Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
They can’t help themselves. No matter how bad the thing Trump says is they just have to twist it a little to make it worse.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
Trump called Cheney “a deranged person” and added, “But the reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries.”
The former president continued: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
“You know they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, oh gee, well let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy,” Trump said.
On October 31 2024 21:42 oBlade wrote: McCain 2008: "He's not a Muslim, he's a good man." Biden 2024: "Garbage" Yeah thanks to the left for keeping the country on an even keel as always.
Please tell me you're joking, considering Trump has made literally hundreds of inappropriate comments much worse than the "Biden garbage" remark. Also, Biden isn't even running for president. Trump and Harris are.
This isn't the "US Running for President" thread, it's the US politics thread.
Okay cool. So Biden accurately depicted many of Trump's supporters as garbage, in retaliation to a Trump rally speaker first calling Puerto Rico "garbage". And? Convenient that you left out the reason why Biden responded to the original garbage comment (from Trump's rally). Is this like the pearl-clutching when someone accurately calls Trump a fascist? Or when Hillary Clinton accurately called many of Trump's supporters "deplorable"? Oh no... the truth... how could they... ?
The «speaker» is a standup comedian. Why someone would invite him to a political rally is beyond me.
The other person is the sitting president. He shouldn’t be calling 50% of his country population “garbage”. Even Kamela said it was a stupid thing to say.
It’s blown up and irrelevant though. It has nothing to do with Kamala, and Biden has been saying really stupid things for years now so who cares really.
If they have a problem with that they should consider not supporting a fascist rapist felon.
Hillary was never wrong about the basket of deplorables. 1/3 of the US population is beyond saving, and they have repeatedly shown that to be true over the last 8+ years.
There's a running meme that Hillary Clinton was basically right about everything regarding Trump+ Show Spoiler +
and Trump's supporters - all the warnings she gave about Trump's rhetoric and potential actions that have clearly been confirmed. I don't know if 20/20 hindsight would have made more people (in swing states) vote for Hillary Clinton if they could go back in time to the 2016 election, but way too many people incorrectly dismissed the things she had said.
"“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” That is not all Clinton said. “[Trump] tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” Clinton was right on every count." https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/6/23/hillary-clinton-was-right
"She had faults as a candidate, but she was absolutely right about the danger posed by Donald Trump and his followers. ... let’s not forget that back when it mattered most, with America at a crossroads, Hillary Clinton warned us, over and over, about what would happen if the opposition’s demagogue was handed the reins of power. ...
debates when she spoke directly to Trump: “(Putin) would rather have a puppet as president. (We know) that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do. And that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.”
when she warned about the MAGA movement’s animosity toward people of color: “Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters. It’s a disturbing preview of what kind of president he’d be.”
when she warned that the GOP would target gay people all over again, regardless of “the progress that we fought for, that many of you were on the front lines for. It may not be as secure as we once expected.”
She got it right in a 2016 speech when she warned that “a fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party. And this is part of a broader story — the rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world. … So no one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here.”
when she warned about a fragile future for women’s reproductive rights: “The fact that our next president could appoint as many as three or four justices in the next four years (demonstrates) that we can’t take (those rights) for granted. Just consider Donald Trump, the Republicans’ presumptive nominee. … He has pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. … And that’s why this election is so important. The outcome of November’s contests is going to be a deciding factor in whether our elected officials and our courts defend or attack a woman’s right to health care for generations to come.”
by the way. Last year she noted: “There is a plot against the country by people who truly want to turn the clock back. They believe that the progress we’ve made on all kinds of civil rights and human rights, the cultural changes that have taken place, are so deeply threatening that they want to stage a coup.”
If that coup is completed in 2024, don’t say that Hillary didn’t warn us."
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
She hasn't said anything favoring increased war efforts and she has criticized Obama's war efforts regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Painting her as a war hawk is completely baseless. To me she seems to lean anti-war. The Israel-Palestine conflict may lead to a different conclusion though. I have to conclude Trump is lying. Not that this is surprising or anything.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
Right, whenever I want to show people how non-threatening I am towards them, I tell them I would send them to the frontlines where a dozen or so loaded rifles are pointed right at their beautiful innocent faces. This would win them over in an instant and they'd never suspect that I'm daydreaming about their deaths or anything.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
Right, whenever I want to show people how non-threatening I am towards them, I tell them I would send them to the frontlines where a dozen or so loaded rifles are pointed right at their beautiful innocent faces. This would win them over in an instant and they'd never suspect that I'm daydreaming about their deaths or anything.
You're focusing alot on the wording. Remember Trump is an elderly rambling idiot, he isn't choosing his words carefully. His general point was obvious, that she is fine sending people to war but wouldn't go herself. You can do this other thing about him wanting to literally put her in front of a firing squad, but personally I think saying something like that is probably beyond even Trump, and its definitely not the obvious way to interpret his words.
