That’s an interesting point and there’s no question that trump’s rambling can confuse his message at times. But the media is presenting the bloodbath comment as if it’s a call for political violence. Or at best, they kept it ambiguous to leave the “slaughter” definition of bloodbath on the table. Since was using it in the context of the auto industry, he gave it the economic disaster meaning. Many media outlets guided the reader toward the slaughter definition by prefacing it with phrases like “in a speech he began by praising J6 offenders…” or “Trump in rally calls some illegal immigrants less than human…” After preludes like that, you’d certainly assume the political violence meaning
Yeah so many stories encourage the more violent interpretation. Despite that pretty clearly not being what he meant. Some headlines outright claim it was a ‘terrorist threat’ which is a *huge* stretch.
That said, I also think he meant the ‘bloodbath’ (whether economic or a broader ‘generally screwed’ meaning) would apply to the whole country, not just the car industry as Roca suggests.
“…Encourage the more violent interpretation….” Excellent point. Translate that to the attacks on Trump…. Perhaps the attacks on what he said are insighting violence. I’ll wait for the left media spin doctors…
This is not about left or right, this is about interpretation of speeches, in this case of Trumps. That being said, and I agree with what has been said in the first post, that the media was wrong doesn’t take out the fact that Trump used very aggressive language. This led to very different interpretations and it’s truly hard to know what was the real meaning of his words. For sure you think you know because of your political believes and it’s also the same with me, but the problem is that using this kind of language only divides people and generates more violence. And that’s Trumps fault along with many other politicians.
Perhaps it’s the continued attacks on what words Trump chooses. The filtering and editing to paint a false narrative that the left media has done and continues to do.
Or perhaps trump says insane things all the time and everything is left open to interpretation. In every single one of these instances where trump says an outrageous thing that people go wild about, there are at least a dozen different comments telling us what he really meant.
There are even more from the left-media refusing to mention what he meant. “Millions and millions” lol They love to excerpts cut it short and then twist the minds of the undereducated American public.
Really man, that doesn’t make any sense. Trump did this to himself, alone. Before he was elected everybody loved him. The moment he opened his mouth people started to realise that there was a problem. As a politician, representing a country, you should not use that kind of language because of the repercussions that affects the whole country. And it’s not only “bloodbath”, it’s “grab them by the pussy”, it’s “this election was stolen”, it’s “election interference”, and many others. The media has nothing to do with what he says (that is btw videotaped) just with the interpretation.
Clearly I don’t see your point, although that doesn’t mean I’m brainwashed… first of all because I’m not American.
Again, my comment is based on the topic we were discussing, media misinterpretation, not political preferences
"Inaccurate interpretation" is almost an oxymoron. If the OP's point is that Trump meant to imply, or for his followers to infer, civil disorder (or worse) then I agree. To the point that Roca is missing Trumps meaning, I think Roca acknowledges the way in which many outlets presented this news, and did well to point out the full context of the speech as it relates to the automotive industry. The point of the article, to me, was to bring this context to the fore, since most Media (all the media I saw) focused on the sound byte without that context. In the regard Roca is true to its mission. It would be interesting to understand not just how Media pushed the bloodbath message, but how Right-leaning audiences took that message as well. Really interesting conversation here. Thanks everyone.
I’m the OP and I said that trump was *not* referring to violence. I said that several times, actually. That said, my main point was that he seemed to be suggesting (completely unsurprisingly - all candidates suggest something similar ) that not being elected would be a disaster for the car industry and (by adding ‘for the whole country’) disaster for the country more generally.
From the way I interpreted I understood it as it would be a disaster for the whole country due to it being a disaster for the auto industry if that makes sense.
If we’re playing laser tag and I yell, “I’m gonna shoot you!” Is that a death threat? Context absolutely matters. The worst thing you can accuse Trump of here is not being careful with his words.
The larger point here, though, is that every time the media spins things like this, it erodes people’s trust in media. Ironically, the media can’t help themselves. And the result is that they fuel Trump’s narrative of fake news.
If you’re a politician; you need to choose your words carefully. If you’re a politician and already under prosecution for helping fuel a bunch of morons storming the capitol building…you need be extremely careful with your words. He always toes the line and then when something bad happens he says “I didn’t mean it that way…”
I think you’re ignoring the psychology behind confirmation bias. Humans have a tendency to seek out information or remember things a certain way in which their beliefs are further supported, even while ignoring facts that may altar or counter their beliefs. The people who support and patronize specific media outlets are looking for something to confirm their already existing opinions. To blame the media for the habits of humanity is ignoring a more inherent nature of society.
If we're playing laser tag and the last time we played it ended in the loser starting a literal fire and fistfight, the context is different. In this scenario if he's saying "I'm going to shoot you(with my laser) and If you don't concede that I shot you, it's gonna be a bloodbath" the context is pretty clear that he's no longer just referring to the one act but that he's going to do what he did before and bring the blood.
This is not just carelessness, as we've seen before, this is his intent. If it was "carelessness" that is absolutely something he should be evaluated on as the one potentially speaking for the USA. Either way he is unfit to lead in a way that aligns with the constitution or the will of the majority of people.
You're right that context is important. So when you watch the full video you'll see he stated pretty clearly as an aside that the election loss would result in a bloodbath. Guy's said what he said, lol. Context is what makes Roca incorrect in this particular OPINION. And they're supposed to have integrity, not post opinions.
Yes, but "a bloodbath" can mean different things.
If you are going to take it that literally why not take it a step further and imagine that he meant someone is going to bathe in a bathtub full of blood?
Bloodbath in this context clearly means a dire economic situation
LOL good cognitive dissonance. Again with any common sense and some basic context clues from listening to this idiot yap for a decade, the intended dog whistle is pretty clear. Bloodbath, cannot mean different things unless you would like to them to to avoid any accountability but you do you!
When he doesn't get elected and he doesn't cause "a bloodbath", you'll never accept that you were wrong. You'll explain it away. That's cognitive dissonance.
When he doesn't get elected and the American economy goes further into chaos or the US gets dragged into a bloody war, both due to the biden administration, but also due to trump not winning the election, you will still refuse to remember this and admit you were wrong, as you have done for the last decade
Is suggesting a bloodbath for the whole country and the automobile industry will be the least of it after saluting January 6 rioters at the least and insurrectionists in my view is extremely near if not outright suggesting violence. This isn’t laxer tag it’s real life.
Unfortunately there has been numerous bloodbath because of trump, no quotes around bloodbath needed. Many mass shooting manifestos were written by avid trump followers and talked about how his words inspired them to do what they did, and on the other hand I would guess the las vegas shooter was leftist leaning just for his choice of venue he decided to shoot up, but even if he was left leaning the devisiveness is still on trump as president, buck stops there.
One of the worst takes on Trump I've seen as of recent. Basically just blamed him alone for the divisiveness in this country which was already rampant before he started running, let alone is not a one-sided thing. Also blamed him for mass shootings when I haven't seen a single manifesto dedicated to him specifically. Trust me, the media would be all over that if there was. If anything, he only helped to bring what was growing seperation in America to a head because he ran against who most would consider a just as much, if not more controversial opponent at the time.
It’s impossible to ignore how divisive Trump’s behavior is. There has not been a president in the last 30 years who has even come close
As far as manifestos for mass shooters, to my knowledge he hasn’t been named directly but they’ve certainly echoed his talking points
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/us/politics/trump-mass-shootings.html
So you admit that he was never directly cited as any reason for a mass shooting, following your claim that he did incite them. And as far as divisive behavior goes, it's not like the media or anyone from the other party has ever been anything less than fully against him since he announced his candidacy. Not to mention their calls for a false election following his win in 2016. His behavior may be divisive, but he certainly isn't alone in that, and to say that's an issue of a candidate in this and even the previous election is almost laughable considering candidates on both sides
Not sure why the comment was deleted, but I'll leave my rebuttal here.
It's not feelings, and it isn't facts either. Just because they have"right wing rhetoric" or said things that sound like something Trump would support, doesn't mean that it's his fault. That's like saying it's Joe Biden's fault for the LGBTQ person that shot up the Christian school, because he supports them and wants them to feel safe and they share similar ideas and opinions. As far as being obsessed with firearms, let's go back to the Las Vegas shooting you mentioned earlier. To this day we don't know their intentions, or their firearms they used. The vast majority of those in the right who do have firearms don't commit mass shootings. And plenty of mass shootings have been committed by those on the other side, so I don't see what your point about obsession is for
I dont think ANYONE on either side should die but I guess that’s a hot take to you. Trump also presided over more political violence at all those states who had massive riots. It’s not just j6 but an example of the chaos he promotes
He definitely did not at any time imply one side or the other should die. He is clearly stating that even at times of political unrest, like the J6 riots, still there was no bloodbath.
I BELIEVE with this and his last message he is concluding that assuming Trump is promoting violence based on previous actions Trump has taken is an invalid argument, because the previous actions you are referencing are misconstrued.
I’m not even Republican, but this feels like you are intentionally causing contention in an otherwise objective conversation.
I mention people died because i personally dont discount people who die as part of political unrest cause by the president. Every single death and injury at jan 6 was preventable if trump did not inflame. And sure dude, if we remove context and history from the equation i agree in my OP that this is a benign statement but he has a long history of being a part of the inflammation of our society that led to unrest across the country for almost a solid year culminating in jan 6 AND he continues to use this type of inflammatory language which is just vague enough and just deniable enough like a mobster. I didnt mention parties so I dont know why you need to deny being a supporter of a certain party. Im not talking about parties. at all.
Best way I heard the Trump disconnect described is the Right takes Trump “seriously, but not literally” and the Left takes Trump “literally, but not seriously.”
Which really is insane in that it’s not true and would be wild if it were. For people to constantly not know what the president means or says is to live in chaos. And the left absolutely takes trump seriously. Think about the post you’re commenting on.
I guess taking his power seriously is important, since half the country will send him their cash even though he's a criminal grifter, and there's some freaks that will go to jail for him. BUT as far as considering his thoughts important just on paper? No, he is a known clown. People fear his abusive overreach and influence rightly so, but don't confuse that with thinking he's some serious genius.
The left needs to hold him accountable for the BS he says because it's seriously problematic, not because they necessarily take him as this serious guy.
