Trump Comes to Ohio and Threatens the Entire Country

[JustWinBaby]

(03-17-2024, 08:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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. 

I think you're giving him too much credit.  The guy has a history of over-the-top hyperbole, but I don't think he's some jedi master of intentionally slipping in coded words when he's riffing like that on the campaign trail.
The whole idea of "coded language" and "dog whistles" seems largely to be an invention of the talking heads so that they can put words into the mouths of people to support their narrative.  Apparently secret language known only to the true believers but, conveniently, the talking heads are always well versed and can translate for us.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-17-2024, 08:48 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 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.

How exactly are points #2 and #3 any different than what Biden and the Dems are saying if they lose the election?  The Dems have floated such very Democratic ideas as packing the SCOTUS, eliminating the electoral college, and adding seats for DC and Puerto Rico, among other things.

This is, what now, like the 4th or 5th election in a row to "save our country"?  My only hope is a split result because neither of these parties appear to have the best interest of the country at heart.

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 09:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think you're giving him too much credit.  The guy has a history of over-the-top hyperbole, but I don't think he's some jedi master of intentionally slipping in coded words when he's riffing like that on the campaign trail.
The whole idea of "coded language" and "dog whistles" seems largely to be an invention of the talking heads so that they can put words into the mouths of people to support their narrative.  Apparently secret language known only to the true believers but, conveniently, the talking heads are always well versed and can translate for us.

He's not a jedi master, but he knows or learned along the way how to dog whistle, that much credit is given. As to the "coded language", imho it's just about dancing on the line, which Trump does all the time... at times without code. Would I kill journalists... hmmm.  no. hmmm... no. Things like that. I can give a list of a thousand examples, often ones where I don't feel it's me who is interpreting words, quite often I feel it's rather his defenders that do the interpreting. Like how go home where you came from does not mean go home where you came from and such. Metaphorical bloodbaths, metaphorical walls, metaphorical praise for authoritarian systems, and so on.

And as I said, groups like the proud boys do take him by his code, not me or some talking heads, them themselves. They take the less harmless interpretation usually. And there's not much secrecy behind it, imho it's apparent, he uses the language to satisfy the more extreme supporters and having the more moderate ones defend him anyways against the alleged (and sure at times actual) leftist hysteria. It unites the right in a way. But imho, that is a dangerous line to walk, and an irresponsible one. 

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 09:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How exactly are points #2 and #3 any different than what Biden and the Dems are saying if they lose the election?  The Dems have floated such very Democratic ideas as packing the SCOTUS, eliminating the electoral college, and adding seats for DC and Puerto Rico, among other things.

This is, what now, like the 4th or 5th election in a row to "save our country"?  My only hope is a split result because neither of these parties appear to have the best interest of the country at heart.

They sure do not... just one thing, adding seats for Puerto Rico is not undemocratic, denying them seats is.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 09:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: They sure do not... just one thing, adding seats for Puerto Rico is not undemocratic, denying them seats is.

They're not States.  They benefit from us, they don't contribute to us.

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 09:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: They're not States.  They benefit from us, they don't contribute to us.

They are unblemished US citizens, first and foremost, the US declared them to be. Every citizen needs to have the right to vote and be represented in a democracy, or in a republic if you prefer that term; that's as fundamental as it gets. Perceived contribution does not factor into it.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 09:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: They are unblemished US citizens, first and foremost, the US declared them to be. Every citizen needs to have the right to vote and be represented in a democracy, or in a republic if you prefer that term; that's as fundamental as it gets. Perceived contribution does not factor into it.

What does that even mean, Hollo?  They are a protected territory, not an actual State that contributes taxes and takes part in the government.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-17-2024, 09:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How exactly are points #2 and #3 any different than what Biden and the Dems are saying if they lose the election?  The Dems have floated such very Democratic ideas as packing the SCOTUS, eliminating the electoral college, and adding seats for DC and Puerto Rico, among other things.

This is, what now, like the 4th or 5th election in a row to "save our country"?  My only hope is a split result because neither of these parties appear to have the best interest of the country at heart.

I thought the number of SCOTUS justices has changed in the past?

