- Trump thinks Portland OR is ravaged by war, and presumably some of his followers believe him;
- Another example of threatened violence from the right;
- Trump is out for revenge, obviously;
- How Trump simply defines people who don’t like MAGA policies as being the radical left;
- And some NYT analysis of Charlie Kirk’s “debating” style.
CNN, 27 Sept 2025: Trump says he’s sending troops to Portland to protect ICE facilities
President Donald Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, a city he described as “war ravaged,” to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities he claimed are “under siege” by Antifa and “other domestic terrorists.”
“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
The White House did not provide additional comment when reached by CNN for clarification on what the president meant by “full force” and which troops would be sent to the city. In a statement Saturday, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claimed the action is being taken after “weeks of violent riots at ICE facilities” and attacks against law enforcement.
From the point of view of the cities being invaded by ICE, of course, it is ICE — an actual organization (unlike “antifa”) with an enormous budget — that is causing the problems in otherwise peaceful parts of our nation.
\\
Politico, 2 Sept 2025: Trump says he is authorizing military to use ‘Full Force’ in Portland
He’s not explaining what that means. Perhaps gunning people down in the street if ICE feels like it, the same way they are now throwing people to the ground, huddling them into unmarked white vans, and disappearing them?
American ideals are better than this. But many actual Americans are not.
Reel seen on Facebook: a couple in MAGA hats asked why they support Trump. “Because we hate criminals and immigrants!”
\
Once more, from the right:
JMG, 27 Sept 2025: Texas Man Charged With Threat To Shoot Up Abilene Pride Parade: “Come On Bro, Let’s Go Hunting Fairies”
\\\
Of course it’s about revenge. He keeps saying so! And all of his targets are political rivals.
NY Times, news analysis by Tyler Pager, 26 Sept 2025: Trump Says He’s Out for Justice, Not Revenge. His Words Suggest Otherwise., subtitled “President Trump has made clear that he expects the Justice Department to mete out punishment to his perceived enemies.”
\\\
How does the right know that all the problems they don’t like are caused by the radical left? They just define it that way:
Ken Klippenstein, 27 Sept 2025: Trump’s NSPM-7 Labels Common Beliefs As Terrorism “Indicators”, subtitled: “New directive targets ‘anti-Christian,’ ‘anti-American,’ and ‘anti-capitalism’ opinions”
Not an executive order.
With the mainstream media distracted by the made-for-TV drama of James Comey’s indictment, Trump has signed a little-noticed national security directive identifying “anti-Christian” and “anti-American” views as indicators of radical left violence. Called National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, it’s being referred to as “NSPM-7” by administration insiders.
With a list of “indica” (indicators) of violence, basically everything the far right-wing objects to. I won’t quote it.
\\\
One more this afternoon, which maybe I will quote a bit.
NY Times, Ken Bensinger and Charlie Smart, 27 Sept 2025: The Debate Style That Propelled Charlie Kirk’s Movement
Charlie Kirk may be best remembered for arguing in public.
A cornerstone of Mr. Kirk’s devoted conservative following was his twice-yearly tours of universities around the country. For hours, he would cheerfully perch on a folding chair and challenge students and the public to, as he called it, “Prove Me Wrong.”
By tackling hot-button issues like abortion and trans rights, Mr. Kirk created content that became perfect fodder for brand-building on social media. Curated clips highlighting his wins, promoted with captions describing him as “destroying” liberals, have racked up tens of millions of views on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram.
Since his assassination, Mr. Kirk has been lionized, mostly by those on the right but also by some who did not share his views, as a champion of free speech and an interrogator of viewpoints that spanned the political spectrum.
The New York Times reviewed more than four dozen of Mr. Kirk’s debates, stretching back to 2017, and discussed them with four debate coaches and university professors.
The Times review — which examined content, tone, techniques and other hallmarks of each confrontation — reveals how Mr. Kirk used the debate format to deliver a consistent hard-line message while orchestrating highly shareable moments.
This genre of debate, which Mr. Kirk helped pioneer, is now a template that other social media personalities across the political spectrum have increasingly adopted. Here’s a look at how Mr. Kirk constructed his viral confrontations.
Which is to say, his were not traditional debates, nor were they arguments in good faith. I’ve shared a gift link. For now I’ll quote the section headlines — which are based on specific events — and try to resist the temptation to quote.
- Hyperbole and go-to quips
- Engaging — and subduing — the audience
- Nazi analogies and playing to the crowd
- Citing statistics with confidence (whether true or not)
- Unprovable generalizations
- Debate skills honed over time
As with the autism issue discussed yesterday, these are not honest debates, or issues. They are situations in which one side, the conservative side, has a determined conclusion, and looks for any argument or rhetorical strategy to support it, while using the entire assortment of rhetorical fallacies — ad hominin, etc etc — to discredit the opposition and play to the audience. This is motivated thinking, one of the most common psychological fallacies.
That so many people admired him is an indictment of human nature, as I’ve said; its tendency toward group thinking, authoritarian thinking, and its inability to acknowledge reality as it is.
And — clicking out to the very big picture — this may very well work as a strategy to preserve the human race. Except when it comes to existential crises that these debate tactics cannot deal with. There is always this balance.
