Some Democrats say his comments, directed at a Christian audience, signaled his plans to be a dictator. His campaign says he was talking about ‘uniting’ the country, and experts point to his ‘deliberately ambiguous’ speaking style.
Democratic lawmakers and Vice President Harris’s campaign joined a chorus of online critics in calling out remarks Donald Trump aimed at a Christian audience on Friday, arguing that the former president and current Republican presidential nominee had implied he would end elections in the United States if he won a second term.
At the conclusion of his speech at the Believers Summit in West Palm Beach, Fla., Trump said, “Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. … You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”
Democrats and others interpreted the comments as signaling how a second Trump presidency would be run, a reminder that he previously said he would not be a dictator upon returning to office “except for Day One.”
TRUMP: “We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”
MEDIA: “Oh there he goes again with his '‘deliberately ambiguous’ phrasing…”
What fucking part of that sentence was ambiguous???
well he’s gonna say they’re fixing the country so good that you won’t feel like you have to vote again or something. this has long been their usual thing, called implausible deniability. it only works if everyone else is dumb. unfortunately for them, they’re the dumb ones thinking they’re clever with these.
Can you really not come up with any other explanation? I agree that this is fucking incredibly troubling, and I will assume the worst about this guy based on his past handling of the presidency, but it’s shocking to me that people think he outright said he would end democracy and there is no ambiguity here.
Like easily I could strain and say “well, he’s saying that he is going to make things so good that everyone is going to vote for him, so the Christians no longer will need to.” Or “I don’t care in 4 years because I won’t be able to run.”
Oh fuck off with that nonsense. He already tried to end democracy once with his insurrection. There’s no doubt that he’s going to try again.
The question is whether it’s an ambiguous statement. You are saying its safe to assume, because of past behavior, what he means. And I agree, what he’s saying here is scary based on this. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s ambiguous and not explicit.
it’s shocking to me that people think he outright said he would end democracy and there is no ambiguity here
yeah and some folks said “RUSSIA? If you’re LISTENING?..” was ambiguous, too.
That last one in particular. Remember that Trump doesn’t care if Republicans win… he cares if he wins. When it’s not him running for president he really won’t give a shit (and might hope they fail because then it gives credence to his “Only I can win” line).
Yeah this isn’t surprising.
What’s funnier is how he acts like a toddler with his hand caught in the cookie jar; blaming it on his imaginary friend or whatever else is convenient to blame at hand.
Make no mistake; this is their plan. For far right extremist believers; this is their most fevered and deepest desire dream. They are, unfortunately, thinking that they are the only ones who are “right” to rule the world; despite how wrong they are and despite literally everything and everyone telling them they CANNOT do that.
To be clear; these kinds of minds have fallen to the trap that religion breeds.
When used in moderation; religion can be helpful for people both mentally and emotionally. It can allow them to cope with, and accept, reality and when they abandon all fear and put faith into something it can bring themselves back to focusing on things more productively.
When used in excess; religion can breed utter lack of reason and sanity. This is the trap. This is when someone loses touch with reality. When you abandon all fear and put faith into something; you become the most reckless thing imaginable; and the damage to the world and others you can do with this is virtually unlimited.
As they say; “The road to Hell is paved with ‘Good Intentions’.”. There is nothing more dangerous than a fool who believes he is doing the right thing. The foolish cannot be reasoned with, or dissuaded from their path, for they are a fool.
Religion has always been a tool for controlling the masses. Humans are flawed, broken creatures that naturally abuse power. Religion simply builds a framework to execute that abuse.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.
This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
C. S. Lewis
Agreed, but this isn’t unique to religion – the same can be said of political ideologies.
Religion tends to have untestifiable claims and poor epistemology built in and encouraged tho. It’s rare for ideologies to have that.
Epistemology isn’t the determining factor when it comes to human beings doing terrible things to each other on the rationale that it is for “the greater good” or the “natural order”.
Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, the Cultural Revolution, European colonialism, etc saw millions dead because one group of people though they had the right to control society and shape it in the way they saw fit.
