"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."
Totally normal.
(no message)
(no message)
protect him from?
I would love to hear Baron and you if Obama had said he would use tough guys against his opponents.
Pelosi all but concedes that there will not be any impeachment.
Days after, Trump hints at his ability to use the police, military and bike gangs to defend his power. Almost like he knows there is a threat to his presidency that even Pelosi doesn't know about...
To the extent anyone believes that he colluded, that belief is derived from Trump's own guilt-ridden behavior.
Can you imagine if Obama said anything of the like when his birth certificate was being challenged?
Sick.
(no message)
And, it would be very, very bad if you pushed too far.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
If you push too far in doing that, it will get very, very bad for me, for you, and for our country.
I don't think it will happen. I hope it doesn't happen. I certainly don't plan on being involved. But, it would still suck for me.
(no message)
(no message)
By supporting investigating him? What are they doing?
I'm talking about politically weaponizing government agencies or portions of agencies, and using the investigative powers of the government for purely political purposes.
Whitewater, Uranium One, Benghazi, Holder, Lewinsky, all of these were purely justice seeking right? You hypocrite.
You supported investigating and removing a landslide elected prez for lying about a blow job in a civil depo.
That wasn’t any type of political coup was it? Then you have the balls to whine about this.
If yes, did you support those? Or did you oppose those?
(By the way, I already said I'm fine with impeachment generally. I guess you missed that part of my post. I have changed my mind that it is advisable, but they have the power to impeach him for essentially anything they want. I think Pelosi agrees with me on this.)
I did support most of them save for the Lewinsky BS and Uranium One which was also BS. I have said numerous times that Hills should have been indicted despite the political nature of the allegations.
Sure there is political motive behind investigating Orange. There is in every major political scandal including Watergate. The point is, is there also legit reason to investigate and guilt at the end of the day? That’s what you miss. You are a typical defense attorney with a guilty client.
What do you think?
Freaking polymath...
(no message)
I can’t believe you are actually saying this shit.
I just think the US is going the way of Rome. I expect a gradual decline, though, not a sack of the capital. And, I've accepted that decline as being inevitable. It just seems like the anti-Trumpers are hoping to skip a few steps, and I fear that there are some people who still think the country can be saved in the form envisioned by Madison et al. Those are the ones I think he is talking about.
perpetuating nonsense like those who dislike Trump are breaking the US constitution....
(no message)
that becomes the issue an issue which has permeated much of this country, the support of an unstable dumbass in the oval office. You're just part of the problem and nowhere near a solution.
The problem is not my support for him. The problem is that he was the best available for the job, and the Left has no one better who has stepped forward yet. It is what it is.
(no message)
I've more than made my point.
I will let it go now. Feel free to think you are getting away with it, Jim!
(no message)
Anti Trump people with tough guys. That’s what you said and that's what he said.
I was just thinking that people should be aware of the consequences of their actions. Threatening didn't enter into the picture. My comments are academic/observational in nature.
Pointing out that the tiger may maul you if you get too close to it is not the same as (i) hoping the tiger mauls the person, or even the same as (ii) threatening the individual with a mauling.
But, these days, it seems like we all must project onto others the fervor we are feeling ourselves.
You really need to take a step back.
I can see it all fine from right here. And, I feel free to comment on it as well. You seem to think I should not say things I'm already not saying. Too which I say, "Ummm, ok."
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I'm speaking for myself, by the way, not Trump. I don't know how he intended it...probably as a threat.
warning.
When you tell your kids not to touch a hot stove, are you making personal threats that you will burn them? Apparently you think so.
(no message)
By the way, you didn't answer my question.
make/say it. That is exactly what you said. Now shuffle.
To answer your question, the analogy is poor as usual. The better analogy is would I tell them not to stand up to a bully, because his tough guys might beat them up? Nope, wouldn’t do that.
I was commenting on the house burning down, not the bully part. You keep focusing on the bully part (the threat part), and you get annoyed with anyone who wants to point out that the house is burning down. "Stay focused on the bullying, dammit! Who cares about the house?!" This is your "everything is personal" thing you have going. You would burn your own house down to win an argument with someone...while insulting anyone who would try to talk you out of it.
Unless you are saying that Orange is really going to burn down our houses which is a bit theatrical, yes? Or are you saying he could do sumphin like that?
This is bullyism, pure and simple. And there is only way to deal with it and it has nothing to do with burning down houses to win arguments.
And, I've already said that it shouldn't be said to threaten.
You just keep trying to say that I wanted to threaten people. You are very wrong there, and you are lying when you say it.
As far as burning down the house...I took all this as a warning. If the two sides push things too far, then something both sides probably love will perish. So, we should all be careful. That's not a threat. That's just good advice.
(no message)
(no message)
to get tough if they need to.
He’s a sicko. That’s what you support.
I did indicate that I agreed with him that it would be very, very bad if you and left push too far to undo our constitutional form of government.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
would say that.
Totally Normal!
(no message)
If that’s not endorsing the use of threats, don’t know what is.
I never said anything about a threat. You must think I said it, because you read it into my words, because that is all you can perceive. But, that is not objective reality. You are living in your own false reality. Don't falsely imply that I am participating with you in that false reality.
(no message)
(no message)
I feel like you might have missed that thread.
(no message)
Do you hear me now?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I think that was going to be Baron's follow-up.
I don’t.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)