In reply to: This is effing scary (link) posted by sprack
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.