United States | News & Politics
Cops love that "there are not people" language. And they loved his "rough up more criminals" talk, too.
Do you guys do this on purpose or do you really not understand? What he seems to be saying is that if he is not elected there will be a bloodbath, not of his own creation but that will happen as a result of criminal illegal immigrants committing violent crimes, and those people are not people. I am not saying he is right, but this has to be intentionally being misunderstood for stupid political rhetoric.
So, who are "you guys", in this scenario? Lemmings?
Because the title of the post is VERBATIM the title of the linked article.
...Did you read the article, the article that you're suggesting people are intentionally misunderstanding his rhetoric on?
No. You didn't either. I know you didn't either, because it explicitly puts it into context:
"If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country," he warned, while talking about the impact of offshoring on the country's auto industry and his plans to increase tariffs on foreign-made cars.
So, you're right, kind of. You're the worst kid of right. "Accidentally not quite wrong".
Like, fist of all: Fuck NPR for his headline. Clearly intentionally misleading.
Second of all: Fuck everyone commenting about how "it tracks", without ever even fucking reading the article.
And third of all: Fuck you for going off on people for chastising people while you yourself didn't even read the article.
If you are included in any of my fuck yous: I mean it. you are literally actively involved in the dismantling of Western Democracy so seriously fuck you.
If you weren't included, but are offended by my fuck yous, actually fuck you too for enabling it.
If you actually read the article before opening your mouth, no matter your position: you're cool.
The thing to note here is that terminology like this isn't intended to actually communicate something about the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter if Trump was talking about immigration, the auto industry, or economics, the point is that his base wants to hear an aggressive tone, and violent rhetoric sells that.
So the takeaway here is that Trump is riling up his base, and that he chooses to use violent language to do so is concerning. He's juxtaposing violent, aggressive speech and election outcomes, and that's not a good look for someone who is accused of aiding and abetting an insurrection intended to keep him in power.
At least that's my takeaway, reading a bit between the lines.
Trump's all about using strong emotional language without actually saying anything. Using vague language so that you can interpret it however you want is kind of his trademark.
Rush Limbaugh was also a master of it, and conservatives have convinced themselves he was a great man too.
Yeah, it doesn't work on me, but apparently it's pretty effective.
Let me get this straight, you read the article by the source that you say clearly intentionally misleading, and then you believed what their claim was about the actual intent of the quote was? Interesting...
Let me start out with; Fuck you for being an asshole when all you had to write was "Hey, I think this was actually about the auto industry", but instead you are a total douche.
Let me be clear, I was probably wrong, but it doesnt matter because the point of my post is to show how they will instantly jump on any lie that puts trump in a bad light.
I'm sorry... Your point is that people will jump on any lie that paints him in a bad light...
And so you're suggesting, after being presented with the actual facts (which actually is the version that paints him in the best light), that we reject those too...
And just choose your version of events, that you conjured out of thin air (having admitted and demonstrated that you never read past the headline)?
How is that any different than jumping on a lie? Except that this is actually worse. Before you were just ignorant. Now you know better, but you haven't changed your mind and are still pushing nonsense.
It's been said that one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I've changed my mind on you.
I did read past the headline to get to the part about "not people", but I didnt see the importance of interpreting the quote beyond it not being about what all the other comments claimed. So the context seemed to be all about immigration, and I was probably wrong about the bloodbath.
The difference is I dont care one lick what Biden or Trump say when they are just doing their standard rhetoric. I do care about the outlier statements like they were claiming this one was.
Jokes on all y'all, I read the autotldr and I totally agree extra terrestrial aliens are taking out blood to bathe in.
I don't understand why he is allowed to say these things without consequences. Bloodbaths? Seriously?! It's beyond the pale now.
Thanks, Merrick
You didn't read the article.
Yeah, he didn't mean it like that! We should totally give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who tried to do a violent coup once already!
You don't have to give anyone the benefit of anything.
If you read the article, the bloodbath statement was during a rant about how the continual outsourcing of production of the American auto industry will result in an industry bloodbath.
I HATE Trump.
But even more than that, I hate that as a result of 9 years of this constant nonsense from him, I hate that all of the adults have just given up.
NPR heard the word "bloodbath" and "immigration" 20 minutes and several distinct topics away from eachother? That's the headline. Done.
Then people like you, read the headline and then literally nothing else. It wouldn't be so bad if you only read the headline and then kept your mouth shut, but you read ... What is that FOURTEEN words, and feel like you're prepared to have an adult conversation on that basis?
Like what the fuck happened to us as a society. Like, was it Trump? Was it earlier, with the Bushian notion of "truthiness"? Was it capitalism crushing news media out of the realm of fact and objectivity into what it is now: literally argued in court to merely be "entertainment"? How has it come to be that speaking about something you know nothing about is societally viewed as "fine", rather than an embarrassment... Yet asking people to actually read something before commenting on it gets you mocked?
Are you allergic to reading?
I honestly think it's the internet as a whole that's done that to us.
You used to be able to not know things, but now I'm expected to have encyclopedic knowledge of every factor going into any individual choice I make as though I've gotta min/max my life. I think the expectation that everyone needs to have an opinion on everything because "the information is available, just Google it!", combined with the fact that we have a limited rate of knowledge consumption and limited bandwidth has led to people just skimming information. Shortest path to having an "informed" opinion on every topic, because God forbid you don't know something online.
I think in order to increase our media literacy we must return to partial ignorance.
Re: Moreno, it's weird to me how these guys just suddenly get to pivot. Cruz kind of did the same thing.
Dehumanizing people?
Now he's going full nazi
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Yeah because his opposition has set the bar so low that you'd have to dig to go under it.
Trump had to heighten his anti-immigrant rhetoric now that Biden has moved to the right on the border.
However the orange criminal ordered his lackey, Mikey "Moses" to keep the border open, presumably to punish the country for not anointing him king.
Centrism, by virtue of being the center of the rightward-ratcheting Overton window, is a mercurial, incoherent ideology.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But Trump used the stage to deliver a profanity-filled version of his usual rally speech that again painted an apocalyptic picture of the country if Biden wins a second term.
"He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge," Singer charged in a statement.
Questions about the profile have circulated in GOP circles for the past month, sparking frustration among senior Republican operatives about Moreno's potential vulnerability in a general election, according to seven people who are directly familiar with conversations about how to address the matter.
Trump, in his remarks, also accused Biden of posing a threat to Social Security as he continued trying to clean up comments from an interview earlier this week in which he appeared to voice openness to cuts.
And that includes Medicare, by the way, and American seniors are going to be in big trouble," he warned, even though Biden has pledged to protect and strengthen Social Security as it faces a projected budget shortfall.
Just days after entering the Senate race, LaRose endorsed Trump for president — reversing an earlier stance that the state's elections chief should remain politically neutral.
The original article contains 1,155 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!