Trump’s most revealing quotes yet on what he’ll do if he wins in 2024
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.axios.com /2024/04/30/donald-trump-time-magazine-interview-news
Trump’s most revealing quotes yet on what he’ll do if he wins in 2024
Erin Doherty 3-4 minutes 4/30/2024
Former President Trump appears in court at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 26 in New York City. Photo: Mark Peterson-Pool/Getty Images
Former President Trump suggested in an interview out Tuesday that he would ignore a law forbidding the use of military force on civilians as part of his plan to target undocumented immigrants.
Why it matters: Trump has previously floated using the military in unprecedented ways , but his extensive interview with TIME reveals other ways a second Trump administration would challenge longstanding U.S. norms and laws.
1. Immigration: Trump said he is open to using the National Guard to deport undocumented migrants nationwide during a second term. "If they weren't able to, then I'd use [other parts of] the military."
- In response to a question over whether he would override the Posse Comitatus Act , which forbids the use of the military against civilians, Trump said of undocumented immigrants: "Well, these aren't civilians. These are people that aren't legally in our country."
- Reality check: "Any person in the U.S., regardless of their immigration status, may be entitled to many of the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens, including the right to due process and equal protection," TIME writes in a fact check of the interview.
2. The 2024 election: "If we don't win, you know, it depends," Trump said of the possibility of violence following the presidential election.
- "It always depends on the fairness of the election."
3. Department of Justice: The former president said that he may fire U.S. Attorneys who buck his directives to prosecute someone.
- "It would depend on the situation," Trump said.
4. Abortion : Trump told TIME that it is up to the states if they decide to monitor women's pregnancies so they know if they receive an abortion.
- "I think they might do that," he said.
- Trump also said that it is up to the states if they decide to prosecute women for getting abortions.
- "The states are going to say. It's irrelevant whether I'm comfortable or not. It's totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions."
5. South Korea: Trump floated the retreat of U.S. forces from U.S. ally South Korea.
- "We have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position," Trump told TIME, which noted that there are 28,500 U.S. troops.
- "Which doesn't make any sense. Why would we defend somebody? And we're talking about a very wealthy country."
6. Israel: Trump said that if Israel and Iran get into a war, the U.S. should get involved. "If they attack Israel, yes, we would be there."
- "There was a time when I thought two-state could work," Trump said of the possibility of Israel and a Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side. "Now I think two-state is going to be very, very tough."
7. The 2020 election: "I wouldn't feel good about it," Trump said of hiring anybody who believes that President Biden won the 2020 election.
8. Jan. 6: Trump would "absolutely" consider pardoning the Jan. 6 defendants, he told TIME.
Go deeper:
Tags
Who is online
448 visitors
2. The 2024 election: "If we don't win, you know, it depends," Trump said of the possibility of violence following the presidential election.
His over the top narcissism will never allow him to acknowledge that he lost.
Fuck that traitorous fucking scumbag thug fucking asshole.
tell us how you really feel...lol
Trump says post - election violence will depend on whether he wins or loses.
How do our Trump apologists explain this statement ?
If Trump had stolen the 2020 election, would you have supported violence?
Your comment is bizarre , in that it supposes that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
upposes that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
Not at all. The opposite actually. It's called a hypothetical.
Is there no amount of election fraud/theft in your mind that would justify violence in your mind?
I'm not answering foolish questions.
Why did you dodge JR's question? The obvious answer is that there is no justification for violence in response to a US election and that anyone who suggests it is appropriate (much less welcome) is misguided and irresponsible.
I didn't. JR dodged mine because he's knows Trump's statement isn't really noteworthy.
If Trump arrested the voting delegations from swing states and replaced them with Trump electors in 2020 in order to win the election, most people would agree violence would be justified in response. Would you?
Of course its noteworthy. He claimed the 2020 election wasnt fair and he fomented violence on that basis.
Its never fair when Trump loses , according to him. Dont you know that by now ?
No I would not. We are a nation of laws. The first act is for Congress to impeach and convict him and remove him from office (assuming the 25th would not work). After that we let our judicial system act (in the hope that it has some remaining semblance of integrity).
Only when it is clear that our system no longer functions and that those in political control are oppressing and abusing the public does violence rise up as the last resort. And that last resort, in the USA, would be catastrophic and bloody.
When Trump wins, the lefties will be out in large numbers rioting in the streets, just like last time. The DNC convention will offer a preview of what's going to occur.
I don't think it will compare to the "news" people in 2016. A compilation of reactions should have been awarded an Emmy for best comedy
And what do you expect if Biden wins?
You did not mention any issues with a Trump presidency ... the only issue you see if Trump wins are Biden supporters being upset.
Quite a disparity you present. Biden = "4 more years of ineffectiveness" but Trump = "lots of screaming at the sky and some real tears from some news people"
Surely you see more bad than that if Trump wins.
