713
Trump faces backlash for ‘in four years, you don’t have to vote again’ remark
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
713 points (98.6% liked)
News
23367 readers
2982 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.