EPTTrump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4455
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5323 Posts
Trump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2403 Posts
On October 21 2024 01:12 Magic Powers wrote: I don't care what the New York Times says. I care what Trump says. What he says is abhorrent and should disqualify him from presidency. No need to spin his words to come to that conclusion. It should disqualify him from presidency via people understanding the dangerous messaging and not voting for him. That doesn't seem to be happening as clearly as we'd hope. What now? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3160 Posts
Part 1 is the lead-up to Trump's comment on "radical left lunatics". Feel free to skip to part 2. Context: Trump segued from finances about the wall into the topic of open borders. The host is Maria Bartiromo from Fox News. Part 1 Trump: They want open borders and they're always going to want, and, she's always going to want open borders. Host: Why? Trump: That's the $64,000 question, why, I have no idea. Maybe they hate our country? Host: One of the elements of the border has brought in Tren de Aragua (note: a 5000 members strong transnational criminal organization from Venezuela, its growth associated with migration to other nations), this Venezuelan gang, quite dangerous. You told us about this. Trump: "Quite?" Not "quite", you could take the word, just pure dangerous, they're evil. Host: And you told us this back in 2015 and 2016 that Venezuela was emptying their prisons, they were coming here, and you were mocked for it (note: I tried fact checking this and I can neither confirm nor refute that Trump warned of this in 2015. Maybe someone else has info? Bartiromo's comment is likely meant to address Trump's debunked claims of cat eating migrants in Ohio). How did you know back then that these Venezuelan gangs were coming to America? Trump: Common sense, it's just common sense. If I'm running Venezuela like their (chairman?) who's becoming very rich because we're buying oil from Venezuela, you can believe this, we have more liquid gold under our feet than anybody else that we're bying oil from Venezuela. He's emptying out his prisons, but he's not the only one, it's not (just) Venezuela, it's everyone all over the world. The Congo in Africa, we've taken in hundreds of people from their prisons (note: as I'm writing this I've been fact checking a bunch of stuff already and I need to do other things. If someone else wants to fact check this please go ahead), the Congo, all the way in Africa, many many countries, the Middle East, we're taking in massive numbers of people and many terrorists (note: please feel free to fact check this as well) and they're coming into our country and they're Middle Eastern terrorists, and from Asia we're taking in, and a lot from South America. Part 2 (start reading here) Host: There was an Afghan refugee charged with plotting a US election day massacre. Trump: Nothing surprises me. Host: What about that though? Are you expecting chaos on election day? Trump: No, I don't think, not from the side that votes for Trump. Host: But I'm just wondering, if these outside agitators will start up on election day. Lets say you win, lets remember you've got 50 000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years. There are people on the terrorist watchlist, 350 in the last couple of years. You got, like you said 13 000 murderers and 15 000 rapists. Uhm, what are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful election day (fact check: President Joe Biden said on October 4 he was confident that the November election would be "free and fair" but expressed concerns that it may not be "peaceful." Conclusion: Bartiromo is lying) Trump: Well he doesn't have any idea what's happening in (unintelligible) he spends most of his day sleeping. I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroying our country - and by the way totally destroying our country, the towns and villages, they're being inundated - but I don't think we have a problem in terms of election day, I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and I think they're the ba-- (?) and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary by National Guard, or if really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3160 Posts
No, I'm not buying it. Trump is again the one preparing an unsafe atmosphere for election day, just as he's done before. He's known for doing this, and given his choice of words it's safe to say he's doing it again right now. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3160 Posts
On October 21 2024 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote: It should disqualify him from presidency via people understanding the dangerous messaging and not voting for him. That doesn't seem to be happening as clearly as we'd hope. What now? I have no answer to that. I'm hoping all goes relatively well, but I can say Trump is certainly going to be responsible for some of the violence if it occurs. | ||
|
oBlade
Korea (South)4904 Posts
On October 21 2024 02:46 Magic Powers wrote: My conclusion: the most good faith interpretation of Trump's words doesn't change anything. He referred to Kamala Harris herself as a "radical left lunatic" months before he did this interview, right? That tells us who he thinks is the "enemy within" that military force needs to be used against on election day. What, is he implying Harris will make election day chaotic and unsafe? Based on what? When did she incite violence and why does he think she's going to incite violence on election day? Who in their right mind thinks Harris is a threat to American voters? No, Kamala is not the one to commit violence personally, she's just there to bail out the grunt lunatics after they run roughshod over the US carving out parts of cities with impunity any time they don't get their way. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43235 Posts
On October 21 2024 00:54 BlackJack wrote: 4. Therefore the mainstream media can publish headlines “Trump promises to use the military on Kamala Harris” Promises? Who said promises? This is accurate: 4. Therefore, the mainstream media could accurately publish the headline "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris", because that headline is literally just repeating #3. That's just reporting what Trump has already said. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom774 Posts
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November. The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House. I'm sure they've set this up in such a way that it skirts around laws against bribing voters, but it is still super suspicious. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21109 Posts
On October 21 2024 04:07 MJG wrote: I assume its something along the lines of its not illegal to pay someone for signing a petition saying that they will be voting for X, because there is nothing compelling them to actually do so.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg78ljxn8g7o I'm sure they've set this up in such a way that it skirts around laws against bribing voters, but it is still super suspicious. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9900 Posts
