Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Dan Patrick Admits That the Fight With Cities is Partisan

“The only place Democrats have control of is our cities, and they’re doing a terrible job.”

By Comments

Photograph by LM Otero/AP Photo

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick dropped the façade Friday. It turns out that the Texas Republican leadership’s war on cities is not just about local taxes, anti-discrimination policies, or sanctuary cities. These policy battles are a partisan fight to erase the last bastion of Democratic control—the big cities of Texas.

On Varney & Co., a week-day talk show on the Fox Business Network, Patrick touted the national gains Republicans made in state legislatures and governor’s offices during the Obama administration. “During Obama’s reign, almost a thousand Democrats were defeated running for the local state Houses and state Senate and governors and lieutenant governors. In fact, out of the 45 lieutenant governors, which I am one of, of course, 32 are Republicans,” Patrick said. “We own the turf state by state, and Texas leads the way. We set the conservative example that other states follow.”

Then, answering an unrelated question from host Stuart Varney, Patrick cast the policy debates between the states and the cities as a partisan fight between Republicans and Democrats:

“People are happy with their governments at the state level. They’re not with their cities. By the way, Stuart, there’s something going on that you really need to focus on. And that is, our cities are still controlled by Democrats. Where do we have all our problems in America? Not at the state level, run by Republicans, but in our cities that are mostly controlled by Democrat mayors and Democrat city councilmen and women. That’s where you see liberal policies, that’s where you see high taxes, where you see high street crimes. Look at New York, look at Chicago, look at…go around the country. So the only place Democrats have control of is our cities and they’re doing a terrible job.”

Varney engaged Patrick briefly in a discussion of President Trump’s immigration policies, but again Patrick brought the issue back around to Democratic mayors. “We passed an end to sanctuary cities in Texas. And again, we’re being sued by Democrat mayors in Texas,” he said. “. . . We have to stop sanctuary cities, secure the borders, and make America great again by having people come over who want to be part of us.”

The crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, was passed by the Legislature in regular session and will take effect September 1. The law will punish local law enforcement officials who do not fully cooperate with federal immigration requests, while also giving local law enforcement officers the power to ask people they stop to prove their citizenship. So far, the cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio have joined a federal lawsuit filed May 8 by the border town of El Cenizo and the League of United Latin American Citizens, to block the law from taking effect. Although not a party in the lawsuit, the Mexican government also filed a sworn statement with the court asking that the law be blocked.

Still, sanctuary cities are far from the only local defiance the Lege wants to squash. In the current special legislative session, Governor Greg Abbott prioritized several bills to crack down on local government policies, from restricting tax increases and annexation of land in extraterritorial jurisdictions to overriding local ordinances on the cutting of trees. Shortly before the session began, Abbott appeared at a Bell County function and described Austin and Travis County as opponents of freedom. “As you leave Austin and start heading north, you start feeling different,” Abbott said, according to the Austin American-Statesman. “Once you cross the Travis County line, it starts smelling different. And you know what that fragrance is? Freedom. It’s the smell of freedom that does not exist in Austin, Texas.”

Although Abbott has never explicitly stated his intentions to defang local government, the discord between the governor and city leaders hasn’t gone unnoticed. Seventeen mayors sent Abbott a letter last month asking for a meeting on the issues he was putting before the Legislature:

Recent reports project that the largest cities in our state will increase in population by at least 50 percent over the next 25 years. People are moving to Texas cities because we are home to strong job markets and places where they want to live and raise their families. To prepare for this rapid growth, we must continue to have the tools to manage our budgets, improve infrastructure, provide critical services like public safety and pass policies reflective of local resident priorities. Harmful proposals such as revenue and spending caps, limiting annexation authority and other measures preempting local development ordinances directly harm our ability to plan for future growth and continue to serve as the economic engines of Texas.

Earlier this week, Abbott met with Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, Arlington Mayor Jeff Williams, Frisco Mayor Jeff Cheney, Irving Mayor Rick Stopfer, McKinney Mayor George Fuller, and Sugar Land Mayor Joe Zimmerman. Most mayors in Texas are chosen in non-partisan elections, but Price, Williams, Cheney, Fuller, and Zimmerman have past histories as Republicans.

