03-17-2024, 12:45 PM
(03-17-2024, 12:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: I usually agree with this view, but I have a hard time to do so in this specific instance. Even when he was indeed talking about cars before. Imho this is still, at the very least, fending the existing flames (flames already stoked by the same guy) in an irresponsible manner. He talked about a bloodbath for the country and how it will 'likely be the last election if he loses", after all, and at this point it can't be just about cars and nothing else. I doubt that you or many non-liberal people would give democrats the benefit of the doubt when they are talking about bloodbaths if they don't get their will, no matter the context.
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.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/market-bloodbath
The market 'bloodbath is likely to continue' with investors set to lose tens of trillions over next decade, Nouriel Roubini says
https://www.financialexpress.com/market/bloodbath-on-d-street-sensex-plunges-1000-points-nifty-closes-below-22000-amidst-broad-sell-offnbsp-3424161/
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.
Quote:I seem to remember you were, with some merit, angry at Schumer after a perceived threat to the SC, about whirlwinds and them "paying the price" and things like that. Many said it was clearly metaphorical and not a direct threat, however I rather agreed with you about the language used being quite incendiary nonetheless. Why is this instance so different.
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.