And when will trump announce his running mate? The list is chock full of meme worthy sycophants.
Was he obligated to?
Probably when he wants to.
Deflection at every turn. Your history of comments are extremely one-sided against Biden which makes your claim of not voting for Trump laughable. Your recent comment further illustrates this disparity.
How many fucking times does he have to tell you he isn't voting for either one of the damned front runners. This shit gets real old and it happens on a daily basis. Just STOP FFS. For him, it seems, it isn't an either or situation.
“…your claim of not voting for Trump laughable.”
With every single post. With every single vapid q&a attempt at relevancy.
What exactly are you looking for? It seems you want him to either say he is voting for Trump or prove to you (to your satisfaction) that he is not.
It must be really important since you are either at this or trying to get him to compare the two frontrunners at least once a day.
I am pretty sure no one else cares and are pretty tired of the badgering.
If he wins I will be praying for him also.
I said that to my wife once....it did not go well.
If you would stop deflecting the blows it might die. LOL
Kristi Noem
I am not looking for anything. I am making the spectacularly obvious observation that anyone whose comment history is almost exclusively negative on Biden and rarely critical of Trump with the majority of comments taking the defensive side for Trump clearly evidences a belief that a Trump presidency would be better for the nation. That does not square with a claim of NOT taking a stand (not voting for either) and allowing others to decide which of the two will be PotUS.
In very simple terms, if one believes Biden is so bad (as evidenced by aforementioned comment history) then one should vote for Trump to spare the nation from all the predicted damage.
this whole theme ( claiming one will not vote for Trump or Biden, then attacking Biden) has gotten extremely old to me.
I might start deleting all of it on sight on my group articles and seeds.
Daily onslaught would suggest otherwise
Yes, several times a day ad nauseum
He has made it clear that he would not vote for either and he doesn't worry or care about who would be worse for the nation. Any reason you can't accept that comment even though he has not proven it to your satisfaction? Maybe the claim is not square to you but in the grand scheme of things why does it matter so much to you that he prove it to your satisfaction. He has tried several times (also ad nauseum) to explain it to you but for whatever reason you don't seem to get it. It seems like border line stalking to most sane observers.
In very simple terms what he should do according to you and what he said he will do are different things.
And at the end of the day it seems only one person is totally hung up on it.
It is sooo obvious yet many bend over backwards to toss up smokescreens with strawman argument such as "he already said he is not voting for either" when that is always an acknowledged portion of the commentary.
If someone claims they are not voting for Trump or Biden, it is fair to accept that as truth until evidence suggests otherwise.
Well, if the evidence is comments that are almost exclusively negative on Biden, mostly defensive on Trump with rare criticism of Trump, that belies the claim. If one follows the evidence, one would logically conclude that the claim of 'not voting for either' is a false representation.
I wanted to vote for Haley. I do not have that option because Trump supporters inexplicably have enabled Trump to be the GOP nominee. The choice now is between Biden and Trump. One of those men will be the next PotUS. They are profoundly different individuals with entirely different priorities. There is no way that these two men / policies are equivalent. There is a striking difference. Some will vote for Trump because they find him (somehow) better for the nation. Others will vote for Biden similarly. Those who do not step up and cast a vote for Biden or Trump either cannot comprehend enough of a difference to see which would be better for the nation, or they simply do not care. No way do I buy the notion that these two men / policies are even remotely equivalent.
To me it is obvious. Trump should never be given access to any political power ... much less the presidency. It is a shame that we do not have a choice better than Biden, but between the two the choice for Biden is obvious.
And my comment history supports this. My comments on Trump have been consistent and clear. I can easily state exactly why Trump should never be considered for the presidency. And I can (and have) registered my criticism of Biden. But for all his negatives, Biden is an order of magnitude better for this nation than Trump. So if I were to claim that I am not voting for either, it would be quite supportive (given my comment history) to question the truthfulness of that claim.
Same logic applies to everyone else.
Voting for Biden? He is the present PotUS and therefore, fair game for criticism.
Who asked you who you would vote for? This is a small forum. You are trying to pretend that we are not all aware that you claim you will not vote for Biden or Trump.
Thus your claim is well-established.
And your (and others) theatrics pretending that you were asked who you will vote for is obvious strawman smokescreen nonsense. If one cannot directly rebut what was actually written, some will resort to smokescreens. It is pathetic.
No one said he wasn't.
Then I suggest you don't accept it as truth and move on. I am sure everyone would be OK with that.
And worthy of at least an hour a day to rehash the same shit with the same results. You have (attempted) to make your point at least 2 dozen times. At what point is it enough?
