Trump makes threats about civil war against the left in new Breitbart interview

By Matthew Silvan - March 14, 2019


"In an interview with the far-right news source that Steve Bannon once dubbed, “the platform for the alt-right,” Breitbart, Donald Trump seems to have casually suggested violence and war against his critics on the left. Is this a suggestion that could translate to asking for civil war in the event that Trump is impeached following the release of the Mueller report at any moment now?

Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, Daniel Dale, noted this quote from Trump in his exclusive interview with Breitbart in the Oval Office. The interview went on for “more-than-40-minutes” on Monday afternoon.

“Trump to Breitbart on how the left plays tough: ‘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.'”

For more context, Dale goes on to point to the article in question:

“For those asking for more context: Breitbart says the quote came as Trump was arguing that the left plays politics in a more ‘vicious’ manner than his side, even though ‘the tough people’ are on his side. Here’s the link.”


Daniel Dale

@ddale8
· 10h
Trump to Breitbart on how the left plays tough: "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."


Daniel Dale

@ddale8
For those asking for more context: Breitbart says the quote came as Trump was arguing that the left plays politics in a more "vicious" manner than his side, even though "the tough people" are on his side. Here's the link. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/13/exclusive-president-donald-trump-paul-ryan-blocked-subpoenas-of-democrats/ …

3,309
10:46 AM - Mar 14, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy..."

https://theunitedstatesblues.com/trump-makes-threats-about-civil-war-against-the-left-in-new-breitbart-interview/

I heard that this morning and I think it's the most impeachable thing Trump has ever said. He is threatening physical violence if the left resists his orders and plans. He believes he is the "dictator" already. The American people have yet to pick up on that.
I don't know how much longer it's going to take them to catch on, but it needs to be BEFORE the next election. This guy does not deserve a chance at another 4 years. That would be suicide for this country.

Please point out where Trump threatens "civil war" in that article or in the Breitbart interview.

He intimates that violence is possible but violence is a long way from civil war.

What he said is no different than Malcolm X saying "by any means necessary" back in the sixties. That ain't exactly threatening "civil war".

Articles like this just stir up anger and fear WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP DOES! This kind of idiot propaganda does more harm than good.

bigdog wrote:I heard that this morning and I think it's the most impeachable thing Trump has ever said. He is threatening physical violence if the left resists his orders and plans. He believes he is the "dictator" already. The American people have yet to pick up on that.
I don't know how much longer it's going to take them to catch on, but it needs to be BEFORE the next election. This guy does not deserve a chance at another 4 years. That would be suicide for this country.

We knew this was coming when he boasted he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and get away with it and when he suggested that the Second Amendment people might target Hillary and the judges she picked. Maybe the US needs to do what this brave kid did. Treat the violent racist Trumpers the way they deserve to be treated. LOOK OUT, INCOMING!

Telstar wrote: Maybe the US needs to do what this brave kid did.

Yeah, hit somebody with an egg from behind then get bitch slapped--real brave. Audie Murphy, eat your heart out! Jesus, pathetic.

All that accomplished was getting the right-wing pol a ton of free media coverage.

Deus X wrote:

Telstar wrote: Maybe the US needs to do what this brave kid did.

Yeah, hit somebody with an egg from behind then get bitch slapped--real brave. Audie Murphy, eat your heart out! Jesus, pathetic.

All that accomplished was getting the right-wing pol a ton of free media coverage.

Go hatch your own egg chicken littlepenis.

Deus X wrote:Please point out where Trump threatens "civil war" in that article or in the Breitbart interview.

He intimates that violence is possible but violence is a long way from civil war.

What he said is no different than Malcolm X saying "by any means necessary" back in the sixties. That ain't exactly threatening "civil war".

Articles like this just stir up anger and fear WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP DOES! This kind of idiot propaganda does more harm than good.

