Elections Trump: We have to use military to target radicals and enemy from within

There's no paywall. You just have to click on the X to close the nag screen. Give it a go.
This link has no paywall:


But the source it uses does. It doesnt for you? Because I see no "x".

 
This link has no paywall:


But the source it uses does. It doesnt for you? Because I see no "x".

I clicked on the one in his post and read the article. Anyway, if you have read it you know it's time to walk back your bullshit.
 
You give Trump far too much credit for innocence by idiocy.

He's far too vague with language that could mean a great deal of terrible things, and remember, he's the guy who said he'd pay for the legal defense of someone beating the hell out of reporters at his rallies. He said cops should be less nice putting perps in cars and references knocking their heads on the way in.

I'm confident you're right that he doesn't mean what people are saying in this thread and even if he did he wouldn't have the power to make that happen, but this isn't the person who should be wielding supreme executive power. His rhetoric is orders of magnitude worse than anything that has ever come from modern Democrats and extremists are far more likely to take his vagueness as express, literal instructions.

After January 6th, whatever leeway you think politicians should have with their words has been erased for MAGA. In any other administration the "bloodbath" comment could be handwaved but not this one, not after they hospitalized one hundred and fifty police officers following his last loss.
I can agree with a lot of what you're saying, but it's also not what I'm talking about. If he's "far too vague" then that isn't enough to say he wants to attack Nancy Pelosi with the military, because that's the kind of thing I'm referring to.

At the end of the day, if you don't think he means what people in this thread, then we're in agreement on the point I'm arguing here. But often Trump discussion spiral into something else and then the argument is you have to defend that, which Im not interesting in doing. I'm specifically singling out ridiculous notions like he want to attack Nancy Pelosi or just use the military "on his opponents". That's complete nonsense.
 
I clicked on the one in his post and read the article. Anyway, if you have read it you know it's time to walk back your bullshit.
Yeah, I read that one, too. Did you notice it had no actual quote? Im not really interested in articles that summarize or interpret what he says, Im more interested in what he says. In this case, it just says he reposted someone elses tweet. Give me a fucking break.

The poster I responded to said he wanted to haul his opponents in front of a military tribunal. Ok. How did we get to that position? A tweet someone else posted? That's where we are?
 
Last edited:
I can agree with a lot of what you're saying, but it's also not what I'm talking about. If he's "far too vague" then that isn't enough to say he wants to attack Nancy Pelosi with the military, because that's the kind of thing I'm referring to.

At the end of the day, if you don't think he means what people in this thread, then we're in agreement on the point I'm arguing here. But often Trump discussion spiral into something else and then the argument is you have to defend that, which Im not interesting in doing. I'm specifically singling out ridiculous notions like he want to attack Nancy Pelosi or just use the military "on his opponents". That's complete nonsense.

I agree that he isn't going to set the military on Pelosi, because even he knows he wouldn't be able to do that.

But I also think if the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband with a hammer had instead actually KILLED Nancy Pelosi, he'd be (secretly) incredibly pleased. I also believe if Trump actually had the power to do these crazy things, he wouldn't hesitate.

You said all he wants to do is sit around or play golf, and people shouldn't worry about him. I couldn't disagree more for a host of reasons, and if Trump was running as a Democrat you'd be saying the same things I'm saying now; I'd agree with you, because this is more than just Dem vs GOP.
 
Just skimmed this threat - lol.... basically a group of realistic, down to earth people indicating how alarming this rhetoric is and another group saying that Trump doesn't actually mean any of what he says.

Imagine for a moment that no matter what you say, it's all ok because it's not what you mean and not what you'll do.

The pretzel logic is just embarrassing at this point.
 
Just skimmed this threat - lol.... basically a group of realistic, down to earth people indicating how alarming this rhetoric is and another group saying that Trump doesn't actually mean any of what he says.

Imagine for a moment that no matter what you say, it's all ok because it's not what you mean and not what you'll do.

The pretzel logic is just embarrassing at this point.
"it doesn't matter if he says he wants to kill all americans the second he gets in. dude congress would never let that happen"
 
I agree that he isn't going to set the military on Pelosi, because even he knows he wouldn't be able to do that.

But I also think if the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband with a hammer had instead actually KILLED Nancy Pelosi, he'd be (secretly) incredibly pleased. I also believe if Trump actually had the power to do these crazy things, he wouldn't hesitate.

