Trump used the stage to deliver a profanity-filled version of his usual rally speech that again painted an apocalyptic picture of the country if Biden wins a second term.
"If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country..
Biden campaign spokesperson James Singer accused Trump of doubling "down on his threats of political violence."
"He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge," Singer charged in a statement.
A one-time Trump critic, Moreno, a wealthy Cleveland businessman, supported Marco Rubio for president in the 2016 Republican primary, and once tweeted that listening to Trump was "like watching a car accident that makes you sick, but you can stop looking." In 2021, NBC News reported on an email exchange around the time of Trump's first presidential run in which Moreno referred to Trump as a "lunatic" and a "maniac."
On Saturday, however, Moreno praised Trump as a "great American" and railed against those in his party who have been critical of the former president, who this week became his party's presumptive nominee for a third straight election.
"I am so sick and tired of Republicans that say, 'I support President Trump's policies but I don't like the man,'" he said as he joined Trump on stage.
Trump also continued to criticize Biden over his handling of the border as he cast migrants as less than human. "In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion," he said. ... He also criticized the Dolan family, which owns Cleveland's baseball team, for changing its name from the Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland Guardians.
So, who are "you guys", in this scenario? Lemmings?
Because the title of the post is VERBATIM the title of the linked article.
...Did you read the article, the article that you're suggesting people are intentionally misunderstanding his rhetoric on?
No. You didn't either. I know you didn't either, because it explicitly puts it into context:
So, you're right, kind of. You're the worst kid of right. "Accidentally not quite wrong".
Like, fist of all: Fuck NPR for his headline. Clearly intentionally misleading.
Second of all: Fuck everyone commenting about how "it tracks", without ever even fucking reading the article.
And third of all: Fuck you for going off on people for chastising people while you yourself didn't even read the article.
If you are included in any of my fuck yous: I mean it. you are literally actively involved in the dismantling of Western Democracy so seriously fuck you.
If you weren't included, but are offended by my fuck yous, actually fuck you too for enabling it.
If you actually read the article before opening your mouth, no matter your position: you're cool.
The thing to note here is that terminology like this isn't intended to actually communicate something about the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter if Trump was talking about immigration, the auto industry, or economics, the point is that his base wants to hear an aggressive tone, and violent rhetoric sells that.
So the takeaway here is that Trump is riling up his base, and that he chooses to use violent language to do so is concerning. He's juxtaposing violent, aggressive speech and election outcomes, and that's not a good look for someone who is accused of aiding and abetting an insurrection intended to keep him in power.
At least that's my takeaway, reading a bit between the lines.
Trump's all about using strong emotional language without actually saying anything. Using vague language so that you can interpret it however you want is kind of his trademark.
Rush Limbaugh was also a master of it, and conservatives have convinced themselves he was a great man too.
Yeah, it doesn't work on me, but apparently it's pretty effective.
Totally fair. It's entirely appropriate to raise this concern in the way that you have. It provides the space for people have have the discussion rooted in objective fact.
Let me get this straight, you read the article by the source that you say clearly intentionally misleading, and then you believed what their claim was about the actual intent of the quote was? Interesting...
Let me start out with; Fuck you for being an asshole when all you had to write was "Hey, I think this was actually about the auto industry", but instead you are a total douche.
Let me be clear, I was probably wrong, but it doesnt matter because the point of my post is to show how they will instantly jump on any lie that puts trump in a bad light.
I'm sorry... Your point is that people will jump on any lie that paints him in a bad light...
And so you're suggesting, after being presented with the actual facts (which actually is the version that paints him in the best light), that we reject those too...
And just choose your version of events, that you conjured out of thin air (having admitted and demonstrated that you never read past the headline)?
How is that any different than jumping on a lie? Except that this is actually worse. Before you were just ignorant. Now you know better, but you haven't changed your mind and are still pushing nonsense.
It's been said that one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I've changed my mind on you.
Jokes on all y'all, I read the autotldr and I totally agree extra terrestrial aliens are taking out blood to bathe in.
I did read past the headline to get to the part about "not people", but I didnt see the importance of interpreting the quote beyond it not being about what all the other comments claimed. So the context seemed to be all about immigration, and I was probably wrong about the bloodbath.
The difference is I dont care one lick what Biden or Trump say when they are just doing their standard rhetoric. I do care about the outlier statements like they were claiming this one was.