Trump just claimed he has the authority to take over New York City if they don't vote the way he wants them to. "We ha

[riversedge]

It must have been an interesting Cabinet meeting this morning..



Trump just claimed he has the authority to take over New York City if they don’t vote the way he wants them to.

“We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to.”

Link to tweet

[newdeal2]

1. This SCOTUS will have no problem with that

[SSJVegeta]

28. SCOTUS bringing us into a constitutional crisis is probably leading to civil war.

Itll be a weird one.

[Irish_Dem]

91. Yes it is like Trump, US congress and Supreme Court are setting up the country for Civil War.

They keep doing the unthinkable and forcing people to defend their country.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

97. They are screwing with BOTH New York and Chicago.

Both cities are NOT laid back California towns. And add Boston snd Baltimore. I hope they’re well-armed there.

[TomSlick]

35. Surely, that would be a bridge too far even for the current SCOTUS.

I know, who am I calling Shirley.

[3auld6phart]

57. May

Roger’s 6 cowardly sycophants burn in Hell for allowing this Shit show to carry on. What a freaky country you are allowing the repukes , piss on it I’ve runout of adjectives and words to describe this mess.

[LymphocyteLover]

45. depends on the rationale the admin uses... but no doubt this SCOTUS is a disgrace

[mountain grammy]

54. Exactly!

[fujiyamasan]

92. That was my first thought

They have completely ceded to the notion of the imperial presidency. Congress gave up on its job decades ago.

There’s really no check on this WH. We would have to go back to the Fuller court (chief justice that decided Plessey) to find a court this destructive. It’s clear that conservative groups like the heritage foundation have been looking at that court as a template of how to rule.

[Prairie Gates]

2. I think DU members should be very clear on when the Democratic nominee is being attacked

At this point, it's pretty clear that siding against the Democratic nominee is siding with Trump and MAGA.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. Clear as day... I'm with Zohran!!

[MadameButterfly]

11. It's no longer about the candidate you like. It's about democracy.

Last edited Fri Jul 11, 2025, 02:31 AM - Edit history (2)

If we don't support our democratically elected leader in this instance, we have no credibility in the nationwide fight for democracy.

Mamdani as mayor would not be forever, would have no army, would only be able to implement programs if supported by city council and in some. cases NYS legislature, borough presidents, deputy mayor, and city agencies. This is not a hostile takover of the government.
If Trump has his way, we are no longer a democratic society.

If mainstream Dems who disagree with Mamdani on issues can't see this, we are lost.

The biggest danger Mamdani poses to Trump and establishment Democrats is that people might like him too much.

[the nelm]

38. Something, something about the "forest from the trees" would seem to fit...n/t

[MadameButterfly]

50. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

[pat_k]

61. Dem leadership needs to realize a basic truth:

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2025, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The party is ALWAYS strongest when there are candidates running under the banner that represent a broad spectrum of goals and a broad spectrum of views on how to reach those goals. And we always do better when we find common ground and work together to accomplish specific goals with people we may be in violent disagreement with on other things.

The more the leadership tries to run candidates they perceive as "fringe" out of the party, the smaller this party gets.

And the more supporters of the party get mad and "opt out" because they are only aligned on 60% of a candidate's stated goals, even though they are violently opposed to EVERYTHING the other party has to offer, the smaller the party gets.

When we are pissed at our leaders, we pester them to do better. If they fail to do better, we organize to elect someone we believe would be more effective for our state, district, county, whatever. If that effort fails, it's time to find common ground, seek to move forward where you can with that "flawed" candidate, and keep pestering them to take up the causes and the approach you think gets us closer to actually building a better society. We can think some of the people who win elections under the Democratic Party banner are idiots -- and some are -- but it does not serve us to when "gatekeepers" -- whether factions of voters or the party apparatus -- focus all their energy on on running them out of the party. If we are truly the party of diversity, then be ready to welcome a diversity of voices. We don't have to all like each other to make progress on the basics we do agree on.

[JHB]

78. Rich Democrats like their Republican tax cuts

It's why the "centrists" of the party perpetually sidle away from the New Deal. They don't want anyone to really think about it. Some people's priority is shooting money skyward, as much as possible, as fast as possible, as high as possible, and anything that interferes with it is to be squelched, unconditionally. Money flows upward uber alles.

