Biden: We’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in the bull’s-eye

Awful thing for Biden to say. With 400,000,000 guns in our country and assault weapons flying off the shelves and all the gun violence we have, politicians need to refrain from these comments. “Lock and load”, etc. Especially the potus.

 

Believe what you want. It's obvious that you're all into the conspiracy theory. The concept of speaking metaphorically appears to be beyond you. Although slightly off-topic it wouldn't surprise me if you believe Trump and his sycophants in the media and Republican politics that the search of Mar-a-Lago was an attempt by the FBI to assassinate him.

 

Absolutely. Biden and all politicians should refrain from using terms like 'bullseye' regarding their opponents.

 

Biden did not order a hit on trump in any way shape or form
What he did do (as well as many dems) is incite someone to violence with his over the top rhetoric.

 

I tend to agree although I think it's sad that politicians have to self-censor for fear of triggering persons with psychiatric problems or even being subject to allegations that they are attempting to incite such individuals to political violence. It seems that we are getting to the point that politicians now have to refrain from using metaphors that would have been perfectly acceptable years ago.

 

I put this comment into the same category as Trump’s “bloodbath” reference. Neither meets the standard of our current sensibilities, but both were commonly used metaphors just a decade or two ago. The presidential standard should be higher, but it would not be shocking that someone of their generation would employ these words without any ill intent.

 

Trump’s comment was general in nature ….

“it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

….. whereas Biden’s was pretty specific:

“it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye,”


Let’s be honest and objective here, these are really very different statements.

 

I never said the statements were the same. What I said is the both words are (or were) commonly used without ill intent. Being the least charitable we can be for both statements, we have 1) violence against the whole of the left and 2) violence against Trump alone. I personally wouldn’t be bragging to my mother about making either such statement. Being the most charitable we can be for both (my preference), we have 1) this would be a bad policy for the country’s economy, 2) the focus shouldn’t be on my debate but on Trump’s failings. Neither statement about violence.

So any meaningful difference we find here will stem from how charitable we choose to be to each candidate.

 

Exactly. Perhaps a poor choice of words, but a benign sentiment.

 

Your assessment lacks objectivity and does nothing to refute the fact one was general and nature and the other quite specific. One is a prognostication of what will happen if a future event occurs while the calls for a specific action, today, towards a particular individual. They are significantly different and should not be “categorized” as similar in nature or in potential impact. And you know this,

 

Precisely. Same with this Biden comment.

 

Lacks objectivity? I would love to know the criterion for objectivity that you are employing in this assessment.

Why does it matter which statement was general and which one was specific? Here is a general statement and a specific one: 1) All blacks are stupid. 2) Ben Carson is smart. Are you suggesting that the first statement is better because it’s general? Of course not, because generality isn’t a value. Again, the real question is which statement was intended to evoke violence. In my view, the answer is neither, but I am assuming the common usages for both terms. You are free to assume the common usage for Trump and uncommon one for Biden, but I hardly see how that is the objective decision.

 

I’m sorry you do not know the answer to you question “Why does it matter which statement was general and which one was specific?” It patently obvious to any intelligent objective person.

It’ time to flush another time-wasting derper.

 

Sure. That's not the point though. The point, is to point out the vast disparity in treatment of one vs the other, and Secondly, to apply the same standard to Doh! Biden, as they did to Trump.


LMAO! at the incredibly lame attempts to distinguish one from the other, in order to justify disparate treatment.

 

Funny how yall suddenly get metaphorical references, but when it's Trump, why it's a transparent dog whistle!

Can wait to scrub the leftist scum and skank from DC...

 

I was being honest with you this whole time. You’ve chosen not to respond to my questions and instead insult my reason and call me a derper (whatever that is). Maybe your intellect is superior, but you could certainly use a lesson in decency.

 

Apparently the difference between using the term "bulls-eye" in reference to targeting your opponent in a political campaign or using the word "eliminate" in referring to eliminating a politician as a political opponent and using the phrase "Second Amendment solutions" or telling a militia group that routinely trains with weapons to "stand back and stand by" is beyond your comprehension. In the case of the last two phrases there is little doubt as to their meaning.