What he said is completely different from Malcolm X in the sixties. Why? Because Malcolm X was not and never has been POTUS. He's never been in control of our military or our policing services.
I never liked Malcolm X either, FYI. In my opinion, he was a hater and history has worked hard to clean up the reputation of the person he really was. He was no Martin Luther King. MLK was a great man and a great leader. Not Malcolm X.
But regardless, what Malcolm X said in the sixties has nothing to do with Donald Trump. There's no comparison in the two statements. One man had the power to become a dictator and the other did not. One had the power of our military and the other didn't. You sure like to dig a long way back into history to try and find another incident of "they did it too." Must be a lot of work.

bigdog wrote:What he said is completely different from Malcolm X in the sixties. Why? Because Malcolm X was not and never has been POTUS. He's never been in control of our military or our policing services.
I never liked Malcolm X either, FYI. In my opinion, he was a hater and history has worked hard to clean up the reputation of the person he really was. He was no Martin Luther King. MLK was a great man and a great leader. Not Malcolm X.
But regardless, what Malcolm X said in the sixties has nothing to do with Donald Trump. There's no comparison in the two statements. One man had the power to become a dictator and the other did not. One had the power of our military and the other didn't. You sure like to dig a long way back into history to try and find another incident of "they did it too." Must be a lot of work.

Jesus! Maybe this will help--lots of big illustrations so it should be perfect for you:

https://www.wikihow.com/Improve-Your-Reading-Comprehension

Dear Deus- Just a FYI, I managed to graduate college as a member of Phi Alpha Honorary Society.

I gotted me that ol sayush thingy and ever thang. I wored that thang rat on top of muh purty gradyashun choir robe.

I also lived through the times of both MLK and Malcolm X. Your comparison of Malcolm X to Donald Trump is still ridiculous.

bigdog wrote:Dear Deus- Just a FYI, I managed to graduate college as a member of Phi Alpha Honorary Society.

I gotted me that ol sayush thingy and ever thang. I wored that thang rat on top of muh purty gradyashun choir robe.

I also lived through the times of both MLK and Malcolm X. Your comparison of Malcolm X to Donald Trump is still ridiculous.

SweetBleedin'Jesus!   I'm in HELL!!!

1) It's the Phi Alpha HONOR Society not Honorary Society! Look up the difference. And it's for social workers so nobody gives a shit, it ain't exactly Phi Beta Kappa.

2) You can't write vernacular dialect for shit. Yours is so bad it's almost unintelligible. Even good writers--of which you ain't one--keep it to a minimum because it's so difficult to do well and can easily be a barrier for readers. Give it a rest, you're TERRIBLE at it.

3) I did not compare Donald Trump to Malcolm X. I compared something Donald Trump said to something Malcolm X said. See the difference?

Just because you were alive when certain events happened doesn't mean shit. If you don't even know the difference between an honor society and an honorary one then your opinion is worthless.

OMG.
The Phi Alpha Honor Society, which it was called in 1972, was based on the GPA of students in the field of Social Work. iT WAS AN HONORARY SOCIETY BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT GET INTO IT UNLESS YOU QUALIFIED.
I don't care if you think social work is  a worthless degree.
It got me the job I wanted within one month of graduation and my youngest daughter has done very well in her career with the same degree.

I don't need any help from Wikipedia with either my grammar or my punctuation. Although I attempt to make the things I write understandable to others, I don't find picking on other people's grammar a good use of my time. You will find more than one occasion when I post a question on this forum that has a period after it instead of a question mark. That's one of my more common errors when typing a post. I don't care if I do that either. If the reader can't figure out that it's a question, he's probably not bright enough to know the answer either.

None of this has to do with the incredibly stupid comparison Deus made between the power of a president to direct an armed insurrection and the power of a black power leader without nukes or tanks or an air force. It was a stupid reference, so he changes the subject to grammar.
That's a very Republican thing.