Post to be blocked in 3, 2, 1...

[pat_k]

79. Our answer to the power of money...

-- whether the unlimited funds driving the reactionary agenda on the right or the monied interests within our own party --- must be people-power.

That means engaging people in ways that go far beyond tapping them for money. If organizations and leaders keep treating their supporters merely as little cash machines, we are doomed. We must figure out how to engage and inspire people to connect and organize to become powerhouse citizen lobbyists and messengers in their own communities, not just online, but on the ground. That sort of citizen engagement can go a long way to countering the top-down money advantage the reactionaries currently have (as well as countering the outsized power of monied interests in our own party).

Clinton had it right when he pointed out that strong and wrong beats weak and right. The thing is, it is impossible to inspire and engage people by offering them the meager piece of what they actually want that you think is "doable." Doing that is the epitome of weakness. Strength means engaging people in advocating for what they actually want. Meaningful change. Bold goals. Goals like Universal Health Care. Goals like Basic Income.

And when the naysayers say "not doable" the answer is, "Of course it is doable. We are Americans. Where there is a will, we find a way. Do we have the political will today? No. But I believe we CAN, and MUST take a stand for what is right. I plant my flag where I believe it needs to be and I know that Americans who want to create a country they are truly PROUD of will see that we CAN do this and join in the call to make it happen. At first, we may only move closer to achieving this (whatever the "this" may be -- Universal Health Care, Basic Income, Freedom to BE Who we ARE, whatever), but as we stay strong and clear about what we REALLY want, we will get there. We will get to that promised land."

The BIG difference between Democrats and Republicans needs be grounded in our faith in each other. Advocate for the BIG GOALS that WE can achieve together. No strongman. No single person claiming they can "fix" everything, because that is ALWAYS a lie.

If the Democratic Party actually becomes the party of "We the People" we have a shot at redeeming our national soul.

[JHB]

81. Thank you for the time and detail in your reply. There is not a single point where I disagree with you.

The notion of holding a finger to the wind to decide which way to to go has done nothing but diminish us. For thirty years we've had politicians obsessed with their own "brand" while simultaneously ignoring the Democratic Party's brand as "the party that looks out for the little guy". Not to mention that those same people are very close to fundraising apparati but never considered making a priority of countering the RW's all-pervasive info-bubble of RW media.

They've abdicate leadership, then are astounded how people like Mamdani and AOC get votes. Stop listening to overpaid consultants and start paying attention!

[pat_k]

83. I think you might like Anat Shenker-Osario

A good interview with her here:

[JHB]

86. Be bold and broad, and blame the opposition (Republicans) if you can't get it.

Point fingers and name names. "Bipartisan" is a fool's errand.

[pat_k]

89. It's hard to fathom, but we are still seeing the legacy of "battered democrat syndrome"

When billions poured into building the reactionary noise machine in the 1990's, Democrats were utterly unequipped to respond effectively. Groupthink within the beltway is a powerful force. And what took hold in the beltway in the late 1990's / early 2000's was an existential fear that kept too many of them from taking a stand when it was a moral imperative to do so. Back then, when we lobbied electeds to do what principle demanded**, the "backlash" bogeyman was invoked so often we felt like we were talking to parrots. ("Can't. It would be horrible. Backlash. Backlash. Backlash! " )

The feared phenomenon of "backlash" had absolutely nothing to do with reality. It was fear of being called out and called names on Rush, or on FOX News. The thing is, they were being called names whatever they did. And each time they refused to stand on principle, some of the accusations (like, that they were unprincipled "elites" ) rang a little true. If Bush/Cheney were committing war crimes, like they said, why didn't they impeach the guy? If Alito was as much of a horror as they said, why weren't they filibustering? They had more than 60 votes against. How did "opposing" Alito in a vote on the floor mean a damn thing when you had the power to stop him and refused to do so?

Anyway, over and over, they refused to draw a line in the sand against the advance. And so the advance moved on.

And we are where we are.

Perhaps I’m deluded, but I still believe people-power can reshape our party for the better.

