Trump recently said there would be a "bloodbath" if we didn't impose tarriffs on foreign manufacturing. Clearly he meant there would be another Jan 6, worse than Pearl Harbor and 911 combined, painting the halls of congress red with the blood of liberals. But just in the nick of time, Webster's dictionary comes to the rescue, defending Trump's call for bloody violence with some confusing financial terminology that only the awful bourgeois could ever concoct, to obfuscate the bloody dictator's words... bloodbath noun blood·bath ˈbləd-ˌbath -ˌbäth Synonyms of bloodbath 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 Even more disturbingly, it appears this deliberate mischaracterization of the term 'bloodbath' has been in common use for many, many years. How long ago did Trump propagandize the dictionary so he could get away with such an otherwise blatant call to violence? It must be decades at least. Follow the money! How much did Trump bribe Webster's Dictionary to include such violent terminology in the financial lexicon? Or maybe he threatenned them with mean tweets! Literally Hitler!!!!
While your effort to focus on the actual truthful facts of what Trump meant is laudable, it is going to fall on deaf ears. They have an agenda to promote and they're not going to let anything like the pesky facts get in the way. We have already seen this in that thread after they have been corrected in the record set straight for exactly what Trump was talking about. The repeated dishonest misrepresentation is staggering but sadly not very surprising. We will see more of the same with this thread, guaranteed.
