Sen. Chris Murphy Trashes Trump in Spain: ‘Most Significant Threat Since Civil War’
“He is trying to seize control of our courts, of our law enforcement, of our media, of our elections. His goal is oligarchic capture”
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) was in Spain this weekend for some reason, trashing the United States as being in the midst of a crisis, claiming that Trump is trying to take over our democracy, calling him a totalitarian, and on and on.
Murphy reminds me a lot of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Like Warren, Murphy has not dialed down his insane anti-Trump rhetoric below eleven even once since the 2024 election. It makes me think he is planning a 2028 run for president, not because he thinks he can win, but because he wants a position in the next Democrat administration, or a job in media.
This performance, and it is a performance, is a total disgrace.
🚨 JUST NOW: Sitting US Senator just went OVERSEAS and TRASHED America, bad-mouthed our president as a tyrant
"Donald Trump is trying to end our democracy. He's trying to seize control!"
"Most significant threat since Civil War!"
RESIGN, CHRIS MURPHY!pic.twitter.com/WZfxiTblZd
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 18, 2026
Murphy is also pushing progressivism. Apparently, he missed Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent speech on why this philosophy is incompatible with America as it was founded.
He is rallying the troops.
The Hill reports:
Murphy tells US, world progressives to take ‘lessons’ from Hungary elections
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Saturday urged progressives in the U.S. and around the world to “learn from each other”, saying the defeat of former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary can offer a roadmap for rebuilding democracy.
Murphy told the crowd at the inaugural Global Progressive Mobilization conference in Barcelona that the U.S. faced “the most significant threat” to democratic institutions since the Civil War, and Americans were “watching the courage of the defenders of democracy” in Hungary and other parts of Europe…
He called on progressives to unite to counter right-wing populism across the globe, pointing to AfD party in Germany, far-right National Rally leader Marine Le Pen in France, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, Orbán and Trump.
“They learn from each other. They copy one another’s tactics of democratic destruction, and they count on us to be divided, to argue over purity tests while they dismantle our freedom,” he said. “But to beat them, we must learn from each other too.”
See below:
I am in Barcelona today to help unite progressive parties from around the world in a defense of democracy and a war against corruption. A first of its kind event. Necessary to beat back the forces of fascism. pic.twitter.com/kn3d93qGeM
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) April 18, 2026
Murphy voted for a Connecticut measure requiring photo ID to recycle aluminum cans, but opposes voter ID for elections.
Tell me more about your devotion to our democracy, Mr. Senator.
Featured image via Twitter/X video.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This should be against the law
A sitting politician of the US dissing its commander
Hang him high
Of course Spain, where Al commie Muslim go for handouts
I forgot to add.. in a foreign country of course
Another call for the First Amendment to suffer death by thousands of cuts.
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, or whether you agree with this ill-advised attack against Iran. It has everything to do with treasonous speech of an elected politico in an unfriendly foreign country during wartime in order to trash our CiC and demoralize our troops who are in harms way (some gave all).
In a just world, this treasonous pig would be arrested upon his arrival back to the USA, then chained in GitMo awaiting punishment for treason (he will give all).
It has everything to do with the First Amendment. The OP said Murphy’s words should be against the law. What part of “being against the law” is not an attack on the First Amendment?
First, his words were not, by definition, “treasonous.” He is an idiot, but he is still entitled to say idiotic things.
We shall agree to disagree because ‘prosecutorial discretion’.
No, we shall not, because that’s irrelevant. US prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute a case that they could lawfully prosecute; they don’t have the discretion to prosecute a case they can’t lawfully prosecute, such as this.
The Constitution of the USA doesn’t hold sway in Spain. Sen Murphy would retrain his 1A right to spout off while in the USA. Setting a distinction between what someone does/writes/says outside the USA and within the USA doesn’t strike me as entirely unreasonable. We used to have this principle upheld via social pressure/willing conformity back when we had a high trust society. Unfortunately when people refuse to behave responsibly voluntarily then other measures must be adopted…usually through statutes but sometimes through extra legal actions. Personally I’d prefer statutes but…
The OP didn’t say he should be prosecuted under Spanish law. He wants him prosecuted under US law. The First Amendment protects the speech of American citizens.