The suburban mayors who met with Abbott told the Dallas Morning News they tried to convince the governor against pursuing a “one-size-fits-all solution.” Mayor Cheney, of Frisco, said his city analysis of the Abbott-Patrick tax plan showed that it actually would have caused the city to have higher taxes over a ten-year period, while Zimmerman, of Sugar Land, said there’s no way to have property tax reform without overhauling the public school finance system. The Republican cities were told by Abbott that a statewide tax cut would not be needed if all cities managed budgets as they did theirs. (To break the code, Republican cities will just have to take a hickey so the statewide Republicans can stick it to the big Democratic cities.)

In the past several election cycles, the only place the Texas Democratic voting strength has been growing is in the major cities. Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio all go Democratic. Last year, Patrick’s son Ryan lost his district judge seat in Houston to a Democrat, who is now presiding over the criminal trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican.

Up to this point, the state’s Republican leadership has been able to portray all of these actions against the cities as a mere public policy dispute. But in his statements on Fox, Patrick laid bare their intention. It’s a partisan fight between the Republicans who control the state and the Democrats who control the cities—and those Republican suburbs might just be collateral damage.

Related Content


    If Dannie Scott really feels that way—-and hates the idea that the voters get to choose things of which he does not approve—why doesn’t he stand up and be honest and ABOLISH elected local government? As long as you let those pesky, ignorant voters decide you are going to get things Dannie won’t like. So, let the legislature appoint local prefects to run things….That way he can be certain it will always be done HIS WAY.

    • John Bernard Books

      This may be the dumbest post ever. You cease to amaze me….

      • txasslm

        >> “This may be the dumbest post ever.”

        Oh, really, now, JBB. You’re no piker in the Dumb Post Dept. Yours are right up there with the President’s.

        • WUSRPH

          Did the Troll slime by and say something? “This user is blocked” are such nice words.

          • John Bernard Books

            Hay you ol commie has does it feel to be spewing so much hot air…and realize no one is listening……again

        • John Bernard Books

          I sorry did you get your feelers hurt, did you think yours was the dumbest…..

    • José

      More accurately, what he wants is to abolish any party other than his own. When I was a kid Americans took pride in the fact that our country had free elections, unlike some other nations. It’s insane that today’s GOP has so much in common with the authoritarian regimes of the 20th Century.

      • WUSRPH

        That’s what happens when you believe that God (Franco & Dan Patrick), the nature of man (Hitler) or the laws of history (Marx, Lenin) are “on your side”…when that happens no one who disagrees with you has a “right” to anything, much less to choose their own course.

  • John Bernard Books

    Sure it partisan, democrats have never been challenged before and they are upset. “How dare they”
    1. cap taxes
    2. with hold funding to sanctuary cities
    3. yada yada yada…..

    Followed by a chorus of “do you know who we are?”
    Yes we do you’re not in charge anymore, Lt Dan is….

    • pwt7925

      Lt. Gov. Dan Maduro

  • Texas Publius

    Texas has over 1,200 cities. How many of those does Dan Patrick think are actually Democrat-run? Guarantee you it’s a vast minority of them.

    As for the rest, maybe the reason they’re run by Democrats is that their population is majority Democrat.

    Dan Patrick is opposed to representative government. He’s not even ok with Republican government (eg, Straus). He only supports dictatorial government by those who agree with him. History’s trash bin is full of the rise and fall of types just like him.

    • donuthin2

      The problem is not Dan Patrick, it is us, the voting public that buys into his idiocy.

      • Dulcecstephens


        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ai76d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash376HomeForm/Pay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai76l..,…

  • John Bernard Books

    We are watching the end of the dem party:
    “Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: “[T]here were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as high as 144%.”

    dems will never win another election. Its been almost 30 years in Texas and the rest of the country is catching on. As Lt Dan and Guv Abbott leads the charge.

    Must look like battle of San Jacinto all over again for dems.


    Gov. Mark White has died……I admit I often had differing feelings about White…..being on the opposite of most of the issues when he was Secretary of State under Gov. Dolph Briscoe, through his years as Attorney General and the John Hill-Briscoe campaign of 1978…..Although I worked for his election as governor against Bill Clements in 1982 (anybody but Clements). I still saw him as more of a perpetual campaign who did not understand the meaning of the first six letters of his title (govern) than a courageous leader…BUT my views changed when the State was facing a major fiscal crisis when he stood up and, despite the political odds against it, called on the Legislature to enact the necessary taxes declaring “vote for it…and blame me”…..Which, of course, the voters promptly did by defeating him for re-election…But, he had proven that, when the times required it, he could follow the lead of Sam Houston and do right and risk the consequences…..It is a shame there are not more like him.


