Bill Kristol talks about the January 6 hostages portion of the speech and how it is a signal to his supporters and potntial members of his adminstration that I have your back. As Kristol writes the idea of pardons for anyone can overturn a lot of guardrails.
Andrew Egger addreses the portion being discussed here. I copied a portion below and linked the entire piece. I think he captures what some of us have been trying to say here.
But all this is beside the real point. The point here isn’t that the media was unfairly maligned, or even that Trump is perfectly willing to carelessly toss around violent rhetoric—that’s been plain since 2015! The thing to note is how Trump’s defenders continue to weaponize the discourse around Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric to obscure the obvious, unsubtle ways in which he has embraced lawlessness and violence.
As Bill noted above, Trump hasn’t been shy about his full-throated embrace of those who did violence in his name on January 6th: He’s made springing them from prison a key campaign promise. And he has made no secret of his lust for redirecting state violence toward his political enemies: Every lawmaker who served on the House January 6th committee, he wrote yesterday on Truth Social, “should go to Jail.”
When anti-anti-Trump voices natter on about subjects like a “bloodbath hoax,” this is what they’re doing: focusing attention away from Trump’s concrete authoritarian sympathies and toward his more nebulously ominous utterances, all to create a vague sense in the minds of those not following things too closely that any connection between Trump and violent authoritarianism is just media propaganda.
Bill Kristol, while not easy to pigeonhole, he is hardly a left leaning liberal.
In relation to Trump's loose use of violent rhetoric, don't forget his ads "Bring Back The Death Penalty" regarding the Central Park 5 in 1989.
Biden is not a quality candidate for any ideological wing of either party, but this is not a "normal" election with two competent candidates like Kennedy-Nixon, McCain-Obama....I am struggling to understand those who prefer to no-vote or choose a certain-to-lose 3rd party candidate in this particularly tight election considering the stakes if Trump is elected, but I guess I only represent roughly 45% of those likely to vote. Yikes.
News outlets have stopped reporting on them for years, unfortunately. To quote a much-used Seinfeld reference... they just get written off.
Because Joe Biden is old.
policy proposals.
There are numerous statements that he routinely makes that should be disqualifying and reflect real underlying psychological pathology.
But some things he says seem like actual policy promises. They may be difficult or impossible to carry out, at least to the full extent he suggests. But I think it is unwise to just “write them off” as the rantings of a deranged mind.
Some examples. He promises to withhold funds to any school that requires vaccinations. He promises to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods. He promises to block entry into the US of anyone from a Muslim country. He promises to deport all undocumented aliens.
Those are all red meat for his core supporters. But even if they could pass constitutional and other legal scrutiny, and could logistically be implemented, they would have devastating effects on economy and populace at large. I seriously doubt that he has any understanding of the downstream effects of those policies.
The next few months need to have him and his supporters challenged by the press and the Biden campaign on all of this, as well as his generally inflammatory oratory.
But different
Back here. Regardless of the information you are trying to provide, the source here is garbage worthy of InfoWars.
or edited? If not, the only concern would be giving ACYN potential revenue by viewing the message -- the venue that provides raw footage doesn't impact the veracity of the raw footage. Then it's easy enough to find the full rant and decide whether it's 'out of context' or not.
You know, there are people who believe this crap and do things like storm the Capitol.
...I found this in about 30 seconds, searching YT for "trump rally Dayton." It's the whole hour and a half or so from which the clip sprack posted is a portion.
I scrolled through it for about 5 minutes; it seems to be Trump's typical goofy stream of consciousness. He spent a minute saying over and over that J.B. Pritzker must like to eat; like, he must eat five cheeseburgers, there's J/B. in his office, "Do you want something to eat?" "Yeah 5 burgers." Trump, responding then to his own strange narrative: "Who eats five burgers?" Then he meanders to the next subject.
After seeing this, I'm not any more concerned about Trump as a future president than I was yesterday. He's an awful person and it would be a stain on our history if we returned him to that office. He's still the guy who said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter, maybe he'd date her. Yikes. And Mike Huckabee thinks kids' minds are being poisoned about the good Trump.
I'd make a substantive distinction between a wacko website where someone spouts weird opinions or claimed facts, such as, the world is flat; Sandy Hook didn't happen; or Comet Pizza was a front for child molestation; and, on the other hand, the posting of a video of Trump (or Biden, or whoever) speaking at a rally.
You may be correct in your assessment of the source, whom I know not. I do watch MeidasTouch once in a while for fun. But the point Sprack was making was about what Trump said; and Trump really did say it, so downplaying the X source doesn't change that. I suppose this might be a case where I'm saying, don't shoot the piano player.
These statements will be pretty good circumstantial evidence of state of mind
"If I get elected − now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath," Trump said as he discussed tariffs on car imports. "That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country."