You said all he wants to do is sit around or play golf, and people shouldn't worry about him. I couldn't disagree more for a host of reasons, and if Trump was running as a Democrat you'd be saying the same things I'm saying now; I'd agree with you, because this is more than just Dem vs GOP.
Ok, now we're getting into other stuff like how pleased he'd be with peoples murders. That's a big leap and not one I aim to argue about because it's all about his thoughts.

And basically thats part of the problem. A great deal of the criticisms are about what he thinks. Not what's done, said, or what we could reasonably argue he would do based on what he's done and said. That's how we get to literally arguing he will use the military on Nancy Pelosi. Or ascribing militant actions to him based on him liking someone elses tweet.
 
Ok, now we're getting into other stuff like how pleased he'd be with peoples murders. That's a big leap and not one I aim to argue about because it's all about his thoughts.

And basically thats part of the problem. A great deal of the criticisms are about what he thinks. Not what's done, said, or what we could reasonably argue he would do based on what he's done and said. That's how we get to literally arguing he will use the military on Nancy Pelosi. Or ascribing militant actions to him based on him liking someone elses tweet.

Just so we're clear, you're suggesting we can't look at someone and determine they're dangerous. We can't even consider the words they use. We have to ignore when the people who were closest to him in office talk about how dangerous he is.
 
Just so we're clear, you're suggesting we can't look at someone and determine they're dangerous. We can't even consider the words they use. We have to ignore when the people who were closest to him in office talk about how dangerous he is.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Im specifically saying to use the words. Not to interpret the words based on lots of things other than his words. Like bringing up a quote from 2019. Or him liking a tweet.

let me give you an anecdotal personal experience to maybe demonstrate what I mean. I was talking with one of my friends that's really left leaning. College professor at UCLA. Not really "woke" but super left.

So he brings up the whole Haitians/eating pets thing. I pretty much agree with him for the most part. Then he starts going on about how it's racist to say that. I didn't agree, but it wasn't a huge deal in the conversation but he asked if it were "possible" that Trump and Vance were making the arguments due to racism. I said, Yes, and then he started arguing that "Now, because their opinion is formed by racism..." and thats when I stopped him and had a similar discussion to this. There's far too many times people are making an assumption, one that isn't necessarily true but is possibly true, and then continuing on with another assumption and another, etc until you reach a batshit conclusion like the ones in this thread.
 
That's not what I'm saying at all. Im specifically saying to use the words. Not to interpret the words based on lots of things other than his words. Like bringing up a quote from 2019. Or him liking a tweet.

let me give you an anecdotal personal experience to maybe demonstrate what I mean. I was talking with one of my friends that's really left leaning. College professor at UCLA. Not really "woke" but super left.

So he brings up the whole Haitians/eating pets thing. I pretty much agree with him for the most part. Then he starts going on about how it's racist to say that. I didn't agree, but it wasn't a huge deal in the conversation but he asked if it were "possible" that Trump and Vance were making the arguments due to racism. I said, Yes, and then he started arguing that "Now, because their opinion is formed by racism..." and thats when I stopped him and had a similar discussion to this. There's far too many times people are making an assumption, one that isn't necessarily true but is possibly true, and then continuing on with another assumption and another, etc until you reach a batshit conclusion like the ones in this thread.

Except I'm not doing that. I'm not distilling a single incident to form my opinion, do you need me to list them all?

How many times times have you had to say "TDS" in the last eight years? How many times have you dismissed a reaction like this one as an exaggeration?

Trump's own people even put Project 2025 in writing, but all it took was Trump saying "he didn't know anything about it / it seemed bad / he wouldn't do it" and now we're "over-reacting again". Do you believe him or do you KNOW he realized it was political suicide and HAD to disavow it? Remember when I told you about this months before it hit the press?

Trump using the military this way isn't a "batshit" conclusion, it's reasonable. I don't agree that it actually happening is likely mostly because it seems impossible it could happen; the military has strict measures in place to prevent this kind of abuse. This is just one of a thousand things that should absolutely have convinced you he's dangerous.
 
Except I'm not doing that. I'm not distilling a single incident to form my opinion, do you need me to list them all?

How many times times have you had to say "TDS" in the last eight years? How many times have you dismissed a reaction like this one as an exaggeration?