It seems totally unreasonable to me. The right of “free speech” extends to the person, not the the location in a public sphere.
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Justice Robert H. Jackson (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943)
And….
“[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.” (Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 322 U. S. 673-674 (1944)).
Murphy’s words were idiotic and wrong, but he still has the legal right to say them.
Under my hypothetical Sen Murphy could say whatever he wants without restrictions in the USA but may face restriction/limitation outside the USA. That’s pretty consistent with logic of the long-standing 1A restrictions centered on Time, Place, Manner.
“Time, place and manner” restrictions apply when speaking in a limited public forum, or non-public forum.
In a public forum, such as where Murphy spoke, there are no “time, place and manner” restrictions.
Even if there were, you are not talking about “time, place and manner” restrictions. You are talking about restrictions on the content of Murphy’s speech.
Content restrictions are a whole different ballgame. None of the restrictions for content (such as obscenity, slander, imminent incitement to violence, etc,) apply to what Murphy said.
We allow/disallow, restrict content of speech all the time for all sorts of things outside that narrow criteria you constructed. A ten year old can’t buy a Playboy. A 17 year old can’t go into an X rated movie. Broadcast content on both TV/Radio is censored between 6AM and 10PM.
Tell you what, you try and apply Baumgartner when you stroll into SCOTUS and set-up your camera and equipment for a live stream and they drag your butt out of there. Not very ‘moderate’ of the Judiciary to prevent simple live video broadcast that in and of itself doesn’t interrupt the proceedings.
Furthermore, both your citations ignore the parameters of the hypothetical; the distinction between outside and inside the USA. There’s no restriction on the content of speech or who can what….only a restriction on the location…and restrictions on ‘place’ have long since passed Constitutional muster.
Chief, that’s ridiculous.
“Time place and manner” restrictions must be strictly content neutral and value neutral. The moment you distinguish between speech that is supportive of the USA and speech that is critical of it, you have breached that and violated the first amendment.
Time place and manner restrictions simply means the government can say that you can’t use a bullhorn to express your opinions on a residential street at 2 in the morning, regardless of what those opinions are. But it can’t make any exceptions for content it approves of.
Nah y’all keep missing/deliberately sidestepping the fact that there’s no restriction on CONTENT of speech. The restriction in my hypothetical turns upon the location/place of the speech as well as in a public v private forum. For the hypothetical to apply the first test is was it made publicly? If not that’s it. If so where was it made? If outside the USA only then do we move on to the content of the speech.
IOW the content however disagreeable isn’t the issue the issue is location and if made publicly and within the USA the restrictions ain’t applicable. There’s simply a ‘lag time’/slight delay of someone making the same speech, expressing the same comments but waiting until they return to the USA.
If Judiciary can deny the ‘press’ live broadcast AND the ability of the public to consume the live broadcast of public court proceedings I don’t think this is much of an extension of that principle. Same lag effect for broadcast TV/Radio from 06AM to 10 PM which also delays the content speech of the broadcaster and the ability of the consumer to see/hear that content.
If y’all wanna go to the mat for 1A then start with ability of individuals/companies to freely choose to associate or refuse that affiliation for any reason or no reason at all other they feel like it today. Then move to protect the ability of Citizens to see/hear all public Gov’t proceedings especially Judicial proceedings in real time. Secure those then get back to us and we can start in on basic things like 2A rights uniformity across State lines based on both 2A plain text/meaning + Bruen standard and full faith/credit clause. If that clause applies to a privilege DL it sure as heck applies to explicit Constitutional 2A right. Then we can come back to discuss in more seriousness whether a slight delay based on location of speech is ‘censorship’ when the same content faces zero delay within the USA.
No, Chief, you are completely misrepresenting what “time place and manner” is about. No US government entity can regulate where a person says something. What it can regulate is whether you can say anything at all in a particular place, time, and manner. I.e. it can say that you can’t say anything on a residential street, at 75 decibels, at 2:00 in the morning. The moment it allows you to say the most innocuous thing in that time, at that place, and in that manner, it must allow you to say the most offensive thing as well.
So unless you want it to be illegal for US citizens to open their mouths in another country, even to ask directions to the train station, or to say “My hovercraft is full of eels”, your proposal doesn’t work.
