Why the Dem/Leftist “Cheney Firing Squad” Propaganda Should Push Undecideds To Trump.
So, once again we have an isolated sliver of something Trump said being manipulated into saying something he didn’t actually say. Before going further, let’s get what he actually said out there so we have the context. Yes, I know. Context schmontext is the attitude of many here but it matters to many others.
When asked about Liz Cheney campaigning for Harris, Trump said, “Well, I think it hurts Kamala a lot. Actually. Look, [Cheney is] a deranged person. The reason she doesn’t like me is that she wanted to stay in Iraq.”
Trump covered many other topics, then said, “I don’t want to go to war. [Liz Cheney] wanted to go, she wanted to stay in Syria. I took [troops] out. She wanted to stay in Iraq. I took them out. I mean, if it were up to her, we’d be in 50 different countries. And you know, number one, it’s very dangerous. Number two, a lot of people get killed. And number three, I mean, it’s very, very expensive.”
Later, Trump added, “I don’t blame [Dick Cheney] for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual, very dumb. She is a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, Okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know when the guns are trained on her face — you know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building,”
Now, if the above statements were the context for a question on the SAT college entrance test and the question was, “what is the most likely meaning behind the statement?”
- Trump thinks Cheney should be executed by firing squad.
- Trump was explaining that warmongers like Liz Cheney are very quick to start wars and send other Americans to fight them, rather than go into combat themselves.
The answer is obviously B. Answer A could not logically be the answer because the person to be executed by firing squad is never issued a rifle with which to defend themselves against their executioners.
So, what we have here is about as clear cut a case of propaganda as one can wish for and the question any undecideds that haven’t voted yet has to ask is not why the Dems and the Left would push such propaganda but, rather, do I want to put into power those who routinely resort to such measures? That answer should be obvious as well.
As to why so many people want to believe this obvious propaganda.. well, it's about as classic an illustration of confirmation bias as one can wish for.
It's more about personality types
One type sees everything as black or white and lacks the ability to read between the lines.
Another type sees inuendo in everything and a thousand shades of grey.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle.
Nothing to disagree with, there. However, concerning the subject, that is, why do some insist Trump is speaking of executing Cheney by firing squad and why the media is working so hard to push that narrative seems like obvious confirmation bias. I think the media knows this and so in their case, they push what they want confirmed.
What they are complaining about is Trump's childish inappropriateness with speech, women and national security.
Crooked Donald is code talking. BTW, you can't say sh-t about him without his trumpists 'lighting up the place rhetorically.' Crooked Donald is a former president. Having been in the politics 'game' for four years plus OUGHT to have taught him message DISCLIPLINE but as you see the fool puts his own UNTRAINABILITY on display.
What we have in Crooked Donald is someone who is telling us to take him as he is. We don't have to. Let him take crooked butt back into private life where he can only divide and play cutthroat when it is his personal resources on the line.
To MrFrost and Split Personality (and everyone else)
The issue before us is, was the portrayal of Trump's comment by Dems and the Left propaganda or not. What the issue is not about is whether Cheney started wars or is even a war hawk. If you want to discuss that, I'm your man. If not, you shouldn't bother.
Then I shall not, enjoy your article.
Thank you. It's not that I'm trying to piss anyone off. I just don't want to get sidetracked from what the blog is about.
He said nine barrels shooting at her face.
If you can justify that kind of speech as being politically correct then I consider you to be part of the problem, not part of any solution.
I don't concern myself with politically correct. Having been deployed to two combat zones I myself often wished that those who sent us were issued rifles and sent to the front along with us. I have much less of a problem with a politician who served, especially in a combat zone, sending me to fight than someone who did not.
Conversely, I think those who are more concerned with politically correct speech to be a much greater problem. Politically correct speech is quite often lies, outright propaganda or doublespeak intended to get the public to support something they wouldn't otherwise. The subject I have brought before you would be one such example. I much prefer someone just say what they mean.
Sorry, I think he is suffering from dementia and the only way to keep the status quo is to vote him and Vance out of contention for the WH.
Everything he says and does is germane to any propaganda article intended to clear Trump based on semantics or sentence structure while others are actively condemning the sitting POTUS Press office for inserting an apostrophe in a transcript.
The candidate you intend to defend left me speechless tonight when I saw his Linda Lovelace impression with a microphone stand because his microphone was not working properly.
Imitating oral sex during a filmed rally is probably another first for a Presidential candidate
and it should be totally disqualifying for the moral majority.
Thank you for your service.
Joining is knowing the risks.
Recent history shows us that we are nowhere near the imaginary level of civilization that we pretend to have reached.
A standing military has but one function, to kill other countries' people.
I am not defending Trump. I am defending truth. The only way to see Trump implying a firing squad is to want to see it that way. I think everyone here knows it because no one is coming up with a counterargument to the contrary. All anyone is doing is looking at everything except the issue I brought up. That or simply justifying a knowingly wrong interpretation by pointing at unrelated events as if doing so justifies the wrong interpretation.
But because I am trying to point out this truth it inevitably results in charges of defending Trump. In other words, Trump is bad. Anything said, true or not, in support of that position is good is not, in fact, good. That's very, very bad.
That's because whether we're talking about Trump, Harris, Biden, Musk or anyone else, once one has stopped thinking "what is actually true here?" in favor of "whatever this guy does is bad," then bad things usually follow. You get mobs and mobs don't care about what is true. They only care about whatever movie is playing out in their heads and the pursuit of whatever ending they envision for that movie. Truth no longer is a factor.
You say I left you speechless, yet you talk about something that has nothing to do with the issue I brought up. Are you actually claiming that because Trump apparently did something with a microphone (something I haven't seen) it somehow proves that Trump intended that Cheney should be put in front of a firing squad?
Leave the Mob, Split Personality. Think.
No problem.
A point I have consistently brought up as well. As a species, we are no different than our ancestors of 6,000 years ago. The only reason the whole world isn't just the same hot mess that it used to be is that technology removes the pressure third world countries endure. If a large enough CME destroyed the electrical grids of the world, we would see what we're really made of.
Correct, but that doesn't make soldiers automatons. I imagine a great many servicemen are wondering what we actually achieved by decades of war. What we got from the thousands of dead servicemen. Who actually benefitted.
I just saw what I assume is the referenced video. All I can say is that this falls into the same category as those who claimed Biden crapped his pants at the D day memorial. It falls into the same category as insisting Trump called for the execution of Cheney by firing squad. People are simply seeing what they want to be true.
Trump's profanity is in a class alone among US Presidents.
Low Class, No Class and Totally Classless. Good Riddance!
So what? Has nothing to do with it.
He is no class, white trash, garbage.
He did call for her execution, he's been calling for many to be executed, those who oppose him or speak the truth.
A distinction many can't understand or admit to.
Exactly what did he say that made you come to that conclusion?
Emphatically. If Kamala had said something so UNPROFESSIONAL trumpists would be justifiably writing and talking about it. BTW, this just happened about 1 hour ago from the mouth of Crooked Donald :
Video will be out on Youtube 'soon.' I hope.
This is a former president talking 'sh-t' about other people getting shot and he 'doesn't mind that.' And we have . . . . trying to tell us we don't know how to process the information TRANSMITTED in the rhetoric.
So let's dispense with tact, subtlety, and niceness and oh well hell just throw out 'reflection' and DEFEND reaction Rhetoric as the 'norm.' It's profoundly ridiculous and UNCHRISTIAN. As Jesus NEVER taught unkindness as a virtue or incivility.
Furthermore, we can all understand going to far with rhetoric, . . .we have terms and a code that won't allow it here. How much more so in the White House where domestic and international officials, guests, and 'providers' are sure to serve and appear.
The 'patting of one's ass' in the face of nearly everybody' is bound to cause verbal (maybe even physical) push-back.
Show me where I said that. You are bitching about the generalized way that the news media portrayed this.
They have but one purpose, always have. Make money, sell advertising to make money to pay the shrills
that say outrageous things or exaggerate to sell newspapers and garner clicks.
The truth has always been there for the intelligent reader or listener to decide for themselves.
Trump didn't explicitly say "firing squad", granted, but if this is the best he can communicate without causing an
uproar, do we really need the ignoramus back in the White House making deals with Putin & Xi.
No, I said the hateful, vengeful candidate that you so desperately attempt to portray as normal, left my wife and I speechless when at a separate rally he imitated someone doing deepthroat on a microphone. It had nothing to do with Cheney except illustrate that the man is out of control.
Leave the Mob, Drakkonis. Think. Come to the light, you are on the wrong path.
You are exactly why the left says TDS only affects MAGA supporters.
Nobody will read or hear Crooked Donald suggest somebody (on a battlefield or any other location) point nine barrels and fire in the direction of his face! It is UNPROFESSIONAL and IMMORAL to do so.
Incidentally, it is improper to accuse this forum of negative propaganda when we 'report' and 'consume' for discussion the divisive rhetoric spewed out by a candidate for president who is pulling 'topics' out of the dark places in his mind, in my opinion. Or some such place otherwise.
Professionally, his commenting on his perception of Liz Cheney as a 'war-hawk' should have ended without referencing so:
The thing speaks for itself for interpretation. And as a former soldier (of some kind according to your statement) one can clearly discern that if she is "STANDING" there with a rifle . . . and being OVERWHELMED by fire-power times "9" aimed at her face. . . she would not be okay.
