U.S. Presidential Election 2024

[chew-ie]

*nbcnews.com - 4 dead, Congress evacuated, National Guard activated after pro-Trump rioters storm Capitol

1 person found out why you shouldn't try to bash the door with armed security on the other side

It was indeed she I was refering to - only posted the title and news name afterwards in the footnote to please the moderators.

[fiksal]

maybe they should riot again, let's get this done once and for all

[Vertigo 7]

*nbcnews.com - 4 dead, Congress evacuated, National Guard activated after pro-Trump rioters storm Capitol

Out of the 4 people:
2 people fall down from scaffolding which they shouldn't climb
1 police officer died out of stroke/health issue unrelated to riot
1 person found out why you shouldn't try to bash the door with armed security on the other side


I'd say it's not a riot, more like darwinian comedy.
There are more violent soccer riots in Europe every year than this

Yes, well, if your soccer players and fans get killed, your country's government isn't upended. Try to imagine what could have been should those trumpanzies have actually succeeded in taking congressional hostages, executing Pence or others.

maybe they should riot again, let's get this done once and for all

They keep talking about a civil war and the orange ding bat has said there will "be a bloodbath" if he isn't elected again. They keep talking all this crap, I say bring it the f on. I'm all for some open season on red hats.

[Chips]

To be fair, it seems that the "bloodbath" Trump was talking about, was regarding the auto industry - not physical violence. As usual, the media circus persists in taking everything out of context. As such, it is becoming increasingly impossible to ascertain reality from media statements. This is equally true of both liberal and conservative news media. It's all about whipping everyone into a frenzy of fear and anger.

Yes, the media circus persists in taking everything out of context... except

...but these seems like he is preparing his followers for violence in the wake of the election should he loose. I am unsure however how many will follow him, given what happened on January 6.

I think it's safe to say that there will be violence should Trump lose. And yes, his words about a bloodbath are taken very seriously by the armed militia types who are his ardent followers. It is doubtful this will result in a full-on civil war, but anything is possible.

... you openly state that the militia types are taking the words about bloodbath very seriously.

So is it the media circus that you subsequently posted, or did you make this up, or is it true and it's *not* the media circus that's given the armed militia types the literal order of what to eb done. I'm very confused now

Or is it Trump's words, intended for his militia followers, plausibly deniable to the media etc?

Either way, it's an odd way to phrase things. Ambiguity. From a leader? Oh. I wonder if the militia types did as quick a pivot as yourself opinion wise?

[Observe]

Oh. I wonder if the militia types did as quick a pivot as yourself opinion wise?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I haven't pivoted on my opinion in the least. I know as well as you do, that Trump loves to incite discontent and even violence. At the same time, the mainstream media also loves to spew words out of context, for the sole purpose of inciting rage and disgust, because that's what catches peoples attention and keeps the bottom-feeding news channels operating.

In this particular case, it wouldn't have hurt if liberals had mentioned that the "bloodbath" statement was in reference to the auto industry. Sure, Trump may have meant it in another way, but what's the harm in telling the whole story?

Both liberal and conservative media have sunken into a pit of rats, fighting for the ears of dwindling attention, with their pathetic sound bites. It is possible to see fault on both sides - unless one is so blinded by hatred that their side can do no wrong, while the other side can do no right. It's no wonder that the populace is so unbalanced and polarized in their political and social views.

[CBJ]

In this particular case, it wouldn't have hurt if liberals had mentioned that the "bloodbath" statement was in reference to the auto industry. Sure, Trump may have meant it in another way, but what's the harm in telling the whole story?

So in other words the media should go along with his pretense that the dog-whistle is something other than a dog-whistle? And that is somehow "unbiased"?

Both liberal and conservative media have sunken into a pit of rats, fighting for the ears of dwindling attention, with their pathetic sound bites. It is possible to see fault on both sides - unless one is so blinded by hatred that their side can do no wrong, while the other side can do no right.

