as Donald Trump. You could lose your job and endanger your family, even if you were telling the truth.
Journalistic standards are supposed to be to explicitly say why your source remained anonymous. I think you are misreading who spoke to Politico. I think Politico's failure to perform to that standard and your misunderstanding of their reporting are related.
In response, a Trump adviser told Shade Room producers that Trump was “exhausted and refusing [some] interviews but that could change” at any time, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
Politico isn't quoting the advisor, they are quoting anonymous Shade Room producers (probably Democrats) that allegedly heard the "exhausted" rumor from the alleged advisor.
But again the point was that your attack and those like it coming from Democrats about Trump's stamina look desperate and foolish (even if he is and it would impede his capacity as president). Also that the desperation is likely coming from Harris falling behind Trump.
On October 19 2024 14:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 19 2024 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote: I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it.
Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets.
Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur.
I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best.
"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time."
because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option.
The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease.
And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country.
You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things.
It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that.
No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying.
Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" + Show Spoiler +
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
You said:
If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time.
I'm saying that (and the similar ones coming out of Kamala's camp/corporate lib media) is a silly attack because everyone knows you don't even believe it.
As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not.
The guy is a fascist. Trying to come after him for not being an energetic enough fascist (when everyone knows Democrats would vote for a turnip) is just the kind of desperate attacks I'm talking about being prompted by bad public (and likely worse internal) polling for Harris.
The problem these days is that calling people fascists, even when it’s absolutely true - as is the case here -, is counterproductive.
I mean the guy is a traitor, a liar, an authoritarian, a fraud and a massive cheat. He tried to overthrow the American republic and to steal an election. He has betrayed essentially everyone who has ever been loyal to him. He is dumb, corrupt, narcissistic and immoral.
I agree that democrats would vote for a turnip. The problem is that Republicans would vote for the devil if he was their nominee. And that when you confront them with who their dude is and what it says about them, it just seems to motivate them even more. Remember when Clinton mentioned the fact some folks of the Trump base were deplorable?
I don’t think there dels want to repeat the experience.
I mean you're right that most of the things you listed make more sense as an attack vector for Dems than hitting Trump on the fascist thing specifically, I was essentially using it as shorthand for all that and then some. Trying to attack him for the pace of his campaigning is just stupid though.
Part of the point I was making to Sadist is that Democrats would also vote for the devil. Turns out the "99% Hitler" meme sadly isn't even hyperbole. It's where this Democrat lesser evil absolutism leads them.
We agree, it’s just that it seems that attacking Trump on how awful a human - or even a politician, or a businessman for that matter - is doesn’t really work. The people who vote for him simply don’t care.
People were much more impressed by arguments about Biden being too old and not energetic enough that his opponent being the worst man in America. Now that the age table have turned, it’s kind of as low hanging fruit to say: « hey look, senile old guy » and capitalize on for years of the gop making it the biggest flaw a candidate could have.
I’m being the devil advocate, though, I am not particularly impressed by the line of attack, though to be honest, campaigns are pretty dumb and there probably have armies of analysts telling them it’s the way to go with polls to support the strategy. So what do i know.
On October 17 2024 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I just watched the Fox News interview, and I think it went perfectly fine. The very beginning and the very end had some interruptions and combativeness between Kamala Harris and Bret Baier, but I think the middle 95% was a reasonably respectful back-and-forth.
Baier spent almost the entire first half of the interview on immigration and the border, as Harris has been weaker on those issues than others. I think Harris's responses were decent here; she's starting to get down the important talking points on these topics (her experience as a prosecutor of cartels, the bipartisan bill that Trump blew up, etc.).
I found it bizarre that Baier's second issue was about how Trump was putting out ads showing off Harris's support for trans-prisoners (as opposed to a more relevant issue, like the economy), but Harris deftly handled that by (1) pointing out she was just continuing to follow the same law that Trump followed, (2) asking if this topic is really going to affect the lives of most Americans, and (3) even had some time left over to mention some of her economic plans. Unsurprisingly, Baier never followed up and asked her to elaborate on her economic plans, because Harris has solid answers and Trump has none.