The electoral college was adopted when there was what 13 states? Maybe the difficulty of calculating a national popular vote in 1789 was a reason for the EC? Either way. A lot of people didn't even have the right to vote back then. We have made some progress in this country since our founding.

DC and Puerto Rico have a higher population than some states.

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 09:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What does that even mean, Hollo?  They are a protected territory, not an actual State that contributes taxes and takes part in the government.

You mean what does unblemished US citizens mean? It means just that, they are citizens that are not allowed to vote even though they committed no crime (the one reason where a citizen actually can lose voting rights). I wouldn't know how to clarify further. Citizens that are not allowed to vote and take part in the government. I find it troubling to accept that in a democracy. Also, they do pay taxes, including federal taxes, 4 billion in 2021 alone. Taxation without representation.

What you call protected territory is a colony in my eyes, something also quite troubling to me. But hey, in fact we can disagree, the one thing I have an issue with is calling democrats out for wanting US citizens to be able to vote, as if they were the enemies of democracy for that. That was the reason behind my post really.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 09:55 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought the number of SCOTUS justices has changed in the past?

The electoral college was adopted when there was what 13 states? Maybe the difficulty of calculating a national popular vote in 1789 was a reason for the EC? Either way. A lot of people didn't even have the right to vote back then. We have made some progress in this country since our founding.

Actually, as I understand the electoral college was put in place to balance the vote between the rural areas and the populated areas, so as the people living in the country weren't controlled by what the people in the city needed for laws and governance.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 09:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: You mean what does unblemished US citizens mean? It means just that, they are citizens that are not allowed to vote even though they committed no crime (the one reason where a citizen actually can lose voting rights). I wouldn't know how to clarify further. Citizens that are not allowed to vote and take part in the government. I find it troubling to accept that in a democracy. Also, they do pay taxes, including federal taxes, 4 billion in 2021 alone. Taxation without representation.

What you call protected territory is a colony in my eyes, something also quite troubling to me. But hey, in fact we can disagree, the one thing I have an issue with is calling democrats out for wanting US citizens to be able to vote, as if they were the enemies of democracy for that. That was the reason behind my post really.

But, they are not US Citizens, as Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation.  They are dependent upon the US for aid, but they don't contribute (and are most likely unable to) contribute to the US tax base. Therefore they are afforded the protections of the US for military/political reasons, and they still operate as their own Nation.

[CKwi88]

(03-17-2024, 10:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, they are not US Citizens, as Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation.  They are dependent upon the US for aid, but they don't contribute (and are most likely unable to) contribute to the US tax base. Therefore they are afforded the protections of the US for military/political reasons, and they still operate as their own Nation.

You really belong somewhere on r/confidentlyincorrect. 

Puerto Rico/Puerto Ricans pay federal taxes (albeit not all the same). This is a fact. 

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. Not a sovereign nation. Puerto Ricans (born after '41) are American Citizens. This is also a fact.

 

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 10:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, they are not US Citizens

Sure they are. Today's Puerto Ricans all possess federal statutory citizenship. They are not a souvereign nation, and they pay federal taxes.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-17-2024, 10:12 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: You really belong somewhere on r/confidentlyincorrect. 

Puerto Rico/Puerto Ricans pay federal taxes (albeit not all the same). This is a fact. 

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. Not a sovereign nation. Puerto Ricans (born after '41) are American Citizens. This is also a fact.

 

I stand corrected.  Thank you for not being a douche bag about it.

This will likely mark the beginning of my 4th retirement from the P&R forum.

Just kidding, I never really paid attention to Puerto Rico!

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 10:22 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I stand corrected.  Thank you for not being a douche bag about it.

This will likely mark the beginning of my 4th retirement from the P&R forum.

Just kidding, I never really paid attention to Puerto Rico!

Hehe.. all fair enough, I for one just would ask you to understand where I'm coming from on this. Painting anyone who wants to grant Puerto Ricans the basic citizen rights to vote and be represented as being undemocratic just sparked my objections. Which you did not do, but which was what I was referring to in the first place.