Trump's own people even put Project 2025 in writing, but all it took was Trump saying "he didn't know anything about it / it seemed bad / he wouldn't do it" and now we're "over-reacting again". Do you believe him or do you KNOW he realized it was political suicide and HAD to disavow it? Remember when I told you about this months before it hit the press?

Trump using the military this way isn't a "batshit" conclusion, it's reasonable. I don't agree that it actually happening is likely mostly because it seems impossible it could happen; the military has strict measures in place to prevent this kind of abuse. This is just one of a thousand things that should absolutely have convinced you he's dangerous.
I do think you're doing that. I think that's how you get to Trump would take pleasure in Nancy Pelosi being murdered with a hammer.


But, again, everything you're saying it what you believe he thinks. Initially 2025 was the thing was often pointed to as some sort of indication he wanted to overthrow democracy, etc, because that's what he thinks. Then he said "Nope", but people just double down and now insinuate he's just lying about it. Because that's what he thinks. He can't possibly not be the villain people create in their head. So everything must be interpreted as if he were that person, instead of a man-child with a school-yard bully mentality.

Could that be right? Yeah, sure. I've been completely open about leaning right and by default I have inherent bias in that. Maybe reality isn't how I see it. Fair enough. Do you think it's possible left leaning people that think the worst also might have a bias that influences how they interpret things? And maybe the reality is not how they see it? Maybe Trump wouldn't take pleasure in Nancy Pelosi being beaten to death with a hammer? How possible is that?

At the end of the day, we probably aren't gonna agree on a lot. But the only thing that's going to prove these things true is if Trump goes ahead and does some of this crazy shit. And if he doesn't do any of it, it still wouldn't mean people were wrong about their conclusions so they're accusations/predictions cannot possibly be falsified. They'd just argue that he would have done it if he could have, but that opens a whole other can of worms as to what any politician would do if they could. Do you honestly think Hillary or the Dems wouldnt try to overturn a legitimate election if they thought they could accomplish it without incurring a negative reaction towards the party as a whole? I think Abso-fucking-lutely they would. But I think just have the awareness that Trump lacks that they can't achieve both of those things for a multitude of reasons. Do you really believe that the likes of Pelosi, Clinton or someone like Gavin Newsome should he run in 2028 would say "Oh, we can't overturn a legitimate election in our favor. That would be immoral and not what the founding fathers want." Personally, I wouldnt buy that for a second.
 
this is intentionally violent and threatening rhetoric spoken by a former president of the United States meant to vilify american citizens and divide them and sow hatred, fear, chaos and confusion among the national populace.

trump is a malignant narcissist who enjoys dividing people and causing harm to them, he enjoys the many varied ways his language can be taken. He enjoys the division it causes. He enjoys the fear, he enjoys the discomfort. He enjoys the confusion, he enjoys the chaos and he enjoys the division because he's a malignant narcissist.

It is not possible to justify his rhetoric in good faith and anyone who is doing so is debased themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------


“I always say so we have two enemies — we have the outside enemy and then we have the enemy from within…. The thing that’s tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff…. Adam Shifty Schiff, who’s a total sleazebag, is going to become a senator. But I call him the enemy from within,” Trump said. Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, served on the congressional committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Trump made similar comments during a taped town hall with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner on Oct. 15.
“Mr. President, Kamala Harris has said you sounded ‘unhinged’ and ‘unchecked power is in our future.’ What do you say about that?” Faulkner asked Trump.
“You know, they are… they’re a party of sound bites,” Trump said in response. “They’re very different and it is the enemy from within and they’re very dangerous. They’re Marxists and Communists and fascists and they’re sick.”
“I use a guy like Adam Schiff because they made up the Russia Russia Russia hoax…. They’re dangerous for our country. We have China. We have Russia. We have all these countries. If you have a smart president, they can all be handled. The more difficult are, you know, the Pelosis — these people…. they’re so sick and they’re so evil,” Trump continued.

In a statement, Steven Cheung, communications director for the Trump campaign, told VERIFY the former president’s “enemy from within” remarks are referring to people seeking to cause chaos on Election Day.

“President Trump is 100% correct — those who seek to undermine democracy by sowing chaos in our elections are a direct threat, just like the terrorist from Afghanistan that was arrested for plotting multiple attacks on Election Day within the United States,” Cheung said.

These aren’t the first instances of the former president using the term “enemy from within.”

