Biden Commerce Sec. Raimondo on Trump: ‘Let’s Extinguish Him for Good’
Think before you speak.
Joe Biden’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo should choose her words carefully considering two men tried to assassinate former President Donald Trump in the past two months.
Raimondo wants us to “extinguish” Trump for good.
MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski came to her rescue, though:
Raimondo said, “Tax policy, you have to work with Congress but if he decides he wants to do something crazy, like a 200% tariff, which will hurt Americans, raise prices and lose jobs, he could do it as president. Which is why honestly why I’m here in my personal capacity. The stakes are so high in this one. We cannot afford to put him back in the White House.”
She added, “He’s the one that overturned Roe. For me, you know, when I was the governor of Rhode Island, one of the first governors in the country back in 2019 to codify Roe in state statute in Rhode Island. I worked with the legislature, it was because he was president, and I feared exactly what would happen. I said women of Rhode Island would be protected. That’s real protection, stepping up and leading. And what he says is the opposite. It is just another lie. How did we get here? Let’s extinguish him for good. We have an answer, we have a remarkably talented candidate who is sincere, who is pragmatic, who is open. Let’s just get it done.”
Host Mika Brzezinski said, “And extinguish, you mean vote him out?”
Raimondo said, “Yes, absolutely vote him out. Banish him from American politics. Yes just vote him out so he goes away.”
Harris-Biden Commerce Secretary @GinaRaimondo calls for President Trump to be "extinguished for good."
Ten days ago, a deranged Harris supporter tried to assassinate President Trump.
Yet, Democrat lunatics continue to spew this dangerous rhetoric. pic.twitter.com/zCSZfx4RqM
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 25, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Nearly slipped up didn’t she?
Some people would say she didn’t slip at all and instead, this was a purposeful attempt at programming leftwing nutters to a violent outcome. A year ago, I would have called those people nutters themselves. But, after watching the comical incompetence of the USSS the last 3-months, I’m not so sure. If Democrats like Ramondo et al. wanted to get Trump by quietly promoting and prodding unhinged lefttists towards political violence while making Trump particularly vulnerable by kneecapping Trump’s protective security detail by populating it with unqualified losers, what would they have done differently?
Nothing that I can see.
The background is, she had just finished reading an article about Israel eliminating Hezbollah leaders and immediately it popped into her mind that they should do the same thing to Trump.
No. It was absolutely deliberate. Even after being called out for violent rhetoric after two assassination attempts, leftist continue using the same language. They know exactly what they are doing.
The left will try to deflect and justify, but they really are okay with murder. Abortion is nothing less than out-and-out murder; the ducking out from any kind of responsibility. So if the killing of the unborn is accepted, what’s the big deal in doing away with someone who has, in their eyes, been a sinner in the Church of Leftism?
I appreciate your pithy, sarcastic wit, Whitewall.
“Its no good trying to battle Trump with lies and propaganda; we have to kill him before people figure out how badly we’ve f***ked them over.”
They can’t help themselves. Sometimes, they blurt out the truth.
Let’s let every anti-Trumper reveal their true feelings. No filters, no inhibitions. Just let it all out so we can see you for who you truly are.
“ For me, you know, when I was the governor of Rhode Island, one of the first governors in the country back in 2019 to codify Roe in state statute in Rhode Island.”
So you agree with Alito’s argument in Dobbs that abortion is a state issue then because that is exactly what the thrust of that decision is.
What a moron. I hope she’s not entrusted with any sharp objects.
Please! Let’s not confuse the situation with facts. It’s confusing the Biden’s cabinet members.
Exactly so. States have sovereignty and the more issues they reclaim from Federal overreach the better. If the voters of Rhode Island choose X and the voters of Alabama choose Y on non explicitly Federal issues why are the voters anywhere upset? Granting the Federal Gov’t the power to decide an issue means a loss of State power and the very real possibility that the Feds will at some point use that power in way that offends voters of your State. Far better to have the Feds out of the equation.
1. No, she doesn’t agree with that argument. She maintains (or pretends to) that Roe and Casey were correct, and baby-killing is a constitutional right that no state may infringe.
Nothing prevents a state from legislating to protect a right that the US constitution already protects. Look at how many state constitutions have bills of rights that parallel the federal one exactly, even the clauses that are now accepted as incorporated against the states in the 14th amendment. Or look at the states that have repealed laws that were long-ago struck down as unconstitutional anyway, and thus were already unenforceable.
One purpose of doing so is simply to bring ones laws in line with the constitution. Another is to increase the level of protection; e.g. in many states the state courts have read clauses in the state bill of rights to protect more than the corresponding federal ones do.