[Matt_Crimson]

(03-17-2024, 08:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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 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.

Well, think about it.

If we're going to frame it within the argument that he meant "bloodbath" as in the market crashing then it actually makes sense. A market crash would be "the least of it" in the sense that a market crash is the catalyst to everything else getting worse. 

When a market crash happens, that isn't the "end" of it, rather it's the "beginning" of more bad things to come. So in that sense it would be "the least of it". Whether that's what he actually meant is for you to decide.

You could basically look at it this way, as if it were a spectrum.

"Least of it" Market Crash > Leads to > Investors pulling out of the market > Leads to > Widespread heavy financial loss > Leads to > Widespread job losses > Leads to > Economic instability > Leads to > Consumer desperation > Leads to > National chaos > Leads to > Global chaos > Leads to >World War III or "The worst of it".

Now to be clear, I'm not saying this is what would actually happen or that it would necessarily happen in that particular order if it did. I'm just making the point that a market crash is the "Beginning of the end" or "The least of ti".

[hollodero]

(03-17-2024, 11:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well, think about it.

If we're going to frame it within the argument that he meant "bloodbath" as in the market crashing then it actually makes sense. A market crash would be "the least of it" in the sense that a market crash is the catalyst to everything else getting worse. 

When a market crash happens, that isn't the "end" of it, rather it's the "beginning" of more bad things to come. So in that sense it would be "the least of it". Whether that's what he actually meant is for you to decide.

You could basically look at it this way, as if it were a spectrum.

"Least of it" Market Crash > Leads to > Investors pulling out of the market > Leads to > Widespread heavy financial loss > Leads to > Widespread job losses > Leads to > Economic instability > Leads to > Consumer desperation > Leads to > National chaos > Leads to > Global chaos > Leads to >World War III or "The worst of it".

Now to be clear, I'm not saying this is what would actually happen or that it would necessarily happen in that particular order if it did. I'm just making the point that a market crash is the "Beginning of the end" or "The least of ti".

OK that is fair, it could be perceived that way. I will say that he never even said market crash to begin with and so imho this argument does do some heavy lifting in terms of interpretation, but overall, I can not exactly disprove this understanding. I still do not quite believe there's nothing nefarious beyond that (absurd, but it's Trump) line of thinking, but one can attribute that to me being biased against the guy and there's no real defense against that here.

[*pally*]

There are more American citizens living in Puerto Rico than in 20 full fledged states. Statehood and thus full Congressional representation is blocked from these tax payers because Republicans are afraid they can’t win an election there. Do they really know their ideas are so out if touch that they have no shot at convincing people to vote for them?

The citizens of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, America Samoa, and the Marshall Islands are Americans. They deserve proper representation in Congress as state if we are going to tax them like every one else. And fear of who they would elect is a ridiculous reason to continue to disenfranchise them.

Trump in his speeches chooses words and language to stoke serious fear and to keep fanning the flames of anger and hate. He never paints a positive message. He never seeks to calm tensions. Ask his former associates, Michael Cohen speaks of it often, he uses language that on one hand seems ambiguous in order to give himself cover but at the same time allows his listeners to know exactly what he wants. It is one of the ways he’s been such a successful con artist.

Oh, and the candidate who called developmentally disabled people r******* actually called them f****** r*******

[Belsnickel]

So I withheld comment on this because I hadn't listened to it all. I actually refrained from reading anything or listening to clips. I haven't even read many of the posts talking about the comments. Here are my thoughts on the comments now that I listened to it. I can see arguments for both sides. I can understand the arguments from the Trump campaign that he was talking about an economic bloodbath. I think that is a very reasonable explanation. However, in listening to the recording I can perceive a tonal shift in his comments. He said that "will be the least of it" and it seems to me that he is saying the economic concerns will be the lesser concern compared to the bloodbath that would ensue. So even with the context of the speech I can see an argument for his advocation of political violence. In the end, only Trump knows what he meant.

I'll be honest, though, the more concerning language for me was when he made remarks about some immigrants not being considered people. That was some seriously concerning language.

[Goalpost]

It's obvious that the video is spliced/chopped for a fake narrative to be used.