I don't know how accurate my diagnosis is, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that attributing the shortcomings of the party solely to the "power of money" doesn't capture the whole story. Humans are social creatures. And beltway insider groupthink on so many things just goes unquestioned. And that is why we need citizen lobbyists getting in their faces and injecting reality from "outside." The social pressure of real people meeting with staffers (or members) and looking at them like they are crazy when they give absurd rationalizations for not standing up actually makes a difference.

Anyway, I am thankful that many of our electeds figured out they would be "beaten" whatever they did, so they might as well stand strong for the things they were passionate about. Unfortunately, for some -- and particularly those in the "old guard" -- an irrational risk-aversion instinct is too entrenched. I think the floods of calls are breaking through though. Slowly, more are recognizing that, as the minority party, although they can't wield the power of office in the ways they have throughout their time in office, they do have power. They have voices. They have comms operations. Their constituents are pushing them to get creative and wield the power they do have in ways that are completely unfamiliar. And more of them are stepping up.

I credit those who seem to be getting it. Old dogs, new tricks and all.

-----
** Like stand and object to the unlawfully appointed Florida electors (Breyer essentially gave them the playbook when he pointed out in his descent that SCOTUS had no place in the controversy and that the only thing Bush v. Gore accomplished was to render the FL election incomplete, and therefore unlawful under Florida law, and that now it was up to congress.) Like impeach Bush and Cheney for war crimes. Like Filibuster Alito. And on and on.

[pat_k]

90. The notion that it's possible to come to a "bipartisan" solution with reactionary insanity s dead.

Anyone who entertains the notion is deluding themselves.

Sure, MAGA and Anti-MAGA legislators may find common ground in some area and draft legislation, but that is not the same as finding a "bipartisan solution" between irreconcilable positions. Some "comprises" just cannot, and should not, be made. (Although, if the anti-slavery camp had taken a stand in 1787, we might not have a nation at all. Or perhaps we would have a far, far better nation. ??? )

All that aside, I think the notion that our electeds "look bad" if they don't appear to be willing to ""work with" the "other side" is long dead. Yes, for way too many years, that notion drove futile efforts to "reach across the aisle" to people who occupied a "no mans land" that couldn't be found anywhere on a traditional "left-right" political spectrum.

I am all for finding areas of common ground with opponents, but when your opponent is clearly in crazyville, you join them there if you make any attempt to portray the situation as one of "normalcy."

====
I'm in blue, blue Seattle. Jayapal, Murray, and Cantwell are all doing good things, but even they need a push. I've sent links to the Freedom Over Fascism toolkit to all of them and followed up with calls asking if they familiar with it and expressing my hope they they will heed the advice and call on their Democratic colleagues to do the same -- that we are in desperate need of a more unified message and that the messaging in the toolkit captures things that I, any many, many others who are appalled at what the 47 regime is doing, want to hear from our leaders.

The toolkit is updated, so it is worth checking in periodically

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s0JbXhND7-1iqABNcUNL031NQLxkLfr-USkCKGZTidI/mobilebasic

[pat_k]

82. P.S.

If someone flagged your post, I would be surprised if it were deemed a violation of the "Support Democrats" rule.

I have never read that rule as a ban on criticism. And I have done a good bit of criticizing over more than two decades here. I don't think I've ever had a post taken down (but I've been here a long time and my memory sucks, so perhaps...). I think my critical posts aren't flagged because my criticism is always offered as someone who believes the Democratic Party, as flawed as it may be, offers the best shot at enacting meaningful, positive, change. And I believe we can be so, so, so much more effective. But no matter how ticked off I get, I'm a Democratic voter (at least until instant run off voting takes hold in our general elections.)

If our electeds are doing things we believe are wrong-headed, it is our job as Democrats to pester them and advocate for action we believe would be more effective. Criticism is inherent in the push pull of party building. I could be wrong, but I've always read that rule as banning "circular firing squad" type rhetoric. Rhetoric like "I refuse to vote for so and so because..." Or "Why aren't we all voting for Jill Stein? The entire party has sold out." When a member goes there, they are opting out of the process of party building and have effectively declared themselves as opponents.

[lostincalifornia]

70. Why are you attacking what you consider as "establishment Democrats"? If some people can't see that isn't a

good thing then "we are lost"

There was enough of that crap in 2016, and that came from those who refused to vote for Hillary in the general election. That is why trump got in the first place because enough swing state voters voted for Jill Stein or didn't vote, and that started the whole downward spiral from the Supreme Court we have today, to allowing judges like canon to let trump get away from refusing to return classified files, to the Supreme Court allowing delay to insure trump got a get out of jail free card.

