superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Okay yeah - this needs to be on the front page of every paper in the country.
Trump: “If I don’t get elected it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country” (1 Viewer)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
EXACTLY: Coded messaging with what Drumph considers plausible deniability.
LovesMusic7360
Well-known member
Offline
I got 4 words for him...
Statements like that are the bedrock of sooo many of his criminal indictments, the prosecution loves it when he opens his mouth!
Exactly. He said it would be a bloodbath for the whole country.
He didn't say it would be a bloodbath for the auto industry. Nor did he say it was going to be an "economic" bloodbath.
Yes his followers know exactly what he means.
However, how many times in the last 2 years did he say there would be violence?
He was indicted. He said there would be violence. There wasn't.
He was arrested and booked. He said there would be violence. There wasn't.
He has said there would be violence several times and there wasn't any.
No one loves trump more than trump himself.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
This is why he gets zero benefit of the doubt
====================
……Trump backers and even some conservative Trump critics dismissed the comment as, more or less, standard-issue political rhetoric. Some suggested that Trump was merely talking about a “bloodbath” for the auto industry (even though he was clearly saying the “bloodbath” would extend beyond that industry).
Regardless, a focus on the one word misses the point.
It’s not that this isolated comment is particularly egregious; it’s that it is merely the latest example of this kind of rhetoric. And the rhetoric is often more direct:
• Trump in 2016 said that if he were denied the presidential nomination at the GOP convention, “I think you’d have riots.”
• Trump in November 2020 responded to an adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by saying it would “induce violence in the streets.” (Trump later expanded, saying, “Bad things will happen, and bad things lead to other type things. It’s a very dangerous thing for our country.”)
• Trump warned last March of “potential death & destruction” if he were charged by the Manhattan district attorney. He also mocked those who urged his supporters to stay peaceful, saying, “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”
• Trump warned in August, after the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, that “terrible things are going to happen.” He later promoted a comment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump were charged.
• Trump in January warned of “bedlam in the country” if the criminal charges against him succeeded. Days earlier, he targeted efforts to remove him from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, saying: “Because if we don’t [get treated fairly], our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying? I think so.”
And this doesn’t even account for the many, many examples of his alluding more suggestively to righteous violence by his supporters.
He does this a lot. Sometimes it’s direct; sometimes it’s veiled and carries with it the plausible deniability that he craves.
But is it really ridiculous to suggest that the guy who warned of “riots,” “violence in the streets” and “death & destruction” if he were wronged might be gesturing in that direction again? Of course not.
More than that, history gives weight to comments like these. And that history includes Trump’s supporters turning violent after the 2020 election — and after they appeared to interpret his comments as encouragement…….
====================
……Trump backers and even some conservative Trump critics dismissed the comment as, more or less, standard-issue political rhetoric. Some suggested that Trump was merely talking about a “bloodbath” for the auto industry (even though he was clearly saying the “bloodbath” would extend beyond that industry).
Regardless, a focus on the one word misses the point.
It’s not that this isolated comment is particularly egregious; it’s that it is merely the latest example of this kind of rhetoric. And the rhetoric is often more direct:
• Trump in 2016 said that if he were denied the presidential nomination at the GOP convention, “I think you’d have riots.”
• Trump in November 2020 responded to an adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by saying it would “induce violence in the streets.” (Trump later expanded, saying, “Bad things will happen, and bad things lead to other type things. It’s a very dangerous thing for our country.”)
• Trump warned last March of “potential death & destruction” if he were charged by the Manhattan district attorney. He also mocked those who urged his supporters to stay peaceful, saying, “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”
• Trump warned in August, after the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, that “terrible things are going to happen.” He later promoted a comment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump were charged.
• Trump in January warned of “bedlam in the country” if the criminal charges against him succeeded. Days earlier, he targeted efforts to remove him from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, saying: “Because if we don’t [get treated fairly], our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying? I think so.”
And this doesn’t even account for the many, many examples of his alluding more suggestively to righteous violence by his supporters.
He does this a lot. Sometimes it’s direct; sometimes it’s veiled and carries with it the plausible deniability that he craves.
But is it really ridiculous to suggest that the guy who warned of “riots,” “violence in the streets” and “death & destruction” if he were wronged might be gesturing in that direction again? Of course not.
More than that, history gives weight to comments like these. And that history includes Trump’s supporters turning violent after the 2020 election — and after they appeared to interpret his comments as encouragement…….
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
man smoking trumps arse makes you as high as a kite. I am surprised he can speak at all with his lips wrapped around trumps twig and berries.
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
He is the definition of a weasel, a very dangerous Christian wackjob weasel, the worst kind.....
LovesMusic7360
Well-known member
Offline
That's insulting weasels.
mike johnson is a monster. Just like trump and all his criminal cohorts.