True, but it is relevant when comparing religions to ideologies. It’s probably more accurate to say that religions are a subset of ideologies, with some unique features
Yeah, that was pretty much my point.
Nice 🤝
“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way.” - Frank Herbert, Dune
“Deliberately ambiguous” isn’t the excuse these people seem to think it is.
I don’t even see how anyone could argue it’s ambiguous. Can anyone give one plausible, specific theory about what else it could’ve meant?
For the record, I don’t think there is any ambiguity in the slightest about the leader of an insurrection saying this alongside “I will be a dictator” and whatever else.
However, what Fox and other propagandists would say is that, “he’s going to fix the country and everyone will like that and vote Repub forevermore.” In complete defiance of the objective reality that Donald did nothing of the sort 2017-21.
Donald is a corrupt and racist rapist. Polarizing as fuck. Repugnant deplorables love him and everyone else is utterly disgusted.
Yeah. Our media needs to ask the question I did. Okay Republicans, if this doesn’t mean that, explain in detail how this meant “unity”. They won’t be able to say anything specific and they will squirm and at least some young kids trying to figure things out right now will see which party is fascist. Just letting them make some vague bullshit statement and presenting it as neutral is beyond irresponsible
At best he’s not able to formulate even these simple statements, imagine him speaking about 3rd world war and saying something like this. But yes, he did mean what everybody understood.
Well, since he’s talking specifically to christians, in the context that he wants all christians to vote: he could have meant that he will fix all their concerns during his term – no more abortions, “christian values” in school, etc – so that next election, they don’t have to worry anymore. Just come out and vote this time, he’ll fix America so good that the liberals can’t even undo it if they win the next one (but they won’t, because everyone will be happy in this new golden age).
But democrats no longer having any power is exactly the fascist implication we are talking about.
Well, there’s a difference between democrats not having any power because of a coup or because R did their politics so well…I’m not defending this interpretation btw, but you asked.
No there isn’t because it assumes different people don’t want different things.
How can they do politics so well that it satisfies the “radical left” if said group is evil in the first place?
They have argued themselves into a corner by doing so much hyperbole that it leaves no room for a reasonable take.
I mean yeah you could make that argument, but every poll on the issues would contradict its likelihood of making sense. Not that a Republican would care, but still
But according to them, America was great and it turned bad cause people voted wrong.
How can he fix things forever if they claim it got ruined because people are allowed to vote without taking away voting rights?
He could, if he were a normal person, mean that he won’t be able to run again if he wins this time, so people won’t have to come out to vote for him.
That explanation ignores the “fix it” comment. Even being extremely generous and going with the line of thinking that you proposed and further adding that by “fix it” he meant that he would fix all of the problems of our country within the next term, that would still require the assumption that he has no values for which he believes needs to be stood up for after next term. Or more specifically that he doesn’t think it matters who is elected in the future. While I do believe that he is extremely egotistical and to a certain extent doesn’t care about anyone else, I have a hard time believing that he would be equally okay with anyone being elected even after his presumptive second term. The only way that I can see any of these comments making sense is if he is talking about rigging or altogether doing away with elections.
And to be clear I’m not trying to argue with you since I understand you aren’t saying you agree with the statement you made. I’m just pointing out that you would have to do much more mental gymnastics than even that in order to get to some sort of excuse for those comments.
Backlash my ass. If he’s still polling ~ 40% it’s not him who’s the problem, but whoever is part of those 40%
Concentrated media ownership is the problem. We had rules against it until W Bush and his Republican Congress eliminated them even though everyone said this would happen.
*because
Nailed it.
Russian troll farms. There is no sane person flipping to him now. By the numbers, his real voter base should only be shrinking.
It’s cute that you think Americans actually believe in the principles of liberalism when they don’t even know what those are.
The polling isn’t done by counting tweets though
“Deliberately ambiguous”
I don’t think that means what they think that means.