Why you would put "establishment Democrats" on the same sentence with trump as being threatened by Zohran Mamdami. That is a crappy thing to do.

Last time I saw that ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRAT Jerry Nadler endorsed Mamdami, and so did other SO-CALLED ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS.

That is the same type of comparisons that was done to Hillary in the general election.

[MadameButterfly]

80. The problem with Dems not supporting Hillary is comparable to Dems not supporting Mamdani

Last edited Thu Jul 10, 2025, 08:50 PM - Edit history (2)

I think we are both complaining about Democrats not supporting their candidate in the general and therefore risking defeat. It can happen the same to a Progressive as a Moderate.

My disappointment with the response of party leaders to Mondami's election does not mean I support every crazy thing disaffected Democrats have done in the past like supporting Jill Stein or staying home. I don't really know what one has to do with the other.

I'm happy to hear about Jerry Nadler's endorsement, but there shouldn't be just one. I see 2 declared Democratic Socialists, a Progressive Senator, and a lot of NYC politicians have endorsed. And I've seen some destructive criticism. I want to see the whole Democratic Party on board. I'm waiting.

I think you are angered by my use of the term "establishment Democrats." Sorry to cause offense. Moderates? Party leaders? Long-timers? I don't dislike that group, whatever we call them--I support good Democrats who have been around for a while, I've been kinder than most to the current leadershop struggling to oppose Trump, and I don't discriminate based on age. Don't paint me as a Hillary basher because I used that term. Compared to Mamdani and the kids who put him over the top, we are all establishment. i just want the party on board against the real enemy like you do.

I stand by my statement though, that the biggest fear of those objecting to Mamdani is he might become too popular. That includes some Democrats and Trump. Understood that these two otherwise have nothing else in common.

[lostincalifornia]

84. Who said there is just one? Harlemite Keith Wright, who backed ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary, voted

Aye to endorse Mamami as part of the Manhattan Democratic Party. The unofficial vote of the Manhattan Democratic party executive committee was 49 in favor and 5 against.

While not all NY Democrats have endorsed Mamdami, ALL NY Democrats lined up to defend Mamdani from trump attacks?

You should really stop with the blanket attack against "establishment Democrats'. It only contributes to division within the party.

[MadameButterfly]

96. no blanket

I did mention City politicians endorsing him.

I do not do blanket attacks on "establishment" Democrats. I support Democrats across the spectrum, new and old. I have a very specific criticism, nothing blanket about it.

The issue at hand is leading Democrats who are causing division within the party by not supporting a duly elected party nominee. These are Democrats who I support, in some cases have voted for, contributed to, defended. So now I'm the one causing division within the party?

Are they entertaining aiding the return of a Governor who was ejected from office for REASONS that were adjuticated? And I am causing division within the party for having a problem with that?

You and another poster have a thing about my using the word "establishment" Democrats. I used that word once and have not repeated it in this thread. I've been trying other words. Moderates? Party leaders?" Long-timers?" One article talks about efforts to get "top" Democrats to support Mamdani. Will "top" Democrats do?

I'm happy that Democrats are defending Mamdani against illegal deportation by Trump. But this is a low bar.

[sheshe2]

22. I sure wish people thought of that with

Obama, as a candidate and again after he was elected President, Hillary and Kamala.



Just saying.

[MadameButterfly]

49. Sorry. This is not the same

While there is always disagreement during primaries--that's democracy--the LEADERSHIP of the Democratic party did not desert Obama, Hillary, or Kamala once they had won the nomination--in favor of a Democrat defeated in the primaries who decided to run as an Independent in the general election.

That doesn't mean every Democrat supported the Democratic nominee in the general, and every Democrat will not support Momdani in the general. As much as we wish they would. People are free to vote as they wish. That's also democracy.

However if the leadership of our party aids or abetts in any way Trump taking over NYC to overturn the results of an election, that is not democracy.
I would include in that supporting results that would have a Mayor who is beholden to Trump to avoid prosecution.
Cuomo is a little more gray, but when a state has removed a governor for reasons, the establishment should not foist him back on us. The problems with overlooking Cuomo's crimes are many for the future of the Democratic party. Cuomo's trespasses would not be overlooked if the Democratic nominee was White, Christian, and moderate.