Further, even such a restriction would fail, since there is no way to justify it. Time place and manner restrictions must be reasonable, they can’t just be because the government feels like making them.
But you’re not proposing that anyway. What you’re proposing is explicitly content based, and value based. When in Spain you can hail a taxi, you can discuss the weather, you can discuss Spanish politics, and you can even say nice things about the USA, but the moment you “bad-mouth” the USA it becomes a crime. That’s the very definition of content based restrictions, which are absolutely forbidden.
As for televising court proceedings, there is no right to do so in the first place. A courtroom is private property, and the owner can forbid photography and recording, just as you can in your own office. The first amendment doesn’t enter into it.
The magazine itself is protected by the First Amendment. In other words, it is not the purchase that is protected, but the publication itself.
You’re 0 for 1.
Once again, it is the publication / making of the movie that is protected under the First Amendment. It is not the purchase of a ticket that is protected, but the making and selling of the movie that is protected.
You’re 0 fer 2.
The public airwaves belong to the state and are a limited forum under which time, place and manner restrictions can apply. The Public Telecommunications Act of 1992 does not ban or restrict content on all platforms. For example, cable television, pay radio, satellite radio, streaming apps are not restricted. The law established a “safe haven” for parents and children which the DC District Court was not a violation of the First Amendment due to the widespread availability of other outlets.
You’re 0 fer 3.
That’s a strike out.
There are courts today that prevent recording for the precise reason that people play to the camera(s) and do interfere with the proceedings. There is history on that front.
However, courts and courtrooms are not public forums and “time, place and manner” restrictions can apply. Given the history of cameras in courtrooms, the government has a legitimate reason to not allow cameras in courts. However, banning a camera is not reliant on the content of what the camera would record / broadcast. In other words, the camera is not allowed for what the prosecution and the defense says. The Courts do not allow for the what the prosecution to be broadcast but the defense not be broadcast. That would be a restriction based on the content of what is being broadcast. Such a biased restriction is unConstututional.
Yet that biased restriction is exactly what you want to apply to Murphy’s speech. He is anti-Trump but you would allow his speech if he were pro-Trump. That’s a content based restriction.
Because First Amendment rights travel with the person.
Murphy was speaking at a private event that was open to the public – in Spain no less. You really think that the US can regulate speech in a foreign country?
Still, even if one buys into your hypothetical (which has been proven to be ludicrous) you are still wanting the government to make it a crime for what Murphy said not where he said it,
The fact of the matter is that if Murphy was at the Democratic National Convention or out in the middle of a public park, his speech and its content would be protected under the First Amendment.
‘A courtroom is PRIVATE property’? Nah man that’s insane. it is 100% public property paid for and owned by taxpaying Citizens. Though I now begin to see where some of your positions may come from… An opinion or philosophical belief that we should/do have overlords.
We don’t have a feudal system where the Courts are established, maintained by local Lordlings, where an over class dispenses ‘Justice’ upon the ‘lesser folk/little people’. Any sort of misguided notion about actual power of a neo clerisy and those who advocate for such should be very well advised to understand the practical limitations of the Judiciary; they have zero independent ability to enforce any ruling, they rely upon the Executive branch to supply armed agents to enforce their writ and even then upon the willingness of the general public to respect the Judiciary enough not to interfere and ‘nullify’ it.
Sadly the Institutional arrogance of the Judiciary and their defenders is bringing us closer to the day when the public loses respect for the CT and will rediscover their power to simply ignore and if necessary actively defy inane CT decrees.
That would be doubly unconstitutional. It would violate not only the first amendment, but also congressional immunity.
The USA’s president is not its commander. The USA has no commander, and its citizens, particularly its elected officials, have no duty whatsoever to respect the president.
That makes no difference. The constitution governs US law. You can’t prosecute someone in a US court for their speech, no matter what they said or where they said it, and you also can’t prosecute a congressman for his speech, even in cases where the freedom speech doesn’t apply, such as defamation.
In calling it treason you’re defying the constitution yet a third time. The constitution carefully defines treason, and this is not it. It makes no difference where he speaks, or when. Treason consists only in making war on the USA, which Murphy isn’t, or in adhering to the USA’s enemies, which he didn’t, and even if he had he would have to have demonstrated that adherence by an overt act in front of witnesses.