LA - L.A.
Well-known member
Offline
Dehumanizing language is dehumanizing language no matter who uses it and why they use it.
No one should use or accept the use of any dehumanizing language, because it leads to the justification of inhumane things.
No one should use or accept the use of any dehumanizing language, because it leads to the justification of inhumane things.
- Banned
- #29
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
- Banned
- #30
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
Attachments
- Banned
- #31
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
Joe Rogan criticizes the corporate media's deceptive Trump bloodbath hoax and highlights the rise of independent media.
"It's important to highlight how not just inaccurate but deceptive the media was in their depiction of what he said. They are taking this quote out of context and trying to say that there is going to be a civil war if he doesn't get elected, which is not what he's talking about at all.
It's so disturbing that they think they can get away with it with all of the scrutiny with social media and all the independent journalists that exist now, which is one of the more interesting things about the demise of corporate media.
The demise in trust in corporate media is at an all-time low, so this has led to a rise in true independent journalists. The real ones out there. The Matt Taibbi's and Glenn Greenwald's."
- Banned
- #32
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
only one little difference here you seemed tor have missed. none the others threatened to cause a bloodbath.
- Banned
- #34
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
Yall got caught up in the normal corporate media propaganda and getting caught cutting short the video where it shows he was talking about the auto industry and not an actual civil war.
When yall finally realized he was talking about the auto industry, yall shifted gears to saying his supporters know what he really means.
The OP posted misinformation. I don't see the worries from the usual suspects about misinformation in this instance. That's because supposedly controlling misinformation is really about censoring views that the government and the media don't want people to be able to talk about online.
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
I listened to it all. He said there will be a bloodbath. then let it sit then tried to cover it with the auto industry. ya everyone knows what he ws talking about but here you are defending him Remember defending trump and thinking its meaningful is like thinking the stripper loves you. Trump thrives on the gullibility of his minions.
LA - L.A.
Well-known member
Offline
Authoritarians, which both cult leadership and fascist leadership are, tell their followers that everyone who is not a follower has been lead astray, because they have been fooled by the lies of the enemy.
The news is all lies, except for when it's in agreement with what leadership says.
Your friends have been fooled by the lies, except for when they're in agreement with what leadership says.
Your coworkers have been fooled by lies, except for when they're in agreement with what leadership says..
Strangers have been fooled by lies or are agents spreading lies, except for when they're in agreement with what leadership says.
That's why there is so much inconsistency in the acceptance of what sources say.
If a specific news source or person says something in agreement with leadership, then they are speaking truth and can be believed. Anytime that same source speaks in disagreement with leadership, they they are lying and can not be believed.
When a follower of any authoritarian leadership approaches me to show me the "truth," I know that trying to get them to see the actual truth is an exercise in futility, because they have chosen to be hardened against seeing and accepting what is true.
That's why they accuse everyone and anyone who disagrees with them as either being liars or having been fooled by liars. At first they will say a lot of things to try to "save" you from the "lies," but if you challenge them long enough, they inevitably resort to mostly just hurling accusations that are variations of "they're all liars and you're all fools."
When someone behaves in that way, save yourself a lot of frustration and energy by recognizing you are speaking to someone that has chosen to be a follower of authoritarian leadership and they do not actually hear anything you say that's out of agreement with their leadership. It's not even that they are consciously ignoring you, they are consciously incapable of hearing what you are saying because of their choices.
The news is all lies, except for when it's in agreement with what leadership says.
Your friends have been fooled by the lies, except for when they're in agreement with what leadership says.
Your coworkers have been fooled by lies, except for when they're in agreement with what leadership says..
Strangers have been fooled by lies or are agents spreading lies, except for when they're in agreement with what leadership says.
That's why there is so much inconsistency in the acceptance of what sources say.
If a specific news source or person says something in agreement with leadership, then they are speaking truth and can be believed. Anytime that same source speaks in disagreement with leadership, they they are lying and can not be believed.
When a follower of any authoritarian leadership approaches me to show me the "truth," I know that trying to get them to see the actual truth is an exercise in futility, because they have chosen to be hardened against seeing and accepting what is true.
That's why they accuse everyone and anyone who disagrees with them as either being liars or having been fooled by liars. At first they will say a lot of things to try to "save" you from the "lies," but if you challenge them long enough, they inevitably resort to mostly just hurling accusations that are variations of "they're all liars and you're all fools."
When someone behaves in that way, save yourself a lot of frustration and energy by recognizing you are speaking to someone that has chosen to be a follower of authoritarian leadership and they do not actually hear anything you say that's out of agreement with their leadership. It's not even that they are consciously ignoring you, they are consciously incapable of hearing what you are saying because of their choices.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.