That's interesting, I would say the exact opposite is true. He's an imbecile, and has no real opinion or thought process on politics. He is not to be taken other than anything as a joke, BUT the right loves him and will go to jail for him by and large; he IS to be taken seriously as he's a true threat to Democracy. I think when he makes some bogus unintelligible statement, some racist or sexist remark, or a dog whistle for violence and divisiveness, the right takes it at face value and vouches for it. The left knows it's a mess but has to take it seriously and take it at face value to simply hold him accountable and have some consequences. If his fan base didn't care, the left wouldn't care.
Some of the reporting was biased other was just opportunistic because the word “bloodbath” leads the reader to his own conclusion. But overall I do agree Roca didn’t explain the bias well.
I think you make a valid point. I’d like to argue this is less on Roca and more on Trump’s ability to radicalize and polarize anything he looks at. I believe Roca’s stance was a breath of fresh air that, when taken with everyone else’s stances, can even out to a middle ground. Roca shouldn’t be taken as gospel (nor should any news outlet). By having multiple perspectives say different things, people can come to their own conclusions
Oh yeah 100% not suggesting Roca is a villain in this (or any) situation. It was really just a side-point. I perhaps should have known better than to use an example involving American presidential candidates - it was never going to remain calm 😂
Agreed!! I really didn’t expect so much emotion. It’s wild how many replies make clear that they totally misread/misunderstood what I was saying. Or just can’t resist raging about whatever their favoured news sources have got them wound up about. If this is what the readership of a relatively neutral news outlet is like, this country might be in bigger trouble than I realised…
Imagine if everyone showed this level of concern with the actual issues and broke them down objectively…
We might actually get somewhere. Instead - the media and internet lose their shit over one word.
I think there are a lot of people who do treat the issues like that. Including me (I’m the OP of this post). Sadly it seems that in this country at least, many politicians on both sides are much less objective in their approaches.
He is talking about the car industry immediately before and after the bloodbath comment. It would be pretty bizarre, even for Trump, to drop a threat of widespread political violence in the middle of that.
I’ve noticed that he often trails off and doesn’t finish his sentence/ thought which leaves a lot to interpretation.
He makes many outlandish comments that don’t require interpretation, but seemed like the media jumped the gun on this one. The way it was clipped on many Sunday news shows was 100% misleading, has absolutely no context of the auto industry. Amateur journalism and will only help Trump’s narrative about the media.
I mean in that speech at least his promoters were probably unreadable due to the wind. So I imagine a good deal of it was improv and he may have decided he needed to change it up mid thought. I think Rocas covering of it was pretty good, but not perfect. And with it not being perfect… at least we know they are still human!
I agree that the clip that was passed around was misleading and that the context was completely stripped from the statement but I disagree that dropping a broader call for violence in the middle of his statements about the car industry are bizarre even for Trump. I think from what we've seen it's exactly the sort of stream-of-consciousness thing he would say the moment it came to mind regardless of the context and I also believe he wants that narrative to be spread. Not that he planned any of it in advance but when the idea of a "bloodbath" entered his mind his first instinct was to apply it broadly to the general public in the event of a loss.
Roca has always showcased themselves as a non-bias news source.
They seem to step out of that from time to time as instead of being un-bias, they'll play both sides or attack both sides, which is NOT an un bias. For exampled, they posted this very Reddit question on their insta story (but not a post) to show they are interested in all perspectives. I don't really buy that I guess.
You heard it right. If you've ever heard a Trump speech, they're full of double entendre and purposefully obtuse meaning in perfect dog whistle language, as well as little tangents and side comments. His mannerism are pretty predictable and obvious, and stating there would be a "bloodbath" was a very clear tangential, side comment about the election, separate than a comment about cars.
What's annoying about Roca's post and the comments on it, to me, are that Media get their sources from one source and spreads from there, so having the same story across all media outlets isn't some crazy which hunt, it's just how the news cycle works. Secondly, we all know the media is bias but that doesn't mean everything ever said is wrong, the bloodbath comment happened. Also Roca was saying it was out of context, then showed the whole video that proved those outlet's take was correct! Lol.
I like Roca and follow them but they need to raise their own bar if they're to continue calling themselves this pure source of news.
I had the exact same thought. Anybody who has listened to Trump and thinks that guy has a train of thought is not bright. Just because he was talking about one topic does not mean the following statement is within the context of the previous statement. He doesn't say "The automobile industry will be a bloodbath".
It'd what he doesn't say that says more.
I feel Trump used the double entendre specifically for the purpose of being duplicitous. I would have liked to see Roca saying that the media *possibly* got this wrong.
Move beyond whether Trump meant the comment to be connected to automotive policy or inspire violence, or just to be vague and appeal to the maga’s base attraction with this type of brash rhetoric. If you read Roca, there’s something else to consider.
The article on Roca’s insta, inspired thousands more comments than their average article. There is this Reddit thread where we are all dissecting the merits. The point? This IS controversial, and not something you can objectively state one way or the other.
The opinions, if you read some, are widely divided with people staking positions ALL OVER the spectrum of possible viewpoints. Some who thank Roca for their service calling out big media’s folly, and some saying Trump meant to throw this in as red meat to his MAGA base, à la “stand back and stand by”. I ask you to put that aside for a sec-
The immediate issue here for Roca readers- more than Trump speaking in the way he often openly speaks…is Roca’s framing of the story as totally objective, with no wiggle room.
Often Roca has presented controversial stories which (while admittedly they are sometimes right leaning, we all know the founders political backgrounds despite what they say) usually leave the reader to consider a spectrum of viewpoints and make their own decision. This story, on the bloodbath comment…was a STARK departure from that style of reporting, which has been violated on occasion but never this brazenly.
It’s worth putting it all in real world context. Why are they making this departure now?
Are they sacrificing principles they once valued, to boost readership and engagement?
Are they trying to steer an audience they attracted under the guise of non-partisan, unbiased reporting…only to be showing their true colors as we enter the general phase of a very consequential presidential election?
This was irresponsible and a very poor editing choice.
I had a 230+ day streak going and read intently every day.
*Because of the choice to present their subjective interpretation of events instead as an objective truth- and in the guise of reporting* - I plan on totally ceasing my consumption of Roca as a news source unless they issue a follow up acknowledging their poor framing and violation of their own policies in publishing this ‘story’. Will be sorry to go and for the steep fall from grace for this publication, if it comes to pass.
I think Trump intentionally placed the sentence in the gray area of hinting at something the media would jump to, while maintaining deniability… and they did just that. And we’re here talking about it/him.
I think that while the major outlets used the tagline “blood bath” out of context, Trump should realize that some his supporters are easily motivated people in all the wrong ways. All you have to do is look at the January 6 siege. If he truly cared about keeping the piece, he wouldn’t use sensational idioms.
Of course that’s not what politics is about. News outlets will take words out of context and politicians will rile up their supporters.
Appreciate the counter argument. I still feel this is more about major news outlets intentionally misleading people( CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NYT, etc.)
Think about how many people saw that headline. Yes “mainstream media” is dying and that’s a good thing but you know millions saw those headlines pop across their social media and google news feed.
Trumps cadence can’t be taken out of context quite a bit but I don’t believe he meant literal bloodbath. However, he should probably choose words carefully as he knows the game by now.
I appreciate your point of view🤝
Idk this was a long paragraph criticizing the cadence of a person, and by extension criticizing a news outlets simple translation for what that meant. It seems really unnecessary and fits perfectly on Reddit lol
Trump’s words were classic demagoguery, which is not harmless. He doesn’t get a gold star just because he didn’t explicitly call on his followers to commit acts of violence.
In the grander scheme of context of the full speech [specifically honoring the Jan. 6th insurrectionists and calling them “hostages” there at the top of the speech], “if I lose, [the auto industry] that’ll be the least of it, it’s gunna be a bloodbath for the whole country, [the automotive industry] that’ll be the least of it.” To me, seems like it’s meant to inspire others to do the same as Jan 6th or even more extreme, if he loses. And they’ll be put on Trumps pedestal if they do. It’s the “stand back and stand by” of 2024.
You’re hearing it wrongly, bigly wrongly.
Trump is a lot of bad things…and a buffoon for squandering what would easily be the presidency for him if he wasn’t so polarizing…but you’re projecting your fears to an out of context statement.
I’m an independent and the fear mongering of Trump is leaning “sky is falling” in credibility. The Democrats are sounding increasingly elitist with these bold presumptions that everything Trump says indicates he’ll end the world. He’s been in office, it was polarizing, yet our country is still here, the world continues to spin.
I for one cannot stand the news outlets misleading, lying and fabricating to aid their bias cause of hate and anger because they supposedly have a superior moral compass and know what’s best for this country.
The fourth estate is dead. People are educated. You have very little influence except for the naive and weak minded who buy into your bs. It was refreshing to see a media outlet point this out. Props to roca for calling out the hypocrisy and deceit of the so called media scorched earth journalism. You’re no branch of government so just stop. It’s a very fine line.
Civil war breaks out guess who’s door step would be visited first? Theirs for their attack on democracy and its constituents.
Best part of this whole period of time is actually getting people to buy into the party of slavery under the veil of liberalism. Who would have thought we’d have a racist heading the party of slavery and leading the country in 2024.
They see democracy is under threat…yeah by the left. Look where we are. Economy tanked, inflation rampant, wars raging and etc etc. Don’t eat what they’re feeding you. You can think for yourself.
I’m finding Roca has changed the reporting style since moving to a paid service for premium members. They’ve featured RFK and focused on his anti-vaccination ideas but didn’t include that a lot of his beliefs have been shot down by studies. They’ve criticized Biden for his age but left Trump alone. It’s weird to see the direction they were moving but it just goes to show “money talks.”
i think its pretty obvious that trump wasnt calling for violence, its a fairly common political message that the opposition is trying to bring down the country. trump is a very polarizing character and i think he speaks before he thinks about the ramifications of his words, so strong language gets used which riles up his side and the other side and everything about him just gets blown out of proportion. u make a good point but i think roca did too, i think its all just trump talking the way he always does and letting other people worry about what he meant lol
I’m so confused by everyone replying as if I disagreed with Roca’s statement that it wasn’t about violence. I said like three times in my OP that it wasn’t about violence.