And there we have it all
Of course Biden is fair game for criticism. Again you totally missed the point. JR was observing how some comment histories are almost exclusively anti-Biden with very little negatives on Trump (indeed quite a bit of defense of Trump) and thus a claim by the authors of such histories that they will vote for neither is entirely inconsistent.
If one sees few negatives in Trump and endless negatives in Biden, why would one not vote for Trump to ensure Biden (with all of his vastly greater perceived negatives) does not win the presidency?
You, for example, do not claim you will sit this out. You have stated that you will vote for Trump. And your comment history supports that claim. Thus you do not see people doubting your claim.
However, if you were to claim that you will not vote for either Trump or Biden, your claim would fly in the face of your comment history.
I made an observation. It is you, et. al., who have (as usual) engaged in theatrics and misrepresentation. I do not think people are buying the bullshit.
My guess is that the motivation for such nonsense is simply the attaboy club. It does not matter if one's 'argument' makes sense ... just so long as one argues.
as usual you totally deflected from my comment/question. You have made the same observation at least a couple dozen times. At what point is it enough?
And?
Always the same crap. You ignore what I actually wrote and instead argue a strawman. This is what I wrote:
That is an observation. And I further clarified later by noting that your comment history is replete with negatives on Biden, mostly defense of Trump, with precious few criticisms of Trump. Your comments @2.2.1 and @2.2.4 are perfect examples of this:
Your Biden comment is categorically negative on Biden while your Trump comment was categorically critical of those who support Biden. Nothing negative about Trump.
Your protests are without merit.
And?
Different day, same straw
That is your failure of logic.
Unlike you I have many comments stating why I wanted to vote for someone other than Biden. I was, for example, in full support of Haley and contributed multiple times to her campaign.
My comment history shows that if Christie, Haley, or even Hutchinson were the GOP nominee that I would vote for them.
Yours, however, shows nothing but criticism for Biden, much defense for Trump, and precious few negatives on Trump. Your comments clearly illustrate that you view Trump as substantially more favorable than Biden yet insist you will not vote for either.
If you view Trump as only slightly more favorable than Biden then that would correlate with not voting for either. A slight difference may not be significant enough to you and thus you would opt to make a protest vote (or whatever).
My description was not expressing a slight difference but rather a profound difference. And my notes on your comment history reflect a major difference (totally negative on Biden), largely defensive of Trump, and precious few negative points regarding Trump. That is not a slight difference by any measure.
So let's address the actual reality. Given you apparently (by your comments in spite of your protests) see a major difference between Biden and Trump and clearly all negative on the Biden side, it strains credulity to claim that you would not use your vote to get the president you prefer of the only two who have a chance of winning the presidency.
Yeah, I know and routinely acknowledge that you claim you will not vote for either, so repeating your claim as if it has been ignored is dishonestly deflecting from the point I am making.
In contrast, a comment history that shows a much more balanced treatment of the two (even if the balance is totally negative for both) would support a claim of not voting for either. You have no such comment history.
this is all nonsense. I dont want gaslighting on my seeds. starting tomorrow i am going to delete most of this nonsense.
Too bad you comment is not directed to the correct person that seems to always start it.
And?
Gaslighting strangers on social media seems challenging.
When did you notice becoming confused with a loss of self-confidence?
For someone who actually realizes the severity of another Trump misadministration, you sure can be an ass, and if i must, i will be a larger whole in one, where ambiguity will be flung, till a new song done sung, cause i'm about sick of the mung i am among, and feel others will soon feel uncomfortable, cause im not comfortable, till everyone around me is un comfortable in their own skin kneed ed scraped, are ones speaking in tongues about steeling elections former latters rung for our from, there is where no return, is wear on my sleeve, i'll have the right to bare arms via my long sleeved vested interests, inn seeing US stay the way we were meant, and that in no way can there be Trump involved in our government for and by the people, not bi an entangler mixer of a stated steeple chaser, a tempted democracy eraser, mocker of our founders dreams, should be not our knight mayor, for if forced, there will be shown True Extremes, as you know and have mentioned in certain themes, and if needed, it seems, they will be called, the will of the people, and, shall be heard by all herd, cause damn sick of all the floated absurd that wish not for reality to sink in
for only one, shall win
No you don't. You get fucking pissed and go on for hours ranting about being harassed
Trump claims that undocumented immigrants are not civilians because they are not citizens.
What emerged in two interviews with Trump , and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.
To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland.
He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.
He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers.
He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.
He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury.
He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense.
He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.
Donald Trump on What His Second Term Would Look Like | TIME
I don't know why Time or anyone else caters to this monumental fucking asshole.
And for the asshats, this is not America
they are informing those who do not realize what a second Trump presidency would entail
Trump shows us daily that he is a grave threat to the American way of life, yet all of these supposedly "patriotic" Americans continue to support him. Anyone who supports Trump needs to have their head examined.