This is especially so if a state anticipates that SCOTUS may one day reinterpret the US constitution. Many states anticipated Dobbs by enacting abortion bans that violated existing SCOTUS jurisprudence, and were thus unenforceable, but as soon as Dobbs came down these came immediately into effect. Rhode Island did the opposite, codifying what was at that time already the law, so that when Dobbs came down the law in RI would not change.
The Dems had every opportunity to do this on a federal level, when they had the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Even later when they had fewer than 60 senators, there were enough pro-abortion Republican senators that they could have beaten a filibuster and codified Roe into federal law. They chose not to, and now they regret it.
None of this BS would be necessary if it weren’t for the 17th Amendment. As it is now, both chambers of commerce represent the same constituency. The States have lost their ability to defend their prerogatives from the federal government’s intrusion. The 17th Amendment must be repealed if we’re to have our republic back.
“chamber of commerce”?
Ack. That should be “chambers of Congress.”
Not far from the truth, tho
Repeal of the 17th should be an easy nonpartisan thing to do. Returning the selection of Senators to the State Legislature accomplishes several things that many offers to support:
1. Eliminates 100 Statewide political campaigns
2. Reduces the amount of $ flowing directly into political campaigns
3. Makes further tenure in the Senate contingent upon satisfying the majority of the State Legislature and their constituents
4. Reduces the party factions dynamic of DC to a degree by making Senators accountable not to party bosses/leadership in DC but to that of their State.
5. Increased likelihood of cooperation on real issues in the Senate when State interests align between Blue/Red based other factors at the State level they have in common interest
Lots of folks SAY they want those things but I suspect many won’t go along with repeal of 17A b/c it may reduce their political power. The oligarchy and DC establishment will fight like hell to stop it.
Not at all easy, and not wise.
1. On the contrary, it would turn state legislative campaigns into senate campaigns. It would turn the state legislature into an electoral college for senator, except that unlike the electoral college for president, whose members do nothing but vote for president and then go home, this electoral college would stick around in the state capital and make laws for the state, despite having been elected only on the basis of whom they support for senator. Imagine the presidential electors also being federal legislators, and what a disaster that would be.
2. On the contrary it would increase that amount, because all the money that now goes into senate elections would have to go instead into state legislative races, which would be more expensive.
3. Further tenure in the Senate is already contingent upon satisfying the majority of those constituents. But it depends on satisfying them directly, which is a good thing. However the whole point of a six-year term is to give senators independence. At least early in their term they don’t have to worry about reelection. They don’t even know whether they’ll be seeking reelection. So they can vote as they truly think right, rather than to mollify their voters, whether those are the state legislators or the people directly. (Also, early in the term they don’t even know who the state legislators will be in six years, so they always only had to worry about the state’s voters, just like now.)
4. First of all, change “that of their state” to “those of their state”, and you will see your error. Second, the only sense in which they’re now “accountable” to their party bosses in DC is for committee assignments, and that would be exactly the same no matter how they’re elected. Ditto if you’re talking about party assistance with reelection; if anything that would be even stronger under your proposal, since the party bosses in DC have more pull with their party’s state legislators than with the general public in the state.
5. That’s exactly how it is now, and would not change at all. The state’s interests are no more represented by the state legislators than by the state’s voters themselves.
Both chambers are supposed to represent the same constituency, just in different proportions.
The legislatures are not the states. That’s the founding principle of the whole constitution: that it was established by the people of the united states, rather than by their legislatures as the previous confederation had been.
If they go low…
CNN: Man charged with attempted assassination of Trump at Florida golf course as case is assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon.
So, a real judge has the case, and not an “Obama judge,” or a “Clinton judge,” or a “Bush judge”
So she lies and then, without evidence, accuses Trump of lying.
Wouldn’t you imagine that trump’s people would let it be known that if anything else happens to trump or to his loved ones, then here’s the list of people who will be blinded or otherwise harmed.
They must have an idea where these threats are coming from, and therefore they must have an idea who needs to be notified (quietly) that they’ll …… suffer consequences.
????
Don’t be silly. That would be illegal.
It is people like her that drive the violent attack against people that have other views. These people are almost always Democrat and hard Left.
Socialist-Progressives verging on Marxist
Letting the mask slip. They’ve always been Marxists.
Much of what’s going on today is Marxism filtered through Marcuse.
“Raimondo said, “Yes, absolutely vote him out. Banish him from American politics. Yes just vote him out so he goes away.””
Banish him? What, send him to internal exile, no longer permit him to have any voice on American politics?
The Left’s totalitarian mask is off.
The Left’s totalitarian mask is off.
That became abundantly evident with covidiocy.
We are now engaged in a true battle of good vs. evil. These modern Democrats are genuine totalitarian Communists, who will say or do ANYTHING to remain in power.