It holds sway in the USA, which is where any trial would have to take place. It also applies (as far as US law is concerned) to all US citizens and residents, no matter where they are. The only sense in which it “doesn’t hold sway” in Spain is that the US government can legally ignore the rights of non-resident aliens who are in Spain. And of course in the sense that it has no authority over Spanish courts, which can do whatever Spanish law allows them.
Long-standing Time, Place and Manner restrictions would disagree with your suggestion that the 1A is unlimited. This hypothetical restriction on speech outside the USA is a variant of that. Agree on goofy claims about ‘treason’. Frankly the speech and debate clause seems straight forward and self limiting though the Judiciary has (yet again) expanded it beyond the plain text/original meaning; narrow legislative process action committee work, drafting legislation, ‘speech/debate on floor/committee. It doesn’t, IMO, serve as an unlimited shield outside clear legislative purposes. Visiting a Foreign Nation to trash the USA doesn’t IMO meet the threshold of ‘legislative purpose’ b/c there’s no direct nexus only tenuous, distant claims of a nexus.
This happened in Spain in a public forum.
“Time, place and manner” restrictions apply within the area of the United States – not a foreign country,
Even so, assume that Murphy had spoken in glorious, glowing terms of the United States and called the President a “wonderful leader and a man of integrity.” Would you bar him from saying that?
I am pretty sure you would not.
Therefore what you are advocating for is a restriction on the content of Murphy’s speech.
Even under your flawed theory of “time, place and manner” restrictions, those restrictions must be content neutral. They cannot restrict one viewpoint and allow another which is what you appear to be wanting to do.
Murphy is an idiot. Even idiots enjoy rights.
Your restatement of my ‘theory’ is flawed. It would simply be a statutory application of the long-standing tradition of ‘politics stops at the waters edge’. It would apply equally and in a neutral manner to anyone of any political bent ‘bad mouthing’ the USA whether that be a d/prog trashing Trump or a GoP bashing some future d/prog POTUS for public consumption while outside the USA.
FWIW I simply made the argument as a hypothetical. Better yet bring back dueling (which existed and helped regulate conduct long after the founding) and let people make whatever claims they wish so long as they are willing to either accept a challenge and put the courage of their convictions to the test or climb down off their high horse and apologize.
That was a political opinion that only ever existed from 1947 to some time in the 1990s, and was never fully agreed to even then. All it really meant was that for several decades the two major parties had the same foreign policy.
And right there you have admitted that it would NOT be neutral or equal. It would be a restriction on the content of speech, since it would only apply to “bad-mouthing” the USA and not to “good-mouthing” it. That is a blatant violation of the first amendment.
As for your facetious suggestion about duelling, duelling was never legal. It was always a crime to engage in a duel, and it was always morally repugnant. All a duel proved was whether someone had physical courage and was willing to take a small but real risk with his life, rather than be called a coward.
But physical courage is not a moral virtue, nor is physical cowardice a moral vice. A person who is willing to put himself in danger is not therefore more likely to be right. The whole concept is ridiculous. It’s all based on the corrupt and degenerate “honor” culture of the Scots-Irish, the Zulus, and other such tribes.
Anyway, the reason dueling disappeared is because the risk became substantial. Dueling only worked when the actual risk of death was minimal, because pistols were unreliable and inaccurate. Most of the time you fired a pistol at someone it would either not go off, or you would miss. Actually dying in a duel was rare. Around the 1840s that changed, and too many people were dying, so it lost all its popularity.
Nah cuz that’s inaccurate about dueling. Show me the timeline for every State statute where dueling became explicitly prohibited. Then show me the timeline for when Sheriffs used discretion to avoid meddling into private duels. Then show me the timeline for when juries stopped nullifying and started convicting.
If you make a deliberately offensive remark and don’t wish to duel you can simply withdraw the remark and apologize (moral courage). If not then stand up with pistols at dawn (physical courage). Failing both of those…. go hide b/c you’ve demonstrated your lack of both moral and physical courage and IMO should be driven from society, shunned and shamed, unfit for any place in society. Go be a hermit.
