It's natural for reasonable people to pause long enough to analyze Trump's intent in his "bloodbath" remark, but if those people fail to recognize that he's doing what he always does to promote violence -- cover it up with a claim to innocent intent -- those people are as bad as the Germans who voted for Hitler in 1933: fools or zealots.
The bigger concern is that as soon as Trump’s DJT stock lockup comes off, (either next week because insiders have enough board seats to let him sell early or in 6 months like a normal IPO), any of his billionaire buddies can buy enough stock to drive the price back up as Trump cashes out, turning their stock purchase into a work-around for campaign contribution limits. Normally, when an insider like Trump cashes out, that is a sign that they know something the rest of the outside shareholders don’t and is a sign the stock has peaked (because why would an insider sell in a trough?) and it is time for widows and orphans to get out. In this case, since contemplated Trump “campaign contributions” are a sunk cost for his wealthy supporters, they would probably rather give it to his in this scheme, because at least then they can take a short-term capital loss tax deduction when the stock inevitably crashes. I don’t know if Trump is an idiot savant or a genius (nope), but it seems like a pretty bulletproof way to get around campaign finance, bribery and 10 other kinds of laws. I wouldn’t be surprised to watch sovereign wealth funds (disguised as off-shore entities, natch) from Russia and Saudi Arabia take large positions in coordination with Trump getting out and covering his huge liabilities.
Sarah is right about the principle but wrong in this case; Trump was not obviously talking about the auto industry. I think he did what he often does: spoke in a thinly veiled code to an audience that knows exactly what he means while maintaining a thin veneer of plausible deniability. And I agree with people here saying he has forfeited any benefit of a doubt in cases where he seems to be inviting stochastic terrorism.
Obvious would have sounded something like this: "And if Sleepy Joe gets his way, if he steals another election--he stole our beautiful landslide--and if he does it again, we'll see the end of our wonderful auto industry. In terms of jobs, and factory closings--so many American jobs--it will be a bloodbath. So many jobs lost because of weak, Sleepy Joe--a terrible bloodbath for the industry and for others, too--other jobs too."
What he said was entirely different, and dangerous.
I want to thank you JVL for reminding us that we need to be good and resist the idea of playing dirty to stay even with the Trumpers. It’s a good reminder because sometimes it feels like playing dirty gives the Trumpers an advantage.
I think Sarah is right in this context. Speaking solely to JVL here: using every possible shot at DT would be fine with me if the shots were heard in MAGA land. I’ve often referenced the sizable “low hanging fruit” DT gives us. And it’s sizable.
But going beyond that list, which is unnecessary
given Bulwark’s audience, does what Sarah suggests. It makes it easier for Trump voters to rationalize his reckless statements and actions.
Even if only 1-2% of these voters are rational enough to reconsider him as our potential leader, their votes in the right swing States could be the difference.
What is your goal here, JVL? Mine is keeping DT from winning. Period.
Egger is right and Sarah is wrong. If you listen to the clip, Trump clearly veers away into a broader context, and that's where he is when he says "bloodbath." Now, you can certainly argue about whether the comment was worth all the airtime that's been spent on it, but Trump was definitely not talking about car sales in that moment.
Hard disagree with Sarah's view—Trump uses "bloodbath" like a dog whistle, and his supporters heard what he intended. Trump is not dumb. It's a failure of imagination by pretending that he didn't mean something, didn't know what he was saying, or was just incoherent. That's. What. Got. Us. Here. Sigh! I'll bet it's too painful for Sarah and others in the media who tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt—it's too painful because that would mean admitting that, yes, he really could end democracy. By the way, it's not about fighting dirty JVL—it's about fighting the fight you're in, not the one you wish you were in. Holding onto norms until they're gone isn't a winning strategy.
When I heard Sarah describe the “obvious” use of the term bloodbath to refer only to the auto industry, I wanted to scream. This was not at all how I interpreted his mangled sentence, right from the get go. Sorry Sarah, gotta disagree with your take at least as it being “obvious” to anyone.
At this point, until technology catches up with the issue, the way to make climate change better is cutting use. The number one problem with doing that isn't people's love of convenience: it's that there's no money in cutting use. Then it's people's love of convenience.
