DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Did Trump say he would use military against opponents?

That is the exact context, Don the Con has obviously had perverse visions of Liz Cheney's demise in front of a firing squad.

But I seriously doubt Liz Cheney being a "war hawk" is the root of his discontent.

Maybe just maybe, it was because of the Jan 6 investigations and support of Harris....

Regardless of the exactness of the statement, it is pathetic for a candidate for president to be envisioning the placement of a political nemesis in front of a firing squad.

It’s not the full context. Where’s the full context?

When I get a hold of the transcript, I’ll post the full context. And part of it will be…

Quote- She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her WITH A RIFLE standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?” Trump, 78, said of Cheney, 58, at the event. “Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face

And later

Quote- If she had to do it herself, if she had to face the consequences of battle, she wouldn’t be doing it,” Trump told reporters.

See how deceptively leaving our context changes the meaning.

Thanks to whoever brought this up for bringing up a crystal clear example of what I’m talking about.

Kris Mayes needs to be fired for weaponizing his position. At the very least for INCOMPETANCE.

You mean, kinda like biden, when he WAS a candidate, saying "it's time to put trump in the bullseye"? Or, nah, that was fine? Asking for a friend.

That could be spun easier then trump’s gaffs. Anyways Biden isn’t in this anymore as much as Goper’s wish he was.

In other words I’ll be twisting the ish out of this as well.

Here’s the context. In the middle he talks about Cheney and other things, but if you want to hear the relevant context start at 1:07 to about 1:40 and then skip to about the 7:17 mark, and you will see that the Dems are twisting his words.

Huh?

Listen to the video, from about 1:07 to 1:40, then skip to 7:17 (because he starts talking about something else) and listen to the rest of the video and tell me if he’s saying what the Dems accuse him of saying. (Firing squad stupid lie).

Look how desperate the Dems are getting. They’re telling obvious falsehoods because they know that no one will fact check. 😮

I think most people know who’s lying here.

Trump uses this violent rhetoric to divide and conquer. Goper’s are too feeble and gullible and fall for his crap and must walk it all back.

If you Listen to the parts I listed, or the whole video if you want, I think it would be interesting to hear if you would still believe the obvious lie that Trump was talking about a firing squad.

Great spin.

[align:left][/align]
I didn’t give a spin. I gave you a video.

Did you listen to the context?

Play the video above starting at 7:17 to the end.

Any media person who told it’s about a firing squad either did not hear the context, is very dumb, or is lying. Probably the third option.

Posting with context is not twisting it. Providing the quote without context is twisting it I’m sorry that they took over your minds.

I didn’t give a spin. I gave the context for you to listen to and see for yourself. Nothing about a stupid firing squad. How imbecilic for media to say that.

Fuller context of Trump quote.

She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face, you know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, oh, gee. Well, let's send, let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy, but she's a stupid person. And I used to have, I have meetings with a lot of people, and she always wanted to go to war with people.

————————————-

a. “Put her with a rifle”. You don’t give a person standing before a firing squad a rifle

b. “Let’s see how she feels about it”. Feels about what? Going to war

c. “You know they’re all war hawks sitting in Washington DC”. In other words, they’re itching to send other people to war, but how would they feel if they had to go instead.

I think it’s ludicrous to claim that Trump was talking about a firing squad. It’s clearly saying “what if Liz had to face the horrors that people have to face in war if she had to go to war.”
She would probably feel very differently about it.

I didn’t get this from anyone. I just read the context.

That's what you say every time trump says you should shoot someone, commits a crime or sexually assaults a woman. Somehow it's everyone's fault but his. There is no BS "context" argument you can use to justify the fact trump said nine people should shoot Liz Cheney.

Unless you think he's a total moron. If that's the case we would be in agreement.

Key word is WAS. He's not running anymore. Try to focus. And you don't have any friends so cut the BS.

“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?”

Everything else is simply BS trying to excuse the fact he said that.

Well you voted for him in 2020 right?

Does that mean you support segregation?

Are Biden supporters all segregationists because they voted for a person who once supported segregation?

Key word is WAS. He's not running anymore. Try to focus.

You supported him when he WAS running. And you also supported him when he said it's time to put a bull's eye on trump, when biden was still running. But, that's different, right?

Yes. The hypocrisy is staggering.

It is, but pretty much par for the course.

When did I say it was different? Making up things in your own mind again? Once again a trumpian finds a single example of something to try and defend the things trump has done over and over again for years now. Nothing new there.

You do realize if I did that you would call it a whatabout, right? And stiff would call it a red herring. It's only okay when your side does it? You're hilarious!

Says the guy who puts people on ignore and then has no idea what their response is. Some would call that gutless. Including me.

You gave me at least 100 reasons to put you on ignore; false accusations, strawman arguments, countless red herrings, hijacking threads with red herrings, accusing me of advocating anti-LGBT legislation when I repeatedly said I wasn’t.

You, Old Cold Dog, Perfect Spiral, and others have acted very naughty here. Santa may not be bringing you any gifts this year. 🤣

Then do it. You lie more than trump. The fact you still believe in Santa is very telling. Ignoring people who put you on blast and show you who you really are is exactly what I would expect from you. And you would not be alone.

The only one you put on blast is yourself. You accused me of not answering posts that I did answer, falsely accused me of trying to force my beliefs on others, and refused to answer the OP question in “question for Christians” while accusing me of not answering questions

It’s called “projection”.

You sad little man. I'm actually beginning to wonder if you believe yourself. At first I thought you were simply a troll. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't actually delusional.

So says the guy that rejects actual transcript of speeches and interviews, non partisan fact check articles (like Snopes) and clear video footage as evidence and data and only accepts quotes out of context and deceptively edited 30 second video clips. 😀

Have you ever heard the phrase, "doesn't see the forest from the trees"?

Heard it? Hell, he lives it.

So you actually think this circle jerk of nonsense you post means something?

Women and children reading here, possibly. You should not use such sexually explicit terms

Yes. The forest is the context and the individual quotes are the trees. You have to see both.

Thanks for giving a good quote in support of my point about context.

So now you're tying to control what I post? My post is in compliance with the rules of the board. Maybe you should try to tell them how to run things around here and see if that goes any better for you.

Considering the things you are defending you are the last one who should be lecturing anyone about common decency.

Red herring.

Trying to control others behavior in their private and personal life when it harms no one else?
That clearly makes him a republican