She has every right to worry about why a former president would mention 'shooting' in her direction in any case - if she wishes.
We are having this discussion because Crooked Donald went too far in his rhetoric, because he is UNCHECKED by his SUPPORTERS!!
Even when it is bombastic, cruel, and evil in the direction of a liberal or someone affiliated with them, in my opinion.
Meh. We would 'fall-back' and being the REBUILDING process immediately to return to the STATUS QUO we have today (and that we know and love), because THAT is what people do! Of course, I get that the "collective" you are talking about evil, selfish interests taking over. . . but that would be the evil, self-aggrandizing people in and out of the CHRISTIAN world trying to push their worldview down the throat of the world once again and not the God-loving people who love others as they love themselves, in my opinion.
I'm sorry. Where do you think I suggested that you said that? That isn't intended as a confrontational challenge. Something I said must have made you ask this and I am simply wondering what it might be.
That's the tactic we see.
dishonest progressive tells lie like "Trump threatened to shoot Cheney by firing squad"
honest person: "no. He clearly did not. He talked about giving her a gun and sending her off to fight in the war she starts. (standard liberal talking point for 50 years)
Dishonest Progressive: "How can you support Trump? He's a monster!"
There's a video from 2016 about the perils of being an intellectually dishonest Democrat in the office. Two workers go up to a third and say "did you hear what Trump said. He wants to be a dictator!!!" Honest workers goes "No. That was clearly a joke. People are laughing" Two workers get outraged. Call him a Trump supporter and say they'll never talk to him again. He then says "But I'm voting for Hillary...." It's only gotten worse.
B U L L S H I T
If you were defending truth then you would acknowledge that even if Trump was not thinking of a firing squad but rather thinking of Cheney on the ground in battle, he still used violence-based rhetoric against a political opponent (someone who opposes him politically).
That is the truth. That is what is important. Not the semantic nit-picking that is the sole focus of your article.
Trumpists will "Trump."
What Crooked Donald said:
The statement is nonsensical on its face for it assumes one can 'craft' the situation where Cheney would be on 'site' somewhere with 9 gun barrels (or if one wishes to be 'stupid' literal about it - 9 literal barrels through some miracle shooting at her).
That is why writers and readers move to the next logical step in the process: Making sense out of the 'utterance.'
Either it is a firing squad. . . and/or. . . what it definitely is - is a woman being shot in the face.
Presidents and former presidents are supposed to weigh their words and the effects of their words as best they can. This was amateurish. Unprofessional.
So you acknowledged you know what the article was about. Just wanted to make sure since you went off on a tangent and never really answered. Do you think in this specifici nstance the obvious misrepresentation hurt the cause with the independents?
That is ridiculous. His mention of nine guns pointing at her face immediately raises the image of a firing squad so it is obvious why people would walk away with that impression. That was my first take until I noticed he said she had a gun.
I think any rational person looking at this objectively would find that it does not matter which specific scenario Trump had in mind but rather that he has yet again used violence-based rhetoric against a political opponent.
But Trump apologists spend all their time trying to spin this into a misrepresentation to hide the fact that this is yet another example of Trump's violence-based rhetoric.
Endless attempts to defend the indefensible.
So no.[✘]
At a rally today Trump was talking about the powerful punches of Mike Tyson the boxer. Someone in the crowd yelled Tyson should fight Kamala Harris , and Trump said "that would be interesting".
What about trump fighting Tyson????????????
Right. So, your argument is unless I see it as you see it, I'm not defending the truth. Got it.
Not in the sense you appear to mean it, no, I do not. Claiming that Trump intends Cheney be placed in front of a firing squad is definitely violence-based rhetoric directly aimed at an opponent.
Although you seem to semi-acknowledge that a firing-squad was not spoken of by Trump, you appear to mean the same kind of violence was directed at Cheney. That I do not acknowledge. Saying someone should be shot for her political stance and saying that she should go put herself in harms way in the same manner she intends to send others are not the same things.
Obviously, but he didn't and it doesn't bother me. In fact, I kind of like it spelled out like he did, because I guarantee you that many servicemembers have put it exactly the same way when the bombs are dropping on them. I can speak from experience. In any case there's no actual difference between the way you put it and the way Trump did, except the point was made more sharply by Trump.
The rest of your questions are off-topic and represent your effort to hijack my blog for your own purposes, as you openly acknowledge here...
The purpose of the blog is does the Dem/Left accusation stand up contextually when the full relevant portion of his comments are examined. Further, you have no business or right to try to change the topic of my blog. Go make your own, TiG, rather than steal someone else's.
And yet again you prove that you do not get it. Or, more accurately, refuse to get it.
Even if Trump was not thinking of a firing squad with his confused rhetoric he still, yet again, as he has done many times now (e.g. "enemies within"), used violence-based rhetoric against a political opponent.
I did not suggest or even hint that the various interpretations have identical meaning. I have stated repeatedly and clearly, that Trump's rhetoric was violence-based rhetoric directed at a political opponent. Trump did not say: "Cheney would not be such a war monger if she had ever seen action" (or equivalent). No, Trump as usual resorts to violent imagery of a political opponent with nine guns pointing at her face.
What a pile of horseshit.
You know that you have to leave some outside?
Are you actually supporting someone that called many of your servicemen friends, " losers and suckers "? How can you possibly justify that?
No. I am not supporting anyone. Hope that clears things up for you. Thanks.
Since the choices were 1 or 2, you would have gotten no credit for answering B.
I caught that one too!
And there you have the reason I never took the SAT.
Nicely constructed strawman with a false dichotomy to boot. This is not an SAT, it is real life. The most egregious of your errors was to identify Liz Cheney as a "warmonger".
That would fit Putin, but not Cheney. If you look at the rest of Trump's rhetoric, you see he would not mind if Cheney were killed, because he has no feeling but loathing for her.
Straw man. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Trump made comments about Cheney. I posted those comments so that everyone would have the context behind the comments. My position is that the Dem/Left's interpretation is simply propaganda because the context does not support their conclusion. Where is the strawman?
Definition of a false dichotomy.
Although you do not state what other options other than the ones I included in my blog, I'm certainly willing to listen to some third or forth meaning you think the context supports.
But I don't think that is what you meant, is it?
Irrelevant to the issue. Trump made specific comments, which I quoted in my blog. I put the question in the form of a SAT question because the SAT would not take into account any outside factors, such as politics. It would only care what the context of the comments supported.
Now this would be an example of a straw man. The intentionally misrepresented proposition is that I identified Cheney as a warmonger, the purpose of which would presumably be to either try to get me to defend a position I haven't taken or divert the discussion away from the actual issue, or both. The fact is I called Cheney nothing. I quoted Trump calling her a war hawk. You falsely ascribe that to me.
Irrelevant to the issue, since whether or not Cheney is a "warmonger" is not my position, nor is it the issue I am discussing.
More irrelevancy to the issue, which is whether or not the Dem/Left's claim that Trump wants to put Cheney in front of a firing squad can be supported, contextually. I maintain that it cannot. If you do not wish to discuss that issue, I won't bother to reply to you further.
And there it is again, the black or white equation. The expectation that every Trump rally speech or interview can be looked at as a separate incident and on that basis alone be broken down into the innocent ramblings of someone's adorable elderly grandfather
instead of just another brick in a growing wall of evidence that Trump is now too old, vengeful and hatful to run anything other than the Trump Org., certainly not the Office of the President.
And please let me repeat your own infamous surrender;
Ciao!
I'm going to assume that something went wrong on your end concerning the quote. I know that sometimes when I post a comment and include a quote, for whatever reason, it seems to hold on to a quote to some previous unrelated issue. I'm going to assume that is what is happening here, as the quote you present wasn't issued by me.
Hmm. Aside from the idea that what Trump says can by excused by the innocent ramblings of someone's adorable elderly grandfather is simply an invented projection on your part, the idea that each occurrence of what Trump says can be looked at separately is only a part of the equation I use for Trump or any other politician. I do look at each occurrence of speech about a particular issue separately, but I also do my best to establish a coherent whole from the individual pieces for a final judgement.
I'm really not following politics much these days so, present your evidence and we can discuss it.
LOL : )
Please don't.
If you dont know by now that Trump is unfit for office you never will. This whole long ass discussion borders on farcical.
It was farcical at 1.2.7 " I am not defending Trump, I am defending the truth."
The country, the former GOP, literally has a candidate for president that lost in 2020 but can not be PERSUADED OF THE TRUTH of his loss. And, we have ____ people defending the so-called, "SANITY" of that imbecilic stance. It's as if the whole country is watching. . . and possibly could elect a deluded old irretractable fool to be in-charge of 'us' - the most powerful nation in the world.
It's utter madness! And that is what it will be if Crooked Donald is allowed to COMPLETE the 'circle' (in his head and the heads of his followers)!
God help us all!
BINGO
I have reposted your entire argument
The reason that I did this was to show you how you twist reality with your argument. You say you are putting "what he said" in context. Actually, you are zeroing in on the specifics to make it appear that what you intend his meaning to be is apparent, bolstering your argument and making the whole of your article appear to cling together because you are correct (kind of) about one thing: He did not use the words "firing squad" and he probably did not mean firing squad, though that is debatable. (This is your strawman.)
You use this instance, proclaim that there are others, label them all "Propaganda", and conclude that the "Dems and Left" are just making things up, are therefore liars and as a consequence should not be voted for. According to your title, everyone should be voting for Trump.