I thought the endless "bloodbath" conversations were an indication of who is online too much. The delivery was so halfhearted. Trump is less of a man than he was and he tied it to economic policy, and maybe more people need to take up hobbies and cut their Internet time.
JVL -- yes!! We need more tangible reasons for why we can have pride in our country. That we are good enough and strong enough to care about the lives of others, even of our enemies, is the essence of enlightened humanity. We need more of this. Thank you for highlighting this.
Michelle Obama perfectly encapsulated this, and it's been a debate in the Democratic party: "when they go low, we go high." I don't think we need to lie, cheat, and steal like maga does, but it's about damn time Ds went on offense all across the board. We don't have to fight dirty, but we DO need to fight.
Team: Over the weekend, I became aware of the good work at More in Common, https://www.moreincommon.com/where-we-work/more-in-common-us/ and specifically, their Hidden Tribes report published in 2018 (https://hiddentribes.us/). In a nutshell, this research showed that 70% of the American electorate is not keeping up and that there are lot more people out there that would resonate with the mission of groups like the Bulwark community if only they would make the effort to get outside of their comfort zone and learn from people/sources different from them. That to me, just underscores the importance of JVL's message that we always try our best to wear "white hats" - besides, it lets you sleep at night too!
Sarah's take feels dishonest (enabling of the ongoing demise of constitutional democracy) and really challenges my ability to hear her as an honest educated commentator.
I guess we have to pay homage to her as the publisher but I'm feeling the Ronna slide....
I absolutely agree that the good guys need to behave with ethics and decorum--but it should also be emphasized that there's going to be reasonable disagreement where to draw the line. Moreover, ethics can be weaponized against the good guys depressingly easily. Look at Hamas. They're made up of bloodthirsty psychos, yet they repeatedly shame Israel on the world stage for perfectly reasonable military actions. And for some inexplicable reason, it works.
Is it ever wrong to do the right thing?
I hope not.
It's natural for reasonable people to pause long enough to analyze Trump's intent in his "bloodbath" remark, but if those people fail to recognize that he's doing what he always does to promote violence -- cover it up with a claim to innocent intent -- those people are as bad as the Germans who voted for Hitler in 1933: fools or zealots.
Sarah’s take on the bloodbath debacle couldn’t be more right. It’s asymmetrical, but that’s just how it is.
The bigger concern is that as soon as Trump’s DJT stock lockup comes off, (either next week because insiders have enough board seats to let him sell early or in 6 months like a normal IPO), any of his billionaire buddies can buy enough stock to drive the price back up as Trump cashes out, turning their stock purchase into a work-around for campaign contribution limits. Normally, when an insider like Trump cashes out, that is a sign that they know something the rest of the outside shareholders don’t and is a sign the stock has peaked (because why would an insider sell in a trough?) and it is time for widows and orphans to get out. In this case, since contemplated Trump “campaign contributions” are a sunk cost for his wealthy supporters, they would probably rather give it to his in this scheme, because at least then they can take a short-term capital loss tax deduction when the stock inevitably crashes. I don’t know if Trump is an idiot savant or a genius (nope), but it seems like a pretty bulletproof way to get around campaign finance, bribery and 10 other kinds of laws. I wouldn’t be surprised to watch sovereign wealth funds (disguised as off-shore entities, natch) from Russia and Saudi Arabia take large positions in coordination with Trump getting out and covering his huge liabilities.
Sarah is right about the principle but wrong in this case; Trump was not obviously talking about the auto industry. I think he did what he often does: spoke in a thinly veiled code to an audience that knows exactly what he means while maintaining a thin veneer of plausible deniability. And I agree with people here saying he has forfeited any benefit of a doubt in cases where he seems to be inviting stochastic terrorism.
Obvious would have sounded something like this: "And if Sleepy Joe gets his way, if he steals another election--he stole our beautiful landslide--and if he does it again, we'll see the end of our wonderful auto industry. In terms of jobs, and factory closings--so many American jobs--it will be a bloodbath. So many jobs lost because of weak, Sleepy Joe--a terrible bloodbath for the industry and for others, too--other jobs too."
