My prior point about proper attribution stands.
Also, despite everything Trump has done, he hasn’t actually started a civil war yet. So in my book, he isn’t the most divisive president in history. As of yet. I would rank Lincoln and maybe Tyler higher.
~Max
Lincoln didn’t start a civil war.
A civil war was definitely started because of Lincoln. But back to the topic, I just don’t see a difference between he issues a statement appealing to… and he appeals to.
~Max
This has fuck-all to do with attribution, but with the implied credibility that some forms of reporting improperly assign to certain statements. Fox News is a master of this particular art.
I thought I had written “in modern history”. But anyway, as I previously noted, and as observed in the Jan 6 riots, and in Charlottesville, and in Trump’s exhortations to assassinate Hillary Clinton, Trump has definitely come as close as anyone in modern history to inciting another civil war. And may yet do so if he’s re-elected.
That’s not the distinction at all. You seem to always get confused on this point. The difference is between a report that says “candidate ‘x’ issued the following statement” and a report that says “candidate ‘x’ appeals for unity, peace, and harmony” or whatever the particular bullshit might be, when it’s very clearly at odds with all the horrific things the candidate has said before. It’s the difference between quoting a post and implying its trustworthiness.
Not for a lack of trying:
Stranger
What implied credibility?
A issues a statement that appeals for national unity. To issue a statement that appeals for national unity is to appeal for national unity. Therefore A appeals for national unity.
This is not only factually true of Trump but logically implied by the premises. It has nothing to do with credibility. A could be the most habitual liar and yet if he issues a statement saying X, he is saying X.
There is no implication of trustworthiness or that he is being sincere. I just don’t see that. I mentioned statements of innocence before, you tried to draw a passive/active distinction but that doesn’t make any sense to me.
“I am innocent” is active for example. So is “I did not kill that man.” Subject verb object and all that…
~Max
This smacks of “I said my piece, so I’m stopping the conversation”. Fuck that, you ignorant shit. If you are going to flap your gums asserting stupid things, you get the privilege of having your ass handed back to you.
Her own link acknowledges Fort Sumter was the culmination of a process that began when Lincoln was elected. You can split hairs about the civil war technically not starting until shots were fired, but the greater point was divisiveness and succession started before shots fired.
~Max
But Eonwe, how will you get on without such critical, urgent, breaking updates such as “so-and-so has been briefed on the incident”? (Or its equally worthless cousin, “celebrity such-and-such has released a statement condemning the incident.”)
Unless they have reason to do damage control, like Tim Robbins. Apologies if this has been posted before. Some people are comparing this to Bob Roberts, in a blaming kind of way. Like some people tried to hold Spike Lee accountable for the L.A. riots, and Tom Clancy for 9/11. If someone gets triangled in, he can defend himself.
The fuck he did. That’s as bad as Putin putting the blame for WWII on Poland or Pat Buchanan blaming Churchill for starting WWII.
That is neither a technicality nor splitting hairs. That’s the fucking definition of a war starting.
No, it’s like me saying the Archduke Ferdinand’s death was so important it actually caused WWI. And you’re telling me that’s a severe misstatement because open hostilities commenced only some couple weeks later. Be that as it may, and whatever definition of war is, it detracts none from the importance of the event, or the divisiveness of the President.
~Max
Only you aren’t actually being told that. That is just an imaginary conversation in your head.
My own link does not imply much less acknowledge that.
Here’s what it states:
… On November 6, 1860, in an election that brought the new Republican Party to national power, Abraham Lincoln was elected president by a strictly northern vote. Four days later, on November 10, Senator James Chesnut resigned his Senate seat and returned home to South Carolina to draft an ordinance of secession… [US Senate site senate.gov]
South Carolina began a process (ordinance of succession) that culminated in the Confederacy firing on Fort Sumter, starting the Civil War.
When the disgruntled loser of an election attacks an installation (Fort Sumter or the US Capitol) of the legitimate government because they are unhappy with the results of the fair election, that makes them the causative aggressor, not the duly elected President (Lincoln or Biden). Lincoln did not cause the Civil War. The Lost Cause (the Confederacy) caused it.
@Max_S The Civil War Ended 156 years ago. Your side lost. Get over it.
I certainly do wish they’d think before acting lock-step, but clearly they haven’t the lobes for it…
Florida man promotes political violence for 8 years, suffers cut on ear, press calls him victim.
Ha! Especially if it’s true that trump himself didn’t even have a bandage on in the sighting of him going golfing yesterday.
Melania Trump has issued a press release. It’s interesting for what it does and doesn’t say. For example, nothing about being grateful that her husband is alive.
Bullshit. It only becomes iconic when supposedly mainstream media sites put it on their front pages.
I have no idea what other pics were available, but there had to have been hundreds. Picking that one, and making it iconic, is a huge boost to Trump’s candidacy.
The Washington Post editorial board has spoken!
The subhead for its latest editorial:
Every participant in our civic life needs to conduct some soul-searching
After some soul-searching, I have concluded that the Post is peddling self-righteous nonsense.