The unspoken link (and, realistically, the chink) in the armor of this argument is that presumably the "Republican and Right" politicians are purveyors of the unblemished truth and that is why people should vote for Trump. Everyone knows that this is not only untrue, but topsy-turvey. Trump and his lackeys have been spreading the manure that the country is in the worst condition it has been in "almost forever", that crime, especially violent crime, is so very, very high nigh on the worst that it has ever been because of the "millions and millions" of immigrants, all criminals and crazy people, released from prisons, jails, and insane asylums who have crossed the border and are murdering and raping at will, and eating peoples pets, taking over entire cities. That the country needs to be purged of the "Enemy within". But calling Trump out on violent rhetoric is beyond the pale of journalism and should not be tolerated. Are you in there, Drak? Because that is what you are saying. Really.
You say my commentary calling out this argument as specious is "irrelevant" because you just wish to polish the written premise (i.e.,Trump did not say "firing squad") and leave the entirety of the unspoken premise (i.e., Republicans and the Right are unblemished truth-tellers) ignored. Which leads me to another possible answer that I will call C) Trump wishes people to be against each other vehemently, vociferously, and violently if need be, to assure that he is elevated to at least the Presidency so he can remain a free man instead of rotting in prison where he belongs.
I know that you will get on and dismiss out of hand what I see clearly. I can't change what you do. I do not desire to change what you do or think or write. Know that Trump exists as a danger to press freedoms, to civility, and to justice. Think about that.
It appears you still do not grasp the concept of straw man.
Yes. When you make something into something that it is not for political gain that would place it in the category of propaganda.
Um, it wasn't unspoken, nor was it some general appeal to the general public to vote for Trump. It's actually in the title.
Undecideds. Presumably, they are undecided either because they see both sides offering something good or both sides being equally bad and can't decide. My point is that if the Dems/Left are pushing something so blatantly untrue as they have been, like seeing a chicken and trying to convince people it's a dog, then undecideds ought to wonder what kind of government such actions might result in.
The rest of what you say after that is another straw man of your invention, having me say or imply something I did not so that you can argue against that. Have at it. I'm not going to defend something I didn't say or imply.
A very obvious and true comment. The push back has been nothing short of astonishing
Today Trump praised Mike Tyson as a great guy and personal friend, never mentioning that Mike Tyson,
the ear biter,
is serving six years for rape.
Supposedly at the suggestion of a rally participant Trump said "yeah
put her in the ring with Mike", laughed and made some punching and upper cut motions.
Class act.
Your inability to see what others see is nothing short of astonishing.
See? No. You Don't.
You don't realize that your whole argument, writ large, is a strawman. It is. and that is all I have to say to you.
Crooked Donald the Ridiculous! For the love of God I want my cable tv 'back' from this imbecilic man and his followers! God let it be enough already!
Not sure where the emoticon is....
You go bro
I use my remote to either mute the audio or change the channel.
in the remote possibility, i'm able to find my remote, as usually hiding in some remote area that i remotely visit, cause the frequency is better asked of Kenneth, and the static is from the shock of whence it is found, and pronounced, dead, it just might be due to the remote a tempting to connect to the TV spelled differently than TV, for in the remotely distant near future, i'll drive past, a car fast, cause it doesn't eat dust, just drinks gas,and wait for the remote possibility that it be possible to find ones remote via another remote, but that one fell out my castle window and, you guessed it, write into the moat,like a scrappy old goating me on cause i can'tturn my TV off, only women,
have the power to find the remote possibilities hidden in the remote location where
the remote did fall, into the wrong hands that done did work while present, but lately you become later and later, and the early bird brain, not only later and later Wally Gator catches another worm, for it leads the rest to conclude, i shouln't of dropped that lude rude lemmon 714 dude, looks like a lady to love in the elevator, cause the escalator of life is too slow to stare at,bjutt, nice Hooters, i'd have to say, just B Cosby style,and i'll let everyone know in two daze what happened that night life took a bite out of crime, for it was again,dropped like acid, into the moat, thus the remoat reason i as of late lee, ate again late, too, the table where I've been found tardy a few r=times, and because of repetition, my name in addition, has become re tardy and late to the party in the remoat instance i show up at all, is because my mind tends to crawl, b 4 it walks out the door to the standing ovation that jumpedvup and off the Jimmy Page solo that was slowly turned remoatly, by a hand, that changed the English channel to giP nitaL,
and that's the trip i'm on this and every mourning
B leave even Trumpers will be relieved when the eve arrives to bid the bass turd a dew, because the pet peeve, is like a golden retriever shower cap, that doesn't require a thing to think, in person, or remoatley , and that should treat ole Trumpy, damn sweet...
Don't forget he can also do fries at the local McDonalds.
Agree. With so many truthful things to bash Trump about making stuff up effects credibility and just makes them look silly. When the statement (firing squad) is so clear anyone saying "It is really about.........." is obviously manufactured ridiculous confirmation bias
I could probably ask why the rhetoric of "9" barrels precisely figure prominently in the comment from Crooked Donald. . . but suffice it to say that the thing speaks for itself.
You, et. al. continue to argue that Trump did not mean firing squad and then wholly dismiss the fact that even if he did not mean a firing squad, his rhetoric paints a violent picture against a political opponent. You ignore the many times he has done similarly.
This is just another absurd attempt to defend Trump.
Trump has a clear history of violence-based rhetoric against his political opponents. So when he yet again chooses violence-based rhetoric —when he could easily make his point without such rhetoric— that strongly suggests he intentionally (yet again) painted a violent picture.
Given Trump has influence over countless millions of people, when he gratuitously uses violent rhetoric he is being irresponsible and dangerous because too many take him seriously and too many read 'calls to action' in his rhetoric. You should know that from 2020 alone.
I am sticking with the meaning of the article.
It is obvious you take any chance to go through your litany of grievances against trump even if it completely deviates from the meaning of the [seed. deleted][✘]
Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Very well said!
How is what he said propaganda?
Is there any conceivable explanation I could give you that you would not reject out of hand? The history of your participation in this place suggests that there is not. So, why should I bother? After all, the answer to your question is present in what I've already posted.
So, no answer. I'm surprised you lowered yourself to speak to me.
... duh, you're a woman. you're lucky there's no rods available ...
That's obvious to only the obviously obtuse among us.
Which wars did Liz Cheney start? Which wars did ANY woman start. Helen of Troy is a stretch but I will grant ambiguity.
GWB started 2 wars, and lied about both of them. Right wingers have always been the war mongers.
Disclaimer: I don't much care for her policies, I don't liker her much as a person but I give her credit for having a backbone and standing up to that POS trump. Ok ok ok and she is a fairly hot GILF.
I am pretty sure any Elizabethan Historian would take issue with that comment. English and European history is rich with deceit, revenge and stupid wars fought for and over and at the direction of women.
Ok, fair enough.
Prior to 2020 we maintained about 34,000 military throughout the Middle East.
Biden gradually increased that to 45,000 since Oct 07, 2023.
Trump is grossly inaccurate about just about everything.
He couldn't even be honest about his height and weight.... He lies about everything.
if his lips are moving...
Trump yet again used rhetoric that should never come from a politician, much less someone who would be PotUS.
It was reckless, divisive, and painted imagery of guns pointed at Cheney's face.
There are any number of suitable ways to get across the point that those who send soldiers into war might think differently if they had been deployed.
Yet this coming from Trump who engaged in medical fraud to avoid service and would probably (based on his comments) do everything he could to ensure others were on the front line rather than him is yet more hypocrisy.
Yes, a point that could have been made without lying and making it about a firing squad. Why muddy the water?
It is understandable how people would see firing squad imagery given he spoke of 9 guns pointed at her face. Putting a gun in her hand changes the scenario but the imagery is still there.
The point is that this is rhetoric that should never be spoken by a PotUS. It is irresponsible and divisive.
Again, you pen a comment which runs to Trump's defense rather than criticize his irresponsible rhetoric.
Well, as you can see, not supporting the narrative or, worse, questioning it means that you support Trump. Nothing else matters. If that isn't a symptom of totalitarianism I don't know what is.
We know you support Trump. You have said it.
Only to those that buy into the "Trump must lose at all costs" hysteria. To anyone that is rational and objective it is obvious firing squad was not mentioned and the context was about not taking responsibility for sending people too war. Anyone looking at it objectively might visualize her with a gun facing 9 of the enemy, not a firing squad;
The point is the exaggeration (or lie) and the continuing of the promotion of said lie does not help the cause, if anything it hurts it, as is the point of the blog (I believe)
Who cares?
I guess being called a Trump supporter is better than being called a racist, Nazi, fascist, or any other name you are called for not buying into the hysteria. Although those that call anyone a trump supporter may think that is worse than all the other names combined.
constant defense = trump supporter
Dishonest twist.
It is the consistent defense of Trump that is Trump support. This is a fine example. Trump yet again has engaged in gratuitous, incendiary, irresponsible rhetoric. Focusing on clarifying his likely intent while ignoring the dangerous, unpresidential rhetoric is one-sided in support of Trump.
Clearly you refuse to recognize that his rhetoric is irresponsible, incendiary, and dangerous.
Even when analyzing his words and concluding he was not necessarily talking about a firing squad, his rhetoric should be criticized.
Instead we see ‘defend Trump no matter what’! No matter how many times he engages in similar rhetoric.
