Name: 「川普政府的行事準則是什麼？」- Chris Hayes 揭露川普政府的潛規則！ ("What Can We Get Away With?" - Chris Hayes Identifies The Trump Administration's Operating Principle)
Uploaded: 2026-01-08T16:55:26.000Z
Duration: 5 min 40 s

Hey everybody, we're back with Chris Hayes.

大家好，我們又和 Chris Hayes 一起回來了。

Governor Walz alludes to this in his, in his statement when he first came out and spoke today that all of this is the result of a policy of intimidation and using fear to try to cow his what he perceives as political enemies or those who don't support him.

Governor Walz 在他今天剛發表的聲明中也提到了這一點，他說這一切都是恐嚇政策的結果，利用恐懼來壓制他認為是政治敵人或不支持他的人。

That federal government, the power of the federal government instilling fear in the people, fear of violence in the people.

聯邦政府，聯邦政府的權力正在向民眾灌輸恐懼，灌輸對暴力的恐懼。

isn't protecting ourselves against that the argument that second amendment people have made for so many years about why we're supposed to have guns?

但難道我們保護自己免受這種侵害，不正是「第二修正案」的支持者們多年來一直在爭辯的，為什麼我們應該擁有槍枝的理由嗎？

是的，我不是在叫任何人拿槍。

No, I'm not saying anybody to use any violence against the government.

不，我不是在說要對政府使用任何暴力。

But that seems to be an odd conflict between those who might support the President and his support of the second Amendment and the fact that this is exactly what they described in their fantasies and why the Supreme Court said that personal protection is what is granted by the second Amendment.

但這似乎與那些可能支持總統及其對第二修正案的支持，以及事實上這正是他們在幻想中所描述的，最高法院認為個人保護是第二修正案所賦予的，這之間存在一個奇怪的衝突。

I mean first, I would agree with you that more guns in this situation would make things only worse, just to be clear.

我想首先，我同意你說的，在這個情況下更多的槍只會讓事情變得更糟，只是說清楚。

But it is interesting that the precedent I just cited, which is Ruby Ridge, right, was a cause of lab of gun rights activists and right wingers and conservatives precisely because at the time they viewed that as government overreach and that the sort of right we have as citizens to protect against that tyranny and incursion.

但有趣的是，我剛才提到的先例，也就是 Ruby Ridge，對吧？它正是槍枝權利倡導者、右翼人士和保守派的導火線，原因正是當時他們認為這是政府越權，以及我們作為公民有權利保護自己免受這種暴政和侵犯。

And I had to sort of chuckle today when I was reading into the news.

而且我今天看到新聞的時候，忍不住笑了出來。

There was a headline from yesterday that just came across my feed that the President of the United States was threatening the Iranian government with military action if they killed peaceful protesters.

昨天我的動態消息出現了一則標題，美國總統威脅伊朗政府，如果他們殺害和平抗議者，就要採取軍事行動。

And I think we all understand that like killing peaceful protesters is a sign of something horribly wrong with a government.

我想我們都明白，殺害和平抗議者，就代表一個政府出了非常嚴重的問題。

This is a 37 year old mother with her partner and dog in the car sitting in a street and recording what ICE is doing.

這是一位 37 歲的母親，跟她的伴侶和狗狗在車裡，坐在街上錄下 ICE（美國移民及海關執法局）的行為。

Now they want to call her a domestic terrorist.

現在他們想把她稱為國內恐怖份子。

And everyone can decide whether the 37 year old mom with her kids stuffies shoved in the dashboard of her car is a domestic terrorist draw.

大家可以自己判斷，這位 37 歲的媽媽，車子儀錶板上塞滿了她孩子的填充玩具，是不是國內恐怖份子。

But to my mind she looks like a peaceful protester and she's dead.

但在我看來，她看起來就像一位和平抗議者，而且她已經死了。

Now in another play from the authoritarian handbook let's talk about the war or however should be characterized or Venezuela.

接著，我們來看看另一本威權手冊裡的內容，談談戰爭，或者該怎麼形容委內瑞拉。

I think something like 80 people on the ground killed no Americans, no American service members.

