Trump Says There's Going To Be A "Bloodbath" If He Doesn't Get Elected

When you're so wedded to your narrative that you can't admit the truth, it hurts you far more than it helps.

That's one thing I've respected about you over the years. We agree on very little, but you at least try to be objective.

 

There is no doubt that Trump will use this “bloodbath” threat again and again.

Naturally, he will try and cover the real threat by attaching it to his rant about just about any topic. That’s the trick he pulled this time.

 

Well...
IF that is (indeed) the case...
THEN Trump's "turn of phrase" needs to be much more precise and "artful"...
Such at this (what he SHOULD have said):
THIS is how he should have phrased the sequence (added words in parentheses):
"Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole (auto industry) ... that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a/an (economic) bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it."
^Problem solved.
Clear as day (what Trump meant). And, no chance for misinterpretation or "taking out of context".
BUT, Trump (as always) screwed it up...

 

Yes, Trump's DP/RP opposition should have fired their political advisors by the end of November 2016.

“Trump's campaign is also capitalizing on the controversy, with a fundraising email sent on Monday insisting that his political opponents and others had "viciously" misquoted him as part of a broader effort to "keep control."
"[T]hey fully understood that I was simply referring to imports allowed by Crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry," Trump wrote on social media, in part.”

“Campaign spokesman Steven Cheung posted on X: "Media wants to talk about 'bloodbath.' Fine, let’s talk about it." Cheung then went on to slam Biden for "the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal," high rates of illegal immigration and "making America less safe with a feckless foreign policy," among other issues.”


ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
Trump seeks to fundraise off 'bloodbath' controversy: What he actually said"It's gonna be a bloodbath for the country," he said of not winning in November. ByAdam Carlson, Soo Rin Kim, and Lalee Ibssa. March 18, 2024, 9:16 AM.
2 days ago [3/18/24]
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-seeks-fundraise-off-bloodbath-controversy/story?id=108246320

Trump probably needs all the fundraising help he can get, and he can always count on the MSM and his other now rabid enemies to help him out.
What an astonishing display of clumsy political stupidity!

 

IMO, Trump's "turn of phrase" could not have been more "artful", or the end result more predictable.

“That he said that much is true. Having actually read the text of his remarks, however, I do not believe he was threatening: “Elect me president or the streets will run red with blood.”

But that is exactly how many, particularly in the media, interpreted his comment. “In Ohio campaign rally, Trump says there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses November election,” read a CBS News headline. “Trump says country faces ‘bloodbath’ if Biden wins in November,” announced Politico.

In context, though, two things are pretty clear. First, Trump meant reelecting President Joe Biden would be a catastrophe, or “bloodbath,” for the automotive industry. (He’d vowed to put a 100 percent tariff on cars built by Chinese companies in Mexico right before his “bloodbath” comment.)”
LOS ANGELES TIMES/ THE DISPATCH, Stop Making a Martyr of Donald Trump, He benefits enormously from media overreaction to his irresponsible rhetoric., By Jonah Goldberg, Mar 20, 2024.
https://thedispatch.com/article/stop-making-a-martyr-of-donald-trump/

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...-2024-biden-auto-industry-ohio-jonah-goldberg

 

It's breathtaking to see the progressives stick to the fake news narrative even after several of us have clearly shown via the complete statement in the campaign rally that Trump's comment was about Chines car manufacturing in Mexico and the descriptor "bloodbath" referred to the economics of the US auto industry. Such is the power of faith based narratives - facts don't matter.

 

They just won't quit with the lying.

 

I’m sure you will use similar excuses the next time your fool’s gold fuhrer inserts “bloodbath” into his rally remarks.

Because there will be a next time.

 

If the truth is reported there is no reason or need for excuses.

 

Absolutely. It reduces/destroys your credibility, though the media and credibility haven't been together in a loooong time.

Thanks. I've always appreciated our go-rounds as they have kept me sharp and forced me to do a lot of research before I respond to your arguments.

 

Poor Trump...
Rambling Idiot who always has to clarify himself (after the fact) to clean up his self-induced messes...
Donald Trump = Pathetic Moron prone to shooting himself in the foot...
How awesome is it that he is using this "controversy" in a "fundraising" email...
I am sure that he will raise enough money to pay his appeal bond (in the NY case) by Sunset...

 

“That he said that much is true. Having actually read the text of his remarks, however, I do not believe he was threatening: “Elect me president or the streets will run red with blood.”