Clearly you did not read 4.1. Great example of going with the narrative even when false.
In "fairness" to them, we cant expect them to change their perspective after nine years. When you're all in you're all in.
The rest of us have to take up the slack.
What about Trump's false grace regarding Cheney's imagined cowardice, when in fact Cheney has been exceptionally brave?
Not just brave standing up to Trump, but holding high ground!
Did you know not even one of Trump's ancestors ever served in the United States military? Not One! I am no Captain Dan, but ten generations of my family served going back to the Revolution!
Military service is not mandatory, but consider that in context...
Who is Trump to disparage Cheney's bravery within all contexts?
[deleted][✘]
There seems to be an understanding that at least half the public and 75% of the media heard or saw in their mind's eye
the image of a firing squad.
That isn't lying.
I would love to see the data, especially the political leaning of each category. I think the media we already have a good idea but what do the real independents think would be of interest.
As for here even when the truth is pointed out and the disinformation continues I could say less than truthful if that would make you feel better.
I agree.
I also agree. The Demacrats and the majority of the mainstream media heard or saw in their minds eye something that wasn't said. There's a phrase for that....
Confirmation bias?
Addressing my comments in reverse order?
Yeah, there's a phrase for that too.
[deleted][✘]
Addressing your comments, in whatever order, seems to be a waste of time.
That's not why you're here.
Why am I here, in your opinion?
Right. Let's look at the dishonest twist happening here, TiG.
You're doing the very thing you claim I am dishonestly twisting in your argument right frigging here. Not only are you not addressing the issue I brought up in the blog and are now attempting to change your position on it, you are doing so in a classically totalitarian manner. That is, unless one agrees with your view and/or characterization concerning Trump's rhetoric, that person is the enemy of the people. And, no, you don't specifically state that but that is most certainly the formula you are using, which I find to be the more dangerous rhetorical device by far.
You also make yourself guilty of the very thing you castigate Trump for, meaning that you are grossly exaggerating the significance of Trump's rhetoric. Since I have made it obvious that the firing squad narrative is an unsupportable lie, you now switch to trying to imply that Trump literally intends that Cheney should be given a rifle and sent to wherever she can be shot at and killed by the enemy.
Since you are simply trying the same thing from a different angle concerning Trump's referenced Cheney comments, let's look at the context again.
Also, the definition of rhetoric...
The most relevant portion of the referenced Trump quote is the last sentence. It clarifies exactly what Trump intends to communicate. The summation would be. " War hawks like Cheney would be less cavalier about sending others into combat if she had to do so herself. "
Nor is there anything particularly egregious about how he actually said it. Not one thing. Is there implied violence in what he said? Absofrigginlutely!!! The same violence every servicemember faces when they are sent into combat by their political leaders and that is the point he is almost certainly making. Are we supposed to be more horrified by the suggestion that a political leader be made to face the same danger they would send others into? Why is suggesting that sending a politician into battle so that they can experience what our military has been doing constantly for more than 20 consecutive years?
So, what we are seeing from you is insisting that what Trump said was " engaged in gratuitous, incendiary, irresponsible rhetoric " without any argument whatsoever as to why they are those things. You simply present them as established and inarguable facts and then, having done so, argue that anyone who denies that narrative is supporting the evils of Trump. That, TiG, is classic propaganda from a totalitarian mindset.
You and I have very different notions of what constitutes a dishonest twist.
Clearly you fail, or refuse, to explain exactly why the rhetoric should be viewed as such.
Such utter bullshit and directly personal throughout.
Trump painting an image of Cheney, a political opponent, with nine guns aimed at her face is gratuitous, incendiary, irresponsible rhetoric. Can you imagine any other PotUS using such language regarding a political opponent? Further has it escaped you that this is a common theme with Trump? See, Drakk, this is not the first time that Trump has spoken about those who oppose him using violent rhetoric. It is just another example.
I do not fully believe that you do not recognize how irresponsible Trump's rhetoric is. My hypothesis is that your post is yet another emotional expression given you yet again make things personal.
Regardless, anyone who cannot see that what Trump said is not only wrong to come from the mouth of someone who would be PotUS, but dangerous is not going to accept reason.
Finally, you are pretending that I am arguing that he absolutely meant 'firing squad' even when I note that his words can be interpreted differently. I spoke of his incendiary tone and that is not changing the subject but rather noting specifically what I see as the problem in his rhetoric.
Let's cut the bullshit. No man or so-called mature elderly, former president, allowed to be elevated and trained to rise to the highest level of world sophistication with designs on a return to the highest rank in our civilian government system should be a CANDIDATE (of all things) states that a WOMAN -any woman- should be SHOT IN THE FACE.
There should be no coming back from that effed-up remark from any politician. . . but, here ______ are saying 'Look over here.'
Even if Crooked Donald was talking about her as a 'war hawk' it does not grant license for him to abuse her publicly by 'explaining' any rationale for SHOOTING HER IN THE FACE!
The so-called 'clinical analysis' attempted in this series of comments by some fails to realize that humans are animals of instinct and experiences. We know how to process data and rhetoric to come to conclusions about speakers mocking tones, innuendos, double-entendres, lack of sincerity, gaslighting, untruthfulness, accidental remarks, gaffes, and such. We don't need to be given a lecture on what Crooked Donald means to say because he says it all the damn time. . . as he did in 1.2.17 above.
Enough! People believe your eyes and ears. Crooked Donald said what he meant and he followed up by saying something similar should happen to those in the media.
There is no defense for his statements - he laid them 'bare.' And as further evidence, he bothers NOT to clean any of it up after "himself."
Finally, if generals and other public officials are condemned for making crass, filthy, dirty, and 'off-handed' remarks, this old fool who deliberately says it and wants to say MORE of it from the presidential White House 'seat' should be told this Tuesday just go the hell away. We can make it without him.
The problem is Crooked Donald means to be obtuse and obscure. That is, he practices it - I seem to remember reading somewhere in my 'journey' on the man Donald Trump that Roy Cohn helped him by advising him to use it as a technique or 'device.' So as to claim innocent or "don't know" when his foolish, childish, butt is caught and called out. When I cross that article again I might try to post the 'point' itself.
Nobody here is mystified by code talking. We all have our big boy 'pants' on and our lifetime of experiences of listening to family, friends, enemies, politicians, and presidents express themselves. We don't need the 'wholesale' rebuilding of the statements coming (repeatedly) out of foolish Trump's mouth.
Furthermore, as the saying goes if Crooked Donald did not want to provocative - he is old enough and 'educated' enough to know by now how to avoid being misunderstood in the media.
Some people are just ridiculous and to be frank - a waste of time with their petty patronizing of good people while supporting the biggest louse in this country today!
Another problem are those who focus on analyzing word choice (as if Trump's words are ever precise) in order to spin a defense for Trump yet again engaging in incendiary, divisive, and irresponsible rhetoric.
but, but, but .... he did not say firing squad and could not have meant that because he put a gun in her hand
Oh okay, so then we should ignore the violent rhetoric because people incorrectly perceived firing squad due to the nine guns pointed at her face (because she had a gun). So really this is all just a fine way to say that Cheney would not be so quick to war if she had to serve in the arena. No problem at all with the violent rhetoric.
No PotUS should ever paint imagery of a political opponent with guns pointed at her face (or equivalent). And even worse, this is a common trend with Trump. He has a history of violent rhetoric and ugly actions against anyone who opposes him.
see @7
Of course Biden saying Trump has a target on his back right before someone takes a shot at him is no big deal.
Helpful.
I accept that is your stated position. Now explain why anyone else should do so. Otherwise you're simply insisting they are those things.
Yes, I can imagine it. The infamous Red Speech, posted by GregTx a 7.2 below, would be an example. In fact, it could be argued that it is much, much worse than what Trump has said here, precisely because the rhetoric wasn't so inflammatory. Rather, it was subtle, like radon poisoning in a dwelling or a slow acting poison someone is putting in one's food.
But more importantly, for all you know, other POTUS have used worse. Do you know everything every POTUS or applicant for the position has said throughout history? My understanding is that Jackson was a pretty incendiary individual, for instance. Point being, whether or not other POTUS or potential POTUS candidates say such things does not by itself mean Trump's statements are what you say they are.
You see, or probably don't, is that one of the biggest appeals Trump has for people is that he more or less states exactly what he means or thinks, whereas most other politicians try to obfuscate their meaning or intent behind politically correct doublespeak. That is one of the things I like about Trump, even though I oppose many of the things he says or even his general view on life. Harris, on the other hand, simply says whatever the focus groups that control her want her to say.
And this is an example of critical thinking for you? What you say here is that because Trump has said Y on X number of occasions, therefore all occasions, be they A through T are Y.
Good, because that would be an accurate belief. I just don't believe what Trump said here about Cheney was irresponsible. That said, you're just continuing your totalitarian tactics to further your argument. Because I don't agree with you, you try to shame me by implying I'm denying an inarguably established fact, when the fact is that your position on Trump's Cheney comments are something you haven't even attempted to demonstrate as irresponsible. You just claim they are.
Yep. Like clockwork. Can't actually address my argument so let's go this route.
And again. Rather address the argument I make, you resort to simply putting it down to a flaw in my character. You know, the Soviet Union did a similar thing, but because they held all the power, they could do things like having people that disagreed with them committed because they obviously had some sort of mental disorder, the evidence for which was their disagreement.