    Did you see where Gov. Abbott says that the special session is going to make Texas a better place? Well, considering that there less than 10 working days left and not a single bill has passed both chambers, that is going to take a lot of doing…..unless, of course, he means that it will make Texas better by not doing any of the 20 things he has demanded of it.

    • WUSRPH

      This is the Dallas Morning News’ scorecard of where Abbott’s issues now stand:


    • Kozmo

      Abbott and Patrick are such swine, they make me miss (well, almost) Perry and Dewhurst.

  • Julio Fuentes

    The people in the big cities are mostly recipients of various tax payer subsidies, so of course they are going to vote Dimocrap. And word to Dan Patrick. They don’t give a damn if their leaders are corrupt and incompetent, because THEY are exactly the same. Politics no different than life. You get EXACTLY what you deserve

    • WUSRPH

      Could you please describe these “various tax payer subsidies” on which big city folks are so dependent? It would be good to know what they are since most of us don’t seem to be getting all these extra benefits and certainly want our share?

    • Kozmo

      YOU get what YOU deserve; I deserve better. So do all honest citizens.

  • SeeItMyWay

    Good news! A showdown is coming.
    This ought to be something special.

    The four of the six major cities in TX are Dem controlled, I believe. Most Repub’s have moved to the suburbs, and median incomes have fallen, costs have gone up, old infrastructure needs repair, bond debt is out of wack, and pension programs have been poorly structured and managed. Per capita debt is enormous. Arlington is an exception.

    This said, how in the world does Patrick think the state is doing such a better job of managing money? Someone please tell us. He and the rest of his band are just as good at obfuscation, misdirection, voodoo accounting practices and can kicking as any I’ve watched the last several decades.

    Straus either knows he is going to get killed, but go out admirably, or he knows something we don’t. Maybe he thinks the silent majority is a little more attuned to this pending street fight, and feels that the business guys and heretofore unheard are going to grab their weapons and vociferously back him up when crunchtime comes.

    Either way…I don’t want to miss it.

    • WUSRPH

      You should read the long article on Abbott and his hopes for the session in the Austin A-S today…..He lays down a direct threat to get involved in the primary elections of the legislators who don’t bend to his wishes….and does not rule out even opposing Straus’ re-election to the House and/or as speaker. I think the man is having delusions of his own importance….At least I hope so.

      • SeeItMyWay

        I caught wind of it in QR. Battle royale brewing. Abbott has gotten way too big for his britches, but $40+ million in the bank pays for lots of propaganda. I’m hoping for a Humpty Dumpty moment where he finally hacks off so many teachers, public service employers, Hispanics and moderate conservatives that they actually get out and vote…and like I’ve said before…that Big Business actually throw big money into a dark money PAC to counteract the messages that Empower Texans with the aid of Wilkes brothers, Dunn’s and others $ is funding.

        • WUSRPH

          You can only defeat someone with someone else….And there does not appear to be anyone anywhere near the horizon who could defeat Abbott in the General Election (whether Dannie Scott could beat him the GOP primary is a question)……So dream on….The overwhelming odds are that Abbott will win a second term as governor…and that at least 90% of your “moderate” and “November Republicans” will vote for him.

          • WUSRPH

            If you need any more reason to be downhearted, pick up a copy of the latest edition of The Economist and read the article entitled Fox poxpuli on page 22. The fact that 45% of the GOP in a poll FAVOR giving the courts the power to SHUT DOWN a news media outlet that publishes “stories that are biased or inaccurate” (only 20% oppose it) and that 40% of the GOP DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT should be enough to take the skip out of your step.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I understand the anger, but don’t agree with the majority in the poll.

            If you cannot, or will not, admit to gross media bias than you are an ideologue and not the independent thinker you profess to be.

            I loved Huckaby’s dressing down of the media corp the other day. She clicked off verifiable facts regarding the Clinton’s stinky dealings with the Russians which put the Trump’s unverifiable rumors and imuendo to shame.