On Sept. 3, during an interview on the Lex Fridman Podcast, Trump told Fridman: “I believe you have to fight fire with fire. I believe they’re very evil people. These are evil people. You know, we have an enemy from the outside and we have an enemy from within. And in my opinion, the enemy from within are radical left lunatics, and I think you have to fight back.”

"I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within,” he said. “She was supposed to protect the Capitol.” He also falsely claimed that he “offered her 10,000 National Guard” and that the California Democrat “didn’t take them.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, now we're getting into other stuff like how pleased he'd be with peoples murders. That's a big leap and not one I aim to argue about because it's all about his thoughts.

And basically thats part of the problem. A great deal of the criticisms are about what he thinks. Not what's done, said, or what we could reasonably argue he would do based on what he's done and said. That's how we get to literally arguing he will use the military on Nancy Pelosi. Or ascribing militant actions to him based on him liking someone elses tweet.
I think the bigger issue is that the totality of what he says makes it very clear that he does not have any understanding of our basic governing principles, and his instincts are very authoritarian. He frequently indicates that crimes committed by him or his supporters should be forgiven, and that people opposing him are criminals, regardless of whether they break any laws. I grant that he's not devising sophisticated strategies to get around safeguards in our system, but he's attracted supporters who are less lazy and smarter (including Vance). Republicans who dismiss the threat or support him thinking his thuggishness will work for them are playing a very dangerous game.
 
I do think you're doing that. I think that's how you get to Trump would take pleasure in Nancy Pelosi being murdered with a hammer.


But, again, everything you're saying it what you believe he thinks. Initially 2025 was the thing was often pointed to as some sort of indication he wanted to overthrow democracy, etc, because that's what he thinks. Then he said "Nope", but people just double down and now insinuate he's just lying about it. Because that's what he thinks. He can't possibly not be the villain people create in their head. So everything must be interpreted as if he were that person, instead of a man-child with a school-yard bully mentality.

Could that be right? Yeah, sure. I've been completely open about leaning right and by default I have inherent bias in that. Maybe reality isn't how I see it. Fair enough. Do you think it's possible left leaning people that think the worst also might have a bias that influences how they interpret things? And maybe the reality is not how they see it? Maybe Trump wouldn't take pleasure in Nancy Pelosi being beaten to death with a hammer? How possible is that?

At the end of the day, we probably aren't gonna agree on a lot. But the only thing that's going to prove these things true is if Trump goes ahead and does some of this crazy shit. And if he doesn't do any of it, it still wouldn't mean people were wrong about their conclusions so they're accusations/predictions cannot possibly be falsified. They'd just argue that he would have done it if he could have, but that opens a whole other can of worms as to what any politician would do if they could. Do you honestly think Hillary or the Dems wouldnt try to overturn a legitimate election if they thought they could accomplish it without incurring a negative reaction towards the party as a whole? I think Abso-fucking-lutely they would. But I think just have the awareness that Trump lacks that they can't achieve both of those things for a multitude of reasons. Do you really believe that the likes of Pelosi, Clinton or someone like Gavin Newsome should he run in 2028 would say "Oh, we can't overturn a legitimate election in our favor. That would be immoral and not what the founding fathers want." Personally, I wouldnt buy that for a second.

The things I say about Trump are things I have never said about any politician. Looking into his head to see what he thinks? No, he's done enough to show us what he thinks. I probably wouldn't suggest he'd enjoy Nancy getting hit with a hammer if people close to him hadn't talked about him watching them storm the Capitol for three hours before saying something. They BEGGED him to say something. Also, before Trump there had been three federal executions in sixty years. Trump had thirteen people put to death in six months.

I'm the first person in my family not born into fascism. My father grew up under Mussolini, my mother grew up under Hitler. They both were afraid of Trump, because they had seen what the early days of populism and fascism look like. I'm not calling Trump Hitler, I'm saying he's a populist fascist, because of all the things he's said and done. He just quoted Mein Kampf, if you aren't convinced at this point I have to wonder what it would take.

Do I think it's the end of the world if Trump wins? No, I don't. I think it would be a terrible blow the country if for no other reason that two incredibly corrupt justices of the Supreme Court will be able to retire and be replaced by two more, MUCH younger corrupt judges. Also, there would be four more years of abysmal foreign policy, Trump was an absolute disaster on that front. Edgelords say otherwise, but they're wrong. Also, you believe climate change is happening, right? And you know that Trump will continue reversing regulation that will help slow it down (and keep from polluting your water tables)?