[sheshe2]

67. Why you would think this let alone write this is beyond me.

However if the leadership of our party aids or abetts in any way Trump taking over NYC to overturn the results of an election, that is not democracy.

Yes, I heard tsf say that on the news tonight, but to think Democratic leadership would aide AND abet a takeover of NY by tsf is OTT!

Cuomo's trespasses would not be overlooked if the Democratic nominee was White, Christian, and moderate.

I am at a loss for words here at what you are implying.



I for one have no ball in the game for a Mayoral election in NY. I am not from there. I do however want the Democrat to win and that would be Mamdani.

[MadameButterfly]

74. I'm responding to actual statements by party leaders

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2025, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)

and I am not implying. I am saying it.

Kyrsten Gillibrand went on a destructive rant about Momdani after his victory. It's on tape. It will do harm.
Jeffries also criticized Mamdani right after his victory.
Schumer and Jeffries congratulated his "good campaign" but not Mamdani himself.
Bill Clinton endorsed Cuomo in the primary, and while he has congratulated Mamdani he has not endorsed him. In the general, will he endorse Mamdani or Cuomo? We don't know.
Former Governor David Patterson is backing a plan to have all opponents of Mamdani unite under one candidate so as not to split the vote against him. We are waiting to see if current leaders will join this effort or back Mamdani.

I'm not suggesting they would actively or directly help Trump. But not fully supporting the nominee increases chances that Adams or Cuomo will win. If Adams wins, that his handing the city to Trump. If Cuomo wins because of Democratic leadership support, all kinds of damage to the party now and going forward.

[lostincalifornia]

85. The correct spelling is Zohran Mamdani

[sheshe2]

87. We already suffered enough damage...

from all those "uncommitted" voters. The ones that were encouraged to do so in the primary for President and it carried right over into GE. That in itself caused far more damage than a Gillibrand rant or a Clinton endorsement and it gave us trump.

Oh, I have heard the spin they were just making a point and "uncommitted" wasn't a vote for trump...however it did indeed give us trump. I for one will never forgive or forget what we lost because a few people in power decided to play a game in the most crucial election of our lifetime. You know who they are, no need for me to name them.

[MadameButterfly]

88. A bunch of people who were understandably very mad at Biden made things worse by

failing to vote for Harris in the general election.

And you are ok with people making things worse because you are mad at Mandami when harming him helps Trump.

[lostincalifornia]

93. Where did that come from? I believe the poster you are responding to made her position very clear:

" I do however want the Democrat to win and that would be Mamdani."

[MadameButterfly]

94. Here's where I'm coming from

Repeated accusations (only one here, but there have been so many others) blaming factions of Democrats for Trump's victory. ("you know who they are, no need to name them&quot .

Blaming people who made a statement in the primaries but supported voting for Harris in the general, for OTHER people who wouldn't vote for her in the general. Perhaps giving people a way to protest without witholding a general election vote got more people to vote for Harris, not less. The poster doesn't know, but has decided to blame a group who did vote for Harris.

Speaking out against policies that could potentially lead to genocide and war crimes is not a game. It was unrealistic to expect silence from Democrats. The hope was some change in policy to save lives--and the election.

Mamdani and other primary election protesters in the end could not undo the actions by our government that caused the rage that may have lost us the election. Lets look at what really cost us those voters.

Thanks for pointing out that in her earlier post she wants Mamdani to win. Amidst the "never forgive or forget" I missed that part.

[aeromanKC]

3. Fuck you John Roberts et. al.

[vapor2]

7. Roberts just gave 47 the right to fired federal employees

What will happen when they are fired and the rest just leave?

[paleotn]

4. Try it. Go ahead, jackass

Or should I say……..TACO!!!!!!!

He’s full of shit.

[MadameButterfly]

12. What worries me is they couldn't challenge

a mainstream White guy. They are counting on enough Democrats not to fight for him.

[Lovie777]

5. It's a deflection re that list and shithole and minor girls...............

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Phoo-ey! TSF's been dying to say that since when Ed Koch was the mayor

-- and refused to give TSF a huge tax abatement for Trump Tower.