            People know this; the Repub’s question why; the Dem’s ignore it


          • WUSRPH

            Of course, there has been media bias as long as there have been media…..If you think it is bad today you should take a look at what the papers were like back in the days when the First Amendment was written…..It makes most modern media (not including Fox) look totally fair and accurate. But, again accept for a handful of outlets and particularly the Fox-types of both the right (of which there are more) and the few on the left, there is much less bias today.
            As to the Hillary and Russia story…It has been reported…In fact, you’ve referred to it several times….but it is no where near THE STORY that the Trump-Russia story represents. As far as anyone can determine, no member of the Clinton campaign AND ESPECIALLY TWO MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY willfully and gleefully attended a meeting with what they were told in advance was a RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT agent to conspire (which is what it would have been had they gotten the information) with the Russians to influence the election of the President of the United States. The fact that they KNEW it was supposed to be Russian agent on behalf of the Russian government is no “unverifiable rumor and innuendo”. IT IS A CLEAR STATEMENT IN THE E-MAIL to which Jr. jumped with joy……
            If the Clintons did something wrong with the Russians, it should be reported (and the allegations have been) and, if there was anything criminal involved, they should be prosecuted. BUT even you have to accept that it is a much, much smaller story than the Trump case….and that alone justifies it getting less coverage.

          • SeeItMyWay

            We just don’t see things the same way. Surprise! Suprise!

            One major newspaper in the entire country investigated and reported on all the facets of the Russian uranium deal, and one major network.

            Having two greehorns jumping up and down over a promise of trash on Hillary from the Russian’s doesn’t surprise me, nor hack me off, near as much as the history of selling influence the Clinton tag team put on foreign governments.

            I guess a lot of people see it my way over yours. That is not a big surprise.

          • WUSRPH

            A lot of Republicans…..who, as you may remember, got nearly 3 million LESS votes last November.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Oh, I like the moves Trump has attempted to make; I dislike his childlike proclivity for feeling a perpetual need to “strike back” at any and all criticism. I like the agenda; I don’t think much of the General.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ (SeeIT), I applaud your active participation in the political field, especially Texas politics but I denounce your swallowing right-wing propaganda such as the uranium deal without doing any fact checking.

            When Republicans became obsessed with the uranium deal and it was brought up in BurkaBlog, I researched the facts and posted them here. It’s disheartening that my work to find the truth had no effect on you. Many news outlets did investigate and report on the sale of uranium and discovered that there was nothing wrong with it and that Hillary had absolutely nothing to do with it.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Not sure where you got your info. I got mine from a series of pieces in the NYT. Not the source I would normally turn to for dirt on Dem’s. Why would the Clinton’s home state newspaper with a historically liberal leaning position, publish numerous articles on this subject over an extended period of time?

          • BCinBCS

            I did a quick google search and found Snopes did a thorough job on the Clinton/uranium sale controversy. It mentions the NY Times article. Here is some of what Snopes stated:

            The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve:
            Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

            Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.:
            A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission…”


            I’m not going to do another deep dive into this non-controversy because, as with the first time I presented the facts, you and other conservatives will choose to believe what you want rather than the facts.

          • SeeItMyWay

            You don’t have to do “another deep dive”. If your first one took you to Snoopes, it tells me everything I need to know.

          • BCinBCS

            Ah, okay, you’re an “alternative facts” believer, so I’ll play your game: You prove to me what Hillary did does not comport with the facts that Snopes, Fact Check and just about every other source claim. Be specific because, if you can prove wrongdoing, you will be responsible for sending Hillary Clinton to jail.

          • SeeItMyWay

            “Alternative facts”??? Google “Clinton’s/urarium”. You will find a long list of NYT’s pieces scattered over several years.

            The timelines and facts are undeniable; the personal interpretation of these facts are open for discussion. We’ve never had one. You choose to go to Snoopes for verification and final comment. Anyone who does that is a rube.

            Do me a favor…Google and read. If it was FOX or Brietbart breaking this story, and publishing multi-year pieces on this story, I might buy your position. The fact that the NYT’s has always been the mover on this speaks volumes to me.

            Pull your damn head out.