I listened to the full minute Kayo linked and I agree context is important and Trump is known to make some dumb comments that are a little less harmful if you take it the full context. With that said, what the heck does he mean with his “bloodbath” comment, in light of the Chinese automakers in Mexico context? I still don’t see how it isn’t a side comment about what will happen in this country if he is not elected again. Does he mean it will be a bloodbath of Chinese cars that are made in Mexico that flood out streets red? Cars that no American buys to begin with? Mexico is a big car producer and has numerous car companies using their land for manufacturing, not just Chinese companies. Does he mean a bloodbath of Mexico made cars? Because he doesn’t allude to that during his “bloodbath” comment, he only talks about Chinese companies making cars in Mexico
To me, it’s just another side comment he makes about the potential dire consequences to this country if he is not elected. He likes to stroke fear to try to get on the fence voters to side with him. Just as he said
“If we don't win this election, I don't think you're going to have another election in this country” and
“If I don't win, it is my prediction that we will have a stock market 'crash' worse than that of 1929 – a Great Depression”
The “bloodbath” comment just continues this sad pattern.
(a) Adding length to a Trump comment often fails to increase the clarity
(b) My guess is that it is best understood as an aside from his predictions of economic doom to claim that the economics of situation are the least of the problem compared to the bloodbath to come.
(b) is far from certain. In general, going down the "what did Trump really mean" rabbit hole is treacherous. Random synapses make a connection with a variety of circuits: the "Jack Smith is a psychopath" circuit, the "I won the popular vote in 2016 and 2020" circuit, the "I'm richer than anyone" circuit, etc. I'm certain that the "If I lose there will be blood" circuit is in there. I can't be sure that that is the one which became connected in this speech.
His defenders are seizing on it as an attack on him by the fake media. He did say bloodbath in the same sentence as the economy.
Eventually, he'll totally undercut them. He also said if he loses, it'll be the last election. He saluted the traitors, er "hostages" who stormed the capital to overturn the election.
But at some point early in the pandemic he made a similar inane comment and his supporters were wrapping themselves I knots to defend it.
He then said it was a joke and there was silence from the loyal chorus.
When in doubt, assume Trump says things that make him feel good because it increases the adulation coming from his base.
Comments that can then spur outrage in the People His Base Doesn't Like? Even better!
I think any effort at discerning any actual policy positions other than "does it serve Donald Trump" is a lesson in futility.
Tell me “oh, but context” on this one.
..these traitors singing the National Anthem should immediately disqualify him.
Sadly, we could say that exact same thing about 50 other issues and yet he may well be President again in January 2025.
What a world!
Garbage. If you want to search for more links, be my guest. I won't be feeling any obligation to read or respond to your subsequent posts on this matter.
like he was making some economic point, like it will be an "economic bloodbath". Or maybe he was talking about his supporters arming themselves and murdering their opponents. Do you have the context? This is the problem with providing a 15 second clip from what is likely a much longer speech and then asking people to debate it.
But with Trump the relationship between one phrase and the phrases immediately before and after are often obscure. I’m not sure that length gives context.
My impression is that he was predicting some type of economic doom, then, as an aside, said that this would be the least of it compared with the more general blood bath which would accompany it.
Which is an Uber progressive advocate news organization. They make the Krassensteins on the left or Epoch Times on the right look like the NYT.
What is shocking is that sprack linked to such a source back here, and provided no context.
Now, there rhetoric is still toxic and reckless. But be more careful and precise.
It’s (the economy’s) going to be a bloodbath
But ok die on this hill
But emotaposts are ok because of Trump or something I guess.
says. I’m sure he’s just bluffing and it was really all a bunch of tourists on January 6.
with this one. Seeking agreement from others who may be like minded doesn't validate it either. There is nothing to this and a 15 second cherry pick only validates those who feel Trump has been unfairly targeted for 6 years
You still have provided no context to some random cropped clip that you provided, so yeah, sorry if I'm nonplussed given I don't have much context. The only context within that clip is that he's talking about some car manufacturing or something, so yeah, if he's talking about some economic bloodbath I'm not that worried. Either way, I don't know based on what you linked. But by all means, keep that hyper-left wing twitter update thread going.
Maybe you should be concerned a bit more by the hyper-right. If language like “bloodbath” in any context doesn’t at least give you pause, I can’t help you.
And one can certainly find thousands of apocalyptic comments from the left about what happens if Trump wins. Hell, you don’t have to leave this Board. It’s here daily. And you know how I feel about Trump. The world isn’t going to end either way.
the context?
Is the context the sliver of the speech around these words? If so then I probably agree with you this is a comment meant to depict economic ruin.
Is the context the broder speech itself that started with the January 6 hostages singing the National Anthem and how Trump was going to correct the miscarriage of Justice that the Biden crime family and corrupt Democrats have inflicted upon people exercising their first amendment rights? If so then it becomes a little less clear the remark is so harmless.
Is the context this is the latest statement by a narcissist who has spent the last 8 years undermining the nation's faith in our institutions? That same person also repeatedly told Americans they are under attack from Democrrats and only he can save them. That same person spent 6 months before the election saying the only way he would lose was if Democrats stole the election form true American Patriots who only would vote for Trump and then declared that is what happened on election night. The same person who spent the next two months lying about the election being stolen and then at a minimum encouraged and more likely supported an effort to delay and possibly overturn the counting of the electoral college votes by sending people to attack Congress. When put in broader context than I dont think it is clear at all this was a harmless comment.