Writing that Trump's words can be interpreted differently is meaningless. Almost anything can be said to be interpreted differently so your statement says nothing about your own position. Furthermore, do I really have to bother with retrieving your comments from other seeds concerning this? Fine.
Elsewhere, JR states...
To which you reply...
Do you need me to post more examples of your position???
Interesting view. I wrote the blog that set the subject. The subject is, can the claim that Trump wants to put Cheney in front of a firing squad be supported by the context of his statements? I believe I have conclusively shown that such a claim cannot be supported. Rather than address that, however, you are speaking about incendiary language, as if that was the purpose of my blog. How do you not see that as a change of subject?
I will share what I know of what is happening here. Morally speaking from a some conservative point of view. . . Crooked Donald is a successful man (despite that he has been a robber-baron of whatever he can dwindle/steal/cheat/deny others to get where he is today - remember 'fire-fire-fire some for-transactional') and he carries their some conservative agenda around for them (to 'own the libs').
Thus, some conservatives have accepted his 'application' in 2016 to become "Big Poppa" for our nation. He lost that ranking nationally in 2020 for his dismal attitude and pandemic performance. But, there is no other one to replace him. . . with the 'scale' of his hardness, a lack of empathy, and lack of compassion (remember they loved George W. Bush until he said the words, "compassionate conservative" as in he would be such).
So now they have their very own "Big Poppa" and their job which they have accepted is to run interference for 'Poppa' in any way, form, or fashion essential to keeping him from being totally distracted by liberals fighting back.
So here we are watching 'all' of them defend the indefensible from a man who is asking too much of them. And they know it is . . . they really did not think he would make this many 'mounds' for them as a party. So much for their lack of vetting their foolish 'poppa' - btw, he will get worse with age, public position and public power. (That man is 'milking' them and the system 'dry' as we speak!)
In conclusion, back to morally speaking. . . they see him as a self-made man with the 'trapping' of success (that thing that trumpists admire. . . though he is a proper scoundrel) and they see him as their protector against beggars depleting the public coffers (though the rank and file slave to fill those coffers and give back as much or more than they take out). They see him as stopping what they perceive and mock as 'perverts,' queers, ne'er do wells, free-loaders, 'welfare recipients,' and unwashed masses that inhabit the country and just can't seen to catch up with the others (scoundrels) who do what they can (even it if it wrong to do) to get what they've got!
They see him as their 'armor all' —their protector if they keep 'applying' him. Now in 2024, they have determined he is a Keeper. That is what this is about. Plus (more on this perspective later.
BTW, thank you for locating and posting this video. . . I remarked on it at 1.2.17 but no Youtube copy was uploaded to add.
You need me to explain how Trump's continued use of violent rhetoric against political opponents is incendiary, irresponsible, and dangerous??
You found that to be bad???
This is a speech I can imagine Reagan giving (in his time). It is a positive message of 'country first' and the power and goodness of our nation. He is encouraging people to use their vote and to not engage in or allow violence and corruption to distort our democracy. He is warning the nation that Trump and his minions are working against democracy.
Quite a good speech for someone you consider to be demented.
Amazing that you would post this with the implication that it is bad in some way.
What a blatantly dishonest twist. I am saying that this is not the first time that Trump has engaged in violent rhetoric against political opponents. In other words this is yet another example of a pattern which reveals how Trump thinks.
Amazing.
Nonstop false claims from you.
Where do you see me arguing against that? I have several times acknowledged your point (even before you first replied to me). My point is that even without specific firing squad language, his rhetoric was divisive, irresponsible, and dangerous.
Your emotional reaction to that does not accomplish anything of value.
Today he incited violence against the members of the media present at his rallies.
You ask why reasonable people interpret it the way they do.
Why This Imagery? Explain the context where this is okay...
And, why is Trump using violent imagery about any Americans?
Why is Trump questioning the patriotism of the Bush, Reagan, Romney, McCain and Pence families? Why are so many of the generals and department heads who served Trump supporting Harris and making statements denouncing Trump? Why are Christians supporting the most profane man and prodigious liar in American Presidential history? Is it because if MAGA admit to their utter disillusionment now it would necessitate a crisis of faith?
see @7
So?
Well, I tried to have a rational conversation with you. No joy.
Tell you what. If you can quote me asking you to do this, I will say yes, I need you to explain it to me. If you cannot quote me, then you have to admit you are twisting what I asked in order to ask this question.
I wrote this:
You quoted it and wrote this:
I then wrote this because you just said that I need to explain why anyone should accept my position stated at 4.1.25:
Exactly.
That is what you think is a rational conversation ... going personal in a venom filled post? No, that is not even close.
What the hell happened to you, TiG? You used to be able to argue coherently. Just take a moment and actually look at what you wrote here. You accuse me of dishonesty and then literally prove my point with what you say afterwards. You are using other examples as evidence that what Trump says about Cheney as confirmation of your view of his statement rather than examine the statement according to their contextual meaning. You are literally stating because Trump has said Y on X number of occasions, therefore all occasions, be they A through T are Y. Because Trump inarguably said X concerning some other issue it proves that your interpretation of the Cheney comments are valid. I know you know that reasoning is unsound.
If you presented your view as simply your opinion, we would not be having this discussion, but you aren't. You are attacking those who do not agree with your interpretation. Thus, I challenge your position and you do not respond, except to simply continue to stand on an unsupported assertion concerning this specific issue.
If you think my refusal to let you get away with presenting an unsound argument as a venom filled post that is your problem, not mine.
Again you attack me personally rather than focus on content. Are you not aware that you are doing this?
I just explained this to you ... you even quoted it:
P1 Trump has made yet another violently-toned incendiary comment against political opponents.
P2 Trump has a history of making incendiary, violently toned comments against political opponents.
⛬ The incendiary / violent tone of this latest rhetoric more likely reflects Trump's true thinking about those who oppose him rather than merely being an unfortunate choice of words
Now, instead of criticizing Trump for yet another sick utterance, you parse words to argue that he was not really speaking of a firing squad. My response is that even if he did not intend to convey a firing squad, his rhetoric was still entirely unacceptable for someone who would be PotUS. It is incendiary, irresponsible, and dangerous.
The important concern should not be the exact semantics of what he might have meant but his pattern of rhetoric and the fact that he could be the next PotUS.
Yeah? And? How does this answer 4.1.39 ?
The only thing I can figure is that because I said "I accept that is your stated position" somehow translates to "I accept your view on this subject" in your mind. If that is the case, I can understand why you would ask what you did but, there's no nice way to say it, if that is the case, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I do not see how one can turn stating recognition that another holds a point of view as agreement with that point of view.
If this isn't the case, I have no idea what you're trying to convey with this post or how it answers 4.1.39 .
What a ridiculous, dishonest allegation. Calm down.
I am not going to continue with this faux obtuse game you are playing. I was clear.
You just keep on supplying me with ammunition. Rather than argue your point from the context of what was actually said, you resort to unrelated instances in order to make your argument.
Unbelievable. You just came right out and said it. I didn't even have to try to get you to say it. You just did it all on your own. It doesn't matter what Trump said or meant, anything is permissible in order to prevent him from becoming president. It doesn't matter what Trump said or meant concerning the Cheney comments. We simply have to characterize it as what we want it to mean in order to achieve our goals. What a great government such people would make for us, TiG.
Why would I do that since I asked no such question? The purpose of my blog is to discuss whether the accusation that Trump meant he'd like to put Cheney in front of a firing squad has merit.
If you want me to answer your question, create your own blog and I will do so. And I will not try to change the subject, as you do here. Have the same courtesy and stop trying to change my subject.
A total failure to honestly consider what I wrote. You offer no rebuttal, just yet another dishonest allegation.
Good grief, this is now pathetic.
And yet again you twist what I wrote. This is obviously intentional cherry-picking so here is what I wrote again:
The part in blue above is my point.
And here I emphasize that parsing his language to argue if he meant firing squad or not does not matter since no matter what specific meaning you impose, he has still painted violent imagery about a political opponent.
And I have acknowledged that his language does not clearly translate into firing squad. I then went on to note that even if that is not what he meant, he still engaged in violent rhetoric about a political opponent. I also note that he has done this routinely and that such rhetoric is irresponsible and dangerous for someone who might be the next PotUS.
No, I didn't, as I will explain.
A waste of electrons. I am not disputing that you said it. I am disputing that what you said is what you said it is. Specifically...
... why should we accept your position on this? Taken one part at a time...
Why is it unacceptable? If Trump sees Cheney as a war hawk, why would it be unacceptable to put in graphic terms the desires of someone who would not have to do the fighting? Why is it more important to put it in some undefined "politically correct" terms than the actual idea he is trying to convey?
Why is that a bad thing? We were sent into Iraq under false pretenses. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan killing and being killed and, in the end, the same people we went there to defeat were in control and better armed than ever, thanks to the current administration. Apparently it is preferrable to speak about such things in politically correct terms, however, to avoid the incendiary nature of the truth.
What, exactly, is irresponsible about taking a stand against those who would spend our blood and treasure as lavishly as they have these past decades?
What, exactly, is the danger? That someone might believe the propaganda the Dems/Left are saying about Trump's comments about Cheney to heart and decide to go shoot Cheney rather than what Trump actually said about the willingness politicians to send others to fight?