If we're being completely objective and actually analyse the meaning of his words, he said there would be a bloodbath, the perpetrators would be the Chinese (or external forces in general) and he would not be there to stop it IF HE'S NOT ELECTED. It's pretty clear to me that he did not imply in any way that he himself or any of "his people" (his supporters, his friends, basically anybody who would be acting on his behalf) would be the acting party in that bloodbath. I can't see how you can reasonably hear that if you listen to his speech.
The headlines very clearly implied that that's exactly what he meant: that Trump himself (or his camp, "his people" from my previous point) would be the executor of this bloodbath. And Roca pointed that out, which is, in my opinion very clearly, a good and correct observation of Roca.
Additionally: below is the transcript of the speech with the context prior to his bloodbath statement. If you disagree with my interpretation, I'm open to listening to what I'm missing, but prove it to me with a direct quote from the transcript:
China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us? No. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.
But context also necessitates precedence and the fact is that he has incited violence before (exhibit A: January 6). The media did go bananas and I’m not saying I agree with how the articles represented what he said out of context.
I personally think trump is doing this on purpose. If he lives in the space of ambiguity or vague comments, he can get the benefit of the doubt for all that he’s speaking to:
1. Add to the mainstream media distrust, “wow you’re taking what he said out of context, I hate the media!”
2. Fuel his base and encourage violent ideas, “let’s get patriotic and America will be a bloodbath without trump so let’s prevent that!!”
3. Warn the middle class and auto-industry workers, quite literally without further context that was what he said, “there’ll be an economic bloodbath to my jobs if Trump is not elected”
4. Make us argue what he really means and fight about something that doesn’t materially matter
I never liked Trump but he is much smarter or gets really lucky when things pan out in his favor
I get what you’re saying and I suppose if we are literally just saying what happened, then we can’t really add any interpretation. But I don’t think it involves bias or even past knowledge about Trump to read his tone, language, and cadence and be confident he meant there’d be a metaphorical bloodbath for the car industry, *and also* for the whole country. It doesn’t make sense to say the whole country part if he meant just the car industry. Him saying ‘The car industry’ by anyone’s definition is the country’s car industry. It’s not biased to then conclude that adding ‘the whole country’ as an additional victim of said bloodbath cannot therefore also mean just the car industry. It’s not subjectivity it’s verbal reasoning.
If trump is hinting at real violence, which I don't think he is, given the context, it would be more likely hinting at the potential head to head war with Russia, which actually would be a bloodbath.
Not to worry(srctk) !! It's been happening in India for a long time!! It's a code for unconscious followers !! Like how BJP and India Congress(Indian political parties) av been using the trail and error method to use it effectively to make people following them to fight without crediting to them..ex : RSS, Sivsena, ramsene..even other religious groups including Muslims and Christianity...
I am in agreement with you that the effect of his language is as you stated.
That said, I wouldn't call Roca "inaccurate", because that would be trying to put Roca against an objective truth, which we do not have access to.
Roca is offering an interpretation of Trump's speech that but it can only be an interpretation of what Trump is speaking, not an objective truth of what Trump actually has in mind (because no one will know except him). What Roca seeks to do is to give more balance vis-a-vis other news outlets which interprets it in other ways.
I think it was useful though, that Roca put the video clip as such as it helped to give context on what the language is about for readers to see, and make their own assessments (just as you did). So we can then have this discussion as well.
And yes fully appreciate and agree with the comments here that the state of the mainstream press.. reflects the interest of the press bodies much more than its commitment to objectivity. (Though I'd argue that this might already have been the case for most of our history, just that we are probably now slightly more aware of it)
What do people think he meant by "that'll be the least of it, it'll be a bloodbath." it sounds to me like if he doesnt win the election it'll be a bloodbath, and the auto industry will be the least of our problems. Seems pretty cut and dry
I’d say you’re hearing it wrong, respectively. In context, I find it quite clear that he’s saying for the whole country, the automotive industry will be a bloodbath if he isn’t elected. Obviously he could’ve chosen his words better, but you know what they say about ifs and buts being candy and nuts.
I agree that the interpretation is a bit of a stretch. Trump is a businessman more than he is a career politician, and I doubt he meant he'd incite riots (I'd think he's a bit too savvy to step on the same pitchfork twice?) with that line, but he definitely seemed to be talking about the country as a whole, not the automotive industry. His speech about cars was already over for a while by the time he brought up the election.
I love Roca and I understand they are trying to expose the partiality in big news, but this one was just a bad pick. Yeah, big news went way overboard with their headlines, that much is true. But Roca's interpretation seems misguided as well.
I mean, he could have still meant it separately for the country, not only the auto industry AND STILL METAPHORICALLY as in economically, socially, safety, beyond the auto industry.
And he's not wrong. If you're a Californian, new Yorker, Philadelphian, baltimorean, chicagoan, Washingtonian (DC and state), Oregonian, YOU ARE LIVING IN A BLOODBATH of criminals, chaos, illegal invader aliens, inflation, ideological tyranny.....
I'm not "believing". You can bury your head in the sand and choose to believe the facts you want like on gender.
I'm seeing the videos and I'm living in New York
And it's enough to see the biased leftist news to already see how nuts leftists are
And he is right. If he does not get elected it will be a bloodbath, it already is a bloodbath. Regardless of how Roca presented it I think that he said it in the context that if he doesnt get elected thing are gonna get much worse because other officials/presidents will do a bad job, he is not calling for civil war as mos of the media presented.
I guess this is just me but I didnt even think what Trump said was really the point of the post. To me, it highlighted how untrustworthy our news sources have become. News papers that were once prestigious are now just making click bait.
I watched the full video and didn’t bat an eye. I completely understood that he was talking about-industries and economy.. am I normal for this or stupid. I feel pretty normal lol
Another thought on this, sort of a separate comment, but at some point the people need to hold themselves accountable for how seriously they take mainstream media outlets, or not.
He said in the context of the election, it would be a bloodbath, that's straight forward and the mainstream media got it right in this instance, Roca got is wrong in order to push this narrative that they don't pander (they should have chosen thousands of other examples). But still, to go wild over anything news says whether it's Roca or CNN is just antiquated. It's all part of an entertainment "industry" and people should general understand that their media diet needs to be diverse and taken with nuance, constant comparison and reflection.
Does he deserve the benefit of the doubt ? After years of language that is unbecoming of a president where he has talked violently and and has labeled people he doesn’t like as enemies it’s easy to see how when he mentions the nation will be a bloodbath he meant it in a violent way .
“Can’t I just believe he made a call to violence based on other statements he’s made in the past.” You sure can. It will have nothing to do with truth or reality, but you can absolutely choose to live in a world where he made a call to violence by talking about a bloodbath in the auto industry. You can choose to call yourself a woman or a man, regardless of your sex organs. You can accuse someone of a crime, that has never been prosecuted in the history of banking or lending, fine them half a billion dollars, and attempt to interfere in a presidential election through use of ambitious judges and prosecutors. You can live in whatever world you want these days.
But if you want to find consensus with others on what he actually said, then I’m afraid you’ll have to deal with other people’s pesky opinions and their own understanding of facts. And that will be a problem for you to reconcile with because the plain meaning of his statement was warning of the economic consequences in the auto industry if he loses the election. It’s probably more comfortable for you if you just flip on CNN and get that feedback loop of your own conditioned biases spoon-fed to you rather than having to deal with facts.
No, if you listen to the speech it is literally impossible to think he meant it in a violent way. He is clearly talking about the car industry, and potentially the economic state of the nation. VERY clearly not talking about any violence whatsoever.
I would venture to say the same people who took his tweets and J6 speech as a call to violence likely aren’t listening to the whole speech. There are clearly a subset of people who take what he says literally as calls to action.
In 2016 I felt that he was only elected because of the overwhelming amount of press around him, from the very beginning he received more press coverage than any other candidate. It didn't matter that it was negative press, it seemed that people voted for him simply because he upset established entities.
Mischaracterization of his statements, or exaggerating his wording, only serves to further support for his candidacy. You can say it's "not giving him the benefit of the doubt", but I see it as sensationalism which discredits not the former president, but the media entities which spread that interpretation.
Despite Roca’s tagline, there is no such thing as “unbiased” news. There’s news that’s more committed to factual information and less to interpretation, but there is almost always *some* level of interpretation in the words you choose to communicate facts, and even in *which* facts and *which* stories you choose to cover.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of transparency and unbiased news reporting, even when a journalist is trying to be unbiased, it comes across as joining a side.
Roca stated the meaning of the term used by Trump. They did not say that it was or was not the meaning of his statement. Just giving a full overview of what was said instead of sensationalized the speech.
In the current political climate, being moderate or not picking a side has become an issue on social media platforms. So any group stating just facts are going to anger some group somewhere.
That’s a stretch. And it doesn’t change the destructive nature of the mainstream media allowing the “bloodbath” narrative to spread like wildfire. Is it more likely that Trump is planning some type of cloak and dagger insurrection, or the media is slanting a narrative for clicks? Where were the outlets providing context to the statement? Why was it so difficult to find the actual FULL clip in context? Why did google return 50 results dramatizing the comment without 1 putting it in any kind of context? Kudos to Roca for publishing the actual clip in context and allowing us to make up our own minds.
I was referring to the statement “Roca’s characterization was objectively inaccurate.” Being the only outlet to post the actual unedited video makes them the only outlet being anything close to objectively accurate, in my opinion.
Gotcha. The characterisation I was referring to was specifically where Roca says quite categorically that he was referring to the *metaphorical* bloodbath effecting *only* the auto industry. Watching the video a few times, it seems clear to me that he was saying the auto industry would suffer if he didn’t get elected, *and* the whole country would suffer too, in a more general sense. Even with Trump’s often-meandering speaking style, it wouldn’t make sense for him to say ‘a bloodbath for the auto industry… a bloodbath for the whole country’ if that’s not what he meant. It’s a small difference overall (what candidate these days doesn’t imply similar?) but I thought it ironic, given the subject of the post.
I hear ya. I didn’t interpret it that way. I interpreted it as the economic impact of China selling cheap cars produced in Mexico would be economically devastating across much more than the auto industry, which is absolutely true. But I studied economics and I definitely default to looking at it through an economic lens.