This is a blatant false dichotomy. You do not have to choose between treating all media sources as being of equal merit, or one "side" being infallible and the rest worthless. The space in between those two extremes is huge, and is covers pretty much anyone who is capable of applying critical thinking to what they see and hear in the news. All news sources are not equal, and neither is the degree to which they have descended into bias, misleading reporting, and outright lies.

[jlehtone]

Trump says or doesn't say something. Media reports something, or doesn't.
Whether present or from media, the audience gets "Trump said X" and interprets it their way.

If someone interprets what they hear as "go and shoot", then who will be punished? Them, the media, or Trump?

[Observe]

So in other words the media should go along with his pretense that the dog-whistle is something other than a dog-whistle? And that is somehow "unbiased"?

There is a difference between reporting that Trump said there will be a bloodbath in reference to the auto industry vs reporting that Trump said there will be literal bloodbath of violence if Biden is reelected. Pretty much ALL the liberal news media inferred it as the later, using the word 'bloodbath' out of context. Why would they do that? The only reason I can think of, is because hyperbole sells subscriptions.

You do not have to choose between treating all media sources as being of equal merit, or one "side" being infallible and the rest worthless. The space in between those two extremes is huge, and is covers pretty much anyone who is capable of applying critical thinking to what they see and hear in the news. All news sources are not equal, and neither is the degree to which they have descended into bias, misleading reporting, and outright lies.

Yes, of course you are right. It is not necessary to choose one side or the other. But the fact is that a lot of people do just that and biased media coverage only reinforces the polarization. How are people expected to apply critical thinking, when the information they are getting is slanted? Sure, there are those who can read between the lies, but I don't think those people constitute the majority.

[Vertigo 7]

So in other words the media should go along with his pretense that the dog-whistle is something other than a dog-whistle? And that is somehow "unbiased"?

There is a difference between reporting that Trump said there will be a bloodbath in reference to the auto industry vs reporting that Trump said there will be literal bloodbath of violence if Biden is reelected. Pretty much ALL the liberal news media inferred it as the later, using the word 'bloodbath' out of context. Why would they do that? The only reason I can think of, is because hyperbole sells subscriptions.

You do not have to choose between treating all media sources as being of equal merit, or one "side" being infallible and the rest worthless. The space in between those two extremes is huge, and is covers pretty much anyone who is capable of applying critical thinking to what they see and hear in the news. All news sources are not equal, and neither is the degree to which they have descended into bias, misleading reporting, and outright lies.

Yes, of course you are right. It is not necessary to choose one side or the other. But the fact is that a lot of people do just that and biased media coverage only reinforces the polarization. How are people expected to apply critical thinking, when the information they are getting is slanted? Sure, there are those who can read between the lies, but I don't think those people constitute the majority.

It's also hard to take you seriously when you flat out denied RFK saying covid was engineered to be less effective against asians and jews when dude was recorded on tape straight faced saying it. You seem to pick and choose when something should be taken at face value and when it shouldn't and that seems to only happen when it aligns with some agenda of yours.

[fiksal]

just so I am clear, we are arguing about the bloodbath quote, about car traffis, followed by this

“If this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country.”


apparently the blood bath for cars, where the workers will no doubt kill each other because of reasons, also, will end democracy


one of us has a dementia

[Chips]

Oh. I wonder if the militia types did as quick a pivot as yourself opinion wise?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I haven't pivoted on my opinion in the least. I know as well as you do, that Trump loves to incite discontent and even violence. At the same time, the mainstream media also loves to spew words out of context, for the sole purpose of inciting rage and disgust, because that's what catches peoples attention and keeps the bottom-feeding news channels operating.

In this particular case, it wouldn't have hurt if liberals had mentioned that the "bloodbath" statement was in reference to the auto industry. Sure, Trump may have meant it in another way, but what's the harm in telling the whole story?

