CouchPotato

You sure showed me.

I guess so. Why on earth haven't you mentioned this 800 million dollar libel suit before?

Are you serious?

FOX is well known for it's journalistic integrity.

And it's not as if Canadians or Americans demand a great deal when it comes to respecting our cultures. Well, I mean I guess that applies to most western nations really. We are all pretty accommodating of immigrants.

No it isn't. That is entirely incorrect. Idioms do often arise from some specific literal event but become metaphorical expressions used to refer to something more general. That's what makes them idioms. For instance, "throw in the towel" originated in boxing, but the idiomatic meaning of that phrase is to give up or surrender in any kind of situation. If you look for a definition of that phrase you will more likely find the idiomatic definition than the boxing one. That is the way it is most commonly used. When you start to get low on motivation or energy someone might say you have "run out of steam." Now, I assume that idiom originates from steam engines, but I have never once heard it someone use it while talking about an actual steam engine. "Jump the gun" originates from someone starting a race before the pistol is fired, but in common usage it means to start anything too soon. Now, once again, robosmith, the Merriam Webster dictionary gave "economic disaster" as one definition of "bloodbath". It does not require any amount of death to be involved. I mean what usage would the expression ever get if that were the case? Only to refer to the suicides of the great depression? That's silly. It's used all the time to refer to economic disaster. Let's use another dictionary. Here is one of the definitions from the Cambridge Dictionary. And here are few more examples they give of its usage. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bloodbath

Right, but the origin of the usage is not always the common usage. So for instance in the definition I provided from Merriam Webster it says bloodbath can be used to describe an economic disaster. It does not say that it has to be an economic disaster marked by mass death, simply an economic disaster. This is an idiomatic meaning the term has taken on. Oh, and... you are welcome.

Perhaps that is how the term originated robosmith, but that does not mean it is always used to describe mass death.

Right but if a Russian asset did everything a Russian asset would do, everyone would know he is a Russian asset. A really smart Russian asset would not say everything a Russian asset would say or do everything a Russian asset would do. So, Trump could still be one. Now, I have heard that Russian assets float when thrown in the water.

Maybe so but..... Democrats Eye New Way to Get Trump Off Ballot After Supreme Court Loss https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-eye-new-way-get-trump-off-ballot-after-supreme-court-loss-1875762 Maine’s top election official removes Trump from 2024 primary ballot https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html

The problem for Democrats is they resisted so emphatically for so long that a lot of people will not take them seriously. I mean some even tried to remove Trump from the ballot while telling people he was a threat to democracy. The Democrats resisted Trump straight into office.

I am not even sure Trump knows what his game is. He has gone back and forth so much. I wonder if he is consulting a Magic 8 Ball with regard to whether or not to implement tariffs.

Well, I do agree with the OP to be clear, in the sense that I do believe in God, and I do believe that God is a necessary to the foundation of a good society. I don't know to what extent the founders were Christians or deists. I mean I've seen a lot of evidence that some of them were indeed deists. But that's not what I was arguing here.

When did I do that? All I said was people can pervert all kinds of things to justify atrocities. And that seems to be what CdnFox was saying as well. I never argued against science or religion.

Thanks for the correction. I've been really bad this week. But that is irrelevant. You and I do not believe what Stalin did was rational. But these atrocities were to some. The persecution of Christians was necessary because they are dangerous to their version of a rational society. There is always a chance they can compel others to oppose the system. That may not be your rationale, but that's not the point. You can use anything as an excuse for violence. Even reason. Or religion. I would argue that many of the atrocities of the Church against heretics were not sanctioned by God and that it was an improper application of the Christian faith, the same way you might argue that the communists idea of what was rational was not really rational.

Stalin and his supporters would have. Do you think he did these things because he thought they were unrational?

But he didn't say it did. He said people can use rationalism as an excuse for atrocious acts just as easily as religion or xenophobia or whatever.

Are we talking about immigration? Some countries have very strict immigration laws. It's not easy to become a Japanese citizen or a Korean citizen. Are they putting people in concentration camps and gas chambers? I mean I find it hard to believe you can't distinguish between people not wanting millions of illegal immigrants crossing their borders unchecked and Nazism.

bloodbath noun 1 : a great slaughter 2 a : a notably fierce, violent, or destructive contest or struggle the campaign has become a bloodbath b : a major economic disaster a market bloodbath https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bloodbath

Yes, in the literal sense, but it is also commonly used as an expression to mean disastrous. He was talking about the auto industry not the streets of America right? So, most people could figure out that he wasn't talking about a literal bloodbath. So when Democrats made the extreme claim that he was calling for an actual bloodbath they only discredited themselves. If this is the truth, I would say the Democrats did a poor job of opposing him. Even if you believe incredibly nefarious things about someone and you think you are right, there is a danger in making grave accusations against them. There is a danger in prosecuting someone of a heinous crime when you can't present enough evidence to get a conviction.

No doubt, politicians on both sides do this. For instance, I think it was done a lot with Obama. I was not an Obama fan, but I could see that there were certain statements he made that were used unfairly against him. But he became a two term president. Now, I wouldn't even say Trump was unartful here. I mean "bloodbath" is commonly used as blanket term for anything disastrous, and most people understand that. Now, I would say that Democrats tried to do this a lot with Trump. But I am not sure they skewered him. I mean what do you think, robosmith? Do you think maybe the Democrats could have possibly overdone this kind of thing? Is it possible they skewered themselves? OK, fair enough. It's not my intention to misrepresent your opinion here, I am just saying, let's say for the sake of argument Trump is a really really bad and dangerous orange man. Do you think that maybe there was some folly in continually using arguments that were easy to discredit in order to prove that?

It's just strange that they are so polite and able to laugh with such a dangerous maniac. Would you do that, robo? I think you'd be more committed to the cause myself.

Well, usually laws of the country do, and if you don't have any definition whatsoever then who isn't a citizen?? And what is a country? Maybe you and I are actually Americans. Maybe we are the 51st state. Who decides?

Let's assume this is true, robosmith. Trump is the next Hitler. I am sure you remember this. Democrats represented this as if Trump was promising there would be a bloodbath if he is not elected. Was that misleading? I mean even if he is Hitler and wants to have all kinds of bloodbaths was that what he was talking about here?