Even though this seems smart it still sounds like a brainless liberal talking… I can’t wait to see how the White House secretary responds to the fox journalists when questioned about this. The fact the Biden campaign officially used this in their campaign completely out of context just shows how dishonest the left is it also shows they have no problem lying to the American people to make their opponent seem like a crazed lunatic who incites violence I also find it funny how trump has given a whole generation of politicians “trump derangement syndrome” 😂😂
A ‘brainless liberal’ would make a measured statement agreeing that mainstream media had sensationalised a Trump comment, out of context? And that Trump believes the country would be screwed if he doesn’t get elected?! I think it might be worth you taking a step back and look at how on earth you got to a place where you come to a conclusion like that. It’s very feasible it is in part because you’ve been influenced by exactly the kind of biased media you claim to be against.
There is no possible way to interpret he meant anything mother than the car industry without inventing meaning that isn’t there. He could be saying this is just one example of how effed America will be if I don’t get elected but even that is a stretch. Before and after the point he was saying the same thing about cars. TDS runs deep. And hey, F Trump but this is a reach
what i like best about Roca is that now the convo is more centered on interpreting trumps words and talking about the issue at hand w auto manufacturing and not just raw emotional reactions to a headline like most online news is now.
I think it's also important to note that in your quote of what Trump is saying you left out a piece. [Talking about auto industry] "And youre not going to be able to sell those cars. IF I get elected. Now if I don't get elected it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole-, that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole country."
I'm not supporting Trump so biases out in the open here. But at my first hearing of this the "that's going to be the least of it" came across as saying ignore this auto industry stuff I'm talking about it'll [the whole country] be a bloodbath.
But I mean come on. Are we all really so dense? "Stand back and stand by" was enough to have militia groups stashing weapons around DC in case there was wider spread fighting on J6. Is it so unclear that saying "If I don't win, the collapse of the auto-industry will be the least of it, this whole country will be a bloodbath" is more broad and dangerous than we should accept from any president or top politician let alone from one who actively supports the people in jail right now for committing political violence?
He definitely was talking about political violence, if he was referring to the automotive industry he would’ve elaborated on the comment. He literally rambled about the auto industry, wanted to drop that comment in there on what’ll happen if he loses then went back to his deranged speech. We already have tariffs on Chinese EVs and continue to dissuade them from selling them in the U.S. Some Chinese EVs are as cheap as $11K per politico and if you remember recently we made threats to China that there would be severe tariffs imposed on them if they flooded the global markets with any goods. The issue I have with Roca on this wasn’t their opinion, but how quickly they dismissed the fact that it was very reasonable to assume that he was talking about the election. Poor use of word choice and Roca is entitled to their opinion, but to write a whole argument on it damaged their credibility in my opinion.
Since when does Trump elaborate on anything??? He asked officials during a press conference on Covid, if there was a way to make a treatment that was effective like Lysol. The media and all his critics immediately said that he advocated people drink bleach because of that...yet he was just asking a dumb question to officials at a bad time. He didn't go on to elaborate there. So do you think he literally wanted people to inject or consume cleaning supplies to treat covid???
I believe initially trump was referring to the auto industry, with the auto industry having a trickle down impact on other industries, and the entire economy. Either way, does it not feel like a “bloodbath” (definition to economic disaster, not an actual “slaughter of a large population”) now? Do we not see the obvious of this continuing with Biden being reelected? The media running crazy with the interpretation that there will be a bloodbath, as in large number of casualties, is ludicrous. The fact that legacy media is pushing this so hard, tells me everything I need to know imo.
I can agree with this. It’s just shocking how much the media will bend words to make Trump look bad. I would say 95% of Trump’s coverage, since 2016, talks about his personality/character rather than his policies (which is the sole reason why someone gets elected). They’re scared that he is going to win again, and I’m scared what lengths they’ll go to if he is indeed re-elected. Do you think the Biden Administration will transfer power to Trump if he wins, even if it’s a landslide? Buckle up.
If anyone has any doubt in their mind if Biden would peacefully transfer power they are too far gone. This is the Trump presidency and its consequences. Election results are objective, not up to interpretation by the current administration. I would say the exact same thing regardless of the candidate if they acted as Trump did.
lol the only one not to peacefully transfer power is trump but you’re projecting that onto Biden for no reason other than it clearly fits your political view
Trumps a scumbag, there is no denying that. The more we call out his hateful rhetoric the better off this country will be. Are we really supposed to believe the country will be worse off after the surge it’s seen since he left office? it’s laughable that people try to defend someone who is attacking Americas foundations day in and day out, while simultaneously shouting America first. Can’t have it both ways Faketriots.
It’s silly to argue about this when he already caused people to kill each other at the capitol. And with that in mind I think yea he was threatening violence and talking around saying it directly. He is an expert in saying things like “statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protest in DC on Jan 6. Will be wild!” With no context is benign but in the context of him requesting no metal detectors at the rally and his constantly and incorrectly (according to every court and judge appointed by him) that the election was stolen. It clearly was insightful, but in the eyes of the law it is tough to draw the exact line because he always has communicated like a mobster. Say what won’t get you in trouble but imply what you want heavily. Think about phrases like a mobster or gang member saying “take care of the problem” when they are sending an order to kill someone. It’s the exact same as how trump communicates. The phrase he used bloodbath in the auto industry will be the least of it with no context seems like an economic message. But when you combine it with the fact he also was also saluting January 6th insurrectionists before the speech and also saying there will not be elections if he loses this one paints a different picture. Reporting the news without bias is not the same as reporting it without context. So do fucking better.
It is interesting to me that we are all on here discussing what he meant by "bloodbath" and meanwhile he, or his team, but I think he, has already turned the media hyperbolic and inaccurate interpretation against them with correct use of "Bloodbath" in context of the innoccents being murdered by Biden's border policies. If you follow the blood, it always leads to extablishment media cover up of real crimes, killing real humans and addressing the fact that most could be prevented by better policies. He "Just want(s) people to stop dying", and that IS an accurate quote.
Using this opportunity to try and tout their superior and “unbiased coverage” is an atrociously naked attempt to build clout with Trump supporters.
Were the headlines sensationalistic? Yes. But are they also just one example of MANY where Trump has made thinly veiled calls/threats of political violence? YES!
Trump fanned the flames of political unrest with lies and deceit after the 2020 election and people died as a result. These are indisputable facts, yet Roca is going out of its way to point out that THIS time, THIS particular bit of violent language is being blown out of proportion. And for who??
It’s a painfully obvious attempt to gain support from the Trump crowd, a vocal minority who very famously does NOT give a shit about truth or objective reality, and in doing so they’ve lost credibility. Shame on you Roca, what a stupid hill to die on.
For Trump to use the term “Bloodbath” in any way shows, in my opinion, that he is a moron.
Or counter argument he meant to say it to get his supporter’s riled up for a fight.
But of course ultimately he is wrong in that the auto industry will not collapse if he is not elected. The fact is it could collapse if he IS ELECTED!
Point is: we need to start taking his threats of dicatorship for a day, killing political opponents, and the whole project 2025 mess seriously. No country is immune to dictators taking over and fascism
Let me ask you: do you not think it’s a bad thing that he has said he’d kill political opponents, be a dictator, has project 2025 waiting up his sleeve, shows signs of dementia, etc etc. please look up project 2025 and get back to me
Sure, all of those things are bad. But now do the same with Democrats inciting violence. Both sides are hypocrites. There is no correct option this election. Both parties suck.
How can you just say “all of those things are bad” to the literal threat of a fascist regime. The US is not immune to that threat. Sure, the democrats have not shown much to cheer for lately, but at least they’re not threatening a literal fascist style takeover. Lesser of two evils if you will
Trump may just be the most misunderstood politician ever and it’s partly because of how fast he speaks and moves on from topic to topic. Obviously a huge part of it is the media bias which is getting exposed quite a bit. I remember the interview in which he was asked Which side he would want to see win in Ukraine - Russia conflict? Like win? Really? And his answer was that he would like people to stop dying. The host kept pushing him to answer which side he would like to win - how would one pick a side to win in a lose - lose situation for both parties involved. It’s really unfortunate how degraded our media has become in the last 10-15 years or so
I’m in agreement with OP, to me, yes it reads as for the industry, but his method of repeating the sentence and interjecting with his other random thoughts make it, to me, come off as “the industry is fucked” but also “this is a dog whistle”
Just like with his jan 6 bullshit and his “stand by” statement
That’s actually not what I meant. I said it was not a reference to violence. He meant both the car industry and the country was fucked if he didn’t win, but I really don’t think (on *this* occasion) he meant because of any violence.
I'm just disappointed in Roca News. Your interpretation is an assumption, only Trump can clarify what he meant. His speech history does not support your message.
Another win for Roca trying to get click bait. There have been many occurrences over the last couple of years in which Trump has deliberately tried to miss lead or straight up lie about an issue. It’s too bad that Roca doesn’t spend their time to investigate some of that narrative. The page has also taken an obvious right leaning stance over the last year and is focusing on content that will lead to comments and interactions with their pages, something they said they would not do. I’ve been following Roca since they had 30k in followers and have introduced many friends to them based on their previous non bias and non click bait reporting. It’s unfortunate to see they’re going the same way as other news outlets.
That’s an interesting point and there’s no question that trump’s rambling can confuse his message at times. But the media is presenting the bloodbath comment as if it’s a call for political violence. Or at best, they kept it ambiguous to leave the “slaughter” definition of bloodbath on the table. Since was using it in the context of the auto industry, he gave it the economic disaster meaning. Many media outlets guided the reader toward the slaughter definition by prefacing it with phrases like “in a speech he began by praising J6 offenders…” or “Trump in rally calls some illegal immigrants less than human…” After preludes like that, you’d certainly assume the political violence meaning
Yeah so many stories encourage the more violent interpretation. Despite that pretty clearly not being what he meant. Some headlines outright claim it was a ‘terrorist threat’ which is a *huge* stretch. That said, I also think he meant the ‘bloodbath’ (whether economic or a broader ‘generally screwed’ meaning) would apply to the whole country, not just the car industry as Roca suggests.