There's way too much focus on 'but he said this, but she said that' in this election. Its not going to change anyone's mind. Surely policy is more important, but I've barely seen any discussion on policy except immigration.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
Right, whenever I want to show people how non-threatening I am towards them, I tell them I would send them to the frontlines where a dozen or so loaded rifles are pointed right at their beautiful innocent faces. This would win them over in an instant and they'd never suspect that I'm daydreaming about their deaths or anything.
You're focusing alot on the wording. Remember Trump is an elderly rambling idiot, he isn't choosing his words carefully. His general point was obvious, that she is fine sending people to war but wouldn't go herself. You can do this other thing about him wanting to literally put her in front of a firing squad, but personally I think saying something like that is probably beyond even Trump, and its definitely not the obvious way to interpret his words.
There's way too much focus on 'but he said this, but she said that' in this election. Its not going to change anyone's mind. Surely policy is more important, but I've barely seen any discussion on policy except immigration.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
Right, whenever I want to show people how non-threatening I am towards them, I tell them I would send them to the frontlines where a dozen or so loaded rifles are pointed right at their beautiful innocent faces. This would win them over in an instant and they'd never suspect that I'm daydreaming about their deaths or anything.
You're focusing alot on the wording. Remember Trump is an elderly rambling idiot, he isn't choosing his words carefully. His general point was obvious, that she is fine sending people to war but wouldn't go herself. You can do this other thing about him wanting to literally put her in front of a firing squad, but personally I think saying something like that is probably beyond even Trump, and its definitely not the obvious way to interpret his words.
There's way too much focus on 'but he said this, but she said that' in this election. Its not going to change anyone's mind. Surely policy is more important, but I've barely seen any discussion on policy except immigration.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father?
I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique
Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty.
Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics.
The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015.
On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote: As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with.
You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first. Here's the repeating order of events simplified: 1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash) 2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism) 3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash 4) Punch his supporters because that's justified now
The reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
Right, whenever I want to show people how non-threatening I am towards them, I tell them I would send them to the frontlines where a dozen or so loaded rifles are pointed right at their beautiful innocent faces. This would win them over in an instant and they'd never suspect that I'm daydreaming about their deaths or anything.
You're focusing alot on the wording. Remember Trump is an elderly rambling idiot, he isn't choosing his words carefully. His general point was obvious, that she is fine sending people to war but wouldn't go herself. You can do this other thing about him wanting to literally put her in front of a firing squad, but personally I think saying something like that is probably beyond even Trump, and its definitely not the obvious way to interpret his words.
There's way too much focus on 'but he said this, but she said that' in this election. Its not going to change anyone's mind. Surely policy is more important, but I've barely seen any discussion on policy except immigration.
Not available in my country unfortunately! Any chance of a brief description?
Trump Quotes: 1) We pledge to you that we will root out the communist, Marxist, fascist and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country 2) They're poisoning the blood of our country, that's what they've done 3) They said no they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals. I'll use the word animals, because that's what they are 4) You got to get these people back where they came from, you have no choice, you're gonna lose your culture, you're gonna lose your country 5) Does anybody believe in genes, you guys believe in genetics? (Note: I think he said this regarding thousands of murderers being migrated to America, but I can't find the direct quote to confirm the context) 6) A murderer, I believe this, it's in their genes, and we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now 7) It's the enemy from within, all the scum that we have to deal with that hate our country 8) I am your retribution, I am your retribution (Note: he said this a month after his first indictment. Jonathan Karl refers to this as the "Come Retribution" code word from a plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Trump wasn't overtly calling for assassination, but the choice of words is noteworthy)
Hitler Quotes: 1) I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breed like vermin (1939) 2) The people will have to atone for the sins of this worldwide poisoning with their blood (1933) 3) An opponent which... consists not of human beings, but of animals (1941) 4) In every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people ("Mein Kampf") 5) Individual vices always recur in people as long as their inner nature, their genetic composition, does not undergo any essential change (1932) 6) This scum of the nation (1940) 7) The hour of retribution will come (1944)
I may've missed one of the quotes, I hope this is good enough.
For context, Cheney used to be a harsh critic of Harris. Now she works for her. Trump hates Cheney because she switched sides. He threatens "traitors" like her with persecution and now even death. Threats like these are literally his entire platform right now.
My dude this are his exact words from article you linked:
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
"Put her in front of nine barrels" has no missing context no matter how you put it. He's invoking the image of a death squad and I call your apologia for what it is. You're a very good Trump supporter.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I think he's right in this case tbh.
Right, whenever I want to show people how non-threatening I am towards them, I tell them I would send them to the frontlines where a dozen or so loaded rifles are pointed right at their beautiful innocent faces. This would win them over in an instant and they'd never suspect that I'm daydreaming about their deaths or anything.