Again, Chief, duelling was always illegal. That people ignored the law, and authorities refused to enforce it, just means they were corrupt.
And no, if you make a deliberately offensive but well-deserved remark why on earth should I withdraw it and apologize just because you’ve made a criminal threat against me? How is that different from you threatening to burn down my house or beat up my child? How does withdrawing it show moral courage? It doesn’t.
Willingness to risk my life, even a little bit, just shows foolhardy stupidity, aka “physical courage” which is of no moral value whatsoever. It’s just the strong dictating to the weak, and pretending that their might makes them right. But they gave all that up when the risk became substantial; even they weren’t willing to take a real risk. As soon as pistols became reliable and accurate, dueling disappeared.
If not then stand up with pistols at dawn (physical courage).
In the context of slander/libel/defamation there’s a few alternatives to address it.
1. Only bring factually supported claims and if you can’t support the claim make an immediate retraction.
1A or get sued into oblivion b/c the burden of proof should be transferred to the person making the claim.
If true then there’s no issue. However, it untrue you should face severe sanctions and consequences for inflicting reputational damage based on zero evidence.
If we can’t have a straightforward legal process under the procedural flip of burden of proof I described and in reality the Judiciary has moved to make civil suits practically impossible then we’re left with extra Judicial means to impose consequences.
In that context dueling seems much the best option b/c there’s still a regulated formal process v mayhem. There’s a cooling off period, opportunities to rethink and withdraw the unsupported claim and apologize before the shots are fired. Your assertion about strong v weak is blatantly false. Modern firearms don’t favor the ‘strong’ they favor the physically weaker of the parties out them on an equal level in terms of ability to inflict damage/death.
Since you don’t like those options were left with mayhem. So no crying when there’s a drive by and third parties are endangered. No crying if someone gets taken off the street into a van, shived into the basement to be tortured to death. No crying about someone getting curb stomped. You rejected any formalized process to protect and defend reputation damage from unsupported claims.
Dueling wasn’t ‘always illegal’ in the USA. Even in States where it eventually became illegal after founding it wasn’t treated as 1st degree Capital Murder. Heck it was usually punished if at all by a fine and a prohibition on serving as a Public Official if you had participated in a duel within five years. Most places wouldn’t even arrest much less convict participants until well after the Civil War….and that’s with increased criminal penalty to 2nd degree Murder.
You probably call me paranoid for my comment on a civil war, but Murphy proves my point. The left is at war with the USA. His speech sounds like a call for foreign intervention in our government leadership.
Stay there, Murphy, you’ll love it. Especially all your new diverse neighbors.
Senator Chris Murphy is a moron.
I’m no proctologist, but in Murphy’s picture, he certainly looks like a horse’s a$$
I wonder if Senator Murphy is in Spain on the taxpayer’s dime, and if so, why? Same for Tim Walz dissing President Trump in another country in the past few days. Why are they there?
Murphy and Walz are in Spain for this political conference. Attending conferences like this is part of their jobs. Usually their travel and expenses are paid for by some private organization or think tank, or by the conference organizers. If they were invited to speak, the conference is likely to be paying for them to attend. The exact sponsor must be named in Murphy’s filing with the senate ethics committee, but that filing has not yet been published. It will likely be published in the next month or two.
It’s almost always projection with this drooling far-left lunatic. This statement describes Murphy to a tee: “He is trying to seize control of our courts, of our law enforcement, of our media, of our elections.”
The Congressional delegation from Connecticut has got to be one of the worst, right along side of Massachusetts.
The man is mentally ill. He picked the right foreign country to go too.
To too, A simple sentence. JFC
Workin’ on it.
Look up “typographical error.”
How do you say “wokester” in Spanish?
I’d say chiflado or desquiciado
No American should trash the US its president privately let alone publicly overseas. This goes triple for any elected American official. Murphey should be kicked out of the senate, arrested and executed for treason. (STFU Milhouse), He won’t be. He’ll be lauded by the insurrectionist democratic party. He wants to be president. F him.
If stupidity had a military rank, Murphy would be a 20-star general.
In a free, high-trust society, he’d be washing windshields at stoplights and begging for nickels.