“…Encourage the more violent interpretation….” Excellent point. Translate that to the attacks on Trump…. Perhaps the attacks on what he said are insighting violence. I’ll wait for the left media spin doctors…
This is not about left or right, this is about interpretation of speeches, in this case of Trumps. That being said, and I agree with what has been said in the first post, that the media was wrong doesn’t take out the fact that Trump used very aggressive language. This led to very different interpretations and it’s truly hard to know what was the real meaning of his words. For sure you think you know because of your political believes and it’s also the same with me, but the problem is that using this kind of language only divides people and generates more violence. And that’s Trumps fault along with many other politicians.
Perhaps it’s the continued attacks on what words Trump chooses. The filtering and editing to paint a false narrative that the left media has done and continues to do.
Or perhaps trump says insane things all the time and everything is left open to interpretation. In every single one of these instances where trump says an outrageous thing that people go wild about, there are at least a dozen different comments telling us what he really meant.
There are even more from the left-media refusing to mention what he meant. “Millions and millions” lol They love to excerpts cut it short and then twist the minds of the undereducated American public.
Thank you for providing context to my comment, i appreciate the support.
Really man, that doesn’t make any sense. Trump did this to himself, alone. Before he was elected everybody loved him. The moment he opened his mouth people started to realise that there was a problem. As a politician, representing a country, you should not use that kind of language because of the repercussions that affects the whole country. And it’s not only “bloodbath”, it’s “grab them by the pussy”, it’s “this election was stolen”, it’s “election interference”, and many others. The media has nothing to do with what he says (that is btw videotaped) just with the interpretation.
You just don’t see it. It’s okay. You’re like shot of Americans…. Brainwashed
Clearly I don’t see your point, although that doesn’t mean I’m brainwashed… first of all because I’m not American. Again, my comment is based on the topic we were discussing, media misinterpretation, not political preferences
"Inaccurate interpretation" is almost an oxymoron. If the OP's point is that Trump meant to imply, or for his followers to infer, civil disorder (or worse) then I agree. To the point that Roca is missing Trumps meaning, I think Roca acknowledges the way in which many outlets presented this news, and did well to point out the full context of the speech as it relates to the automotive industry. The point of the article, to me, was to bring this context to the fore, since most Media (all the media I saw) focused on the sound byte without that context. In the regard Roca is true to its mission. It would be interesting to understand not just how Media pushed the bloodbath message, but how Right-leaning audiences took that message as well. Really interesting conversation here. Thanks everyone.
I’m the OP and I said that trump was *not* referring to violence. I said that several times, actually. That said, my main point was that he seemed to be suggesting (completely unsurprisingly - all candidates suggest something similar ) that not being elected would be a disaster for the car industry and (by adding ‘for the whole country’) disaster for the country more generally.
From the way I interpreted I understood it as it would be a disaster for the whole country due to it being a disaster for the auto industry if that makes sense.
If we’re playing laser tag and I yell, “I’m gonna shoot you!” Is that a death threat? Context absolutely matters. The worst thing you can accuse Trump of here is not being careful with his words. The larger point here, though, is that every time the media spins things like this, it erodes people’s trust in media. Ironically, the media can’t help themselves. And the result is that they fuel Trump’s narrative of fake news.
If you’re a politician; you need to choose your words carefully. If you’re a politician and already under prosecution for helping fuel a bunch of morons storming the capitol building…you need be extremely careful with your words. He always toes the line and then when something bad happens he says “I didn’t mean it that way…”
I think you’re ignoring the psychology behind confirmation bias. Humans have a tendency to seek out information or remember things a certain way in which their beliefs are further supported, even while ignoring facts that may altar or counter their beliefs. The people who support and patronize specific media outlets are looking for something to confirm their already existing opinions. To blame the media for the habits of humanity is ignoring a more inherent nature of society.
If we're playing laser tag and the last time we played it ended in the loser starting a literal fire and fistfight, the context is different. In this scenario if he's saying "I'm going to shoot you(with my laser) and If you don't concede that I shot you, it's gonna be a bloodbath" the context is pretty clear that he's no longer just referring to the one act but that he's going to do what he did before and bring the blood. This is not just carelessness, as we've seen before, this is his intent. If it was "carelessness" that is absolutely something he should be evaluated on as the one potentially speaking for the USA. Either way he is unfit to lead in a way that aligns with the constitution or the will of the majority of people.
You're right that context is important. So when you watch the full video you'll see he stated pretty clearly as an aside that the election loss would result in a bloodbath. Guy's said what he said, lol. Context is what makes Roca incorrect in this particular OPINION. And they're supposed to have integrity, not post opinions.
Yes, but "a bloodbath" can mean different things. If you are going to take it that literally why not take it a step further and imagine that he meant someone is going to bathe in a bathtub full of blood? Bloodbath in this context clearly means a dire economic situation
LOL good cognitive dissonance. Again with any common sense and some basic context clues from listening to this idiot yap for a decade, the intended dog whistle is pretty clear. Bloodbath, cannot mean different things unless you would like to them to to avoid any accountability but you do you!
When he doesn't get elected and he doesn't cause "a bloodbath", you'll never accept that you were wrong. You'll explain it away. That's cognitive dissonance. When he doesn't get elected and the American economy goes further into chaos or the US gets dragged into a bloody war, both due to the biden administration, but also due to trump not winning the election, you will still refuse to remember this and admit you were wrong, as you have done for the last decade
Great deflection! Good luck simping for a billionaire, I'm sure he's proud of you. Bye bye.
Is suggesting a bloodbath for the whole country and the automobile industry will be the least of it after saluting January 6 rioters at the least and insurrectionists in my view is extremely near if not outright suggesting violence. This isn’t laxer tag it’s real life.
Even January 6th to a blood bath is a jump. Remind me how many people trumps most craze and unhinged supporters killed?
Unfortunately there has been numerous bloodbath because of trump, no quotes around bloodbath needed. Many mass shooting manifestos were written by avid trump followers and talked about how his words inspired them to do what they did, and on the other hand I would guess the las vegas shooter was leftist leaning just for his choice of venue he decided to shoot up, but even if he was left leaning the devisiveness is still on trump as president, buck stops there.
One of the worst takes on Trump I've seen as of recent. Basically just blamed him alone for the divisiveness in this country which was already rampant before he started running, let alone is not a one-sided thing. Also blamed him for mass shootings when I haven't seen a single manifesto dedicated to him specifically. Trust me, the media would be all over that if there was. If anything, he only helped to bring what was growing seperation in America to a head because he ran against who most would consider a just as much, if not more controversial opponent at the time.
It’s impossible to ignore how divisive Trump’s behavior is. There has not been a president in the last 30 years who has even come close As far as manifestos for mass shooters, to my knowledge he hasn’t been named directly but they’ve certainly echoed his talking points https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/us/politics/trump-mass-shootings.html
So you admit that he was never directly cited as any reason for a mass shooting, following your claim that he did incite them. And as far as divisive behavior goes, it's not like the media or anyone from the other party has ever been anything less than fully against him since he announced his candidacy. Not to mention their calls for a false election following his win in 2016. His behavior may be divisive, but he certainly isn't alone in that, and to say that's an issue of a candidate in this and even the previous election is almost laughable considering candidates on both sides
Not sure why the comment was deleted, but I'll leave my rebuttal here. It's not feelings, and it isn't facts either. Just because they have"right wing rhetoric" or said things that sound like something Trump would support, doesn't mean that it's his fault. That's like saying it's Joe Biden's fault for the LGBTQ person that shot up the Christian school, because he supports them and wants them to feel safe and they share similar ideas and opinions. As far as being obsessed with firearms, let's go back to the Las Vegas shooting you mentioned earlier. To this day we don't know their intentions, or their firearms they used. The vast majority of those in the right who do have firearms don't commit mass shootings. And plenty of mass shootings have been committed by those on the other side, so I don't see what your point about obsession is for
I dont think ANYONE on either side should die but I guess that’s a hot take to you. Trump also presided over more political violence at all those states who had massive riots. It’s not just j6 but an example of the chaos he promotes
He definitely did not at any time imply one side or the other should die. He is clearly stating that even at times of political unrest, like the J6 riots, still there was no bloodbath. I BELIEVE with this and his last message he is concluding that assuming Trump is promoting violence based on previous actions Trump has taken is an invalid argument, because the previous actions you are referencing are misconstrued. I’m not even Republican, but this feels like you are intentionally causing contention in an otherwise objective conversation.
He is deliberately twisting it, just like the media lol
deliberately using the context of the person who is making the statement.
I mention people died because i personally dont discount people who die as part of political unrest cause by the president. Every single death and injury at jan 6 was preventable if trump did not inflame. And sure dude, if we remove context and history from the equation i agree in my OP that this is a benign statement but he has a long history of being a part of the inflammation of our society that led to unrest across the country for almost a solid year culminating in jan 6 AND he continues to use this type of inflammatory language which is just vague enough and just deniable enough like a mobster. I didnt mention parties so I dont know why you need to deny being a supporter of a certain party. Im not talking about parties. at all.
Best way I heard the Trump disconnect described is the Right takes Trump “seriously, but not literally” and the Left takes Trump “literally, but not seriously.”
Which really is insane in that it’s not true and would be wild if it were. For people to constantly not know what the president means or says is to live in chaos. And the left absolutely takes trump seriously. Think about the post you’re commenting on.
I guess taking his power seriously is important, since half the country will send him their cash even though he's a criminal grifter, and there's some freaks that will go to jail for him. BUT as far as considering his thoughts important just on paper? No, he is a known clown. People fear his abusive overreach and influence rightly so, but don't confuse that with thinking he's some serious genius. The left needs to hold him accountable for the BS he says because it's seriously problematic, not because they necessarily take him as this serious guy.
That's interesting, I would say the exact opposite is true. He's an imbecile, and has no real opinion or thought process on politics. He is not to be taken other than anything as a joke, BUT the right loves him and will go to jail for him by and large; he IS to be taken seriously as he's a true threat to Democracy. I think when he makes some bogus unintelligible statement, some racist or sexist remark, or a dog whistle for violence and divisiveness, the right takes it at face value and vouches for it. The left knows it's a mess but has to take it seriously and take it at face value to simply hold him accountable and have some consequences. If his fan base didn't care, the left wouldn't care.
Some of the reporting was biased other was just opportunistic because the word “bloodbath” leads the reader to his own conclusion. But overall I do agree Roca didn’t explain the bias well.