I think this is the crystalization of the danger of Trump. I forget who first write aboyt Trump Dems take him literally but not seriously while his supporters take him seriously but not literally. The man says so much outrageous shit that it easy to dismiss everything. As an example, intelligent people on this board can read the comment in its "context" of that one comment and say it is Trump being dramatic and trying to motivate people. In the meantime there is a segment of the nation thatis not taking him literally but is taking him seriously. To those people these comments giver permission to their belief there is war for the nation at hand and if Trump loses they willneed to take action to save it.
There were some on this Baord who mocked the idea Trump would do anything other than accept his loss and willingly leave the White House. I was not confident that would happen but could understand the viewpoint before 1/6. At this point I think Trump has lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.
One final thought on the idea of people listening to Trump believing they need to act if he loses. In 1996 I was doing some advance work with the Clinton Campaign. During the fall as it became more and more clear Clinton would win re-election the secret service became even more concerned about possible actions to harm the President. They were worried about someone being motivated by the need to save the country from the harm of Clinton and the Dems. Keep in mind this was in the context of Dole's campaign which was not employing anywhere near the tone Trump has used over the past 8 years. If they were concerned about it then I can only imagine what it is like now.
And I don't mean just what he says, I mean the fact that smart people extrapolate stupidly from what he does say. "Bloodbath" is a common turn of phrase, but everything is a "dog whistle" to those who hate him. This is a freaking non-event but it's dominating the news for the moment. "He must mean he wants everyone to go out and murder a bunch of people in the streets if he loses!"
Hell, the man says enough actual stupid stuff that you shouldn't have to go parsing a bunch of bullshit out of nothing to try to make him look bad. He already looks bad. Quit lying about him, let him actually hang himself (figuratively. With his words.)
I guess this is implicit in my other post but I think it should be said explicitly.
Trump showed on 1/6 that he loved watching his supporters "fight for him". Honestly for a narcissist like him is there any better feeling than seeing people go to battle for you? His use of language that hits upon the idea of civil war or fighting the results in the street is done to give permission to the folks from 1/6 who felt their President called them there.
That is likely why he calls them hostages and says he will get them out because he needs his supprters to know he has their back if they need to do this again.
I know it all sounds crazy, it sounds crazy to me as I type it but having watched the last 8 years I cant dismiss the idea as crazy.
I agree with you he says a ton of things that should be disqualifying but they are not for Trump. The problem is it is like playing MSU when the DB's would commit pass interference on every play because they knew the refs would not call everything. Same thing here. If Dems call out every thing it lessens the impact but Republicans ignoring the statements normalizes them.
The other problem is the items you say make him look bad are why half the people want to vote for him. He says these things too consistenly and too purposefully for it to be happenstance. If he wins I hope the guardrails will hold but looking at the turnover in party leadership I am not certain they will. The bigger issue is what will people do if he loses. He will never admit he lost. I dont see leaders in the Republican party admitting he lost.
We are still dealing with the failure / unwilligness of the Republican party to tell the truth about Trump.
More devoted followers. Phrases like "poisoning the blood of our country" "Blood in the streets" are just common turns of phrase for him. I suppose some people think that's no different from saying cuts to SS/Medicare will push granny off a cliff, but no one on the left saw that as a literal call to arms.
If you can't see the issue with the manner, approach, and form in which you attempted to make your post, I can't help you. You're not even getting the support you typically get in these Trump circle jerk posts.
It's clear you have some hyper-left wing feed that pops up to feed your daily outrage posting about Trump, and that's how you wound up in an uber-left twitter feed.
Again, posting some cropped 15 second clip is evidence of nothing. You made the post, the burden is on you to provide the context when there's only 15 seconds supplied. I'm not going to do your work for you if you're too lazy to do so. And yes, I generally do ignore partisan twitter feeds that have clearly cropped a very short clip from a longer speech because they tend to crop out the beginning and end of said clip for a reason that suits their point of view. You already know this. And yes, if Trump is saying that if Biden gets elected instead of him then the economy will be a bloodbath, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Nor do I "need your help".
You're not arguing in good faith here, but I hope you enjoy your weekend regardless and not let this short, context-less clip keep you up at night. Cheers.
Edit: I responded to your previous, unedited post. Bloodbath is a term used for more than just violence, and I've heard it used countless times to describe economic and financial outcomes. Even recently, it was used by multiple media outlets to describe the firings at the RNC. I'm certain those staffers were not butchered or otherwise subjected to some form of bloodshed. I can be concerned all I want to about right-wing rhetoric, it doesn't really address your cropped clip. Anyway, cheers brother.
Why don’t you explain this one. You keep making excuses for Trump, so you just dismiss the source as “left wing”. Well, this one’s from a different source. Try to tell me Adam Kinzinger is left-wing.
He wants to cut the aid for Ukraine if he's elected President.
How is that somehow insane or in need of explanation? It's a political position.