[MadameButterfly]

14. Basically Trump thinks he has the power to do anything he wants everywhere. But

I'm sure he has plenty of resentments to fuel his desire, especially for NYC.

[electric_blue68]

29. Ah... And I'm No Koch fan. Wasn't paying attention to that kind of stuff.

[MayReasonRule]

8. Blue Sky Mirror Link

Unconstitutional.

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T20:55:45.320Z

[Grim Chieftain]

10. It seems tRump and his followers are begging for a civil war.

They keep pushing the boundaries; at some point there will be a push back. People can only take so much

[PatSeg]

15. It sure looks that way, doesn't it?

Perhaps that was Putin's plan all along.

[Grim Chieftain]

16. Good point

I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to rename the USA The United States of Trump. His maniacal ego is boundless.

[PatSeg]

65. Oh yes

We all know how Trump loves plastering his name on everything. Why not the United States as well? He could take down the Statue of Liberty and replace it with a huge golden statue of himself. That's what dictators do.

[Grim Chieftain]

66. Yep, and he's angling to get on Mt. Rushmore

Can US currency be far behind?

[PatSeg]

68. What a repulsive thought,

but clearly, he would love his face in everyone's wallet.

[GiqueCee]

47. Every breath Trump takes...

... is in service to Putin. He doesn't wipe his ass without asking Putin which hand to use.
But people who should know better keep whistling past the graveyard. We're coming up fast on a tipping point where it will be too late to stop him.

[PatSeg]

64. Sadly, I fear you're right

We only have to look at other autocracies to know that is true.

[CuriousSavage]

23. Oooooh boy

I do not underestimate the furousity of Los Angellinos, but fuck…. Trying to take over NYC will be a giant step towards blood in the streets. We have a hair trigger on a good day. We have another 3.5 years of this shit?

[electric_blue68]

30. Idk I'm a born & bred NYC'r and don't often have a "hair trigger".

[Grim Chieftain]

31. If this continues, I doubt we will have a democracy in three and a half years

Every day is a new assault on people, institutions, long held safeguards... He can only push people so far.

[slightlv]

63. Theres a message on DU I read earlier today outlining

what the individual has seen over the last few weeks... from the murder and attempted murder of Democratic representatives to the guy who started the forest fire shooting the firefighter. And every single one of us can add to that list. Begging for a civil war? Jesus, people... they have STARTED the damned civil war... we're just not recognizing them for doing it. And it won't be recognized until enough people on our side start fighting back and tooth and nail against them.

The incident against ICE over the 4th was the first time I've seen anyone on our side start anything. And what an appropriate first opportunity. Taking out ICE brownshirts on OUR Independence Day. I know they've written their story... and they knew it going in, no doubt. But frankly, I applaud these people. They'll pay for their actions with their lives, and they're the first in the new civil war.

[ancianita]

13. Did Bove, Bondi, Miller and Noem tell him that?

He probably does think he's got the judiciary in his pocket (with over 330 federal cases moving at motion/delay/hearings/appeals snail's pace).
It might be up to the military to refuse an illegal order from the CiC if the financial capital of the world is worth protecting the constitutional rights of. The SCOTUS could do nothing about any of it.

[Hekate]

17. He is practicing on Los Angeles. He has federalized the National Guard & sent in the US Marines.

Never doubt his intentions for a minute.

[dalton99a]

24. +1

[electric_blue68]

33. Hmm...maybe. Wouldn't put it completely past him. Such a vengeful person! Hopefully hot air.

Especially because he knows deep down inside that a lot of NYC'rs despise him!

Of course, it's fairly to highly likely more that ICE will increase it's presence here in NYC, if nothing else. 😬

[GiqueCee]

51. "It can't happen here"...

... is no longer a viable rationalization. It can, and it is happening here, and the Orange Gargoyle has never recognized limits, so he's sure as hell not going to start now. He's taken it too far to back off now. Even in his lizard brain, he knows that if he doesn't go full Nazi, he's going to prison, so there is NO limit to what he'll be not only willing, but eager to do. Don't kid yourself for a New York minute; he is a psychopath, and he's capable of things that would make go foo-foo in your tutu.
Most definitely NOT hot air.