You're focusing alot on the wording. Remember Trump is an elderly rambling idiot, he isn't choosing his words carefully. His general point was obvious, that she is fine sending people to war but wouldn't go herself. You can do this other thing about him wanting to literally put her in front of a firing squad, but personally I think saying something like that is probably beyond even Trump, and its definitely not the obvious way to interpret his words.
There's way too much focus on 'but he said this, but she said that' in this election. Its not going to change anyone's mind. Surely policy is more important, but I've barely seen any discussion on policy except immigration.
Not available in my country unfortunately! Any chance of a brief description?
Trump Quotes: 1) We pledge to you that we will root out the communist, Marxist, fascist and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country 2) They're poisoning the blood of our country, that's what they've done 3) They said no they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals. I'll use the word animals, because that's what they are 4) You got to get these people back where they came from, you have no choice, you're gonna lose your culture, you're gonna lose your country 5) Does anybody believe in genes, you guys believe in genetics? (Note: I think he said this regarding thousands of murderers being migrated to America, but I can't find the direct quote to confirm the context) 6) A murderer, I believe this, it's in their genes, and we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now 7) It's the enemy from within, all the scum that we have to deal with that hate our country 8) I am your retribution, I am your retribution (Note: he said this a month after his first indictment. Jonathan Karl refers to this as the "Come Retribution" code word from a plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Trump wasn't overtly calling for assassination, but the choice of words is noteworthy)
Hitler Quotes: 1) I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breed like vermin (1939) 2) The people will have to atone for the sins of this worldwide poisoning with their blood (1933) 3) An opponent which... consists not of human beings, but of animals (1941) 4) In every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people ("Mein Kampf") 5) Individual vices always recur in people as long as their inner nature, their genetic composition, does not undergo any essential change (1932) 6) This scum of the nation (1940) 7) The hour of retribution will come (1944)
I may've missed one of the quotes, I hope this is good enough.
Yeah this doesn't surprise me. No matter what people say, surely we can all agree that in general the people Hitler wanted to appeal to are of the same political persuasion (conservative, angry, divided, desperate for a political revolution of some kind) Trump wants to appeal to, so they use the same language. Like I said, I don't believe Trump is careful about the words he says, which is why its fine to analyze what he probably means, but going over every word and interpreting things overly literally is just overkill. Its usually reasonably obvious what he means, and I actually find alot of stuff coming from the anti Trump camp to be just unnecessary outrage.
You're very welcome to interpret his words how you want, but it seems to be muddying the waters rather than making things more clear in this case.
You have to pretend the obvious meaning isn't obvious to get to 'he wants to put Kamala in front of a firing squad'
I see some merit to the idea that Trump just blurted that shit out and didn't expressly mean to invoke a firing squad. I do, however, also think Trump has gotten away with a shitload of innuendo that always just happens to suggest violence against his political enemies. After a while, it's either a big coincidence, or it's a strategy.
Not to mention, if any other politician in American history meant "let's see how she does in real war" but says "let's see how she does with a specific number of rifles pointed at her", which btw is not really something that happens in war, you just get shot by somebody, a group of nine dudes doesn't stand there with rifles pointed at you, but... Anyway, any other politician says that, and that's a career-ending gaffe. Trump gets a pass again. Every other politician, moreso Democrats these days, are expected to craft their words so carefully as to make them bulletproof, impossible to interpret the wrong way, but Trump gets to be a rambling, hateful moron who just says shit like this constantly. The double standard is so striking as to be a cliff.
Either Trump knows very well what he is saying or the people feeling Trump stuff to say know what they are saying. Either way the end result is the same
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things. Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling: Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama. Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears.
On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote: Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things. Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling: Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama. Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears.
If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so'
On November 02 2024 00:10 NewSunshine wrote: I see some merit to the idea that Trump just blurted that shit out and didn't expressly mean to invoke a firing squad. I do, however, also think Trump has gotten away with a shitload of innuendo that always just happens to suggest violence against his political enemies. After a while, it's either a big coincidence, or it's a strategy.
Not to mention, if any other politician in American history meant "let's see how she does in real war" but says "let's see how she does with a specific number of rifles pointed at her", which btw is not really something that happens in war, you just get shot by somebody, a group of nine dudes doesn't stand there with rifles pointed at you, but... Anyway, any other politician says that, and that's a career-ending gaffe. Trump gets a pass again. Every other politician, moreso Democrats these days, are expected to craft their words so carefully as to make them bulletproof, impossible to interpret the wrong way, but Trump gets to be a rambling, hateful moron who just says shit like this constantly. The double standard is so striking as to be a cliff.
Its a very good point. I'd probably judge other politicians much more harshly for saying the same thing. Weird.
EPT