Ya’ll should be hoping and praying that nothing happens to that guy.
The results would be catastrophic.
The assassination attempts against Trump were not loan actors nor were the security holes left for them to exploit any sort of accident. No lying communist will ever have a chance of convincing me otherwise. They decided they can’t beat him electorally, so kill him.
If the explosion occurs, it will be squarely attributable to Democratic incitement to violence. The hatred is inexcusable.
Women have been “protected” for a long, long time. There are rubbers, birth control pills, IUDs, ABSTINENCE, and a bunch of other readily-available methods of “protection”, not to mention OTC RU-486 (for the really irresponsible women) …
“Protection”.
Babies, according to these soulless ghouls, deserve not only no protection but can be blithely snuffed out of existence at any moment on the whim of a hormone-addled (likely, anti-depressant gobbling) mother who feels that her social life is about to be negatively impacted by her own decisions and actions.
How is that not a death threat? Why isn’t she required to retract her remark and apologize immediately?
Because the Left can threaten death, and possibly inflict death, on anyone not a Leftist with no fear of consequences. I fear that soon we will be having our own Jose Calvo Sotelo moment.
Subotai Bahadur
It’s not a threat. Considered on its own it’s completely acceptable language; politics has always used the language of violence, and all such language when used in the context of politics is understood to be metaphorical.
I mean, the very word “campaign” is violent. If taken literally it would be a threat of violence, and yet it never occurs to anyone to object to it.
What’s different now is that the Democrats have decided to hold Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, to a different and ridiculous standard. As far as I know they haven’t yet dinged him for “campaigning”, probably because they’re so ignorant they don’t even know its literal meaning, but when he can’t say so much as “fight” without being accused of inciting violence we have a new standard in place.
And since they are applying this ridiculous standard to us, it is completely fair for us to apply it to them, and they are morally estopped from complaining about it. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So yes, go after them every time they say something that would be completely normal for a normal politician, but that they don’t let us say any more.
Somehow, this should be prohibited under the Hatch Act, but I don’t know how it applies to cabinet Sexataries
That’s exactly why she made sure to explicitly say she was appearing in her personal capacity, not her official one.
And if the network fails to add that to the sound bite…. par for the course. At least not quite as bad as editing such as NBC with Zimmerman 911 call.
They don’t have to add it. She said it, and that’s sufficient.
they what if this and what if that
what if the voters shut you out!!!
I am fascinated by the language that is used. The corrective suggestion by Mika Brzezinski was “…you mean vote him out?”. Friendly note to the media, DJT is not in so you can’t vote him out. In contrast, you can vote Harris out.
I think this is all in support of a most remarkable feat of political acrobatics where Harris, the incumbent VP, is positioning herself as the change agent and portraying DJT as representing all that is wrong with the current situation.
Wasn’t she that retard that had State Troopers blocking I95 during Covid to keep people out of the state? Yeah, that was her.
If she meant “vote Trump out” then why didn’t she say that?
If those two now mean the same thing, then I guess it’s OK for Trump to advocate that Harris be “extinguished.”
She did say it. That’s what “extinguish” means in this context, and it’s completely obvious Just as it was completely obvious what Trump meant when he told us to “fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”.
And just as it’s completely obvious that when candidates on both sides say they’re going “campaigning” somewhere, nobody worries that they’ll be killed, or their homes will be destroyed, or anything else that happens on an actual campaign.
The issue is that Democrats can’t impose a ridiculous hyper-literal interpretation on Republicans’ words, and then expect not to get the same treatment.
There is the implied suggestion versus the personal comment. One person’s stochastic terrorism is just another’s comment. The benefit of the doubt depends on intangibles.
Then just saying “Harris should be extinguished” with no context at all would be ambiguous and shouldn’t lead to the FBI or USSS showing up at your home? It’s obviously not a direct threat, but federal agents arrive at citizens’ doorsteps for less.
The context within which this language rests is an atmosphere that has been explicitly defined by the Dems as a situation that requires preventing Trump’s reelection by any means, including means beyond merely voting. They’ve already attempted alternatives to balloting (ongoing lawfare and two impeachment attempts). So it’s not obvious that “extinguishing” Trump is strictly within the context of “voting.”
Even saying outright that Harris should be murdered is protected speech. If you say it the Secret Service will pay you a visit, but they know better than to violate your rights while doing so. The purpose of the visit will only be to make sure you aren’t planning to actually murder her yourself, and on being assured that you aren’t, you just think someone ought to, they’ll go away. Not because they’re such champions of the first amendment but because they know if they don’t you’ll sue them and they’ll lose.
Secretary Gina Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Raimondo
Leave a Comment