Trump Comes to Ohio and Threatens the Entire Country

[GMDino]

(03-17-2024, 07:24 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: For the longest time, that was the clinical term.  Would you have preferred he said "developmentally unfinished" or "on the spectrum..", or you could go with the old Southern metaphor of "his cornbread ain't quite done in the middle".

You're not defending him because that word used to be used...right?

I'd have prefered he not use the term he did. But hey, it may be the least offensive thing he did so that explains why Trump likes him.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 07:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How man coups has Biden attempted?
How many times have mobs of Biden supporters ransacked the capitol, looked to hang political opponents, and destroy our democracy? And Biden sung their praises?
How many times did Biden have a Secretary of Defense stay on the job because he feared what would happen with a president that wanted to shoot Americans exercising their first amendment and protesting?

None of those words address the question that I laid out.  Some might refer to your responses as "deflection".

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 07:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: You're not defending him because that word used to be used...right?

I'd have prefered he not use the term he did. But hey, it may be the least offensive thing he did so that explains why Trump likes him.

I'm not "defending" anything, more than making light of your overreaction to the use of a word that was for a long time the clinical term.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2024, 06:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sorry.

He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.

I take his threats at face value now.

I can understand that.  But he didn't make a threat here, hence your position on this speech seeming a little odd.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2024, 07:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not "defending" anything, more than making light of your overreaction to the use of a word that was for a long time the clinical term.

Wow. Sure sounds like a defense.

1) I didn't "overreact", I shared what he said and did and why Trump would like him.

2) There are lots of terms that "used" to be used that aren't for one reason or another.

Where would you fall on the "N" word?  I mean it used to be used all the time...right? 

[*Nately120*]

Trump wants there to be a bloodbath if he doesn't get elected. We can argue over "what he meant" in this instance until then, if we must.

[GMDino]

I have to make a correction.  He did issue an apology (sort of) by saying that what he said out loud, recorded and shared, is not whis views.  

Also he only used the r word because he was comparing them to Democrats who argue on the internet.  So that explains more why Trump apologized to him and he would get defended for saying it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ohio-jr-majewski-ableist-slur-democrats-special-olympics-2024-2

Quote:He made the remarks toward the end of an episode of the right-wing podcast "Trifecta Hour" that aired on Friday and was suddenly made private on Monday.



"Shout out to all the Democrats living in Mom's basement that like to talk shit on the Internet. You know, no matter how hard you try, arguing on the Internet, it's like being in the Special Olympics," he said. "No matter how good you perform, you still have… you're still ***** ******** at the end of the day."


"Yeah, that's gonna get clipped and ran against me in the general election," added Majewski, later adding that his "aunt has Aspergers."

In a brief statement to Business Insider, Majewski offered an apology.

"My comments were inexcusable and inappropriate, they do not represent my views, and I am deeply sorry," he said.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 07:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wow. Sure sounds like a defense.

1) I didn't "overreact", I shared what he said and did and why Trump would like him.

2) There are lots of terms that "used" to be used that aren't for one reason or another.

Where would you fall on the "N" word?  I mean it used to be used all the time...right? 

Apples/Oranges comparison there..

If you weren't making serious issue of some guy using the "R" word, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  However, it was the clinical term for a certain group of disabled people for quite a long time.  Now the "N" word, was never a "clinical" term, but only a term meant to demean and lower a person in esteem and general value.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2024, 08:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Apples/Oranges comparison there..

If you weren't making serious issue of some guy using the "R" word, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  However, it was the clinical term for a certain group of disabled people for quite a long time.  Now the "N" word, was never a "clinical" term, but only a term meant to demean and lower a person in esteem and general value.

It's not anymore.  In fact it is activel frowned upon by most, decent people.

Oh, the N word was not just meant to demean.  It was used to describe them.  For "quite a long" time. 

LOTS of words were used both clinically and in popular culture for "quite a long time."  Which ones DON'T you think are ok to use?  'cause I thought there would be NOBODY who thought that was ok, even in this forum. It's even BLOCKED in this forum where you are a moderator. If its no big deal then you should lobby to unblock it.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 08:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's not anymore.  In fact it is activel frowned upon by most, decent people.

Oh, the N word was not just meant to demean.  It was used to describe them.  For "quite a long" time. 

LOTS of words were used both clinically and in popular culture for "quite a long time."  Which ones DON'T you think are ok to use?  'cause I thought there would be NOBODY who thought that was ok, even in this forum.  It's even BLOCKED in this forum where you are a moderator.  If its no big deal then you should lobby to unblock it.

That makes no sense at all.

Person 1.  Can you describe the individual to me?

Person 2. Uh, it was a "N" word...

Person 1. Well, that really narrows it down, could you be a bit more descriptive...

[GMDino]

(03-17-2024, 08:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That makes no sense at all.

Person 1.  Can you describe the individual to me?

Person 2. Uh, it was a "N" word...

Person 1. Well, that really narrows it down, could you be a bit more descriptive...

Ok, I see you're just gonna dodge it now that you've said you think its ok for him to use the R word.  Cool.

I'll get back to the fact that he said it, owned it and then despite the gop wanting him out of the race anyway Trump apologized for the way he was treated.

It's his party now.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 08:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ok, I see you're just gonna dodge it now that you've said you think its ok for him to use the R word.  Cool.

I'll get back to the fact that he said it, owned it and then despite the gop wanting him out of the race anyway Trump apologized for the way he was treated.

It's his party now.

Person 1. Oh, you're not going to bend to my point of view?