So, the man behind Jan 6th, is talking again about “bloodbaths”.

It’s a dog whistle to his base and a play to their fantasies. Just as he dog whistled to his skinhead base with his notorious “stand back and stand by” command to the Proud Boys (who would subsequently do the stacked formation attacks on Jan 6th.

And it was meant as a threat to everyone else.

It was NOT in the transcript for his prepared remarks. He inserted it.

 

eh, he can't say when a media company will start and stop a video quote. Media Companies should absolutely make sure the context of a comment is made available vs making use of out of context clips to further a narrative.

 

Setting aside the bloodbath part and just focusing on the context of vehicles and tariffs, it almost worries me more that, even after serving as President for 4 years and supposedly earning a bachelor's in economics, the man still doesn't have the slightest ****ing clue how a tariff works, and he's shown a willingness in the past to circumvent the Constitution and declare as many tariffs as he wants.

 

What is pathetic is the lack of integrity shown by the main stream media who will not report the truth.

 

The tariffs used on Chinese Communist Party goods are to create fairness. The Chinese Communist Party subsidizes their industries to undercut US prices which results in economic losses and losses for US citizens.

There is nothing unconstitutional about tariffs.

 

Which is only something that someone who doesn't understand the basics of tariffs can say. Besides, Trump TANKED our best path toward competing with China.

Please try telling the truth. I didn't say tariffs are unconstitutional. Think for a second. Maybe also read the Constitution and figure out what it has to say about tariffs.

 

You are in sync with the 100 year plan of the Chinese Communist Party for global domination.

 

The folks that will use the "bloodbath" comment over and over and over in many discussion, without ever arguing the fact is was about the auto industry, it will be the left using it as talking point...to muddy the conversation..

 

Which makes me wonder.

The ability to levy taxes is a Congressional power, not a Presidential one.

In the past, Tarriff acts were enacted by Congress.

But now, your beloved is talking about a 100% tariff on imported cars.

What does that mean for cars built in the US with components sourced elsewhere? (Which is just about every car made)?

And by what authority was Trump able to levy a tax (which is what a tariff is)?

Your post made me curious about this. I’ll have to do some research.

 

He doesn't stop saying things that imbeciles will take out of context? That's more than indictment of the dishonesty of his opponents. You're not fooling anybody with this crap.

 

Trump’s public statements are almost always dystopian. “I alone can fix it”. He’ll work in that bloodbath threat because it pleases his base and makes the losers feel powerful.

He’ll do it again. Probably attaching it whatever he’s ranting about.

He will do it. You know it, too.

 

All the more reason to vote for Trump. Beats being lied to about the economy.

 

Very good question. The USC clearly delegates the power to regulate trade with foreign nations to the Congress. However, beginning around the time of Wilson and certainly by the time of FDR the size of the federal government and taxation increased to unheard of levels. World trade dramatically increased as well. Not due to government factors, rather technological advances. The cumbersome nature of having 535 congress members attempting to negotiate foreign trade agreements was untenable. It was around this time Congress began to delegate certain authorities to the Executive Branch and to government bureaucrats. The SCOTUS has many rulings in this regard. SCOTUS has ruled either legislative body or the Executive may delegate any of the powers granted it in the USC to whomever they choose. Of course they may also retract such authority at will. This necessitated the forming of the oversight committee as well as a host of others. In the case of Foreign trade negotiations this has been delegated to the Executive to negotiate. Truman further delegated the authority to the secretary of Commerce and at times the Secretary of State. Congress has never placed rules on the method the Executive negotiates foreign trade agreements. Congress routinely meets with the Commerce Secretary and the Secretary of State to assert their role as OVERSIGHT of the delegated authority. The committee also advises the Executive as to their wishes. Once a foreign trade deal is negotiated by the Executive it is meaningless. It is Congress who then votes on it to see if it will be an official agreement. Kind of interesting how it evolved out of necessity really. In the end, the SCOTUS has clearly indicated the ultimate authority lies with Congress.

