First we had Trump’s “bloodbath” remark about what will happen to the U.S. auto industry if Biden gets re-elected.  The MSM, particularly MSNBC, Politico, and The New Republic, jumped on the remark.  MSNBC’s Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat wrote, “We agree with those who think that he was not just talking about cars.  Trump was implicitly threatening the nation with violence.” 

Later in the article, Eisen and Ben-Ghiat provide selected context for the remark, then use hopelessly twisted logic to make their point: “Perhaps the initial reference is to the car business, but he leaves out the word ‘industry’ in the first, fragmentary description of the ‘bloodbath,’ so the audience can fill in the larger consequences for the whole.  Then he invokes previous warnings of apocalyptic outcomes for America, such as terrorist attacks.  The implication is clear: challenges for the car industry will ‘be the least of’ the country’s problems ‘if I don’t get elected.’”  Clearly, their interpretation — accurate context be damned.

The New Republic’s Michael Tomasky wrote an article entitled “‘Bloodbath’-Gate: Yes,  Trump Meant the Auto Industry.  At First, Anyway.”  In the article, Tomasky provides his own context: “it’s a reasonable guess[.]”  But Tomasky can’t stop himself there.  He has to throw this in: “in fact, that’s just typical Trump bluster — built as usual on lies.”  After twisting the accurate context, he proceeds to provide his interpretation of a picture he created.

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi provided her interpretation of the remark: “What does that mean — he’s going to exact a bloodbath?  There’s something wrong here. ... How much more do they have to see from him to understand that this isn’t what our country is about?”  Again, accurate context be damned.

Politico reporter Myah Warb also weighed in with her interpretation: “in the speech, he [Trump] was talking about the auto industry and the potential for economic losses against China.  That’s a fair point.  But we’d note he also said, ‘That’s going to be the least of it,’ suggesting a wider lens than simply autos.”  Note how Warb couldn’t stop herself after “fair point.”

We then got Trump’s own “Bloodbath” response.  He said that the southern border crisis is Biden’s “Bloodbath.”  In Grand Rapids, Mich., standing behind a placard with the words “Stop Biden’s Border Bloodbath,” Trump said, “I stand before you today to declare that Joe Biden’s border bloodbath — and that’s what it is.  It’s a bloodbath.  They [Biden and Democrats] tried to use that term incorrectly on me two weeks ago.  You know, it’s all about misinformation.  But it’s a border bloodbath, and it’s destroying our country, and it’s a very bad thing happening.  It’s going to end on the day that I take office.”

Trump nailed it.  Biden and Democrats create misinformation by taking his remarks out of context.

Now we get this: Peter Doocy, Fox News correspondent, asked White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: “So when Donald Trump is talking about a ‘bloodbath,’ it is ‘violent rhetoric.’  What was it when Joe Biden said in 2020, ‘What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a ‘negative bloodbath’?” 

Doocy repeated the question several times, though an obviously flustered Jean-Pierre never directly answered it.  She twice called the question “disingenuous” to ask and suggested that “context” was needed.  Her suggestion is ironic, given that Biden and the Democrats often take Trump’s remarks out of context. 

Regarding his “Bloodbath” remark, Biden told a group of Democrat donors in Bethesda, Md. in 2020, “What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath.”  Biden was speaking about his fight with Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and how it should not become the basis for losing the election.  Giulia Carbonaro of MSN wrote that “Biden’s 2020 remark has been taken out of context by Trump supporters.”

She also wrote, “While several Republicans, including Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence, have defended the former president’s remarks saying he was clearly referring to the U.S. car industry, some saw the comments as a threat of another January 6.”  Amazing, isn’t it, how she could castigate one remark and defend an identical remark in the same article?

Another example is Trump’s remark about Social Security cuts.  He suggested that cuts could be made to the programs when asked how the U.S. could cut spending and his outlook on handling entitlements like Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Again, the Biden Bunch took his remark out of context and lied about what he really said. 

About context, Sister Toldjah of RedState wrote, “In one sense, KJP is right — context is important.  But in the context of how the Democrats and the media refer to things Donald Trump says, they don’t give a royal rip about context, which is one big reason why trust in the media is at all time lows, something that is unlikely to change anytime soon.” 

Speaking of context, or lack of same, consider how Eisan and Ben-Ghiat finished.  “Thanks to the meticulous analysis and documentation by the Jan. 6 Committee, we can use Trump’s rhetoric about Jan. 6 as a case study.  His infamous statement on Twitter inviting his followers to come to D.C. for Jan. 6 — ‘will be wild’ — was vague where it needed to be, but also specific to the cause of saving him from an unjust fate that endangered America.  Telling his followers that ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore’ links fighting for Trump to saving themselves from apocalypse.”  They continued, “Trump’s 2024 campaign builds on these narratives in conjuring threats to the nation, and introducing violence as a solution.  His repeated declarations along the lines of ‘they’re not going after me, they’re going after you’ are in this vein.  So is his identification of the enemies who are threatening Americans and all that they hold dear.”

I guess we are supposed to deem their interpretation correct.  They provided not one shred of context (or facts) to permit evaluation of their offerings.  They relied upon the Jan. 6 Committee to provide context for Trump’s words.

There are two bottom lines. 

First, Joe Biden and the Democrats, hypocrites all, must take Trump’s remarks out of context, must turn his remarks about every subject on which he speaks into lies.  Otherwise, they will have nothing to spew to their base.

Second, the American public, particularly Biden’s base of voters, who normally accept his lies without any evaluation, are waking up to the “out of context” tricks and lies he usually depends upon to secure  votes.

Warren Beatty has created a web page that facilitates quick responses to anything you consider outrageous: quick-rant.atwebpages.com.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.