In the interview, Harris often contrasted herself with Trump. Sometimes, the comparisons were pivots that didn't quite address the question, sometimes the comparisons were absolutely justified, and sometimes the comparisons were even prompted by Baier. The only part I would call disingenuous by Baier was when they were discussing Trump in one particular way - how Trump attacks Americans with his rhetoric and threatens Americans who disagree with him - and rather than showing the clips that they were referring to, showed a clip of Trump simply denying them instead. That was pretty shady, but I think the rest was above board. I also think Baier did a better, fairer job than most other Fox News anchors would have done.
A new update from the Fox News interview: The day after the interview had aired, Bret Baier finally admitted to not showing the full context (first half) of a two-part clip during his interview with Kamala Harris, despite insisting to Harris that what he showed was correct and intentional. He now says he made a mistake, although he didn't say that to Harris during the interview.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier says he “made a mistake” during his interview with Kamala Harris in not airing video of a Donald Trump comment, something Harris pointed out to him in real time. Baier made that admission on Thursday roughly 24 hours after his interview with the Democratic presidential candidate was aired. Just under 8 million people watched the session, Harris’ first sit-down with a Fox News Channel journalist during the campaign. ...
Speaking a day later, Baier said that when he asked his staff for video to play during the interview, he was expecting to get two clips — one that showed Trump making the “enemy within” comment to Fox’s Maria Bartiromo, and the one from Faulkner’s town hall that was played during the Harris interview. “Take a listen to what I meant to roll,” Baier said on Thursday. He then aired both clips back to back. Yet during the interview, Baier had given no indication that he meant to air the “enemy within” comment at all, even after Harris had pointed it out. For that reason, his explanation of a mistake met with some skepticism online.
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote: The guy is a fascist.
I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do?
Depends on the person. Some people are quite enthused by fascism/fascism-lite so you’re fighting a losing battle there.
I think it’s a fundamentally flawed strategy personally, it assumes that communication and messaging are the problem, I’m not sure it is.
What are the problems that are driving people in that direction, and can we fix those grievances without compromising on certain values?
There’s nothing you can do with a person whose main issue is too many brown people with messaging alone, especially if they’re not honest about that being their real gripe. You either implement policies to reduce the numbers of brown people, or you don’t because that’s not something you think is desirable to do.
It’s not a US-specific phenomenon either, there’s plenty of it in Europe, and I’d assume beyond in areas I’m less familiar with.
I think those are really valid points, especially if the voter agrees with the fascist politician on certain key political issues. I guess one could attempt a discussion about the "veil of ignorance" and posit something like "what if the other politician - the one who you disagree politically with - wanted to use the same tactics to push the opposite agenda and silence you with military force", but not everyone cares about thought experiments or fairness.
Think it’s an effective argument to make with people who subscribe to the (demonstrably correct in a US context) idea that you don’t have power for that long, it’s only one or two turns of the electoral wheel and the other lot have that power.
I think we’ve seen that on this page before with notably the ‘fuck it just pack the Supreme Court’ and people being wary about setting that precedent. Personally I might be in favour if it was a ‘pack the court to show how broken it is and hasten reform’, I think that might be a win in the long term. But pack it now and the next time we’ve a GOP President they just do the same absolutely isn’t
I think it’s less effective when people have a belief that their guy or gal will ‘break the wheel’ as it were.
This goes for other ideologies outside of right wing populism, genuine left wing positions have similar sensibilities but I think there’s a perception that it only you get into power and can fix x y and z, you’ll be in power for quite some period, albeit not in perpetuity.
With Trump specifically if you don’t give a shit about continual bogus claims about electoral fraud and January 6th, you’ve kind of demonstrably shown your colours in a certain domain.
It's pretty obvious why Trump (who spent years, including while he was president) dealing with adversarial journalists might back off some now: it's not to his benefit. At the moment the media attention is mostly on dems, with Harris's lackluster performance in pretty much all aspects of the campaign and the tightening in the polls. Keep her in the mainstream spotlight. Let her sputter while Trump knows that an interview tour only gives him opportunities to make mistakes.