Crone Clinton did the exact same thing, bashing the U.S. and its GOP president, in a foreign country. In this case, the crone was in India, boasting that the states that she had won were wealthier, better-educated, and, of course, non-racist.
It’s a wretched Dhimmi-crat tradition, at this point. Greasy Newsolini did his shuck-and-jive act in Davos, a few weeks ago.
The southeastern U.S. is destroying European-based manufacturing, as more and more European companies expand manufacturing in the U.S., and divert capital investment from Europe, to the American south. It turns out that the CEOs and CFOs of European companies prefer to deploy capital into areas that feature supportive governments, hard-working workforces, and cheap, plentiful energy/electricity; who knew?
Is it just me or is it weird no one tries to Charlie Kirk Democrats?
the newspapers, TV, and the webnuts would be all over the poor guy immediately demanding that one of the “agencies” Epstein the guy before trial
The left pretty much OWNS political violence today.
It has been their nature since the French Revolution.
It is not weird at all. Republicans and conservatives try to debate with the Democrats, not murder them.
Murphy is a certifiable loon, a crackpot. Nice job Connecticut!
It’s not a question of his sanity, but of his malevolence. He is evil, and hates the country.
So much for “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Democrats are setting fire to all the norms and standards of behavior that keep a republic from tearing apart.
That maxim only existed from 1947 to about 2000.
Murphy’s been smokin’ somethin’ again
Umm. What was the threat of the Civil War? One side wanted to leave. The other side didn’t want them to. It wasn’t like the South was waging a war of conquest or anything.
‘His (Trump) goal is oligarchic capture’
Bruh… project much? That’s exactly what the dadgum
DC establishment/Acela corridor cabal has been doing for decades. There’s quite the song about it; ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’.
Right. An election in which a conservative party with a significant corruption problem was defeated by an equally conservative party that managed to present itself as a clean alternative. If there are any Progressives left in Hungarian politics they didn’t get a look in.
Agreed. It’s amazing how many people misread what occurred in Hungary. The leftists here, in legacy media and obviously in the EU fixated on Orban similar to how TDS puts their attention on Trump.
Murphy thinks he is more than what he actually is in real life. He is not a leader or a statesman. He is a minor politician from the failed state of Connecticut. He has delusions of grandeur. He belongs to the party of the kkk, Jim Crow, Bull Connor, George Wallace, LBJ. His party started the civil war. His party is responsible for the destruction of the black family. His party lied to get us in to a war in Vietnam. He is a steaming pile of excrement.
Simple. He’s nothing but a braying jackass.
Murphy is the start-up for the Democrats’ campaign against Trump on foreign ground, which is idiotic: the EU already hates Trump. At least Murphy is spreading his manure over there and giving us at home a little break.
Scraggly-bearded Connecticut bohemian Chris “Siss” Murphy’s is trying to show that new young side-piece he left his wife and kids for how Che Gueverra-edgy he can be with the neo-commie hype about “Our Precious Democracy!(TM)” being all destroyed and stuff by the Agent Orange Man. “Worse than the Civil War,” the Gucci-loafered street-fighting man bellows at the commie Spaniards, like they’re really interested. Does Murphy make any sound at all when squats to pee in the woods?
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
– Napoleon
It sounds as if he’s promoting insurrection, which would be impeachable if Congressmen could be impeached. I do think it should be cause to expel him, or at least censure. He’s doing this in a foreign country, which could be treasonous. He’s certainly not representative of our citizenship—-yet.
No, he’s not advocating insurrection, he’s denouncing the president, and advocating winning elections. That’s not in any way impeachable even for officers who can be impeached.
And no, it could not be treasonous. Even advocating actual insurrection would not be treasonous, and would be protected by the first amendment as well as by congressional immunity. The location is irrelevant to a treason charge.
Expelling him would take 2/3 of the senate, which is a complete non-starter.
Let’s not forget that President Trump is himself a virtuoso od the political use of craziness. I think he is taunting them with outrageous comments in order to ignite a similar culture of competitive craziness on the Left that will soon reach levels of insanity that eventually will painfully penetrate the armor of fatalistic apathy that has anesthetized the mainstream. The “craze off” is just getting started. It will be quite the show!