Always Assume The Worst With Trump
Trump's "bloodbath" comments fit a long pattern of violent rhetoric.
by Bob Cesca
WASHINGTON, DC – I haven’t seen a Red Hat swarm like this in years, and I get the distinct sense that they all wish he hadn’t said what he said. In case you’ve been off-planet this week, during a rally in Ohio Donald Trump warned about “a bloodbath for the country” if he loses the election. Now, it’s national news, having led, among others, ABC World News Tonight on Sunday.
Whenever one of the broadcast network news shows (ABC, NBC, and CBS) carry a story like this, it’s guaranteed that a population of regular voters will see it. Too often these Trump atrocities get played out on social media and cable news among partisans but seldom bleed into the rest of the world where there are, in fact, millions of voters who don’t bother with the political debate until it’s time to cast their ballots.
Shortly after Trump threatened another bloodbath if he loses, I asked the following question: “What are the legal ramifications for someone who threatens political violence at a public rally while under federal indictment and out on bond? Anyone?”
I can’t even count the number of replies informing me that the context was the auto industry, not an actual bloodbath. Sadly, there were mainstream people like Kevin Drum and Ian Bremmer who were making the same argument – that we’re all just nutty partisans taking Trump out of context.
First, to be clear, the auto industry would absolutely face a metaphorical bloodbath if Trump enacts his plan to apply 100 percent tariffs to cars made in Mexico – doubling the price of cars for American consumers and threatening the stability of the entire industry. Plus, Trump is a Republican proposing a tax cut. That’s completely lost in all of this, and the old GOP is officially dead. Nevertheless, please proceed, Red Hats. Keep on emphasizing and replaying the auto industry “context” – and good luck making a case for doubling the price of new cars.
Second, and most importantly, Trump’s bloodbath remarks were taken entirely in context by me and other Normals. Yes, there’s the cars thing, but Trump’s statements also fall within the broader context of who he is and the myriad other threats he’s responsible for. I’ll explain what I mean with the following story.
Far-right troll Bill Mitchell, among others, replied to my question: “He didn’t threaten violence!” Interesting because I never actually said I was talking about Trump. I just said “someone.” So, I replied to Bill like so: “Funny that you immediately assumed I was talking about Trump. I asked about someone threatening violence while under indictment and you jumped right to Trump -- because this is what he does and you know it.”
In response to that, someone else jumped in with exactly the reply I was waiting for. A user called “Pragmatic Libertarian Pill Dude” said: “Well dude, the first 15 posts on your feed are all about Orange Man…TDS much?” (TDS = Trump Derangement Syndrome.)
Oh, so you mean who I am and other things I’ve said provide valid context for my legal question about “bloodbath.” Thank you, anonymous MAGA troll, you just proved my entire point – that the broader context matters.
Context also includes:
Trump threatening "chaos and bedlam" if he had been removed from ballots.
Instructing his fanboys to “knock the crap” out of protesters.
Saying it’s okay for cops to bash the heads of suspects against the roof of patrol cars.
Ordering his militias to “fight like hell” on January 6, which they did.
Judge McAfee had to postpone his Fani Willis decision so he could prepare additional security for his family after receiving MAGA death threats.
Trump’s former secretary of defense Mark Esper said Trump asked him whether he could shoot BLM protesters in Washington, DC so he could have his Bible photo op.
And of course Trump is under criminal indictment for inciting a violent insurrection.
I think you get the point.
Trump is a routine purveyor of violent rhetoric, no matter the context, and he especially loves the possibility of actual violence. The January 6th investigations proved that Trump was delighted by the invasion and occupation of Congress, as well as the chants of “hang Mile Pence.” He’s always been enthralled by gory, grisly details about everything from what he lyingly calls “after birth abortion” to his fascination with the fact that Andrew Jackson’s wife died in the White House.
And he has zero empathy for the victims of violence. He was all too willing to sacrifice the lives of his own supporters, including Herman Cain, by holding public rallies during the first wave of COVID, while encouraging them to ignore safety protocols. We could list things like this all day.
The bottom line here is Trump never deserves the benefit of the doubt. Ever. He's done nothing to earn it. The safest bet, therefore, is to assume the worst. That’s the context.
Enjoy this article? Please consider supporting The Banter by purchasing a Banter Membership. You’ll get access to Members Only articles, our locked archive, The Emergency Meeting Podcast, and Member chat threads. You’ll also be supporting truly independent media. Thank you!
Read the latest on The Banter (out for free):
 | A guest post by
|
If I had a rally outside my school district main office, the day of a school board meeting, declaring there would be a bloodbath, I imagine they would call the police. Even if I was a candidate for a board seat, I would be asked to knock it off.
Such a double standard. What would it take to consider his comments assault?