Understand, if you've read the Art of the Deal you should have a pretty good understanding of why Trump is so effective. Before negotiations even begin (or as they unfold) he will look for bargaining leverage where none currently exist. Using China as an example, businesses had been moving to China for a couple of decades. Everyday companies were announcing plans to build multi-billion $ manufacturing plants in China. These plants take 3 to 5 years or more to complete. They require massive investments years before completion. So Trump repeatedly gives pressers indicating if China doesn't stop engaging in intellectual property theft and currency manipulation he is going to raise the tariffs on Chinese imports by 25%. The effect this had was an immediate halt on the plans many companies had to set up shop in China. IMMEDIATE! No company is going to move forward until they can determine what transpires. Within 2 weeks of several such statements the Chinese had taken major hits to their economy. It cost Trump nothing. Just the threat was enough to spank Xi's little pooty red. With their markets moving like a roller coaster every time Trump brought up the subject Xi attempted to lash out and state, well if he raises tariffs to 25% on Chinese goods we will do the same on US goods to China (wrong move). China doesn't allow imports into China from the US. It was basically a 1-way street so our markets rightly saw it as a veiled threat. Trump's rebuttal was, "Okay, well if they do 25% we will do 50% or even 100%." The result was even more brutal and immediate market reactions. Foreign investment into China dropped off dramatically. Nothing passed Congress. Just pure Trump. Business hates uncertainty, especially when it involves large capital investments out into the future. When the deadline arrived and Xi had failed to meet the demands of Trump he passed an EO stating there would be an immediate 25% tariff until Congress passed the tariff and another requiring every container be inspected for Fentanyl and counterfeit products. This of course would basically bring off-loading at our ports to a halt. Xi announced almost immediately he would comply and damn near begged Trump to give him more time. Trump agreed to 6 more months and investment finally proceeded into China. Six months later they once again failed to comply. The Chinese announced they would need 6 more months to comply with his demands, basically stalling for time. Trump said okay that's fine. What we will do is put the 25% tariffs in place tomorrow, and in six months if China has complied we will lift the tariffs. If they haven't we will raise them another 25% until trade balance is restored. Chinese markets had to be closed and it didn't take 6 months for them to agree to anything and everything. Trump understood, as did Xi, China didn't have 6 months to put the issue to bed. They assumed they could just stall and bide for time. Trump called Xi's bluff. Trump held all the cards due to the unfair trade practices making a cessation of trade hurt China much much more than it would the US. In fact, it was likely a benefit to the US to cease all trade with China. Trump don't play. And if the Chinese called him on it, I am convinced he would have turned the screws on Xi and China. Trump is a business genius whether you like his personality or not. All this cost him nothing. Created a negotiating lever out of thin air and it cost the US little to nothing.

He pulled off a similar tactic in Syria. We weren't getting any oil from the middle East. Trump had removed the restrictions on drilling and fracking and approved the leases. The result was the US was not only the largest consumer of oil, we were also the largest producer and the largest exporter. General Mattis imployed a brilliant strategy in Syria and absolutely byatch slapped Putin and Assad. If you weren't following it, I suggest you go look into it. Absolutely brilliant with no loss of American troops at little expense. Afterwards, Trump wanted to pull out and was upset with the response he had gotten from Britain, France, and Germany to do their part and take over the effort so we could withdraw. They all refused. Trump, realized it was kind of an insult as we didn't really have a dog in the fight. We weren't getting ANY oil from the Middle East. We were the largest exporters. It was the British, French and Germans who stood the most to lose. They were getting the majority of their oil from the region. Merkel issued a further insult by subsequently negotiating with Russia for the Nordstream pipeline. Merkel entered into trade which Trump warned would make Germany dangerously dependent on Russian oil. Something he warned she might soon regret. He has now been proven correct. Anyway, suddenly Trump announced he was pulling out in 2 days time. He didn't warn GB, France, or Germany and didn't even bother warning Secretary of Defense Mattis. Mattis was shocked and furious. Out of protest he even announced his resignation, upset his brilliant strategy would now all be for naught. GB, France and Germany went into panic mode. They knew the impact losing the supply of oil would have. They were frantically sending envoys begging to be given 6 months to assume their rightful role in the region. Trump gave them 4 weeks. 2 days later when the deadline was reached Trump announced he had changed his mind and wouldn't pull out for another 30 days. We left Syria for the most part (we still have air assets in Iraq to provide cover for the allied forces in Syria) in 30 days, at which time the British, French, and Germans and Turkish had the Eastern side of the Euphrates well under control. My understanding is they are still present. But that is Trump. They refused to do their part thinking they would just let the US pay to defend their interests. Trump realized the situation and created a bargaining tool out of thin air. That is the significance of his book, The Art of the Deal.

 

Who says that I should? What good reason reason is there? If Putin and Xi are partners, You and I are to want no part of it. That's the bottom line.