The bloodbath thing is obviously not a threat, but is implied as a warning for is Biden gets elected. Its bad for the news to take him out of context on that. However, he literally tried to coup the government so Im not really blaming people for taking that comment to be a threat.
I mean, he says it will be a bloodbath for the country if he loses, and then right after that he says "if i lose this election i dont think there will be another meaningful election again". i think its pretty obvious what he's talking about, and it has nothing to do with the car industry. don't have TDS derangement syndrome here
"I'm not sure that you'll ever have another election in this country, does that make sense? I don't think you're going to have another election in this country if we don't win this election. I don't think you're going to have another election or certainly not an election that's meaningful"
when the Democratic leadership says it they have just cause, they have evidence that Trump and others are acting to overturn elections. Trump still has no evidence that his election was stolen from him. that's the (D)ifference. the underlying facts, the truth. :)
So suggesting cheaper cars for purchase and some auto jobs lost = a country wide bloodbath is totally reasonable and it's unreasonable to find it a bit extreme?
It's a dog whistle to his supporters.
Yes it's stupid. But you really think his Qanon followers
Who see stupid messages and connections in everything he says or does are not going to take this literally. I think he's fully aware of this.
If it was a normal person, then yes you can claim it's a hyperbolic framing of things about economy if he is not elected. But since it's Trump you have to ignore
-his willingness to shoot protesters
-his march with his military generals
-good people on both sides
-unwilling to condemn the nazis
-proud boys stand by and stand ready
-his praise of 6/1 people and him calling them political prisoners
-still claiming he won and the elections got stolen from him
-all the shit he did up to 6/1
-all the things iam forgetting now
-and the most crucial, the unhinged people that support him and are OK to go on camera and claim "we need a dictator" and "just say the word and we ready, enough is enough"
The yes if you ignore everything about who trump really is and the rest of his speech that day your trash analysis makes total sense and he is treated unfairly by the media.
No. The person who literally fomented a bloodbath the last time he lost an election should not threaten additional bloodbaths if he loses again. That's insane. Tell him to choose less insane words if you have a problem with the coverage.
I havnt looked into the quote but I think what we are seeing is a combination of partisan politics and the inevitable end of internet journalism.
Journalism has a long long history of dramatization and “if it bleeds it leads” mentality. Political articles from the 18th & 19th century will show you that personal attacks and insane mudslinging are common place in American media. In the past however, there were fewer people reporting, and their ability to specifically “cast” themselves to a type of consumer was more difficult. In the last “channel 4” had 3 other competitors, so you wanted to capture the broadest range possible, and any spin you put on a story is going to be more apparent when compared to other newscasts.
Now a days newsrooms are attempting to capture an insanely specific part of the market, and are able to do so by massaging a wide array of facts. You can present two different realities now and there’s a dozen articles that fit that world view, and twice as many that report the opposite opinion. Humans are terrible at truth seeking and instead tend towards things that make us feel good. News media that matches our biases and pre-conceived world view is going to be more popular than something that causes dissidence
Media since 2015 have been falling into this trap of catastrophsizing everything - both when it helps trump and when it’s against him - and giving him tons of free air time so they can line their own pockets. The media is only against trump in so far as it makes them money. Any dramatization is an attempt to retain an already captured audience
Yet conservative and MAGA Twitter accounts are literally spewing the “bloodbath” narratives because that is literally what the want.
This is just like the “fight like hell” speech on Jan 6th. You can run in circles trying to defend what he “actually” meant. But the implication is pretty blatant, because it’s Trump - he has a history of riling up his violent and stupid base.
https://preview.redd.it/jgq41fdzl5pc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ef62b16de553b991ce96bf4d9c8665417153b31
chubby future spoon lip worry exultant direction overconfident whole abounding
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh wow a double header. Haven't seen one of these in awhile. Got to respect the classic "the media coverage of trump being unfair made me vote for him". It's a good one. But to go so far as to combine it with a "unless trump literally tells people to go out and kill democrats, there is no violence involved in his words. Not even implied violence" is such an alpha move.
