[Bloomberg] Trump Plans Defiant Final Week as Many Democrats Urge His Ouster

[ShadowLag]

He never officially condemned qanon, even when asked directly

He repeatedly says in the video he doesn't know anything about them, why would he condemn them if he has no idea who they are?

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Then say that. Don't state as fact "Trump incited a riot/insurrection/coup" because it's not fact.

Trump explictly told the crowds to do the opposite of that.

I didn’t say, “Trump incited” anything. He is partially to blame for riling these people since the election.

 

[INCUBASE]

Wonder if he's got the balls to do anything himself, instead of preaching about marching, then ducking out like a coward.........nah this is trump, basic bitch

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

He repeatedly says in the video he doesn't know anything about them, why would he condemn them if he has no idea who they are?

Factually wrong: he says he knows they like him very much and then goes to talk more about them.

He should know tho, he retweeted them several times.

 

[ShadowLag]

Factually wrong: he says he knows they like him very much and then goes to talk more about them.

He should know tho, he retweeted them several times.

You can passively hear things about people without actually knowing or learning anything else about them for yourself. Apparently a certain other site says this "Cyberpunk 2077" game is evil and transphobic and racist and everyone should condemn it. Just by browsing the Internet and seeing headlines, without paying attention to the game itself, I've heard it's a cool first-person game with cyber implants and neon lights, that it had a long dev time and a rocky launch that the devs are going to try and fix over several patches, and that Sony removed it from PSN until it's in a better state - but I don't know much about the game itself. I've heard some things, but I'm not publicly condemning it because I don't know if those bad claims are true and verified.

I also think it's a waste of that reporter's time to be asking the President of the United States, who happens to be a 70+ year old man, if he condemns some random inconsequential LARPing internet anon group.

But... if he retweeted them? I looked it up, and you got me there, lol

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I also think it's a waste of that reporter's time to be asking the President of the United States, who happens to be a 70+ year old man, if he condemns some random inconsequential LARPing internet anon group.

jfc it's 2021 and people are saying this shit about the capitol stormers... fucking disgusting honestly

 

[prag16]

I didn’t say, “Trump incited” anything. He is partially to blame for riling these people since the election.

You're not wrong, he's definitely been fanning the flames. I'm talking about the article in the OP. That's where they state unequivocally as fact "Trump incited a riot". That is not good journalism.

 

[QSD]

Then say that. Don't state as fact "Trump incited a riot/insurrection/coup" because it's not fact.

Trump explictly told the crowds to do the opposite of that.

I gave this example in another thread, but if a rioter walks into a shop and tells the owner: "hey this is a really nice shop you have here, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it" then literally that is just a compliment. Everyone however understands that there is also a subtext which makes it a threat. Most Trump supporting posters here are wilfully blind to that subtext, pointing only to the literal message.

 

[sackings]

I actually think he should say bring it on for the impeachment. An impeachment trial gives them a platform to defend his claims about the election being stolen. because those are the comments they are saying are what incited the violence.

I gave this example in another thread, but if a rioter walks into a shop and tells the owner: "hey this is a really nice shop you have here, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it" then literally that is just a compliment. Everyone however understands that there is also a subtext which makes it a threat. Most Trump supporting posters here are wilfully blind to that subtext, pointing only to the literal message.

This is ridiculous. Chuck Schumers fucking traitor face makes me want to incite violence, should he be kicked out of the Senate? Ditto with Pelosi/Melonhead/Omar/AOC/Brennan/Comey I can go on forever. What some consider incitements are not incitements to others. Even if what you claim is true, the hypocrisy of the Left for calling it out considering this past year...they have no credibility to stand on. I think its political suicide for them to pursue impeachment when they could be doing stimulus for struggling Americans.

 

[Elysion]

please pardon assange and snowden

The fact that he hasn’t done it by now tells me he never will. Instead he pardoned a bunch of white-collar criminals connected to his son in law. Which in turn tells you everything you need to know about Trump.

 

[CrankyJay™]

He repeatedly says in the video he doesn't know anything about them, why would he condemn them if he has no idea who they are?

So he knows ANTIFA but not the group that worships the ground he walks on? I don’t think so.

 

[ShadowLag]

So he knows ANTIFA but not the group that worships the ground he walks on? I don’t think so.

Antifa has made a very bloody and destructive physical impact on the country throughout the summer of 2020. Of course he knows about them.

 

[CrankyJay™]

Antifa has made a very bloody and destructive physical impact on the country throughout the summer of 2020. Of course he knows about them.

He’s also loyal to his sycophants.

 

[ShadowLag]

He’s also loyal to his sycophants.

I'm not in disagreement there - but I'm going by what he said on video, not what I want to personally think about him. I don't have proof that he trolls Q forums or whatever all day. I personally don't think he'd even know how.

 

[QSD]

I actually think he should say bring it on for the impeachment. An impeachment trial gives them a platform to defend his claims about the election being stolen. because those are the comments they are saying are what incited the violence.

This is ridiculous. Chuck Schumers fucking traitor face makes me want to incite violence, should he be kicked out of the Senate? Ditto with Pelosi/Melonhead/Omar/AOC/Brennan/Comey I can go on forever. What some consider incitements are not incitements to others. Even if what you claim is true, the hypocrisy of the Left for calling it out considering this past year...they have no credibility to stand on. I think its political suicide for them to pursue impeachment when they could be doing stimulus for struggling Americans.

I'm not saying that "the left" is not hypocritical. And I agree that there is always some measure of subjectivity in the interpretation of language. My example is simply to illustrate that it doesn't always suffice to just look at the literal meaning of a statement. The best that I can probably say here is to please consider looking at politics and politicians less as a sports team you have to stan for. You don't always have to choose "the lesser of two evils". In this case you can just choose to stand aside and not defend what is almost certainly indefensible.

 

[Valedix]

Maybe he will executive order try and legalize weed.

 

[Svengoolie007]

The very first line of the article is either objectively untrue, or at the very least very questionable. It really makes you want to read the rest...

What ever happened to journalistic conventions, which simply required to write : "after having been accused of inciting"? Or "after many say he incited".

Exactly what I was thinking. That's the problem with the media today. Why is there such a bad political divide? It's right there. They play sides. They all have an agenda, and it's usually left wing.

If they hang to the right like New York Post, they're called illegitimate. We saw that in action when Twitter silenced then in the weeks leading up to the election. How much of a difference would it have made in voting if more people knew about the Hunter Biden story? We don't know, perhaps it would have changed a lot, or not at all. People have a right to know though, and not have our media actively hiding stories that they don't like.

 

[TKOFromTokyo]

Do we finally get a real golden shower?

 

[crazepharmacist]

The very first line of the article is either objectively untrue, or at the very least very questionable. It really makes you want to read the rest...

What ever happened to journalistic conventions, which simply required to write : "after having been accused of inciting"? Or "after many say he incited".

This is why I cancelled my Bloomberg subscription.
I get my financial news mainly from the WSJ now.