大約有 80 人在地面上死亡，沒有美國人，沒有美國軍人。

Our government can always count on the military to be the best in the world.

我們的政府總是能指望軍隊是世界上最強大的。

其實，這就是事情簡單的部分。

Ask the military to do something Very hard.

要求軍隊做一件非常困難的事情。

They will do it for incredibly impressive operation.

他們會完成一項令人印象深刻的行動。

Okay, so you've been tracking the escalation, you know, because there was carrier groups that were blowing up boats that were alleged to have drugs in them.

好的，所以你一直關注著事態的升級，你知道，因為有航空母艦戰鬥群炸毀了據稱載有毒品的船隻。

顯然，這是在為某件事做鋪墊。

What was your reaction when you heard that Maduro had been captured?

當你聽到馬杜羅被捕時，你的反應是什麼？

Well, I was shocked, but not surprised and appalled.

嗯，我感到震驚，但並不意外，也感到震驚。

I mean, part of what's so insane about this buildup that you just mentioned.

我說，你剛才提到的這一切鋪墊，其中一部分真的很瘋狂。

Just to take a step back, let's all remember how this.

讓我們稍微退一步，大家一起回想一下，這是怎麼回事。

They started blowing up ships with human beings on them.

他們開始炸毀載有活生生的人的船隻。

And they said drugs, which maybe there were, maybe there weren't.

他們說是毒品，也許有，也許沒有。

We can't confirm it because they said they were engaged in a war, a military war with a narco terrorist gang called Trend Aragua that was associated with the Venezuelan government.

我們無法證實，因為他們說他們正在與一個名為 Trend Aragua 的販毒恐怖組織進行一場戰爭，該組織與委內瑞拉政府有關聯。

So something that had been law enforcement for centuries, the interdiction of contraband.

所以，幾百年來一直是執法行動，也就是查禁違禁品。

你知道，海岸防衛隊會這麼做。

They converted from law enforcement to a war, clearly, as a means of pressure for regime change.

他們顯然是從執法轉變為戰爭，作為推動政權更迭的一種手段。

When it came time to do the regime change, when they sent U.S.

當到要進行政權更迭時，當他們派遣美軍

forces to invade a country, what else can you call it?

入侵一個國家，你還能稱之為什麼？

They then turned around and be like, no, this is law enforcement.

他們接著又說，不，這是執法行動。

The ships are law enforcement, but that's war that you were blowing up.

船隻是執法行動，但你炸毀的卻是戰爭。

Now you're invading the country and now you want to tell us it's law enforcement?

現在你們入侵這個國家，卻告訴我們這是執法行動？

所以這是一場像韓戰一樣的警察行動。

And the reason I bring it up is like, at some point, it's like, what's the point of playing Gotcha on this?

我會提到這件事是因為，到某個時候，你會想，在這個問題上玩「抓錯」遊戲有什麼意義？

But the point to make, I think, is that everything they say and do is pretextual, and

但我認為重點是，他們說和做的所有事情都是藉口，而且

You cannot credit any of the justifications ever given for anything as good faith, actual reason justifications.

你不能相信他們提出的任何理由，認為是出於善意、真實的理由。

And I say that because there are conservatives, Republicans, all sorts of people I disagree with, who I've dealt with in public life and debated and had on my show, who do make good faith arguments, who aren't just slinging pretext, who aren't just totally mired in this kind of gaslighting.

我這麼說是因為，有些保守派、共和黨人，還有很多我不同意的人，我在公共生活中跟他們打過交道、辯論過、請他們上過我的節目，他們確實會提出善意的論點，他們不是在隨便找藉口，也不是完全陷入這種鬼扯。

Those people exist, the people running the country are only operating on one principle and one principle only.

這樣的人確實存在，但掌權的人只遵循一個原則，而且只有一個原則。

We're gonna take another break here, but we're right back with more Chris Hayes, everybody.

我們要休息一下，但很快就會回來，繼續收聽 Chris Hayes 的節目，各位。