Trump being self-aware enough to know he could make mistakes is hilarious. Trump will never come to such a realization, he's the walking definition of self-worship.
On October 20 2024 06:22 Introvert wrote: Trump knows
Ok I'mma stop you right there buddy.
This is Trump your talking about.
You're going to stop me "right there" at the end of my post? lol
I know what you guys are saying but Trump (and his team) have to consider what is a good use of their time, compared to something else. Given Trump's more professional campaign this time I think there are a ton people making these decisions. I again contend that Trump is a known quantity, and so his incentives are different than Kamala's. He has people telling him basically "don't interrupt your opponent while they are making a mistake." The man has done years of press with people out to get him, I don't doubt he lacks confidence and so his reasons must be something else (as others have established the idea that "Trump is tired" doesn't pass the smell test).
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote: The guy is a fascist.
I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do?
The most effective way to do it would be to do it honestly. But even Trump's worst takes can't be approached by the mainstream media without the foaming at the mouth hyperventilating of someone suffering from full-blown TDS.
Trump's comments about using the national guard/military were in response to what should happen if outside agitators attempt to cause "chaos" on election day in the event than he wins
Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s re-elected
So Trump's response to what we should do if agitators sow chaos and out of control rioting on election day morphs into "Trump plans to use the military against anyone that doesn't support him."
Not to mention that the inauguration doesn't happen until January so Biden will be commander-in-chief on election day. That makes it all the more nonsensical to suggest that Trump wants to use the military on citizens when they go to the polls. At best you can suggest that Trump wants Biden to use the military on election day... which I guess makes sense to some of these journalists.
To be clear, Trump's comments were still dumb as hell even in the correct context. I'm not defending them. Instead I'm once again pointing out the counterproductive efforts by the mainstream media that no matter how much ammunition Trump gives them to attack him on they have to distort it to make it sound even worse which hurts their own credibility and opens the window to doubt on other things they say about him. A big reason why trust in the media is at an all-time low. Of course I have no doubt that this thread will ignore this nuanced argument and rant about me "defending Trump" or telling me why Trump deserves to be taken out of context or whatever.
It passes the smell test in so much his rallies are straight incoherent and at times incredibly low energy compared to 2016. He also handled adversarial interviews far better in the past, handling those well are his bread and butter and at no point has he handled those well this cycle. His absolute worst interviews are hugbox ones like the Elon Musk interview where its just freaking boring and he's doing more and more of those. Of course they're going to do what Biden's (and Harris' team initially) did, he hasn't got the juice anymore.
Unlike 2016 where the message was pretty coherent and centered around coherent grievances about the economy and immigration, you've got this guy spending most of the time talking about random garbage, listening to music when he's out of stuff to talk about, or spending more and more of his time putting out terminally online garbage like trans people in prisons or immigrants eating pets. If we suddenly care this much about the existence of trans people who make like up 0.01% of the population and believe immigrants will murder our cats and dogs for food, then god save us because there's no future worth living in.
The fact the election is so close despite several years of inflation hitting the lower/middle class and deteriorating situations overseas is proof that Trump isn't really running a good campaign. Harris should be well underwater at this point, being tied to one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history. But apparently Harris has a 50% shot to win the presidency. You run a replacement level candidate on the Republican side, running a conventional Republican campaign, and we're looking at a Reagan level landslide if worldwide swings against incumbent parties are any indication.
Which really speaks to how unserious everything is when neither campaign are able to coherently grab obvious gimmes. There's basically zero policy being discussed, the policy being discussed for the most part is nonsensical and Democrats are continuing to do real malpratice of not being proactive for once and continuing to mold their policies to fit whatever framing Republicans are putting up. Or in a lot of cases, basically adopting Republican-lite policies.
No, 1000% tarrifs is not a real policy without the additional steps of building rail infrastructure to support domestic industry and supply chains. Neither is deporting every migrant that can't pretend to hail from the Anglosphere, how are the logistics of that going to even work even if we assume the involvement of sham courts (or none at all)? I don't even know what the Democrats are really proposing beyond small target policies that intentionally don't influence much at all.