The fact is, your "incendiary, irresponsible, dangerous" meme simply relies on your projected meaning of what Trump said. That's the point I'm making. In order for your argument to work, what Trump said has to mean what you said it means, meaning a direct threat against Cheney herself, which is not what the context dictates. Your position is simply propaganda, TiG.
Which brings up another 'contribution' to the topic: Why can't Crooked Donald be persuaded, just like the rest of the surrounding world, of the God-given facts/truths of the 2020 election? This 'entrenchment' on his part on the topic "4" years later is a SIGN OF UNFITNESS - proper presidents have to be 'reachable' leaders not men or women stuck inside their own mental menageries!
Because, as I have stated repeatedly, Trump has a history of violent rhetoric against political opponents. That history emphasizes that he is intentionally trying to paint a violent picture of guns pointing at Cheney's face. He could have made his point without such graphic, violent imagery (e.g. if Cheney had ever been on the ground during a war she would not be such a hawk) but he chose the violent imagery.
And this is not about political correctness but rather the impact of rhetoric from someone in his position. He could be elected PotUS and thus he is in an extremely influential position. His words influence people to act. His pattern of violent imagery against his political opponents is thus irresponsible and dangerous.
This is not difficult to understand and I have stated this now many times. Will I see yet another attempt by you to put words in my mouth or will you actually deal with what I wrote honestly?
Because we have 'madmen' and 'goon-squad' wannabees at any given moment rising up and acting as 'lone-wolf' seeking to please their . . . influencer. It is not a strange concept; it the reality that Crooked Donald is asking for (and we are not EVER going to be amused or deceived to think that Crooked Donald does not know this) and furthermore, if Crooked Donald can not be reasoned with, then we have no use for an irretractable SOB to even attempt to lead such a great and COMPASSIONATE people as are the citizens of the United States.
It would "be best" for him to retire to his private world where he is desperately needing now that he is selling 'everything' and proverbial kitchen sink and let Melania enjoy his declining years and take proper care and feeding of her 'man.'
We don't need a delusional old fool dragging the 'youth' of tomorrow down with his imbecile mouth because of some conservatives 'itching ears' and demands to have a 'Big Poppa" over them.
Which is an argument that therefore everything he says is rhetorical violence against political opponents, which I know you know is a bullshit argument as much as I do.
Yes, it is violent imagery, but the source isn't from things he's said from unrelated comments elsewhere. It is self-contained within the comments made specifically to the issue I brought up in the blog. Concerning your issue of the violence of the imagery, however, you seem to simply object to the violence of it. That is, there is no other consideration concerning it. Put another way, the violence of the image, not context, is what is important to you.
Concerning this, you want to invoke history to support your view but, apparently, you wish to do so selectively. If we actually include history into this, Trump has consistently advocated and worked towards bringing our servicemen home from wars that only appear to serve the rich. Trump's position has always been that we shouldn't be entangled in foreign affairs in the manner we have been. So, if you want to invoke history, Trump's comments concerning Cheney fit what he has said and done historically.
Put another way, you claim we can't take Trump's comments concerning Cheney on face value because of comments he's made concerning his political enemies. If so, then a rational person would also have to weigh his historical comments, positions and actions concerning our military involvement in foreign affairs as well, in order to be objective. Taking those into consideration, what Trump said is consistent with his policy concerning military intervention in foreign affairs. That said, saying Cheney should be given a gun and go fight is simply an extension of the idea that it's easy for politicians to decide to send others to die because it won't be them. It's simply a more forceful way of stating it. Truely awful, right?
Um, yeah. Except that this scenario rests entirely on your interpretation of the meaning behind what Trump said. In other words, his political opponents are in danger because the meaning of Trump's Cheney comments is that we should do violence to Cheney and, by extension, anyone who opposes Trump rather than what the text actually means, which is simply that those who want to send other Americans into battle ought to be issued a rifle and go fight, themselves.
No it is not. The fact that he has a clear history of violence-based rhetoric against his political opponents does not mean that EVERTHING he says is such. It means that when he does, yet again, choose violence-based rhetoric when he could easily make his point without such rhetoric, that he intentionally (yet again) painted a violent picture.
What is important to me (and should be important to you) is the influence that Trump has over countless millions of people. When someone with that level of influence gratuitously uses violent rhetoric he is being irresponsible and dangerous because too many take him seriously and too many read 'calls to action' in his rhetoric. Is 2020 too far in the past for you to remember how this works?
You are on to an entirely different point. I have not suggested that Trump is a war hawk nor have I suggested it is odd that Trump would view Cheney as a war hawk.
No, Drakk, that is NOT what I am saying. This is like nailing jello to a tree. No matter how clear I am you find a way to get it wrong. It is clearly intentional on your part since it is a pattern I have seen in your comments for a very long time now.
Did you not read where I wrote almost that? Hello? You are arguing a point that I have stated and have never contradicted.
Even for those who did not visualize a firing squad when they first heard his words, this rhetoric is still violent imagery. It is the violent imagery (regardless of nuances) for a person with his influence that is irresponsible and dangerous.
How many times have I made this point now with you? Seems like at least ½ a dozen.
To wit, the rhetoric does not have to be about a firing squad for it to be irresponsible and dangerous.
I say good on them. It is better they stay at home than be MORE corrupted by a usurper like Crooked Donald for his own self-interests. Good on them (that will not vote) that they can stand for principles of proper faith.
As it stands, for me, I have never been more disgusted with people of faith across the board in my entire life as I am right now!
A so-called, Leader of many Christians - calling for a woman to be shot in the face. Hmmph!
Oh! Sweet progress!
Okay. So now all I have to do is convince you that this episode is not what you are portraying it as, which is my purpose in continuing this frustrating argument.
Trump's comments concerning the issue with which my blog speaks of is one such example. You are so intent in trying to prove you are right that you lost sight that the Dems and the media continue to push the false narrative that Trump intended a firing squad for Cheney. You yourself, although you will not come out and simply say it, know that this narrative is not true, yet you continue in the same vein by insisting that Trump meant some sort of personal violence towards her because of enmity in spite of the plain reading of the text that indicates that if (assuming she's a war hawk) she wishes to send troops to fight on foreign shores she should be willing to fight herself. Alternatively, the meaning could also be, stick a rifle in her hands, put her on the front lines and then see how she feels about sending others to their deaths. That is not an unreasonable view.
I find this statement baffling. Based on what you say here, your objection is simply based on the violence of the imagery Trump evoked rather than the purpose for which he evoked it. That is, I recognize in your statement you assume a purpose behind what Trump says, but object to the violent nature of how he illustrated it, as if that alone negates the purpose.
I suppose what I find baffling about it is that, for someone who claims to follow the truth no matter where it leads, why would you care about whether the idea was dressed up in lace and perfume or simply presented red in tooth and claw? As said by Right Down The Center in 4.1
... yet you continue to muddy the waters by focusing on the violence rather than what the message was. And that doesn't even address that you consider the violence personally directed at Cheney as vindictive retribution to her opposition to Trump rather than the contextual meaning that those who want to involve us in unnecessary wars should be at the front lines and experience what those they send there experience. In other words, you want to hide the actual meaning of what Trump said behind the implied violence of it. Don't look at his point. Just look at the violence.
The purpose of my blog was to examine the claim that Trump intended a firing squad. You and everyone else on the left in here simply ignored that and set up your own soap boxes. I believe all of you have done so partially because what I said in my blog was inarguable. I also believe it is because whether it is inarguable or not, it wouldn't matter, and that's the problem. Things like discussions and facts do not matter to your side. The only thing that matters is the narrative. The narrative is god and god must be served.
As for what is important to me, that would be truth, regardless of what I may personally want. You are correct, though. Trump has influence over countless millions of people, inside and outside our country. So does Harris, so that really isn't saying anything useful.
Here's the deal, TiG. This is what I find so frustrating about you. You're supposed to be this great critical thinker but you're not critically thinking. You're simply a drone in the great "Trump is bad" hive mind, at this point. You, and everyone else on the left here, think I'm defending Trump. Fine. Believe whatever fantasy you wish but, answer me this. If I were defending Trump, why did I not vote for him this election cycle? I voted against Trump. So why would I argue what I'm arguing in defense of Trump? Would it not be more logical that I'm arguing something else?
"Okay" you might ask, "what are you arguing, then?" Simply this. That our political system is mostly operating on narrative to the extent that when truth is revealed, not only can it not be recognized, it's actually intentionally acted against. To put Trump's Cheney remarks in their simplest terms, if a politician wants to send our blood and treasure to war, they should go themselves. That is obviously impractical, taken literally, but the sentiment is readily understood.
Even so, the actual meaning behind what Trump can be proven to have contextually said is buried beneath narrative after narrative. Why? Is it simply a political mechanism to defeat Trump or is it to prevent the people from taking a moment and asking, "yeah, why are our sons and daughters dying in foreign lands when it doesn't seem to have any benefit I recognize?" or both?
I'm pretty sure, statistically speaking, that the same thing I'm talking about concerning Trump's Cheney comments can be made about something Harris, Biden or Walz has said. If you know of such then I welcome you to post it. Then, I will put my money where my mouth is and either agree with you or argue in a manner I think you are lacking here in order to show you the difference between us.
At this point, it feels too futile to continue so...
Is there a "Most irrelevant post" contest going on that I am unaware of? If so, what is the prize?
I have been repeating my same point so no doubt you have just found another way to misrepresent my words.
Good luck spinning a rhetorical image of nine guns pointing at Cheney's face as non-violent.
