Trump: Comments on Liz Cheney

Meanwhile in Botswana, where elections are far more civilized
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/01/africa/botswana-party-loses-election-masisi-boko-intl/index.html

 

I’m not sure what the articulate way to say it is that wouldn’t result in misleading outrage at this point though.

I think the articulate way of saying what he was trying to say is “it’s easy to advocate for war when you’re not the one in the line of fire” (and that’s a fair point), but given the thread title we got from what he did say, I suspect all cleaning the comment up in that way would have done is get “Trump says Liz Cheney should be put on a firing line!” as the thread instead.

 

It is very much like Biden's garbage gaffe. Your opponents are going to take it the worst way possible and once the toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't get it back in.

 

*Trump says insane thing*
"But what Trump really meant was . . . "

 

I mean he wasn't calling for her to be shot in the face, he was saying she was a Warhawk who wouldn't like it on the front lines. The problem is that his dipshit supporters are pretty unlikely to parse that out - some Rittenhouse-esqe thug could hear that and go "well damn, let's see how she likes it!" and go point a gun at her. They aren't known for their thoughtful deconstruction of Trump's messages

 

That’s the point, Trump didn’t actually say the insane thing he’s getting attacked for in this instance, but is still getting attacked.

For all of Drudge’s idiotic “Trump calls on Cheney to be executed” takes on it, how many firing squads do you know of where they give the person being executed a rifle?

 

Trump is good at delivering a message without actually saying the offending thing. Not saying that's what happened here. I'm thinking more about the thing with Milley where he posted "this call to China is TREASON, punishable by DEATH" or some such shit. He can technically say "well I didn't say he should get the death penalty, I just said IF he did it it COULD be treason, and treason carries the death penalty." But you have to be a pretty dense moron not to know what he is really saying

 

this, he points a path for his more fervent followers to follow without telling them to go down it, just that it is over there, and lots of good people go down it, and it might just happen that someone might do something like that... capo speak

 

It’s like he is a mafia Don saying things so they can’t be used in court. That works if you’re not talking to imbeciles. The problem here is a lot of his supporters are imbecilic.

 

Trump said an insanely unacceptable thing:

"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her....."

And you want to sane-wash it by pretending it's an isolated example, when it's the farthest thing from an isolated example. It's just the latest block in the pyramid of his verbal normalization of, and call for, violence.

This is how he gets normalized as a whole - "This one thing is bad, but not a total deal breaker. "

The reality is that this guy has no business holding any elected office anywhere. Most Trumpies here would shit bricks if he was, say, on their kids' school board.

Oh, and just a weird coincidence- lots and lots of his supporters have embraced political violence. What a total surprise, when you could strain to interpret his words differently! And someone could write a better thread title!

The guy's a national politician, repeating this shit (and worse) ad nauseum. Enough, it's deplorable.

 

What do you think the "nine guns" reference was about? I thought maybe it was about a firing squad, but it looked like some of those have eight guns. I guess Trumph prefers this version.

 

This specific headline is misleading. Having said that, he gets no benefit of the doubt from me given his track record.

 

All true but not the reason he loses.
He isn’t very smart or strategic.
It’s been laid out many times that he needs to shut the hell up and pretend to be decent, diplomatic.
It’s not in him.

 

I’m not saying it’s an isolated example, I’m saying it’s pretty clear from what he said that he’s criticizing her for being a war hawk when she has never had to be the one actually facing combat.

That’s neither an insane nor an unacceptable thing to say.

 

Another interesting side note, is that after all the Trumpy excuse makers come in with their "He's just a really peaceful guy, expressing that he loves peace and Liz Cheney doesn't....."

That is total bullshit. It's just another lie he's telling to people willing and desperate to be lied to.

Cheney is not really more of a war hawk than the entirety of the Republican party. Same with her dad, really. in 2002, there was about an 82% favorability rating for invading Iraq. Quite clearly, that included almost the entirety of the Republican party. Trump is on record supporting it also.

Now he just wants to lie otherwise, and encourage his cult to revise history. It's a convenient false narrative to add to his smorgasbord of falsehoods - "They're just a warhawk!!" But these people he lied to clearly almost entirely voted for Bush in 2004, were they of voting age.

If we take at face value that the Iraq war proponents had America's best interests at heart, or that, very generally speaking, politicians who employed America's military did also.....then the proper way to address that is claiming a difference in policy. Not to assert some bullshit about "warhawks" in order to undermine trust and incite hate. Just reason #564,365,984 that this scumbag has no business in any kind of leadership whatsoever.

 

It CERTAINLY is, the way he said it. This statement alone pretty much demonstrates that he's unfit for office.

Never mind that it's also a total lie. He's on record favoring invading Iraq, so what is he even trying to assert with his hate-mongering lie that she's actually any different than him?

He also obviously never faced combat. And he never even had to make a tough decision on it, while she and others did. He got to sit on the sidelines telling outright racist lies about Obama as a full-time Twitter troll.

 

The point is that it would be easy for him to say what he said without the comments about shooting her in the face. Yet, he always falls back on violent or hateful rhetoric. Why should I give him the benefit of the doubt? It's not like Republicans give Biden the benefit of the doubt when he's gaffing it up.

 

First, I don't think Liz has called for sending U.S. troops into Russia, for example. Second, she wasn't kicked out of leadership because of her foreign policy views but rather because she called out Trump and refused to go along with the lies about the election. Third, I wonder what percentage of politicians or political influencers are combat veterans? Probably pretty small, so why the focus on her with this? If he has previously used this angle of attack against men, I don't recall it.

 

We need to just judge him on what he really meant here, and ignore his tremendously long record of clearly inciting the violence we now see, that he clearly incited.

If we just strain to interpret this favorably, it and he really aren't that bad.

Am I doing this right?




Edit : Blukenquest has arrived on the scene. Providing his usual cerebral commentary drive-by negs.

 

They don't call him Teflon Don for nothing