The irony of this is that Trump could have been one of the greatest presidents for domestic industry after winning 2016 by emulating Chinese policies - they haven't been the cheapest manufacturer for a long time now but are still by far the most reliable because of how much has been invested into their domestic supply chains. He basically had a carte blanche to actually do something, Republicans aren't going to do shit because he is the party at this point. But instead he's just more interested in the easy graft like the Foxconn factory in Wisconsin.
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote: The guy is a fascist.
I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do?
The most effective way to do it would be to do it honestly. But even Trump's worst takes can't be approached by the mainstream media without the foaming at the mouth hyperventilating of someone suffering from full-blown TDS.
Trump's comments about using the national guard/military were in response to what should happen if outside agitators attempt to cause "chaos" on election day in the event than he wins
Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s re-elected
So Trump's response to what we should do if agitators sow chaos and out of control rioting on election day morphs into "Trump plans to use the military against anyone that doesn't support him."
Not to mention that the inauguration doesn't happen until January so Biden will be commander-in-chief on election day. That makes it all the more nonsensical to suggest that Trump wants to use the military on citizens when they go to the polls. At best you can suggest that Trump wants Biden to use the military on election day... which I guess makes sense to some of these journalists.
To be clear, Trump's comments were still dumb as hell even in the correct context. I'm not defending them. Instead I'm once again pointing out the counterproductive efforts by the mainstream media that no matter how much ammunition Trump gives them to attack him on they have to distort it to make it sound even worse which hurts their own credibility and opens the window to doubt on other things they say about him. A big reason why trust in the media is at an all-time low. Of course I have no doubt that this thread will ignore this nuanced argument and rant about me "defending Trump" or telling me why Trump deserves to be taken out of context or whatever.
I don't think that "Trump deserves to be taken out of context"; I think that you're the one taking Trump's response out of context. The original question was indeed about outside agitators, but his response was specifically not about outside agitators. He didn't answer the actual question. He starts off his answer by clarifying that he has some ideas about what to do against the more concerning group (in his opinion), which is the "enemy from within" and "people from within", not outside agitators.
We're in agreement that the original question (not shown in the video clip below) was about what he'd do in regards to outside agitators, but here's his answer to that question:
The direct quote is "I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and it should be very easily handled if necessary by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military."
I believe he's mentioned that phrase - the people/enemy from within - other times as well, and the phrase alone probably doesn't automatically clarify much except for the fact that he's talking about certain Americans, but in this specific response he literally says that he's referring to "radical left lunatics", who are "very bad" and "sick people".
Furthermore, we already know that Trump will call anyone who opposes him bad or sick or a radical left lunatic, because he still uses those terms to demonize anyone who upheld the fair results of the 2020 election. He tried to rig the last election, and he's trying to rig it again (in plenty of other ways besides just trying to dogwhistle to his supporters that declaring a Harris victory - if it actually swings that way - is a conspiracy from "the enemies within").
I think people are justified in claiming that Trump would be fine with using the "National Guard or, if really necessary, the military" to quell anyone who would work to certify Harris as the true election winner, even if she really does win (putting aside the fact that - as you already mentioned - he doesn't have constitutional control over the National Guard... and that the National Guard is already part of the military). I have no doubt in my mind that Trump hopes that any authority - Congress, the Supreme Court, the military, leaders of swing states, etc. - will help him steal the election if Harris wins, even if he's not currently commander-in-chief. And the reason why I have no doubt in my mind is because I paid attention to everyone he tried to scam and threaten and negotiate with, during the last election. I also see how complicit other Republican leaders have been in enabling Trump, so Trump's wish to steal the 2024 election, in a hypothetical situation where Harris truly wins, isn't impossible.
Looking at only part of this one response by Trump is ignoring the full context. The full context includes the other threats he's made. The full context includes the ways he's currently trying to rig the 2024 election and spread misinformation. The full context includes everything he said and did in regards to the 2020 election. I agree with you that Trump's comments were dumb, but they're also dangerous and fascist.
