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.”
“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.