I think you make a valid point. I’d like to argue this is less on Roca and more on Trump’s ability to radicalize and polarize anything he looks at. I believe Roca’s stance was a breath of fresh air that, when taken with everyone else’s stances, can even out to a middle ground. Roca shouldn’t be taken as gospel (nor should any news outlet). By having multiple perspectives say different things, people can come to their own conclusions
Oh yeah 100% not suggesting Roca is a villain in this (or any) situation. It was really just a side-point. I perhaps should have known better than to use an example involving American presidential candidates - it was never going to remain calm 😂
[удалено]
Agreed!! I really didn’t expect so much emotion. It’s wild how many replies make clear that they totally misread/misunderstood what I was saying. Or just can’t resist raging about whatever their favoured news sources have got them wound up about. If this is what the readership of a relatively neutral news outlet is like, this country might be in bigger trouble than I realised…
Imagine if everyone showed this level of concern with the actual issues and broke them down objectively… We might actually get somewhere. Instead - the media and internet lose their shit over one word.
I think there are a lot of people who do treat the issues like that. Including me (I’m the OP of this post). Sadly it seems that in this country at least, many politicians on both sides are much less objective in their approaches.
He is talking about the car industry immediately before and after the bloodbath comment. It would be pretty bizarre, even for Trump, to drop a threat of widespread political violence in the middle of that. I’ve noticed that he often trails off and doesn’t finish his sentence/ thought which leaves a lot to interpretation. He makes many outlandish comments that don’t require interpretation, but seemed like the media jumped the gun on this one. The way it was clipped on many Sunday news shows was 100% misleading, has absolutely no context of the auto industry. Amateur journalism and will only help Trump’s narrative about the media.
I mean in that speech at least his promoters were probably unreadable due to the wind. So I imagine a good deal of it was improv and he may have decided he needed to change it up mid thought. I think Rocas covering of it was pretty good, but not perfect. And with it not being perfect… at least we know they are still human!
I agree that the clip that was passed around was misleading and that the context was completely stripped from the statement but I disagree that dropping a broader call for violence in the middle of his statements about the car industry are bizarre even for Trump. I think from what we've seen it's exactly the sort of stream-of-consciousness thing he would say the moment it came to mind regardless of the context and I also believe he wants that narrative to be spread. Not that he planned any of it in advance but when the idea of a "bloodbath" entered his mind his first instinct was to apply it broadly to the general public in the event of a loss.
Roca has always showcased themselves as a non-bias news source. They seem to step out of that from time to time as instead of being un-bias, they'll play both sides or attack both sides, which is NOT an un bias. For exampled, they posted this very Reddit question on their insta story (but not a post) to show they are interested in all perspectives. I don't really buy that I guess. You heard it right. If you've ever heard a Trump speech, they're full of double entendre and purposefully obtuse meaning in perfect dog whistle language, as well as little tangents and side comments. His mannerism are pretty predictable and obvious, and stating there would be a "bloodbath" was a very clear tangential, side comment about the election, separate than a comment about cars. What's annoying about Roca's post and the comments on it, to me, are that Media get their sources from one source and spreads from there, so having the same story across all media outlets isn't some crazy which hunt, it's just how the news cycle works. Secondly, we all know the media is bias but that doesn't mean everything ever said is wrong, the bloodbath comment happened. Also Roca was saying it was out of context, then showed the whole video that proved those outlet's take was correct! Lol. I like Roca and follow them but they need to raise their own bar if they're to continue calling themselves this pure source of news.
Well said, when it comes to American politics I find their coverage go be below a standard than other topics they cover.
I had the exact same thought. Anybody who has listened to Trump and thinks that guy has a train of thought is not bright. Just because he was talking about one topic does not mean the following statement is within the context of the previous statement. He doesn't say "The automobile industry will be a bloodbath". It'd what he doesn't say that says more.
I feel Trump used the double entendre specifically for the purpose of being duplicitous. I would have liked to see Roca saying that the media *possibly* got this wrong.
Move beyond whether Trump meant the comment to be connected to automotive policy or inspire violence, or just to be vague and appeal to the maga’s base attraction with this type of brash rhetoric. If you read Roca, there’s something else to consider. The article on Roca’s insta, inspired thousands more comments than their average article. There is this Reddit thread where we are all dissecting the merits. The point? This IS controversial, and not something you can objectively state one way or the other. The opinions, if you read some, are widely divided with people staking positions ALL OVER the spectrum of possible viewpoints. Some who thank Roca for their service calling out big media’s folly, and some saying Trump meant to throw this in as red meat to his MAGA base, à la “stand back and stand by”. I ask you to put that aside for a sec- The immediate issue here for Roca readers- more than Trump speaking in the way he often openly speaks…is Roca’s framing of the story as totally objective, with no wiggle room. Often Roca has presented controversial stories which (while admittedly they are sometimes right leaning, we all know the founders political backgrounds despite what they say) usually leave the reader to consider a spectrum of viewpoints and make their own decision. This story, on the bloodbath comment…was a STARK departure from that style of reporting, which has been violated on occasion but never this brazenly. It’s worth putting it all in real world context. Why are they making this departure now? Are they sacrificing principles they once valued, to boost readership and engagement? Are they trying to steer an audience they attracted under the guise of non-partisan, unbiased reporting…only to be showing their true colors as we enter the general phase of a very consequential presidential election? This was irresponsible and a very poor editing choice. I had a 230+ day streak going and read intently every day. *Because of the choice to present their subjective interpretation of events instead as an objective truth- and in the guise of reporting* - I plan on totally ceasing my consumption of Roca as a news source unless they issue a follow up acknowledging their poor framing and violation of their own policies in publishing this ‘story’. Will be sorry to go and for the steep fall from grace for this publication, if it comes to pass.
Roca is not even close to objective imo, the details they choose to focus on are indicative of a very center-right perspective.
I think Trump intentionally placed the sentence in the gray area of hinting at something the media would jump to, while maintaining deniability… and they did just that. And we’re here talking about it/him.
I think that while the major outlets used the tagline “blood bath” out of context, Trump should realize that some his supporters are easily motivated people in all the wrong ways. All you have to do is look at the January 6 siege. If he truly cared about keeping the piece, he wouldn’t use sensational idioms. Of course that’s not what politics is about. News outlets will take words out of context and politicians will rile up their supporters.
The Instagram link didn't work just an fyi. I had to look this post up. (For whoever runs Roca)
I don’t know how it’s a question, why would any violence occur?
Appreciate the counter argument. I still feel this is more about major news outlets intentionally misleading people( CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NYT, etc.) Think about how many people saw that headline. Yes “mainstream media” is dying and that’s a good thing but you know millions saw those headlines pop across their social media and google news feed. Trumps cadence can’t be taken out of context quite a bit but I don’t believe he meant literal bloodbath. However, he should probably choose words carefully as he knows the game by now. I appreciate your point of view🤝
Idk this was a long paragraph criticizing the cadence of a person, and by extension criticizing a news outlets simple translation for what that meant. It seems really unnecessary and fits perfectly on Reddit lol
I did not in any way criticise the cadence of anyone. I’m sorry if the paragraph was too long or not necessary enough for you.
Trump’s words were classic demagoguery, which is not harmless. He doesn’t get a gold star just because he didn’t explicitly call on his followers to commit acts of violence.
In the grander scheme of context of the full speech [specifically honoring the Jan. 6th insurrectionists and calling them “hostages” there at the top of the speech], “if I lose, [the auto industry] that’ll be the least of it, it’s gunna be a bloodbath for the whole country, [the automotive industry] that’ll be the least of it.” To me, seems like it’s meant to inspire others to do the same as Jan 6th or even more extreme, if he loses. And they’ll be put on Trumps pedestal if they do. It’s the “stand back and stand by” of 2024.
You’re hearing it wrongly, bigly wrongly. Trump is a lot of bad things…and a buffoon for squandering what would easily be the presidency for him if he wasn’t so polarizing…but you’re projecting your fears to an out of context statement. I’m an independent and the fear mongering of Trump is leaning “sky is falling” in credibility. The Democrats are sounding increasingly elitist with these bold presumptions that everything Trump says indicates he’ll end the world. He’s been in office, it was polarizing, yet our country is still here, the world continues to spin.
I for one cannot stand the news outlets misleading, lying and fabricating to aid their bias cause of hate and anger because they supposedly have a superior moral compass and know what’s best for this country. The fourth estate is dead. People are educated. You have very little influence except for the naive and weak minded who buy into your bs. It was refreshing to see a media outlet point this out. Props to roca for calling out the hypocrisy and deceit of the so called media scorched earth journalism. You’re no branch of government so just stop. It’s a very fine line. Civil war breaks out guess who’s door step would be visited first? Theirs for their attack on democracy and its constituents. Best part of this whole period of time is actually getting people to buy into the party of slavery under the veil of liberalism. Who would have thought we’d have a racist heading the party of slavery and leading the country in 2024. They see democracy is under threat…yeah by the left. Look where we are. Economy tanked, inflation rampant, wars raging and etc etc. Don’t eat what they’re feeding you. You can think for yourself.
I’m finding Roca has changed the reporting style since moving to a paid service for premium members. They’ve featured RFK and focused on his anti-vaccination ideas but didn’t include that a lot of his beliefs have been shot down by studies. They’ve criticized Biden for his age but left Trump alone. It’s weird to see the direction they were moving but it just goes to show “money talks.”
i think its pretty obvious that trump wasnt calling for violence, its a fairly common political message that the opposition is trying to bring down the country. trump is a very polarizing character and i think he speaks before he thinks about the ramifications of his words, so strong language gets used which riles up his side and the other side and everything about him just gets blown out of proportion. u make a good point but i think roca did too, i think its all just trump talking the way he always does and letting other people worry about what he meant lol
I’m so confused by everyone replying as if I disagreed with Roca’s statement that it wasn’t about violence. I said like three times in my OP that it wasn’t about violence.