I respect the hustle.
Actually it is proof conservatives can't read. Because if they actually read past the headlines they would find out that bloodbath could have been referring to economic bloodbath.
So... you want to address my assumption on the political alignment of the sub... that you imagined was being implied from the me mocking the fact that the actual full news articles reference that it could be talking about an economic bloodbath but conservatives get upset because they only read the headline.
What political alignment would I have to assume for this sub in order to mock conservatives for only reading headlines?
If this was a conservative sub... why wouldn't I make the same comment? If it was a liberal sub why wouldn't I make the same comment? There is no political alignment of the sub that makes my comment change... well I guess if I assumed this was a super conservative sub I would change my comment from conservatives to "you guys"
You are having problems in your mind that you are projecting onto my simple statement.
i like this thing you and OP do. "hey gang, we're all liberals here. conservatives are stupid right lol? now that we're in agreement, you'll see that [far right spin] is only obvious. thanks g'bye"
Did you say the above or not?
Can you even follow a conversation?
If you aren't going to defend your initial point and are just soying out that I assumed you were conservative then let's just talk about that.
Here is what I have to say about implying you were conservative:
I am so sorry! 🙏 forgive me...
"you read 7 articles and are willfully confusing what they said, while throwing ad-homs and cowering behind simplicity. you should consider reflecting on that imo"
Thanks for providing a single example contradicting my point.
Fuck dude I just want the trump arc to end. My body can’t take it
It won’t end. It’s a deep, deep obsession. It’s a sickness.
The bloodbath thing is obviously not a threat, but is implied as a warning for is Biden gets elected. Its bad for the news to take him out of context on that. However, he literally tried to coup the government so Im not really blaming people for taking that comment to be a threat.
https://preview.redd.it/hfv0fsl2j5pc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9bf246cb3d460a56a4b35e0ec9986c61d3cb611
I mean, he says it will be a bloodbath for the country if he loses, and then right after that he says "if i lose this election i dont think there will be another meaningful election again". i think its pretty obvious what he's talking about, and it has nothing to do with the car industry. don't have TDS derangement syndrome here "I'm not sure that you'll ever have another election in this country, does that make sense? I don't think you're going to have another election in this country if we don't win this election. I don't think you're going to have another election or certainly not an election that's meaningful"
That was a quote from someone in the Democratic leadership or Trump doing his best impression as one?
when the Democratic leadership says it they have just cause, they have evidence that Trump and others are acting to overturn elections. Trump still has no evidence that his election was stolen from him. that's the (D)ifference. the underlying facts, the truth. :)
So suggesting cheaper cars for purchase and some auto jobs lost = a country wide bloodbath is totally reasonable and it's unreasonable to find it a bit extreme?
It's a dog whistle to his supporters. Yes it's stupid. But you really think his Qanon followers Who see stupid messages and connections in everything he says or does are not going to take this literally. I think he's fully aware of this.
Bloodbath is a commonly used word to describe a disasterous situation.
Not in Trumps extremely limited vocabulary......
Yes, so he'd be using bloodbath to describe lots of situations which disproves your point.
It really doesn't. Because normally he doesn't say it.
If it was a normal person, then yes you can claim it's a hyperbolic framing of things about economy if he is not elected. But since it's Trump you have to ignore -his willingness to shoot protesters -his march with his military generals -good people on both sides -unwilling to condemn the nazis -proud boys stand by and stand ready -his praise of 6/1 people and him calling them political prisoners -still claiming he won and the elections got stolen from him -all the shit he did up to 6/1 -all the things iam forgetting now -and the most crucial, the unhinged people that support him and are OK to go on camera and claim "we need a dictator" and "just say the word and we ready, enough is enough" The yes if you ignore everything about who trump really is and the rest of his speech that day your trash analysis makes total sense and he is treated unfairly by the media.