Given I have acknowledged that Trump might not have had a firing squad in mind and that I have not argued that he intended to depict a firing squad, the above statement proves that you are going to continue to lie ... continue to engage in strawman arguments and put words in my mouth.
Don't use lying as means of argument. It is a cheap and ugly way to operate.
If you want to engage me honestly I will be happy to discuss matters with you. But I am not going to spend my time constantly repeating my position and pointing out the blatant dishonesty in your posts given you clearly are doing this intentionally. In other words, you just spent the last benefit of the doubt.
I am going to close by repeating my point:
Trump has a clear history of violence-based rhetoric against his political opponents. So when he yet again chooses violence-based rhetoric —when he could easily make his point without such rhetoric— that strongly suggests he intentionally (yet again) painted a violent picture.
Given Trump has influence over countless millions of people, when he gratuitously uses violent rhetoric he is being irresponsible and dangerous because too many take him seriously and too many read 'calls to action' in his rhetoric. You should know that from 2020 alone.
PROJECTION
Everyone knows why, even you
The problem for 'this' portion of your comment (accusing 'us') is that once the words leave the mouth of Crooked Donald he can not control what the media does with them. It is WHY politicians 'craft' their remarks in a manner that EXPERIENCE with the media has taught them over years!
Crooked Donald has been president and had 'tons' of experience with media since the 1980s. And so when he uses free-flowing CAUSTIC rhetoric to make a point. . . he will get called out on it. As people are right to have expectation that he knows how to 'perform.'
We do not have to 'Trump-plain' for him. That is his job and his surrogates. The media doe not have to carve an 'out' for him to walk through for his rhetoric. He needs to remember the protocols around public speaking.
And it gets worse for this attempt to patronize us! Crooked Donald has not 'corrected the record.' He stated it and walked away from it and has not given it a second thought!
Finally, what Trump said was amateurish. And rightly his critics and others can ask him why be so crude and unrefined in the 'heat' of a closing campaign.
Actually Drak, it has everything to do with Christians supporting The King Of Liars!
Please don't.
Knowing when to walk away is priceless.
[deleted][✘]
Shooting them.
Um, duh! Because that is what happens to the soldiers politicians send to war. That's kind of the point, TiG. The idea is that if politicians are put in the same situation they put others in, we might not constantly be at war with someone. I do not see what's so hard to understand about that. My guess is that you understand it perfectly but you need it to be about Trump directly threatening an opponent consistent with the idea of a firing-squad so you can do the Trump BAD thing with what is really a fairly neutral statement. One that has been said by countless politicians but not as sharply. Or it probably has been if we bothered to look.
Maybe you did not read what you quoted.
Trump has a history of violent rhetoric against political opponents.
You defend it by arguing which violent interpretation Trump really meant and ignoring the fact that this guy could be the PotUS. That the words of a PotUS carry great influence. That violence-based rhetoric is wrong, irresponsible, and dangerous.
Really? Then please explain why you continually invoke "he has a clear history of violence-based rhetoric against his political opponents" rather than just arguing from the context of the relevant comments I posted in the blog? Is not the purpose of saying such things to say this event has to be viewed through that lens? If not, then why do you keep saying it? What difference does anything he has done prior to those statements have to do with deciphering the context?
It is important to me, but it is irrelevant to comprehending the text as is.
Right. So, you aren't actually going to stop trying to hijack my blog. You just want an Anti-Trump rally, instead.
Not interested.
You don't think any of Trumps documented quotes of threats and violence against any and all, big or small, should be held as ANY part of the context that as usual, we are left in need of an explanation about what Trump actually meant to say, cause context is king, when it comes to deciphering ambiguity, and Trump is infamous for walking fine lines that leave others snortin, and not salt from Morton, as it should not need an explanation from others what a President of the United States when he speaks or tweets or whatever. He should be concise in his wording so as not to send the wrong message, and personally, I believe Trump was sending a threatening one, like he has to so many others. The Liz Cheney threat was saying that she need be careful if she is to dare call out I, the Donald wanna be Dicktater tot grabber of twot guy, you know, the guy who just loves lil' Kim Kim Korea boy, and Putin puttinit in from behind like a new sex toy, asz they are his admitted by he, "friends", that he oh so obviously admirers, and about it he lights bon bon fires of the non-petite type, cause he wishes to emulate they, and be someone feared by "his' people, like De Jesus, God, and the Devil, walk into a bar, yet didn't get far, Trump flagged them and had them deported to Haiti, where they ate cats and dogs and lived heavenly in hell in a shit stain whole country, we might be getting to nowell, if again elected is the mental defected, and that's just my two cents, and yes, mixed in is no change from my two non sense that weighs me down with heavy pants,like Trump on the back of necks of women he does, and they don't, wants.
Emotional nonsense. Most of my time here has been responding to you putting words in my mouth rather than deal with the point I made. You do not like my take on this event: Trump yet again irresponsibly runs to violence-based rhetoric to attack a political opponent. But instead of honestly engaging, you resort to dishonest tactics. And when that fails you now claim I am hijacking your blog. Get a grip.
Apparently, I have to explain to you what is happening here. I wrote the blog. I wrote it to discuss a specific issue. That issue is that Dem/Left and their media vassals mischaracterize what Trump said. So I take everything you say as if you are arguing the point of my blog. You think I'm putting words in your mouth but all I am doing is discussing the issue. You keep on discussing Trump's history of rhetoric as if I'm just going to drop the purpose of this blog and discuss what you want to. Not going to happen. Therefore, every single thing you say I will treat as if you are addressing the issue I brought up. If you don't like that, then stop trying to change the subject or simply move on.
You are complaining that I have made the point that even if Trump did not intend to paint firing-squad imagery (your assertion), he still nonetheless chose to yet again use violence-based language against a political opponent. As someone who might be the next PotUS, influencing countless millions of people, such rhetoric is irresponsible and dangerous. I expect clear thinking undecideds would be dissuaded from voting for such an irresponsible, vindictive, loose-cannon.
That is the event that is being discussed and that is my take on it. Too bad if you disagree.
I think you are a sincere person, so I will sincerely respond to some of the things in your article.
The only people who think Liz Cheney is deranged are the people who believe everything Trump says. To paraphrase a line from the movie Animal House , "that is no way to go through life". While it is likely true that she disagrees with Trumps isolationist foreign policy promises, her efforts to discredit Trump to the voters is based almost exclusively on Trumps actions post the 2020 election. She actually wrote a whole book about the one single subject "Oath And Honor".
Trumps only "out" here is that he will give Cheney a rifle to defend herself with. But where does the number "nine" come from? Why didnt he say 90 or 900 or 9000 or 52 or 238 , or 1,000,000 ? I've never heard of combat reporting where the journalist says "there were nine enemy weapons trained on Pvt. Cheney" , there is a certain ludicrousness to this description. The number nine is a reference to a deliberate killing, not a reference to a proposed battle between Cheney and "the enemy". Trump likes to have things both ways and that is what he was doing here.
It is not clear cut, but even if it were, this controversy is a reason to vote for Trump? With all due respect for you, that is hilarious. Using this logic everyone should vote for Harris because Trump says , repeatedly, that Haitians in Ohio are eating cats and dogs of their neighbors. Trump tells lies of that nature virtually every day. He deliberately misinterprets what other people say also every day. But vote for him because someone is distorting what he said about Cheney? Uh, no.
Over the course of this election you seem to give Trump every benefit of the doubt. I dont think there is any doubt about that. I'll leave that for you to explain.
I agree with you about everything except the sincere part.
[deleted][✘]
Considering it all started with Obama Derangement Syndrome and that MAGA have now called any and all criticism of Trump Trump Derangement Syndrome for the last nine year, it is not Democrats who have become unhinged and deranged by all of Trump's lies...
Actually I believe it started with Charles Krauthammer (IMO a brilliant moderate liberal)who in 2003 coined the term “Bush derangement syndrome” to describe some Bush haters
That does not alter my point, MAGA suffer the derangement...
Trump does nothing but lie, cheat and undermine democracy.
Is your point MAGA has TDS?
Yes, yes it is! If TDS is a real thing then MAGA are who suffer it...
Interesting to say who would suffer from something claimed does not exist. Is there a medical study you have that would show how that conclusion is arrived at?
Nothing like a totally irrelevant meme to prove you have nothing.
So, Trump is finally facing criticism for using violent rhetoric? Twisting that into a reason independents voters would be more likely to vote for Trump is really messed up and totally illogical!
But, we are talking about Thomas Sowell "The Propagandist"!
I think you may be giving Trump too much credit to believe he thought through and made a decision to say the number 9. That rarely happens when someone is talking out of their ass.
It is more than an out. If he had meant to convey the idea of a firing squad then the inclusion of the rifle makes no sense. Defining the number of barrels pointing at her is odd, but so is the word barrels. Nobody talks about having barrels pointing at anyone. Rather, they speak of guns being pointed at them. Taken altogether, it sounds like someone not familiar with the subject demonstrating their unfamiliarity by their word choice. Plus, let's be real. Trump isn't exactly subtle, is he? If he had meant firing squad it would he have not said it? Are you guys not constantly stating that very thing about him?
And, in spite of all of that, firing squad still doesn't fit the context when one includes everything he said, something you ignore for a single word.