On October 21 2024 03:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Promises? Who said promises? This is accurate: 4. Therefore, the mainstream media could accurately publish the headline "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris", because that headline is literally just repeating #3. That's just reporting what Trump has already said. Right, we just see things differently because Trump didn’t say he would use the military to silence Kamala. I want the media to tell me what people actually say and you want them to tell you their interpretation of what they say as if it’s the thing they actually said. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7050 Posts
On October 21 2024 03:07 oBlade wrote: No, Kamala is not the one to commit violence personally, she's just there to bail out the grunt lunatics after they run roughshod over the US carving out parts of cities with impunity any time they don't get their way. What the fuck are you talking about. Go join a proud boy rally or something FFS. Theres only one group of people trying to steal elections and who attacked the capitol. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21109 Posts
On October 21 2024 04:20 Sadist wrote: I assume he is talking about BLM, because damn those black people getting uppity and complaining when the police execute them.What the fuck are you talking about. Go join a proud boy rally or something FFS. Theres only one group of people trying to steal elections and who attacked the capitol. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11154 Posts
On October 21 2024 04:07 MJG wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg78ljxn8g7o I'm sure they've set this up in such a way that it skirts around laws against bribing voters, but it is still super suspicious. Those must be the paid BLM antifa protestors we always hear about. Or the buying votes that the democrats always do. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43235 Posts
On October 21 2024 04:19 BlackJack wrote: Right, we just see things differently because Trump didn’t say he would use the military to silence Kamala. I want the media to tell me what people actually say and you want them to tell you their interpretation of what they say as if it’s the thing they actually said. It's not an interpretation. There is no subjectivity. It's literally the law of detachment in deductive reasoning: 1. If someone is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left, then Trump has said he would use military force to silence them. (p -> q) 2. Kamala Harris is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left. (p) 3. Therefore, Trump has said he would use military force to silence Harris. (q) Trump has stated that if one thing is true for an individual, then a second thing follows for that individual. The first thing is true in the instance of Harris. Therefore, the second thing follows in the instance of Harris. There is no reading between the lines, or a dependence on context, or metaphor involved. This is the logical conclusion to what Trump has said about Harris being on the radical left and what Trump would do to silence anyone on the radical left. If you think Trump is lying, then fine, but that's different. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5547 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43235 Posts
On October 21 2024 05:56 Elroi wrote: But between p and q were the qualifications that Trump had won the election and the "radical leftists" were rioting, no? I didn't watch the clip but that seems like important context? Sadly, the important context isn't that Trump actually wins the election, but that Trump believes he won the election even if he loses. Trump will believe he won the election in every scenario, whether or not he actually wins. These radical left rioters (or whatever) would almost certainly just be normal people upholding the real election results, which might end up being a Harris victory. It's weird because this is based on Trump's warped perspective, not actual reality. Obviously, Trump won't have actual control of the military either way (since Biden is still president between November and January), so this is all hypothetical. But if Trump successfully steals the election despite Harris actually having the true electoral college win, then I wouldn't be surprised if Trump uses the military on those who opposed his rigging, after his inauguration. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9900 Posts
On October 21 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's not an interpretation. There is no subjectivity. It's literally the law of detachment in deductive reasoning: 1. If someone is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left, then Trump has said he would use military force to silence them. (p -> q) 2. Kamala Harris is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left. (p) 3. Therefore, Trump has said he would use military force to silence Harris. (q) Trump has stated that if one thing is true for an individual, then a second thing follows for that individual. The first thing is true in the instance of Harris. Therefore, the second thing follows in the instance of Harris. There is no reading between the lines, or a dependence on context, or metaphor involved. This is the logical conclusion to what Trump has said about Harris being on the radical left and what Trump would do to silence anyone on the radical left. If you think Trump is lying, then fine, but that's different. Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy. Trump calls the radical left the enemy. Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical left Of course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. | ||
|
Billyboy
178 Posts
On October 21 2024 06:10 BlackJack wrote: Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy. Trump calls the radical left the enemy. Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical left Of course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. This is the quote people are talking about, seems pretty clear that he is saying he would use the military on the radical left. People who are pointing out who he has called the radical left makes a lot of sense. "I think the bigger problem are the people from within," Trump told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." "We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics... And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen," he said. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43235 Posts
On October 21 2024 06:10 BlackJack wrote: Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy. Trump calls the radical left the enemy. Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical left Of course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. That's not how valid inference and deductive reasoning work. Feel free to look up the law of detachment and the law of syllogism, for example. You are not using the "same logic" as... well... actual logic. I see your Poppycock and I raise you a Malarkey  It seems like this topic has run its course. Feel free to have the last word if you'd like. + Show Spoiler + I hope the last word is Balderdash! | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3160 Posts
| ||
| ||