Both liberal and conservative media have sunken into a pit of rats, fighting for the ears of dwindling attention, with their pathetic sound bites. It is possible to see fault on both sides - unless one is so blinded by hatred that their side can do no wrong, while the other side can do no right. It's no wonder that the populace is so unbalanced and polarized in their political and social views.

I didn't quote Trump, I quoted *your* post. You went from this (it is quoting YOU, not Trump...)

I think it's safe to say that there will be violence should Trump lose. And yes, his words about a bloodbath are taken very seriously by the armed militia types who are his ardent followers. It is doubtful this will result in a full-on civil war, but anything is possible.

to

To be fair, it seems that the "bloodbath" Trump was talking about, was regarding the auto industry - not physical violence. As usual, the media circus persists in taking everything out of context.

I quoted you twice; I've done it again for convenience. Read your first statement. Then read your second. First is you're saying there will be violence if Trump loses, and the words about bloodbath should be taken seriously as armed militias are taking it seriously. Then suddenly it's the media's fault.

So ignoring whether bloodbath was to do with the car industry - you've said armed militias are taking his references to bloodbath seriously and there *will* be violence if Trump loses. Then it's the media's fault.

Which is it? Trump and the armed militias listening to his words? Or the media.

Who's at fault?

As I said, I hope they pivot in their opinion as swiftly as you do... in other words, understand that he wasn't talking about if he loses the election there should be a bloodbath - just that automative industry will struggle. Or fail. Why did I say that? because you went from stating that it's serious, the militias are listening , and you think there will be violence if he loses... to "damn the media, I don't think there'll be violence its just a misunderstanding"... within 4 hours. As I said - hopefully the ones you claimed were listening very carefully to his words went down the same route as you just as quickly -- and not that the stopped listening at "bloodbath".

This isn't getting at you really - it's just pointing out... you went from "there will be blood!" to "damned media misled..." -- will they? Or will they have heard as you did, and stopped at that point and not checked further.

Irony of not believing Trump statements/tweets isn't to mislead people to act, but the media's is.

[felter]

I stand by what I have said, that Trump will lose the election no matter what the polls are saying and that is backed up with what has happened in Alabama today where a Republican red seat was flipped from that bright red to a deep blue seat, and the polls there had been saying that Republicans were leading by anything from +3 to +11 points but yet when it came down to it, they lost it by a humungous +25 points to the Democrats, that is a massive punch to the guts for the Republicans and by the way it is also a Trump district.

You also have to take into account that the republican membership is way down, while their fund-raising is not far off of being critically low (and Trump is using those funds to pay his legal fees), where they are only managing around $1 to Biden's/Democrats $5. Meanwhile, Trumps rallies are only pulling in an audience of around half of what they were 4 years ago, when he has them as the count is also down, probably as they cannot afford to hold them. There have recently been more than a few Republicans saying Trump just doesn't have the numbers, and that's from Trump supporters who are looking at what is/has been happening and saying the numbers are just not there.

To be honest, I think a lot of them are not telling the truth to the pollsters as they are scared of perhaps some form of repercussion for admitting they are not for voting trump or Republican, because the polls just keep on getting it wrong and as today has shown that wrong is not by a little bit.

[Falcrack]

So it looks like RFK's presidential campaign is nothing but an attempt to siphon votes from Biden to help Trump win.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/politics ... index.html

As to the accuracy of polls, I'm a Biden supporter (or more accurately a RINO Never Trumper, with a full on case of TDS), and I have no interest in answering polls as to who I would vote for.

[felter]

So yesterday was Pennsylvania's primary, and it didn't go too well for Trump, Nikki Haley actually took over 20% of the votes from him, and she isn't even running for the presidency any more. As far as I can tell, the turnout for the republican vote was also pretty small, especially compared to the Democrat turnout where Biden actually got more votes than Obama did back in 2012. Even some major Republican pundits are saying the GOP must be seriously worried as with these types of results Trump cannot win the election, he just doesn't have the numbers compared to Biden.