What he said was entirely different, and dangerous.
I want to thank you JVL for reminding us that we need to be good and resist the idea of playing dirty to stay even with the Trumpers. It’s a good reminder because sometimes it feels like playing dirty gives the Trumpers an advantage.
I think Sarah is right in this context. Speaking solely to JVL here: using every possible shot at DT would be fine with me if the shots were heard in MAGA land. I’ve often referenced the sizable “low hanging fruit” DT gives us. And it’s sizable.
But going beyond that list, which is unnecessary
given Bulwark’s audience, does what Sarah suggests. It makes it easier for Trump voters to rationalize his reckless statements and actions.
Even if only 1-2% of these voters are rational enough to reconsider him as our potential leader, their votes in the right swing States could be the difference.
What is your goal here, JVL? Mine is keeping DT from winning. Period.
Egger is right and Sarah is wrong. If you listen to the clip, Trump clearly veers away into a broader context, and that's where he is when he says "bloodbath." Now, you can certainly argue about whether the comment was worth all the airtime that's been spent on it, but Trump was definitely not talking about car sales in that moment.
Hard disagree with Sarah's view—Trump uses "bloodbath" like a dog whistle, and his supporters heard what he intended. Trump is not dumb. It's a failure of imagination by pretending that he didn't mean something, didn't know what he was saying, or was just incoherent. That's. What. Got. Us. Here. Sigh! I'll bet it's too painful for Sarah and others in the media who tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt—it's too painful because that would mean admitting that, yes, he really could end democracy. By the way, it's not about fighting dirty JVL—it's about fighting the fight you're in, not the one you wish you were in. Holding onto norms until they're gone isn't a winning strategy.
When I heard Sarah describe the “obvious” use of the term bloodbath to refer only to the auto industry, I wanted to scream. This was not at all how I interpreted his mangled sentence, right from the get go. Sorry Sarah, gotta disagree with your take at least as it being “obvious” to anyone.
Hiring McDaniels is NOT more than a flub. Why not hire whores and put lipstick on them?
At this point, until technology catches up with the issue, the way to make climate change better is cutting use. The number one problem with doing that isn't people's love of convenience: it's that there's no money in cutting use. Then it's people's love of convenience.
I thought the endless "bloodbath" conversations were an indication of who is online too much. The delivery was so halfhearted. Trump is less of a man than he was and he tied it to economic policy, and maybe more people need to take up hobbies and cut their Internet time.
JVL -- yes!! We need more tangible reasons for why we can have pride in our country. That we are good enough and strong enough to care about the lives of others, even of our enemies, is the essence of enlightened humanity. We need more of this. Thank you for highlighting this.
Michelle Obama perfectly encapsulated this, and it's been a debate in the Democratic party: "when they go low, we go high." I don't think we need to lie, cheat, and steal like maga does, but it's about damn time Ds went on offense all across the board. We don't have to fight dirty, but we DO need to fight.
Team: Over the weekend, I became aware of the good work at More in Common, https://www.moreincommon.com/where-we-work/more-in-common-us/ and specifically, their Hidden Tribes report published in 2018 (https://hiddentribes.us/). In a nutshell, this research showed that 70% of the American electorate is not keeping up and that there are lot more people out there that would resonate with the mission of groups like the Bulwark community if only they would make the effort to get outside of their comfort zone and learn from people/sources different from them. That to me, just underscores the importance of JVL's message that we always try our best to wear "white hats" - besides, it lets you sleep at night too!
Sarah's take feels dishonest (enabling of the ongoing demise of constitutional democracy) and really challenges my ability to hear her as an honest educated commentator.
I guess we have to pay homage to her as the publisher but I'm feeling the Ronna slide....
I absolutely agree that the good guys need to behave with ethics and decorum--but it should also be emphasized that there's going to be reasonable disagreement where to draw the line. Moreover, ethics can be weaponized against the good guys depressingly easily. Look at Hamas. They're made up of bloodthirsty psychos, yet they repeatedly shame Israel on the world stage for perfectly reasonable military actions. And for some inexplicable reason, it works.