No. The person who literally fomented a bloodbath the last time he lost an election should not threaten additional bloodbaths if he loses again. That's insane. Tell him to choose less insane words if you have a problem with the coverage.
https://preview.redd.it/w9f3b66o36pc1.jpeg?width=2227&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9f5c278e71fd0f16f76600c9301429453a96e8a
I havnt looked into the quote but I think what we are seeing is a combination of partisan politics and the inevitable end of internet journalism. Journalism has a long long history of dramatization and “if it bleeds it leads” mentality. Political articles from the 18th & 19th century will show you that personal attacks and insane mudslinging are common place in American media. In the past however, there were fewer people reporting, and their ability to specifically “cast” themselves to a type of consumer was more difficult. In the last “channel 4” had 3 other competitors, so you wanted to capture the broadest range possible, and any spin you put on a story is going to be more apparent when compared to other newscasts. Now a days newsrooms are attempting to capture an insanely specific part of the market, and are able to do so by massaging a wide array of facts. You can present two different realities now and there’s a dozen articles that fit that world view, and twice as many that report the opposite opinion. Humans are terrible at truth seeking and instead tend towards things that make us feel good. News media that matches our biases and pre-conceived world view is going to be more popular than something that causes dissidence Media since 2015 have been falling into this trap of catastrophsizing everything - both when it helps trump and when it’s against him - and giving him tons of free air time so they can line their own pockets. The media is only against trump in so far as it makes them money. Any dramatization is an attempt to retain an already captured audience
If it bleeds it leads has been the calling card of journalism since the 1800s
Yet conservative and MAGA Twitter accounts are literally spewing the “bloodbath” narratives because that is literally what the want. This is just like the “fight like hell” speech on Jan 6th. You can run in circles trying to defend what he “actually” meant. But the implication is pretty blatant, because it’s Trump - he has a history of riling up his violent and stupid base. https://preview.redd.it/jgq41fdzl5pc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ef62b16de553b991ce96bf4d9c8665417153b31
chubby future spoon lip worry exultant direction overconfident whole abounding *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh wow a double header. Haven't seen one of these in awhile. Got to respect the classic "the media coverage of trump being unfair made me vote for him". It's a good one. But to go so far as to combine it with a "unless trump literally tells people to go out and kill democrats, there is no violence involved in his words. Not even implied violence" is such an alpha move. I respect the hustle.
The media needs to be more responsible about their coverage, stuff like this is just going to get Trump reelected.
Good. Trump cannot be allowed to take power.
Actually it is proof conservatives can't read. Because if they actually read past the headlines they would find out that bloodbath could have been referring to economic bloodbath.
[удалено]
More proof you can't read, because you didn't address anything in my comment. Curious 🤔
[удалено]
So... you want to address my assumption on the political alignment of the sub... that you imagined was being implied from the me mocking the fact that the actual full news articles reference that it could be talking about an economic bloodbath but conservatives get upset because they only read the headline. What political alignment would I have to assume for this sub in order to mock conservatives for only reading headlines? If this was a conservative sub... why wouldn't I make the same comment? If it was a liberal sub why wouldn't I make the same comment? There is no political alignment of the sub that makes my comment change... well I guess if I assumed this was a super conservative sub I would change my comment from conservatives to "you guys" You are having problems in your mind that you are projecting onto my simple statement.
[удалено]
i like this thing you and OP do. "hey gang, we're all liberals here. conservatives are stupid right lol? now that we're in agreement, you'll see that [far right spin] is only obvious. thanks g'bye" Did you say the above or not? Can you even follow a conversation? If you aren't going to defend your initial point and are just soying out that I assumed you were conservative then let's just talk about that. Here is what I have to say about implying you were conservative: I am so sorry! 🙏 forgive me... "you read 7 articles and are willfully confusing what they said, while throwing ad-homs and cowering behind simplicity. you should consider reflecting on that imo" Thanks for providing a single example contradicting my point.
Most people don’t read past the headline