Person 2. Points out the faulty logic in explaining said point of view.

Person 1. Well, since you're not going to agree, I'll just continue to act as if I am correct.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2024, 08:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Person 1. Oh, you're not going to bend to my point of view?

Person 2. Points out the faulty logic in explaining said point of view.

Person 1. Well, since you're not going to agree, I'll just continue to act as if I am correct.

You're the one defending the use of the word ******** to describe other human being just because it used to be used.  I'm not ask anyone to bend to anything.  I'm asking to live in the 21st century and not use outdated and offensive terms.

Silly me.

But you go ahead and do you. I'm sure you'll have some colorful names for me that used to be used all the time.  

I'm stopping this part of the discussion because I don't want posts deleted that make it look like I said something I did not.  

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 08:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: You're the one defending the use of the word ******** to describe other human being just because it used to be used.  I'm not ask anyone to bend to anything.  I'm asking to live in the 21st century and not use outdated and offensive terms.

Silly me.

But you go ahead and do you. I'm sure you'll have some colorful names for me that used to be used all the time.  

I'm stopping this part of the discussion because I don't want posts deleted that make it look like I said something I did not.  

One thing is definitely for sure, you'll never have to worry about people putting words in your mouth. 

Oddly enough, as much as our opinions on here disagree, I feel like I would probably like you in person.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2024, 08:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: One thing is definitely for sure, you'll never have to worry about people putting words in your mouth. 

No, but there is a history of my words disappearing in order to make a point against me...or 100.  

I've said that before. Our differences (not just you and me) are amplified by being set in writing with no tone, no chance to discuss just to answer individual points. Most of us would get along fine because life is bigger than politics.

So do you have a problem with Trump apologizing to the guy who lied about his military career and used the r word?  

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because a "bloodbath" is a common market term when things go radically south quickly.  If the stock market has a particularly bad day it will be described as a bloodbath.  Google stock market bloodbath and you'll get these article titles.

[/url]His using this term is very consistent with discussing financial matters.  It literally has no connotation in that context other than a horrendous financial result.

I understand. But still, his exact words were “We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those guys if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.”

You say that there's literally no different connotation than to the car industry, but I really did neither hear nor read it that way. He also says that'll be the least of it. He also later claims it will be the last election if he loses. Something that can be perceived in two ways really, as talking about car industry in an extremely hyperbolic manner (just, what does "that'll be the least of it" mean then) or as coded language, that all the people that are indeed willing to turn violent for him will just percieve as such. And others might feel intimitaded. While others say bloodbath is just a common economic term.

And this is not an isolated incident. Trump uses this two-way rhetoric all the time, there's incident over incident that might just be harmless, but might just not be. They got debated here time and again. Groups like the proud boys sure indeed put "stand by" on their shirts,actually take the hyperbolic interpretation and at the very least, Trump knows that. And with this knowledge, he'd have to choose his words more carefully if he really is appalled by the idea of violence if he loses, imho. And it's fine to disagree on that, it's just if you think me or Nati are hyperbolic I will counter that imho, you and many others are way too naive about the guy and his particular rhetorics and intentions. I hope you're right, btw.

(03-17-2024, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It wasn't a perceived threat, it was a threat.  Schumer stated the following.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."


He uses threatening language and directly names two of the justices.  There is literally no way to interpret this other than a threat that bad things that will happen to them if they act "x" way.

Bad things, well, I can still find a way more harmless interpretation. A whirlwind means there will be many civil rights groups using all their constitutional rights to fight the decision, paying the price means justices will face tons of tough questions over that, and they might not have expected all that resistance. All things that well might be bad for them, but are fine. Now I do not read it that way, I think that was coded language as well and irresponsible as well, but it's not like one can only percieve Schumer's words as a personal threat. Imho that's the trick to get away with it, that it can be argued another way.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 08:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, but there is a history of my words disappearing in order to make a point against me...or 100.  

I've said that before.  Our differences (not just you and me) are amplified by being set in writing with no tone, no chance to discuss just to answer individual points.  Most of us would get along fine because life is bigger than politics.

So do you have a problem with Trump apologizing to the guy who lied about his military career and used the r word?  

So this thread is about Trump supposedly "threatening the nation", and you want to hold me over a barrel about a guy that Trump apologized for or to??  Weird flex, sounds rather Nazi, if you ask me, kind of on the lines of "Whose your allegiance to?", and sounds not unlike "papers, please?"

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-17-2024, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can understand that.  But he didn't make a threat here, hence your position on this speech seeming a little odd.

1. Man starts off speech saluting people imprisoned for an attack meant to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power
2. Man says there will be a bloodbath if he loses
3. Man says it will be the last election if he loses


Your positions seems a little odd. Quit lying to yourself.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-17-2024, 06:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is such a lazy position to take.  I mean if we took Joe Biden's words at their worth, do you really think that he would have a shot at knocking out Trump behind the gym?

(03-17-2024, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: None of those words address the question that I laid out.  Some might refer to your responses as "deflection".

Joe still gets the benefit of the doubt.

He has spent a lifetime as a public servant. The other guy has spent a lifetime committing business fraud to enrich himself and gaming the legal system.

And Joe has trampled or attempted to trample on the constitution way less.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 08:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Joe still gets the benefit of the doubt.

He has spent a lifetime as a public servant. The other guy has spent a lifetime committing business fraud to enrich himself and gaming the legal system.

The same guy who was an ardent follower of a KKK leader, and also was quoted as saying that it was a "racial jungle out there". Yeah, we should all trust him as being the changed and forgiven man..