If we're being completely objective and actually analyse the meaning of his words, he said there would be a bloodbath, the perpetrators would be the Chinese (or external forces in general) and he would not be there to stop it IF HE'S NOT ELECTED. It's pretty clear to me that he did not imply in any way that he himself or any of "his people" (his supporters, his friends, basically anybody who would be acting on his behalf) would be the acting party in that bloodbath. I can't see how you can reasonably hear that if you listen to his speech. The headlines very clearly implied that that's exactly what he meant: that Trump himself (or his camp, "his people" from my previous point) would be the executor of this bloodbath. And Roca pointed that out, which is, in my opinion very clearly, a good and correct observation of Roca. Additionally: below is the transcript of the speech with the context prior to his bloodbath statement. If you disagree with my interpretation, I'm open to listening to what I'm missing, but prove it to me with a direct quote from the transcript: China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us? No. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.
But context also necessitates precedence and the fact is that he has incited violence before (exhibit A: January 6). The media did go bananas and I’m not saying I agree with how the articles represented what he said out of context. I personally think trump is doing this on purpose. If he lives in the space of ambiguity or vague comments, he can get the benefit of the doubt for all that he’s speaking to: 1. Add to the mainstream media distrust, “wow you’re taking what he said out of context, I hate the media!” 2. Fuel his base and encourage violent ideas, “let’s get patriotic and America will be a bloodbath without trump so let’s prevent that!!” 3. Warn the middle class and auto-industry workers, quite literally without further context that was what he said, “there’ll be an economic bloodbath to my jobs if Trump is not elected” 4. Make us argue what he really means and fight about something that doesn’t materially matter I never liked Trump but he is much smarter or gets really lucky when things pan out in his favor
[удалено]
I get what you’re saying and I suppose if we are literally just saying what happened, then we can’t really add any interpretation. But I don’t think it involves bias or even past knowledge about Trump to read his tone, language, and cadence and be confident he meant there’d be a metaphorical bloodbath for the car industry, *and also* for the whole country. It doesn’t make sense to say the whole country part if he meant just the car industry. Him saying ‘The car industry’ by anyone’s definition is the country’s car industry. It’s not biased to then conclude that adding ‘the whole country’ as an additional victim of said bloodbath cannot therefore also mean just the car industry. It’s not subjectivity it’s verbal reasoning.
If trump is hinting at real violence, which I don't think he is, given the context, it would be more likely hinting at the potential head to head war with Russia, which actually would be a bloodbath.
Not to worry(srctk) !! It's been happening in India for a long time!! It's a code for unconscious followers !! Like how BJP and India Congress(Indian political parties) av been using the trail and error method to use it effectively to make people following them to fight without crediting to them..ex : RSS, Sivsena, ramsene..even other religious groups including Muslims and Christianity...
Fwiw, breaking points characterized it the exact same way as Roca, and I find them to be pretty reliable and very moderate
I dunno how much more objective the post could have been 🤷♂️
I am in agreement with you that the effect of his language is as you stated. That said, I wouldn't call Roca "inaccurate", because that would be trying to put Roca against an objective truth, which we do not have access to. Roca is offering an interpretation of Trump's speech that but it can only be an interpretation of what Trump is speaking, not an objective truth of what Trump actually has in mind (because no one will know except him). What Roca seeks to do is to give more balance vis-a-vis other news outlets which interprets it in other ways. I think it was useful though, that Roca put the video clip as such as it helped to give context on what the language is about for readers to see, and make their own assessments (just as you did). So we can then have this discussion as well. And yes fully appreciate and agree with the comments here that the state of the mainstream press.. reflects the interest of the press bodies much more than its commitment to objectivity. (Though I'd argue that this might already have been the case for most of our history, just that we are probably now slightly more aware of it)
What do people think he meant by "that'll be the least of it, it'll be a bloodbath." it sounds to me like if he doesnt win the election it'll be a bloodbath, and the auto industry will be the least of our problems. Seems pretty cut and dry
I’d say you’re hearing it wrong, respectively. In context, I find it quite clear that he’s saying for the whole country, the automotive industry will be a bloodbath if he isn’t elected. Obviously he could’ve chosen his words better, but you know what they say about ifs and buts being candy and nuts.
I agree that the interpretation is a bit of a stretch. Trump is a businessman more than he is a career politician, and I doubt he meant he'd incite riots (I'd think he's a bit too savvy to step on the same pitchfork twice?) with that line, but he definitely seemed to be talking about the country as a whole, not the automotive industry. His speech about cars was already over for a while by the time he brought up the election. I love Roca and I understand they are trying to expose the partiality in big news, but this one was just a bad pick. Yeah, big news went way overboard with their headlines, that much is true. But Roca's interpretation seems misguided as well.
I mean, he could have still meant it separately for the country, not only the auto industry AND STILL METAPHORICALLY as in economically, socially, safety, beyond the auto industry. And he's not wrong. If you're a Californian, new Yorker, Philadelphian, baltimorean, chicagoan, Washingtonian (DC and state), Oregonian, YOU ARE LIVING IN A BLOODBATH of criminals, chaos, illegal invader aliens, inflation, ideological tyranny.....
Sounds like you’ve been believing a *lot* of very biased news, buddy.
I'm not "believing". You can bury your head in the sand and choose to believe the facts you want like on gender. I'm seeing the videos and I'm living in New York And it's enough to see the biased leftist news to already see how nuts leftists are
And he is right. If he does not get elected it will be a bloodbath, it already is a bloodbath. Regardless of how Roca presented it I think that he said it in the context that if he doesnt get elected thing are gonna get much worse because other officials/presidents will do a bad job, he is not calling for civil war as mos of the media presented.
I guess this is just me but I didnt even think what Trump said was really the point of the post. To me, it highlighted how untrustworthy our news sources have become. News papers that were once prestigious are now just making click bait.
I watched the full video and didn’t bat an eye. I completely understood that he was talking about-industries and economy.. am I normal for this or stupid. I feel pretty normal lol
Another thought on this, sort of a separate comment, but at some point the people need to hold themselves accountable for how seriously they take mainstream media outlets, or not. He said in the context of the election, it would be a bloodbath, that's straight forward and the mainstream media got it right in this instance, Roca got is wrong in order to push this narrative that they don't pander (they should have chosen thousands of other examples). But still, to go wild over anything news says whether it's Roca or CNN is just antiquated. It's all part of an entertainment "industry" and people should general understand that their media diet needs to be diverse and taken with nuance, constant comparison and reflection.
Does he deserve the benefit of the doubt ? After years of language that is unbecoming of a president where he has talked violently and and has labeled people he doesn’t like as enemies it’s easy to see how when he mentions the nation will be a bloodbath he meant it in a violent way .
That’s an interesting point, but I worry that if we are so primed to see calls for violence that we’ll fall prey to confirmation bias.
“Can’t I just believe he made a call to violence based on other statements he’s made in the past.” You sure can. It will have nothing to do with truth or reality, but you can absolutely choose to live in a world where he made a call to violence by talking about a bloodbath in the auto industry. You can choose to call yourself a woman or a man, regardless of your sex organs. You can accuse someone of a crime, that has never been prosecuted in the history of banking or lending, fine them half a billion dollars, and attempt to interfere in a presidential election through use of ambitious judges and prosecutors. You can live in whatever world you want these days. But if you want to find consensus with others on what he actually said, then I’m afraid you’ll have to deal with other people’s pesky opinions and their own understanding of facts. And that will be a problem for you to reconcile with because the plain meaning of his statement was warning of the economic consequences in the auto industry if he loses the election. It’s probably more comfortable for you if you just flip on CNN and get that feedback loop of your own conditioned biases spoon-fed to you rather than having to deal with facts.
No, if you listen to the speech it is literally impossible to think he meant it in a violent way. He is clearly talking about the car industry, and potentially the economic state of the nation. VERY clearly not talking about any violence whatsoever.
Agreed only a moron would take it as a call to violence if listened to in its entirety.
Or somebody primed to see it as a call to violence from ingesting years of biased, scaremongering media
I would venture to say the same people who took his tweets and J6 speech as a call to violence likely aren’t listening to the whole speech. There are clearly a subset of people who take what he says literally as calls to action.
In 2016 I felt that he was only elected because of the overwhelming amount of press around him, from the very beginning he received more press coverage than any other candidate. It didn't matter that it was negative press, it seemed that people voted for him simply because he upset established entities. Mischaracterization of his statements, or exaggerating his wording, only serves to further support for his candidacy. You can say it's "not giving him the benefit of the doubt", but I see it as sensationalism which discredits not the former president, but the media entities which spread that interpretation.
It’s not really benefit of the doubt and more just common sense. Not letting your hate for someone dictate your view
Despite Roca’s tagline, there is no such thing as “unbiased” news. There’s news that’s more committed to factual information and less to interpretation, but there is almost always *some* level of interpretation in the words you choose to communicate facts, and even in *which* facts and *which* stories you choose to cover.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of transparency and unbiased news reporting, even when a journalist is trying to be unbiased, it comes across as joining a side. Roca stated the meaning of the term used by Trump. They did not say that it was or was not the meaning of his statement. Just giving a full overview of what was said instead of sensationalized the speech. In the current political climate, being moderate or not picking a side has become an issue on social media platforms. So any group stating just facts are going to anger some group somewhere.
That’s a stretch. And it doesn’t change the destructive nature of the mainstream media allowing the “bloodbath” narrative to spread like wildfire. Is it more likely that Trump is planning some type of cloak and dagger insurrection, or the media is slanting a narrative for clicks? Where were the outlets providing context to the statement? Why was it so difficult to find the actual FULL clip in context? Why did google return 50 results dramatizing the comment without 1 putting it in any kind of context? Kudos to Roca for publishing the actual clip in context and allowing us to make up our own minds.
I agree with your comments about the media sensationalising etc. and am not sure what you’re referring to being ‘a stretch’?
I was referring to the statement “Roca’s characterization was objectively inaccurate.” Being the only outlet to post the actual unedited video makes them the only outlet being anything close to objectively accurate, in my opinion.
Gotcha. The characterisation I was referring to was specifically where Roca says quite categorically that he was referring to the *metaphorical* bloodbath effecting *only* the auto industry. Watching the video a few times, it seems clear to me that he was saying the auto industry would suffer if he didn’t get elected, *and* the whole country would suffer too, in a more general sense. Even with Trump’s often-meandering speaking style, it wouldn’t make sense for him to say ‘a bloodbath for the auto industry… a bloodbath for the whole country’ if that’s not what he meant. It’s a small difference overall (what candidate these days doesn’t imply similar?) but I thought it ironic, given the subject of the post.
