It was obviously sarcasm.I'm not sure you are terribly agile at jumping in and out of threads days after the fact.
More importantly, sometimes sarcasm is just sarcasm. It doesn't have to have any particular political relevance.
You seem to have been presented with numerous such clips.My response is not really directed at you. There has to be a clip without edits where we can follow these words directly for ourselves.
Ok sorry.It was obviously sarcasm.
I just don't know what Jimmy Carter had to do with anything Mitch is saying.
Or Mitch's style of posting.
Clearly there is a joke you think you are making there, but I don't get it.
Trump after he criticizes Schiff and Pelosi: I'm not threatening anybody. Sure he uses the phrase "enemy from within".You seem to have been presented with numerous such clips.
But sure, it was a public appearance.
Here's the clip about handling it with the military.
(Fox has it but it won't play for me.)
Former President Trump calls the 'enemy from within' more dangerous than any foreign entity
Former President Trump criticizes the "lunatics" on the "inside" of U.S. politics and what he calls the "single greatest scandal in broadcast history" on "Sunday Morning Futures."www.foxnews.com
Here is the question and answer on the follow up where he specifies he means Schiff and Pelosi.
Lunatics like Shifty shift as an example of the "enemies from within"I'm sorry I don't hear him saying specifically he would use the military to go after Schiff and Pelosi.
So you and K Douglas are both fine with sending the military to "deal" with Adam Schiff and the Pelosis and all those Democrats Trump deems a suitable target?
Yeah so........I find Schiff's handling of the Intelligence Committee to have been dangerously political and objectionable.Lunatics like Shifty shift as an example of the "enemies from within"
what part of this don't you understand?
I can agree with all things you said here and still believe Trump's team is comfortable where they are at two weeks out from the election.That's not quite correct.
They get more cautious when they think the downside is greater than the upside.
When you are ahead and have things in the bag, everything is more downside, so candidates give fewer interviews.
(This is also why front runners tend to want to limit debates.)
But it really is just downside/upside.
Trump has been a disaster in his latest appearances.
That's in friendly environments for the most part (clearly putting him in a townhall on Univision was an error by the campaign).
Keeping him out of places he can fuck things up is good strategy.
It is running out the clock.
But it might just mean they think it is close and he can fuck things up, not they they like their position and are protecting a lead.
We really can't say.
Was that the sound of a broom sweeping something under the rug?What scrutiny is needed?
It's a non-issue.
Trumpland is one giant scurrilous book. Fine. We all got it.
We want someone to write about Biden's last year. Now that book will sell.
However, Democrats as a group appear to have a more disclipined code of silence. Trump is not a darling of the Republican establishment so he's an easier target. A Republican operative's post-Trump career will not be affected too much by taking digs in a book.
With a Biden book, somebody might break and want to make a cash grab. A tell all of who was engineering the cover-up, the abrupt switch to Kamala, Kamala's troubles with the Biden team and so on. There will certainly be a big, first out of the gate advantage for the first book.