Let me save you some time there DPB. Although Trump said the exact words you are reproducing there, he obviously didn't mean them in that specific way. He was actually addressing a broader point with a legitimate grievance. To understand what this point is, of course, you need to listen to your Trump interpreter™.
You can conclude whatever you want about what Trump says. If you think Trump will call in a drone strike on your neighbor for having a Harris-Walz campaign sign on their lawn then go for it. What you don't get to do is draw your own conclusion and then declare that's what he said. Turning the military on U.S. citizens "simply for opposing his candidacy" is plainly not what he said. You don't need a Trump interpreter™ to realize that.
On October 20 2024 15:54 BlackJack wrote: You can conclude whatever you want about what Trump says. If you think Trump will call in a drone strike on your neighbor for having a Harris-Walz campaign sign on their lawn then go for it. What you don't get to do is draw your own conclusion and then declare that's what he said. Turning the military on U.S. citizens "simply for opposing his candidacy" is plainly not what he said. You don't need a Trump interpreter™ to realize that.
Is it fair to conclude that Trump would like to use the military against the "radical left"? That seems pretty literally what he said.
He has labelled quite a lot of people as radical left. Are they all people Trump would like to use the military against to "clean them up"? I don't think we can discard that. At the very least he's talking about a not-insignificant subset of all of those that he would label "the enemy within" as well as "just" radical left.
Also, using the military is not the same as drone striking a house. Military juntas use the military all the time to arrest people and throw them in prisons and work camps (or out of airplanes/windows). They don't drone strike their political enemies. They just disappear them. And classical fascists were known for it too. I don't even need to invoke the Nazis, Franco's regime here in Spain was infamous for it too.
BJ is of course correct. DPB, you cannot simply take Trump's words and apply their usual meaning to them. That's a rookie mistake. You need to take into account the Trump context. They're not meant literally, you must take a holistic view.
Well, what we do know is a number of Trump's hand-picked generals and ministers of defence who worked along side Trump think he is far too authoritarian to be allowed back into office.
But perhaps they just didn't realize Trump was only memeing.
On October 20 2024 15:54 BlackJack wrote: You can conclude whatever you want about what Trump says. If you think Trump will call in a drone strike on your neighbor for having a Harris-Walz campaign sign on their lawn then go for it. What you don't get to do is draw your own conclusion and then declare that's what he said. Turning the military on U.S. citizens "simply for opposing his candidacy" is plainly not what he said. You don't need a Trump interpreter™ to realize that.
Is it fair to conclude that Trump would like to use the military against the "radical left"? That seems pretty literally what he said.
I guess I’ll restate once more. It’s fair to conclude whatever you want. For example I’ve concluded Trump would write himself a check for $1 trillion from the US treasury if he could get away with it. Some have concluded Trump wants to fuck his own daughter. Great. We can argue over the merits of those things but that’s not the point I’m making.
What’s not fair is altering someone’s quote to say something they didn’t say. Trump said he would use the military against the “enemy within” (radical left) in response to a question about agitators causing chaos on Election Day. It’s obviously different from turning the military on U.S. citizens “simply for opposing his campaign.” @Ender you speak perfect English so you can keep pretending this is the same but I’m certain you know better.
This is actually very important as we move toward a world of deep fakes. There needs to be some arbiter of truth to tell us what actually happened. If the NYTimes can’t report a simple quote without exaggerating and changing its meaning then we are fucked. But nobody cares about the repercussions of losing faith in the media as long as they stick it to Trump. It’s short-sighted.
Yeah, the real problem is that the media exaggerated a little bit, not that Trump plans to use the military against his political opponents in any context.
For a control on the experiment, he had the power to do just that on January 6th, when it was his people being the enemy from within against a fair election. Didn't happen. So either he's lying about doing it next time, or more likely, it's all fun and games as long as he's winning. But sure, as ever the problem is The Media. Which, sure, has its share of issues, but boy does it make a tasty scapegoat when you need to defend Trump. Mm-mm.
EPT