It isn't that there's controversy, it is that the controversy is based on an invented and unsupportable interpretation of a single sentence, no, a single word. This is wrong. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump that are, arguably, based in fact. For instance, what one believes his views on tariffs will result in. Or his insinuation that he will use the military to root out "enemies within". That he has said, or at least strongly intimated, that he will use the power of the presidency to go after his enemies. Of course, the other side does that as well, so that's a bit hypocritical to be standing on.
The point, however, is whatever virtue one's side has is lost when they take something like the issue my blog has brought up and distort it for propaganda purposes. It doesn't matter which side does it. There is no use calling Trump a liar when you have to lie about what he has said.
Which leads to why I said this issue should push undecideds towards Trump, which I present as merely an example of a larger trend, is for the reason already stated. The Dems/Left frame Trump as the worst person on the planet, implying that they obviously are the party of virtue, yet present bullshit like saying Trump wants to put Cheney in front of a firing squad. Either they are so delusional, so consumed by hatred that they can't tell the difference between reality and their own fantasies or they know it's bullshit and don't care. I watch talking head after talking head trying to sell me this bullshit, apparently believing I'm going to swallow it because they're talking heads and can be trusted. They're in the know and I'm not so listen and we'll tell you what to think. Just like China. Just like the Soviet Union. Just like Russia. Just like every totalitarian government ever.
There is truth to what you say here. There are a lot of similarities (and differences) between how Trump and the Dems/Left handle lies and truth. For anyone who looks at all of this dispassionately and with concern for the truth it is clear that both sides lie their asses off. Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler? How stupid do you have to be to believe that nonsense? Biden was just fine, mentally? How hard did the Dems/Left push that load of crap until the June debate made it impossible for even them to lie about it any longer? Trump getting elected will be the end of America? Right, just like it was last time.
So, what it comes down to is the guys that claim to be the party of virtue and light lie just as much as Trump. So, who to choose? Well, I think anyone who is still undecided are likely still undecided because they think the same way I do. An impossible choice between two turds. For my money, if I had to vote for one or the other, I'd vote for the one that doesn't want to social engineer America into what they want. I'd vote for the one least likely to impose themselves on me. Fortunately, I didn't have to vote for either one, nor did I.
That's because in your world there are only two kinds of people. Those who see things as you do and therefore do the things you think are necessary and everyone else not in that category. That would include those who are against Trump but still do not do so fervently enough to suit you. I have repeatedly stated in this election cycle that I do not support Trump. But because I will not denounce him as you do that doesn't matter. Because I do not act as you do I am still supporting Trump, in your mind. That is an extremist view, JR.
And don't bother to deny any of this. We've all seen numerous articles where you castigate some institution or some demographic for not doing enough to denounce Trump.
I am not going to write a long reply. I agree with almost nothing you just said. You are doubling down on your assertion that undecideds should vote for Trump because his character is relentlessly attacked by Democrats and others.
He EARNED all those attacks. Your inability to see that leaves one more or less speechless.
Do your religious beliefs compel you to support Donald Trump? That is what I would like to know.
Well said
Thank you, but as you can see, it was wasted effort, except that it proved my point.
And there you have it. A truthful, coherent, logical, objective comment translates into supporting Trump.
The simple truth of it is it does not matter who wins on Tuesday, we will be just fine. I already know my candidate will not win so I have already moved on.
Wear that Trump supporter bullshit accusation as a badge of honor because you have not fallen into the "Trump must lose at all costs including a (I would say soul but I will change that into integrity) hysteria. I know I do
I'm sure everyone admires you for it.
I am sure I don't care what anyone here thinks about it
It has proven the very confirmation bias that you assign to others.
Correct
It begs the question that a man with his recent backstory would talk about 'shooting' someone in the face at all while in the closing of a hotly contested campaign. But there is more! See 1.2.17. In it, this fool repeats his folly again - talking about 'howitzers' shooting in the direction of bullet-proof glass through places inhabited by media personnel. And, yet more: He does not mind (a shooter doing that!) it.
Please explain your position, then. That is, demonstrate how it does so.
No need. It's obvious.
SO you started this circle jerk just to troll?
Well isn't that just special?
a warped religious demonstration of self righteousness ...
Crooked Donald says he is some kind of 'relatable' Christian so why would he advocate for someone to be shot in the face under any circumstances. It's all bullshit analysis to try to 'protect' this old fool from himself. Hell, Crooked Donald is unapologetic for what he said and allows to linger in the air because he has made no move to 'repent' of the statement. Indeed at 1.2.17 he says similarly about and against the Media. The media that does him a 'solid' to show up and give him EARNED MEDIA (free media) just today.
The thing is, this comment is not unique with Trump. Remember he talked about possibly using the military against his opponents (he named Schiff and Pelosi as examples). And most recently we have this irresponsible crap.
His undertone is obvious. How irresponsible for someone with his visibility talking / joking about people he does not like getting shot? Especially since we know that words from a demagogue encourages actual violence.
So, they'd have to shoot the reporters first to get to him and he doesn't mind.
Truth
[✘]
This is a speech I can imagine Reagan giving (in his time). It is a positive message of 'country first' and the power and goodness of our nation. He is encouraging people to use their vote and to not engage in or allow violence and corruption to distort our democracy. He is warning the nation that Trump and his minions are working against democracy.
Quite a good speech for someone you consider to be demented.
Amazing that you would post this with the implication that it is bad in some way.
The answer to your question is......why you're here.......is.........
It's a real head scratcher TiG.
but it had red footlights.........
Exactly...
I don't think so, I do find it interesting though that you feel this incredibly divisive speech was
Biden stated that he was focusing strictly on the MAGA movement, not Republicans in general.
He also stated that he felt it was his responsibility as PotUS to be candid about what the MAGA movement really means relative for our Democracy.
I think he was spot on. More people should have been more candid about what is going on with Trump. Apparently you disagree; that is no surprise given your comments are supportive of Trump and against any D.
Unlike Biden, Trump routinely makes gratuitous, disparaging comments about groups, races, genders, etc. He deems anyone who does not support him to be an enemy. It is the height of hypocrisy to give Trump a pass on his continuous divisiveness.
Sure.... but not anyone else right?...
Do you have another high visibility presidential candidate who is continuously divisive in mind?
LOL, no not at all...
Where is the moral boundary (to be obeyed) that some conservatives like to tout and hold over liberal heads-apparently Crooked Donald and trumpists (standing behind the man at the podium) get a hypocritical "moral" by-pass when taunting. There as a short-lived 'running' LIE told by Crooked Donald that alleged democrats tried to _____ their leader or would have supported the act but it could not sustain itself and it quieted down.
His spokesperson said this Cheung added, "The President's statement about protective glass placement has nothing to do with the Media being harmed, or anything else. It was about threats against him that were spurred on by dangerous rhetoric from Democrats. In fact, President Trump was stating that the Media was in danger, in that they were protecting him and, therefore, were in great danger themselves, and should have had a glass protective shield, also. There can be no other interpretation of what was said. He was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own!"
Cheung is guilty of issuing a lot of bizarre statements, almost on a daily basis. This one may be the most bizarre yet.
That is damage control bullshit. Cheung is a fool. He has been cleaning up 'sh-t' statements from Crooked Donald for months now. It is condescending and only another 'fool' would accept his gaslighting. I actually find him useless offensive and his 'service' repulsive.
Cheung would do well to not try to 'clean up' behind 'Stuck on Stupid' Crooked Donald. Because Crooked Donald likes being stuck (on Stupid)!
Cheung and Pfieffer should be deported, lol...
Such dicks! All they have is PD&D
The amount of idiotic lies about that one statement is just mind boggling:
The amount of shrieking coming from the left was kind of funny a few years ago. Now, it's just pathetic.
How many of these bloggers have asked for clarification on what he meant? Not a single one. But then again, bloggers won't ask for clarification because it might ruin the narrative they are trying to push and would require integrity. Those believing these bloggers are the same people who have relied on these same bloggers to tell them what to think for years.
Jonah Goldberg, the first quoted individual, is about as right wing as it gets.
The Federalist. LOL NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. Far far extreme right.
And yet his pushing the lies we see from the left.
[deleted][✘]
Well, presidents and former presidents do get 'taxed' for making poorly crafted statements that leave interpretation open to the imagination. It is what it is. A candidate should be more careful with his or her vitriol. Just saying.
And that has to do with anything I said how? Please pay attention to what was actually said.
Usually he's pushing the constant barrage of lies we see from the right wing.
The thing speaks for itself.
I mean really Crooked Donald to this day has not internalized the reality of a loss in 2020's presidential election! And, some people think that he is fit for public service in 2024. So unprofessional.
If you say so. He's been attacking Trump pretty much non-stop for 10 years.
I guess that makes Trump left wing.
What's the speaking thing?
Sorry it took so long to see this excellent post. Very good work.
Your seeming obsession with this one incident when we have a tsunami of false information coming from Trump and the Republicans is quite troubling.
What excellent post? It's not good work to copy and paste liars' words and statements.
Feel free to write your own blog about it. The reason this one was written is outlined in 4.1.80 .
Feel free to prove any of them as liars.
Apparently I must have hit a nerve with some with that information. Not that I'm bothered. Not like any of them have proven any of it wrong.
You didn't hit any nerves.
Jonah Goldberg is definitely a far right wing shill.
Your comment says otherwise.
Please reference anything you feel falls into this same category and we can discuss it. Be happy to.
In fact, you already did.
Also,