A pretty good summary here of why it's ridiculous to argue that Trump was just innocently using the word "bloodbath" in the context of tariffs.
Excuse making for Trumpian rhetoric is just pretty pathetic, given the events of Jan 6.
Of course he uses violence encouraging rhetoric, regularly.
As someone else explains:
%20Mehdi%20Hasan%20(@mehdirhasan)%20_%20X.png)
10 comments:
got it in one
This is an example of why on Planet America they warned about the dangers of trying too hard to criticize Trump. It justifies the witch hunt accusation. There are more substantive issues to go after Trump like his use of Biden beating Obama or his recent idea of up to 16 weeks for abortion. Instead the Left latches onto one phrase and goes hell for leather to make a big deal out of it when there is some doubt as to what he actually meant. The Left will be far better off focusing on his cognitive issues and obvious demonstrations of phonemic paraphasia than arguing about this ambiguity.
Planet America is too soft on the whole Trump phenomena, if you ask me: they mock him, but just treating him as a clown badly downplays the actual danger he and his movement represent to democracy, the rule of law and civil society.
So I don't take their "the Left needs to play their cards more carefully" line very seriously. I like them, but they are still part of the pundit class who make a good living out of horse-race calling American politics.
And besides which - the "Left wing media" I read did acknowledge the alleged "uncertainty" as to what he was referring to.
The case the WAPO and Mehdi made was entirely legit, in any event...
agree on both counts Steve
It isn't about the dangers Trump represent, it is about choosing the right targets. For example, Tyler Cohen focused on another example of Trump's word mangling behavior. Choosing the wrong targets has people going down distraction rabbit holes and makes people look desperate. That doesn't help. There is so much mud being thrown at Trump that most people are not listening to much of it and his supporters next to none of it. There is far more traction to be made out of the 16 week abortion plan and the ridiculous reason being 16 weeks is "nice round number"(ie 4 months). There is much more fun to be had with his inability to pay legal costs because that goes to the heart of his identity. Both of the aforementioned issues are of very important relevance to his supporters because he has a large evangelical support base and he is regarded as a financial genius. Hit him where it hurts most because most people, even Democrats, don't believe that Trump will institute Marshall law and instantiate a bloodbath.
"Hit him where it hurts most because most people, even Democrats, don't believe that Trump will institute Marshall law and instantiate a bloodbath."
Look, I agree to the extent that the example of his first Presidency shows that (nearly all) of Pentagon senior leadership consider Trump is a schmuck too dumb and dangerous to follow. No one thinks an actual civil war is likely if he wins, because the military won't follow him into it.
But - no one sensible is likely to want to work for him ever again, meaning that some real extreme nutters will be in control and trying some more extreme things than they got to do in his first Presidency. They wouldn't shoot protesters during his first Presidency - do you have confidence they won't in the second one?
What about his promised extreme "round up" action against illegal immigrants? You think that is going to go smoothly and without violence?
What's more, if he loses, do we just expect another re-run of the attack on Congress, but this time with guns? (Maybe the number of those who have served time due to Attack on Congress 1 will prevent that - but it's not a certainty).
The biggest danger, in terms of violence, is likely to be from Right wing terrorism in protest of a Democrat win. It seems remarkable that we haven't had something like another Oklahoma bombing yet - but we know that the FBI and security services have been freaking out over the increased risk of RW domestic terrorism since 2016 - and of course Trump's use of violence in rhetoric helps normalise RW extremists desires in their own minds.
What's more, it used to be a scandal for harmful rhetoric to be used by a candidate - Trump does not deserve a "pass" for using it, because it is dangerous, and scandalous, and the excuse that "it's just rhetoric" should never have been allowed to stand.
This is why I say the media has been too soft on Trump - ever since the 2016 campaign when he said and did outrageous things beyond the former norms of political candidates, but the media just went "well, his followers like it and he's competitive, so perhaps we just have to live with it as the new norm."
No, we don't.
Perhaps I should have said "no one believes a civil war will happen if he wins or loses - it's not probable under any scenario - " but that doesn't mean there is no danger is his use of violence in rhetoric, as explained above..
Jan 6 anyone
Forget that. The big news today is his lawyers stating he has no chance of raising the bond for the appeal. How is Trump going to explain that to his fans? What I find surprising is that he has no filthy rich friends to come to his rescue. What's up Elon? Burned by X and not prepared to help? Trump has until the 25th but his lawyers argue every avenue has been exhausted. That is weird. I won't celebrate yet because someone might put up the money but if that doesn't happen it will be a big blow for Trump's ego.
john they are all worried Trump won't pay them back. If he loses the appeal and that is probable then that money goes to the state of NY. Trump would then have to pay the person/company who has stumped up.
That would involve firesales of property which would mean not just little cashflow but few assets as well.
Post a Comment