[electric_blue68]

69. I'm sure he is (capable), and no adults to hold him back....

I'm not discounting what you're saying.
He's a gonzo psycho, or sociopath. Loves violence on people he hates (a lot of those).

[Hornedfrog2000]

18. Welp

He might as well give it a try now. How long until 20k troops are in NY or LA?

[ancianita]

34. He wants to 'own' and run the coasts.

However long that takes. Maybe a year or two of adjacent troop movements should do it. If either coastal city fights, he declares martial law.

[DFW]

19. If he tries, he should heed Col. Trautman's advice in the first Rambo film

"Bring a good supply of body bags."

NYC is not the first place I can think of that would welcome a Trumpanzee army of occupiers. He should start with more modest goals like Huntsville, Alabama or Enid, Oklahoma.

[Boomerproud]

32. Yes. Enid and Huntsville would welcome the military with ticker tape parades.

That's where we are.

[Gymbo]

20. "If they don't vote the way he wants them to."

Actions have consequences, and sometimes they come with hard choices. Military Tribunal, or The Hague? Mr. President.

[Boomerproud]

27. When has he suffered any consequences for words or actions?

He's surrounded himself with an impermeable bubble.

[Gymbo]

44. I have to say a lot of people agree with you.

I don't completely, and I say that because the one consequence he has no control over and abuses at length is his health. Legally, I could see him being brought to justice but that hinges on how many people he betrays and angers. In any case, seeing Donald Trump out of the picture sooner than later, would be good medicine for this country.

[Dan]

21. Imagine

Trump sends the masked, hooded, armed ICE agents to take over New York City. I wonder if it would be on Pay-for-View?

[dalton99a]

25. The hostile occupying army would be greeted with flowers and candy

[mucifer]

26. Mainstream media will NEVER report on this

[maxsolomon]

39. They might, but it's just another vague, indirect threat

that's essentially impossible to parse.

The Feds DID "take over" Puerto Rico through the PROMESA Bill and when it declared bankruptcy, restructured its debt. Maybe that's what President Cognitive Impairment meant, and maybe not.

[LeftInTX]

76. Cut funding to programs is what I'm thinking.

I guess if Texas elects Democrats, Trump will close the military bases or something similar.

[Sessuch]

37. That's after he joins forces with Putin

[JI7]

40. Why doesn't he do it with Texas ? There are many missing people

why doesn't he take over there ?

[purple_haze]

41. He's being non-specific for a reason

[Tribetime]

42. Man I wish this asshole would just die already

And take the rest of the republicans with him

[CentralMass]

43. The level of meglomania just keeps growing.

[Shipwack]

46. A quote from "Casablanca" comes to mind...

Rick:
Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.

[ffr]

48. Run places or Ruin places

I think he meant to say the latter, because by all appearances, that's what the he and the GOP are doing.

[kentuck]

52. He is very unstable....

Perhaps insane?

[BidenRocks]

53. The real mob bosses may not like chump looking for

A Piece Of The Action!

[Ping Tung]

55. He's nuts. Alas, h's not alone.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[AntiFascist]

56. I heard Karen Bass just told Trump's armed militia to get lost when they invaded MacArthur park, and they left! n/t

[Cha]

58. Kamala Would Not Have Done This Or

Any of the Shit Hellscape Traitor Has Done & Will Do.

[orangecrush]

59. Good luck with that

[Crowman2009]

60. It's time to trash Trump tower!

Every New Yorker should toss all their bags of garbage into Trump tower.

[twodogsbarking]

62. He must have his revenge. It is the "family" way.

Rocket Man killed his relative. Trump would do it too I think.

[struggle4progress]

71. Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde

[B.See]

72. The dictator in Chief once remarked, he

"has the power to do what he has the power to do."

The rest of America is only now just STARTING to figure out PRECISELY what Mr. Omnipotent meant by that.

And not a minute too soon, I might add.

[LeftInTX]

73. Well, then quit and run for mayor!

[Justice matters.]

75. Now the convicted idiot wants to rule like Saddam Hussein.

Abusing his powers illegally to impose his views on citizens who disagree with him?

And still nobody can stop him before he jumps the shark?

[lostincalifornia]

77. No he doesn't

[republianmushroom]

95. trump claims a lot of things.

We shall see if he is correct.