03-18-2024, 11:27 AM
(03-17-2024, 08:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
I can understand your position, even if I don't agree. I think this kind of reaction to this type of speech feeds the narrative that people get hysterical/overreact to things Trump says and deliberately misinterpret them. Which I think only helps Trump.
Quote: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.
Here I cannot agree. Schumer specifically cited two justices by name. Of course Schumer phrased in a way with a slight amount of plausible deniability, he is a slimy politicians after all. But his statement is far more blunt than Trump's and far less open to misinterpretation. You can argue their different history all you want, the statement on its own is all one needs to condemn him.