Being deliberate with your word choice so the intention of your words is ambiguous. Similar to “intentionally vague”
Trump’s never had the ability to be deliberate with anything, certainly not the tired and diminished Trump we’ve got this cycle.
Trump also only has ambiguity as a strength, because he doesn’t have the mental capacity, or attention span, for specificity. You think he can detail a 5 point plan without getting distracted about sharks and electrocution? His voters like him spoon-feeding him 3 word slogans, and that’s just about all that he can muster these days.
It’s an interesting contrast to ‘he just tells it like it is’ from the first time around.
He continually tells us what he’s going to do and we are continually shocked when he does it.
Well, largely we don’t expect politicians to keep promises…
They always keep the shitty ones.
I’d be worried if he wasn’t getting backlash. Actually, I’m still worried because there clearly isn’t enough backlash.
We all know what he’s insinuating.
Not enough backlash? He tried to overthrow the democracy he’s now running for and inexplicably isn’t in prison or being executed for treason.
Doesn’t even matter if he did mean it in a banal way. He’s still the guy who regularly spews fascist rhetoric, and it would be stupid to presume this time was the exceptional case.
It’s not my job to sus out the few times the fascist isn’t being authoritarian—as if there’s some scale or dividing line where fascism suddenly becomes okay.
Fox News will yell “That’s not what he meant, crazy liberals! You’re the real authoritarians here because you didn’t have a primary for Harris!” while the ensuing debate shifts the Overton window towards authoritarianism as discussions about having an American dictator are normalized.
Trump is so toxic for America.
obligatory propaganda vaccine:
Trump’s statements are reckless and unacceptable for a politician, and he probably was hinting at a dictatorship using plausible deniability, given that he attempted a coup after the last election. We have no reason to take him at his word anymore.
The DNC elector process is the only viable way of choosing a candidate with the looming 2 week Ohio ballot deadline, as the alternative would be to not run a candidate at all. Harris is the most popular candidate out of those willing to run, and well-informed, locally-elected politicians across the country have independently endorsed her without DNC pressure. Primary reform (or even better, election reform) would be great for democratizing, optimizing, and de-risking the candidate selection process for both parties, but the DNC has not abused their power here by choosing the most popular candidate in an emergency situation.
A sane voting system would be so lovely. How about STAR voting and fucking ZERO primaries? Fuck the party politics.
Amen.
We waste so much energy and productivity with party politics. I don’t give a damn about your clics.
Parties exist in part because it costs millions of dollars to run. What we really need to do is fix that problem first, or we will always be ruled by the rich, or their bought-and-paid puppets.
I want a sane voting system so I can fight with my real enemy: someone who agrees with 99% of what I do but we disagree on one tiny thing. Currently I have to make common cause with everyone left of Clinton and it’s no fun.
Using a different voting system just for primaries would still be a huge improvement, though.
I want the defenders to explain in specific terms how this wasn’t about being a dictator. “It was about unity” isn’t a statement. It doesn’t near making sense.
That last line is choice.
We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.
How… ambiguous…
“Some Democrats say…” Way to marginalize the obvious threat, BezosPost.
Reporting on the response to the dangerous promise he made makes it seem like the article is trying to prompt sympathy for him.
Poor Donald must face a consequence for saying something shitty.
“When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.”
This is only the 500th time but I guess some people are slow learners.
It’s cryptofascism. The ‘OK’ hand gesture, this - fascists will call you crazy if you get upset about it. But every little thing is a seed planted.
Unfortunately this fascist attitude doesn’t end with a Trump electoral defeat. These seeds are finding fertile soil. They are growing into something.
Yeah, it’s a “joke” like him being dictator on day one. Unfortunately for him, everybody saw him be president once already, so we know he isn’t just joking about this stuff.
He’ll be a dictator if he can get away with it. He’ll end democracy if he can get away with it.
What if he doesn’t mean that he’s going to be a dictator. What if he means he will purge the country of anyone that doesn’t think like him and his followers, therefore they never have to vote again because everyone will be on the same page. J/k…mostly