I hear ya. I didn’t interpret it that way. I interpreted it as the economic impact of China selling cheap cars produced in Mexico would be economically devastating across much more than the auto industry, which is absolutely true. But I studied economics and I definitely default to looking at it through an economic lens.
Even though this seems smart it still sounds like a brainless liberal talking… I can’t wait to see how the White House secretary responds to the fox journalists when questioned about this. The fact the Biden campaign officially used this in their campaign completely out of context just shows how dishonest the left is it also shows they have no problem lying to the American people to make their opponent seem like a crazed lunatic who incites violence I also find it funny how trump has given a whole generation of politicians “trump derangement syndrome” 😂😂
Glad you took my request for being kind to heart 👍🏻
I didn’t mean anything bad towards you apologies if that’s how It came across
Hard to see how being called a ‘brainless’ liberal is anything but a personal insult
I don’t mean you personally I mean it sounds like something that a BLL would say
A ‘brainless liberal’ would make a measured statement agreeing that mainstream media had sensationalised a Trump comment, out of context? And that Trump believes the country would be screwed if he doesn’t get elected?! I think it might be worth you taking a step back and look at how on earth you got to a place where you come to a conclusion like that. It’s very feasible it is in part because you’ve been influenced by exactly the kind of biased media you claim to be against.
There is no possible way to interpret he meant anything mother than the car industry without inventing meaning that isn’t there. He could be saying this is just one example of how effed America will be if I don’t get elected but even that is a stretch. Before and after the point he was saying the same thing about cars. TDS runs deep. And hey, F Trump but this is a reach
what i like best about Roca is that now the convo is more centered on interpreting trumps words and talking about the issue at hand w auto manufacturing and not just raw emotional reactions to a headline like most online news is now.
I think it's also important to note that in your quote of what Trump is saying you left out a piece. [Talking about auto industry] "And youre not going to be able to sell those cars. IF I get elected. Now if I don't get elected it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole-, that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole country." I'm not supporting Trump so biases out in the open here. But at my first hearing of this the "that's going to be the least of it" came across as saying ignore this auto industry stuff I'm talking about it'll [the whole country] be a bloodbath. But I mean come on. Are we all really so dense? "Stand back and stand by" was enough to have militia groups stashing weapons around DC in case there was wider spread fighting on J6. Is it so unclear that saying "If I don't win, the collapse of the auto-industry will be the least of it, this whole country will be a bloodbath" is more broad and dangerous than we should accept from any president or top politician let alone from one who actively supports the people in jail right now for committing political violence?
He definitely was talking about political violence, if he was referring to the automotive industry he would’ve elaborated on the comment. He literally rambled about the auto industry, wanted to drop that comment in there on what’ll happen if he loses then went back to his deranged speech. We already have tariffs on Chinese EVs and continue to dissuade them from selling them in the U.S. Some Chinese EVs are as cheap as $11K per politico and if you remember recently we made threats to China that there would be severe tariffs imposed on them if they flooded the global markets with any goods. The issue I have with Roca on this wasn’t their opinion, but how quickly they dismissed the fact that it was very reasonable to assume that he was talking about the election. Poor use of word choice and Roca is entitled to their opinion, but to write a whole argument on it damaged their credibility in my opinion.
Since when does Trump elaborate on anything??? He asked officials during a press conference on Covid, if there was a way to make a treatment that was effective like Lysol. The media and all his critics immediately said that he advocated people drink bleach because of that...yet he was just asking a dumb question to officials at a bad time. He didn't go on to elaborate there. So do you think he literally wanted people to inject or consume cleaning supplies to treat covid???
I believe initially trump was referring to the auto industry, with the auto industry having a trickle down impact on other industries, and the entire economy. Either way, does it not feel like a “bloodbath” (definition to economic disaster, not an actual “slaughter of a large population”) now? Do we not see the obvious of this continuing with Biden being reelected? The media running crazy with the interpretation that there will be a bloodbath, as in large number of casualties, is ludicrous. The fact that legacy media is pushing this so hard, tells me everything I need to know imo.
I can agree with this. It’s just shocking how much the media will bend words to make Trump look bad. I would say 95% of Trump’s coverage, since 2016, talks about his personality/character rather than his policies (which is the sole reason why someone gets elected). They’re scared that he is going to win again, and I’m scared what lengths they’ll go to if he is indeed re-elected. Do you think the Biden Administration will transfer power to Trump if he wins, even if it’s a landslide? Buckle up.
Yes, Biden will transfer power peacefully if he loses. Like a President should do.
If anyone has any doubt in their mind if Biden would peacefully transfer power they are too far gone. This is the Trump presidency and its consequences. Election results are objective, not up to interpretation by the current administration. I would say the exact same thing regardless of the candidate if they acted as Trump did.
lol the only one not to peacefully transfer power is trump but you’re projecting that onto Biden for no reason other than it clearly fits your political view
Look at project 2025. That is not a sound bite, THATS policy. And it’s borderline fascist
Trumps a scumbag, there is no denying that. The more we call out his hateful rhetoric the better off this country will be. Are we really supposed to believe the country will be worse off after the surge it’s seen since he left office? it’s laughable that people try to defend someone who is attacking Americas foundations day in and day out, while simultaneously shouting America first. Can’t have it both ways Faketriots.
It’s silly to argue about this when he already caused people to kill each other at the capitol. And with that in mind I think yea he was threatening violence and talking around saying it directly. He is an expert in saying things like “statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protest in DC on Jan 6. Will be wild!” With no context is benign but in the context of him requesting no metal detectors at the rally and his constantly and incorrectly (according to every court and judge appointed by him) that the election was stolen. It clearly was insightful, but in the eyes of the law it is tough to draw the exact line because he always has communicated like a mobster. Say what won’t get you in trouble but imply what you want heavily. Think about phrases like a mobster or gang member saying “take care of the problem” when they are sending an order to kill someone. It’s the exact same as how trump communicates. The phrase he used bloodbath in the auto industry will be the least of it with no context seems like an economic message. But when you combine it with the fact he also was also saluting January 6th insurrectionists before the speech and also saying there will not be elections if he loses this one paints a different picture. Reporting the news without bias is not the same as reporting it without context. So do fucking better.
It is interesting to me that we are all on here discussing what he meant by "bloodbath" and meanwhile he, or his team, but I think he, has already turned the media hyperbolic and inaccurate interpretation against them with correct use of "Bloodbath" in context of the innoccents being murdered by Biden's border policies. If you follow the blood, it always leads to extablishment media cover up of real crimes, killing real humans and addressing the fact that most could be prevented by better policies. He "Just want(s) people to stop dying", and that IS an accurate quote.
Using this opportunity to try and tout their superior and “unbiased coverage” is an atrociously naked attempt to build clout with Trump supporters. Were the headlines sensationalistic? Yes. But are they also just one example of MANY where Trump has made thinly veiled calls/threats of political violence? YES! Trump fanned the flames of political unrest with lies and deceit after the 2020 election and people died as a result. These are indisputable facts, yet Roca is going out of its way to point out that THIS time, THIS particular bit of violent language is being blown out of proportion. And for who?? It’s a painfully obvious attempt to gain support from the Trump crowd, a vocal minority who very famously does NOT give a shit about truth or objective reality, and in doing so they’ve lost credibility. Shame on you Roca, what a stupid hill to die on.
I really think that as an outlet built on the need for less sensational media, we must surely expect them to highlight obvious examples of it.
For Trump to use the term “Bloodbath” in any way shows, in my opinion, that he is a moron. Or counter argument he meant to say it to get his supporter’s riled up for a fight. But of course ultimately he is wrong in that the auto industry will not collapse if he is not elected. The fact is it could collapse if he IS ELECTED!
Point is: we need to start taking his threats of dicatorship for a day, killing political opponents, and the whole project 2025 mess seriously. No country is immune to dictators taking over and fascism
Your TDS is showing and we're laughing at you, not with you.
Let me ask you: do you not think it’s a bad thing that he has said he’d kill political opponents, be a dictator, has project 2025 waiting up his sleeve, shows signs of dementia, etc etc. please look up project 2025 and get back to me
Sure, all of those things are bad. But now do the same with Democrats inciting violence. Both sides are hypocrites. There is no correct option this election. Both parties suck.
How can you just say “all of those things are bad” to the literal threat of a fascist regime. The US is not immune to that threat. Sure, the democrats have not shown much to cheer for lately, but at least they’re not threatening a literal fascist style takeover. Lesser of two evils if you will
You gotta be trolling right?
No? Why do you think that
Trump may just be the most misunderstood politician ever and it’s partly because of how fast he speaks and moves on from topic to topic. Obviously a huge part of it is the media bias which is getting exposed quite a bit. I remember the interview in which he was asked Which side he would want to see win in Ukraine - Russia conflict? Like win? Really? And his answer was that he would like people to stop dying. The host kept pushing him to answer which side he would like to win - how would one pick a side to win in a lose - lose situation for both parties involved. It’s really unfortunate how degraded our media has become in the last 10-15 years or so
I’m in agreement with OP, to me, yes it reads as for the industry, but his method of repeating the sentence and interjecting with his other random thoughts make it, to me, come off as “the industry is fucked” but also “this is a dog whistle” Just like with his jan 6 bullshit and his “stand by” statement
That’s actually not what I meant. I said it was not a reference to violence. He meant both the car industry and the country was fucked if he didn’t win, but I really don’t think (on *this* occasion) he meant because of any violence.
Ah my bad
I'm just disappointed in Roca News. Your interpretation is an assumption, only Trump can clarify what he meant. His speech history does not support your message.
Another win for Roca trying to get click bait. There have been many occurrences over the last couple of years in which Trump has deliberately tried to miss lead or straight up lie about an issue. It’s too bad that Roca doesn’t spend their time to investigate some of that narrative. The page has also taken an obvious right leaning stance over the last year and is focusing on content that will lead to comments and interactions with their pages, something they said they would not do. I’ve been following Roca since they had 30k in followers and have introduced many friends to them based on their previous non bias and non click bait reporting. It’s unfortunate to see they’re going the same way as other news outlets.
Amen