BTW folks, since language is a fluid thing, I thought I'd look up the term graduated college, because I knew I'd heard many people using it recently.
Too bad for you guys. The "from" seems to be disappearing from the phrase in recent years:

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-graduated-college-wrong

So, there you go. Your grammar may be more correct, but I am definitely cooler and more up to date. I really like this sentence:

Garner places the newish usage “graduated high school” at stage 3, right in the middle. You’ll hear it a lot, even among professional writers and educated people, but careful writers won’t use it.



"Professional Writers and Educated People"


That's what it says!!!!!!!! Damn, I'm more hip than I thought.


This is such a stupid argument

From the same website:  

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-graduated-college-wrong

First, if you held a gun to my head and made me say whether the phrase “graduated high school” is right or wrong, I’d say it is wrong. The current standard usage is to say someone graduated FROM high school

and

My advice is to be refined. Hit a hole in one and stick with “graduated from college.” It will make your English teachers proud.

RealLindaL wrote: It will make your English teachers proud.

And what a comfort THAT is!

All my English teachers are long dead and gone.
Mrs Scales, who died just a couple of years ago, was a great English teacher at Escambia High school.  Later on, she became a principal at Pine Forest High School. I know it was a huge advancement for her, but I always hated thinking of her leaving the classroom.
She might be upset, but she'd probably be more upset to know I married one of her worst students of all time later on in life. My husband literally quit school at Escambia to get away from Mrs Scales English class. He went  straight on to Adult High and then into the Air Force, but he really could not stand that lady. I thought she walked on water.
It's strange how different teachers affect different students.

Thanks for sharing.

:DLOL
I feel your sarcasm.
But it's ok.

Drumpf is dog whistling. He's been doing this since day one of his stupid campaign, when he rode down the stupid escalator in his stupid building. I've never seen such blatant pandering to the Reich Wing...synonymous today with the entire Republican Party. Orwell is rolling...and people are dying because Republicans won't give up power without a dirty fight.

I wonder if Trump's not running off as many Republicans as he holds onto. If I were in that party, and I saw what element of it he's pandering to, I'd get out.

I don't think every Republican is an idiotic, nasty bigot... but Trump sure as hell does, because that's the only audience he plays to anymore. And, who knows, maybe they are all idiotic nasty bigots now since they stick to him. Maybe all the intelligent, decent ones have already left. Because you really can't be smart or decent and still support this guy. It just doesn't work. You can't go, "You know, I like his tax plan so much that I'm willing to overlook him being a fucking WHITE NATIONALIST." Some things you just can't excuse and still keep a soul.

I gotta wonder at the intelligence of the GOP, following what is clearly a hateful idiot and thinking his stank ain't gonna stick to 'em.

zsomething wrote:I wonder if Trump's not running off as many Republicans as he holds onto.   If I were in that party, and I saw what element of it he's pandering to, I'd get out.  

I gotta wonder at the intelligence of the GOP, following what is clearly a hateful idiot and thinking his stank ain't gonna stick to 'em.  

You and I and doubtless hundreds of thousands of others wonder the very same thing, z. I doubt we'll ever come close to understanding it, despite the fact that supposedly learned analyses on the Trump phenomenon are a dime a dozen.

I think he may be making a mistake now that is going to affect his popularity, even with some of his most loyal supporters. This criticism of John McCain is far beyond any lengths of despicability (I made that word up)  that he's ever shown before.
The news media made a big deal about the military not criticizing him for what he said. Members of the military know that they are not supposed to criticize the CIC, especially not in public. But the silence of the workers in the crowd in Ohio, where he made some of his comments, speaks volumes. There were a lot of vets in that factory that he spoke at, and they went totally silent when he started trash talking McCain. These people were McCain voters just a few years ago.
I don't know if Trump is just trying to see if he really can shoot that person in the middle of 5th avenue and get by with it, or what.  He might just finally come to  realize that there are some limits to what his voters will take. I sure hope so.

bigdog wrote:He might just finally come to  realize that there are some limits to what his voters will take. I sure hope so.

'Tis an outcome fervently to be desired. If only!!