I think there's a chance he'll do permanent damage to American democracy, but only a small one. He has no idea or interest in that, but the people behind him do. Yes, Trump is a man child, but the people behind him never expected him to win in 2016. Now they do, and they've had years to prepare. They've replaced ninety election officials in the last year, replacing many of the people that stood strong and held the institution together.

You don't trust Democrats, I don't trust Trump. You think they would overturn an election, Trump actually tried. How is it I'm the one making silly assumptions?

Anyways, I think we both understand each other, and I appreciate how politely you've exchanged here despite how opposed we are. I said a lot of the same things about Biden you say about Trump, because I hated that he was the liberal candidate. I get it. I just think Trump is orders of magnitude worse, and you don't. I hope we don't find out the hard way.
 
Right. Like I said before, you dont take what he says. You connect dots like a conspiracy theorist in front of a corkboard. In this case, you're literally referring to a quote from 2019.

Just say whether or not you think he's going to use the military against Nancy Pelosi.
He wants to. That’s enough for me.

““I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within,”
-Donald Trump (verbatim)

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within ... sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."
-Donald Trump (again, verbatim).

Buddy, I’m not connecting dots here, he’s saying it outright. If someone tells you who they are, fuckin listen to them.

 
He wants to. That’s enough for me.

““I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within,”
-Donald Trump (verbatim)

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within ... sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."
-Donald Trump (again, verbatim).

Buddy, I’m not connecting dots here, he’s saying it outright. If someone tells you who they are, fuckin listen to them.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone with this discussion in this thread..

It is totally irrelevant whether or not Trump really plans to enact a fascist government, use the military on American citizens, thinks Haitians are eating pets, would be a dictator on day one etc.... You don't even need to consider that to know he's unfit for the presidency. Frankly, I don't think he has definite plans/thoughts any direction. He will go where the wind blows and if people rose up for him he would support it but he might not try very hard to make it happen.


None of that matters at all in terms of him being unfit for the presidency.

The fact is any sane person can see that any human being that would even speak to the country the way trump does is unfit for the presidency.... I feel like even Democrats are becoming desensitized and not seeing the dangers. Every time trump uses violent divisive language, he harms the populace and it is obviously profoundly dangerous on many levels. Trump is slowly grooming the country for violence. It is methodical but not in the mastermind sort of way. I don't think he cares much about an insurrection. What he cares about is himself. He is methodically tearing the country down all to protect himself and his very fragile broken ego.




For this reason alone trump is categorically unfit for the presidency even if he would never carry out his vile double tounged speech. He is dangerous for this reason alone and even the supposedly reasonable conversations people are having on here about trump, in my opinion often reveal that we've lost some things already, become desensitized and fatigued by his rhetoric.

Some of us are getting used to it and desensitized by it and others are being riled up by it and motivated by it. That is very dangerous.

That in itself is profound harm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump: “Nancy pelosi is the enemy within”

Also Trump: “the enemy within is the bigger problem and should be handled by the military.”
You cant even use a quote correctly, for fucks sake.

"And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

Lets just go ahead and say "enemy within" is any democrat. OK? Just for the sake of argument it means any Democrat in America. Even assuming this is true, which is a big leap, his quote is not a desire to use the military on them. Read it multiple times if you have to. And that's even with adjusting for the worst possible interpretation it could be.
 
You cant even use a quote correctly, for fucks sake.

"And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

Lets just go ahead and say "enemy within" is any democrat. OK? Just for the sake of argument it means any Democrat in America. Even assuming this is true, which is a big leap, his quote is not a desire to use the military on them. Read it multiple times if you have to. And that's even with adjusting for the worst possible interpretation it could be.
Or you know, Trump could actually behave responsibly instead of like a freaking linguistic terrorist and make things clear.

But everybody knows that double speak and hidden meanings are par for the course for his ilk. He enjoys saying things that can be taken many different ways and when someone on the left overreacts it's because Trump intended that and designs his speech so that will happen.

So yeah, go ahead and blame the people that actually hear what he's trying to do and respond to it rather than Trump himself for being a linguistic terrorist and designing his speech that way.


I think you are a fool.
 
Back
Top