          • BCinBCS

            Do me a favor…Google and read.
            No, bull$hit, you prove your point that something illegal or nefarious took place. I presented much more information than just Snopes when I originally covered this topic before the election. You made the accusation; you back your accusation with proof.

            The timelines and facts are undeniable; the personal interpretation of these facts are open for discussion.
            Binary facts are not open to interpretation and I don’t know what you mean by the “timeline”.

            I suspect that this is another example of you blindly “interpreting” facts to fit your preconceived notions.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Never mentioned Abbott the candidate; it was about Abbott and who he is threatening to defeat for Speaker and district races with his mouth and his money.

        • WUSRPH

          The only time anything like your Humpty Dumpty dream has taken place in Texas for many, many years was Mark White’s win in 1982 which, by the way, was helped by a major effort led by Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Hobby, a recession which was blamed on the GOP, blacks almost terrified by the threat to the VRA (which we told them Regan would kill) and the fact that Clements had done such things as express a wish for a hurricane to clean oil off of the beaches……And, I might note, as soon as White did some of the kinds of things you are advocating, Clements came back with the standard GOP myths of “overspending, over taxed” and defeated him.

      • Kozmo

        And here I thought King Rick was a piece of work — King Abbott is making the former wannabe monarch look like an amateur.


    Things may be breaking….The House is actually going to debate a SENATE BILL on Monday…..speaking of which:

    I used to have a reputation for being a fairly good legislative analyst. In fact, the late long-time Secretary of the Senate Betty King told me she I was the best she had ever seen….but I guess with the passage of time and my being away from the daily business of the Legislature my mind and skills have deteriorated so much that I can no longer analyze proposed legislation. I say that because I have just tried to read (and understand) the House Committee Substitute for SB 6, the anti-municipal annexation bill that is up for debate in the House on Monday, and totally struck out. I even tried the bill analysis, which is, in theory, supposed to explain things to us common minds but still had no luck.
    As such, could someone who is still actively involved in writing, reading or understanding legislation please tell me just what this bill does? Could you also tell me how the “closed bracket” of cities it creates is constitutional? And, could someone reveal just who is the owner of a 5,000 sq. ft. business that does seasonal business who wants to keep operating for 20 years after being annexed despite some existing legal barrier to him doing so and what kind of a stick does he/she/it have to justifies a special provision just for them in the bill? (See Section 2)

    • WUSRPH

      I have been informed that the mysterious seasonal business in a 5,000 sq. ft. building that wants a 20-year exemption from any zoning, safety and other requirements after annexation are FIREWORKS companies.


    Believe it or not…Despite the concerns I expressed yesterday in a preceding posting (see directly below) on SB 6, the anti-annexation bill, about my apparently having lost my ability to analyze legislation, it now appears that I STILL HAVE IT as bill, the bill was knocked of the House Floor by a point of order based on the question I had raised about the unconstitutionality of the “closed brackets” it established to define which cities would be covered by different sets of its provisions…..Boy that make me feel good.



    On Aug. 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon announced he would resign following damaging revelations in the Watergate scandal.

    One national tragedy ended on an Aug. 8…….is it too much to hope that another might too?

    • BCinBCS

      I believe that it is short-sighted to wish removal from office for Comrade Trump/Bannon since his replacement will be the even more conservative Mike Pence who would be much more competent at passing the RWNJ agenda.

      • WUSRPH

        There is something to what you say….but consider the fact that, at least, Pence might understand why sometimes we have to ignore the words—if not the actions—of nations like North Korea.

        Trump, on the other hand, looked like he was almost quivering in sexual frenzy when he was threatening North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. He, as John McCain noted, does not seem to understand what Teddy Roosevelt was talking about when he said “Speak SOFTLY, but carry a big stick” . Trump, instead, seems to believe that sounding TOUGH is the ONLY way to handle any matter. The possibility that he might have to backup what he says seems to be beyond his comprehension.

        The fact that all that fire and frenzy would probably result in the horrible deaths of hundreds of thousands of people—including many, many thousands of our alleged South Korean allies—also does not seem to bother him. He, of course, would be safe in some secret bunker if it comes to that…Too bad millions of others (other than his family) would not be invited to join him.

        The US has repeatedly pledged that it will never (again) be the “first user” of nuclear weapons in any conflict….but, then, The Most High Donald has several times suggested that he does not believe in that policy. He has even questioned “Why have them it you don’t use them?” The answer, of course, is that we have then so that we won’t have to use them…but then Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is probably too subtle of a policy for Trump…Since he refuses to read it probably wouldn’t do any good to direct him to what Ronald Reagan had to say about such things….but he probably thinks that Reagan was “weak”……

        • WUSRPH

          Anyone who wants to read an informed description about how a war with North Korea might be fought and how it would turn out should read this piece from The Economist.


          • WUSRPH

            Kim and The Most High are beginning to look more and more like two little would-be-bullies in a second grade school yard exchanging “I’m tougher than you” threats back and forth….The only problem is those kinds of exchanges after a while one of the two pushes the other one and then things go badly from there. I doubt Kim will do more than talk (he knows how much he has to loose), but I’m not so sure about the child in the WH.

          • St. Anger

            Trump is now a risk to humanity.

            Anyone still defending him or their own vote really isn’t worth the effort.

          • SeeItMyWay

            It is speculation. It is the future. Prognostication is something you have never been good at, based on my years here on BB reading what you predict. You are a great historian. Stick to sharing the past with us.

          • WUSRPH

            P.S. We don’t have to use nukes to do a real job on NK….but any job would probably wind up with hundreds of thousands of casualties….and end up with the Chinese “intervening” as they did in 1950 to keep us and the South Koreans away from their border. What happens then?

        • BCinBCS

          You have a point but I suspect that there would be overwhelming push-back by the military and the Congress, not to mention the American people, if Comrade Trump/Bannon decided to start a nuclear conflict with North Korea.

          Unfortunately the President Comrade Trump/Bannon versus President Pence choice is a lose/lose proposition any way that it is dissected.

          • WUSRPH

            I agree that there would be some “pushback”, however, I fear that is likely to come AFTER Trump has taken acts that have already killed thousands…Trump, unlike the two Bushes in Iraq, I doubt that he would go to the Congress for any sort of authorization….but rather would strike first and ask later. There was an attempt in Congress recently to block that by toughening the rules on what kind of presidential actions can be taken without prior authorization, but, as I understand it, those were left out of the final bill. Those kinds of controls could be reconsidered If he continues to make statements like this one and it appears he is actively making preparations to go to war….but would the GOP pass them? Absent such laws, I would also not count on any pushback by the military beyond telling him–again and again–what he is thinking about is bad policy…..but, when he, as president makes a decision, I suspect they will go along…..which is the tradition in this country. As to the public reaction, as long as the American casualties were limited, I think a large proportion of his base would more than cheer such an action as showing that “America is great AGAIN”…as, after all, what a few hundred thousand Koreans….when most of them probably cannot find it on the map.

          • BCinBCS

            Yea, there’s always that but I have faith that the military would delay action while leaking his plans as a way to stop such craziness – a larger version of their reaction to his transgender tweet where they have, essentially, ignored it.

  • chriscolumbus

    Abbot & Costello are the 2nd biggest enigma/puzzle of my political life, the 1st being the Drumpf. These kind and perhaps more importantly the kind who put them in office are leading us backwards, into the wilderness.

  • BCinBCS

    How much can you claim and not provide proof?

    You can say that Hillary farts toxic waste and Comrade Trump/Bannon farts unicorn odored rainbows but I’m not gonna accept it until you at least quote someone with authority who has seen it happen.

    Don’t make a claim if you can’t back it up and especially don’t make a claim when it’s wrong.

    • SeeItMyWay

      Wonder why the Clinton’s didn’t sue the NYT’s for slander?

      • BCinBCS

        They haven’t sued the NYT for the same reason that they haven’t sued anyone over all of the other crazy-ass accusations that have been repeatedly investigated and found without merit.

        • SeeItMyWay

          Try and get that big wad of stink bait on a treble hook dislodged from your puffy lip.

          The liberal heralded NYT’s stated fact in chronological order in numerous pieces over a period of months.

          Your rags came back with nothing to dispute what the NYT’s stated; they just poo-poo’d the coincidences, as if there was no connective flow to them. These were published for the true believers to latch onto and get them to stick their heads back into the sand.

          No sense carrying this further. Go get your lip treated.