Trump Tells Christians They Won’t Have to Vote in Future: ‘We’ll Have It Fixed’

[wing2000]

What a sad display of intentional ignorance and willful deceit.
Trump is talking to Christians who, in large part, do not like to vote and would not vote unless they have to. We have to because of the mess the nation is in.

What makes you think Christians attending a "believers summit" sponsored by Turning Point Action" don't like to vote? The fact is, Evangelicals have been voting in mass since 1976. And white Evangelicalsmade up 1/3 of the Trump voting block in 2016 & 2020.

Trump would not have been President without them.

Trump simply says that if we help get him elected this last time, he will help fix the mess, and thereafter, we will no longer have to vote.

Fix it how?

We can shed ourselves of this nasty chore.

Voting is nasty?
Or perhaps voting for a man like DJT is nasty?

He is not suggesting that there will be no more elections. That is pure deceit and false witnessing.

He's clearly indicating Christians will not have to vote after this election.

 

[durangodawood]

Thats not how it works. Only he can explain what he meant. Did he say on some other occasion that he wants to end democracy or elections?

When the plausible gap between what a person says and what they might mean becomes a chasm, thats a sign of their mental unfitness for office.

 

[Merrill]

It looks like the alternative is Kamala Harris. Please show that she is "crazy and dangerous" and choosing her instead is "really, really dangerous and foolish". Would choosing her be the most dangerous choice in the history of Presidents? I get the impression she has a lot of word salad and maybe just goes along with the party line.

On the other hand do you agree that Trump's speech gave the impression that Christians would no longer have to vote any more to keep him in power? That's how people who aren't his supporters see it. Remember that he literally has already tried to ignore the results of an election helped by many supporters. If he was able to get away with it what do you think he would do? Ignore the election results or change his mind and keep things democratic? Note that Project 2025 talks about the President having more powers, etc.

She supports things like

1. Reparations for slavery
2. Defunding police
3. Equity-based economics (Marxist)
4. Unrestricted abortion until birth
5. More foreign interventionism and handouts to the military-industrial complex
6. Term limits for SCOTUS judges, and potential court-packing
7. Open borders

she was rated as the furthest left Senator in the US save for Bernie Sanders --she is out-of-touch with average Americans

and she simply isn't qualified for the job

all this makes her really dangerous

 

[JohnClay]

She supports things like

1. Reparations for slavery
2. Defunding police
3. Equity-based economics (Marxist)
4. Unrestricted abortion until birth
5. More foreign interventionism and handouts to the military-industrial complex
6. Term limits for SCOTUS judges, and potential court-packing
7. Open borders

she was rated as the furthest left Senator in the US save for Bernie Sanders --she is out-of-touch with average Americans

and she simply isn't qualified for the job

all this makes her really dangerous

But I think all or most of those things could be changed back pretty quickly and they don't seem to have a plan for the liberals to rule the government permanently.

 

[Landon Caeli]

But I think all or most of those things could be changed back pretty quickly and they don't seem to have a plan for the liberals to rule the government permanently.

How quickly could we regain voting rights after they've been taken away? Or will it be permanent?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yep, Trump 2024, vote for me and we will end that whole democracy and peaceful fair transfer of power every 4 years.

The one thing he is honest on is his intention to rig the whole election system.

Is that a bad thing? Or a really, really bad thing?

 

[Landon Caeli]

When the plausible gap between what a person says and what they might mean becomes a chasm, thats a sign of their mental unfitness for office.

So when Kamala Harris says she wants to end all policing in America, we should either take her seriously, or assume she is unfit for office.

 

[childeye 2]

She supports things like

1. Reparations for slavery
2. Defunding police
3. Equity-based economics (Marxist)
4. Unrestricted abortion until birth
5. More foreign interventionism and handouts to the military-industrial complex
6. Term limits for SCOTUS judges, and potential court-packing
7. Open borders

she was rated as the furthest left Senator in the US save for Bernie Sanders --she is out-of-touch with average Americans

and she simply isn't qualified for the job

all this makes her really dangerous

The above Looks like a misrepresentation of her policies by an opponent. Take a look at these sources.

What does Kamala Harris believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues

Here's where California Senator and 2020 White House candidate Kamala Harris stands on key issues.

www.pbs.org

Promises Kamala Harris has made so far in her campaign

In policy proposals, speeches and rallies, Vice President Kamala Harris has voiced support for continuing many of President Joe Biden's measures, but Harris is expected to put her own stamp and style on matters ranging from abortion to the economy to immigration.

www.cnn.com

 

[durangodawood]

So when Kamala Harris says she wants to end all policing in America, we should either take her seriously, or assume she is unfit for office.

So when was that?

 

[childeye 2]

So when Kamala Harris says she wants to end all policing in America, we should either take her seriously, or assume she is unfit for office.

You should first make sure you're not looking at slander.

To unmask the wolf in sheep's clothing, people should be looking for expressed sentiments that denote slander. The problem preventing the uniting of America is that Americans are being deceived into turning against one another. When the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and greater in number, there's something wrong.

The rise of autocracy has allowed for powerful entities to buy up the news we hear, the economy we depend upon to make a living, the politicians running for office, the government of the people by the people, and even the supreme court. And there is a consistent message saying it's time to destroy the socialists/communists.

 

[variant]

You think one guy could bring an end to the republic?

He isn't just one guy, he has the support of the Republican party and a sympathetic supreme court.

 

[Landon Caeli]

You should first make sure you're not looking at slander.

To unmask the wolf in sheep's clothing, people should be looking for expressed sentiments that denote slander. The problem preventing the uniting of America is that Americans are being deceived into turning against one another. When the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and greater in number, there's something wrong.

The rise of autocracy has allowed for powerful entities to buy up the news we hear, the economy we depend upon to make a living, the politicians running for office, the government of the people by the people, and even the supreme court. And there is a consistent message saying it's time to destroy the socialists/communists.

Does that go both ways? Because there's a larger message in my posts.

 

[Landon Caeli]

He isn't just one guy, he has the support of the Republican party and a sympathetic supreme court.

So you think the Republican Party will back the plan to remove voting rights in America. And you're 100% sure it's not the LW, MSM, blowing things out of proportion, but rather is the actual goal?

Ridiculous... Comspiratorial... Nonsense...

 

[childeye 2]

Does that go both ways? Because there's a larger message in my posts.

I'd be interested to hear your message. I just don't like blank assertions or slander.

I'm saying not to get lost in the semantics. To elaborate, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell a positive from a negative. To elaborate further, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell the truth from the lie.

Example: party A calls party B a liar without any proof, which is a lie in itself. So, B calls A a liar which is true and it's not a lie. <--- There is a distinction.

I'm talking about the ad hominem attack logical fallacy. The ad hominem attack is a tactic where a person engages in a personal attack against the character of their opponent to avoid arguing the substance of their argument.

Since engaging in personal attacks to avoid the substantive argument is a show of bad character in itself, it's not an ad hominem attack logical fallacy to discredit the character of a person who engages in an ad hominem attack logical fallacy.

In propaganda the intention is to turn positives into negatives, and negatives into positives, but more common, is to use propaganda to make them both look neutral so that no one can tell the difference.

 

[variant]

So you think the Republican Party will back the plan to remove voting rights in America. And you're 100% sure it's not the LW, MSM, blowing things out of proportion, but rather is their actual goal?

The Republican party has been trying to make it harder to vote for most people for decades now.

So far, the Republican party and Donald Trump have been complaining about an election they clearly lost for 4 years now, they excused a riot that started and sacked the capitol building and a fraudulent attempt at capturing the electoral college.

Then the Supreme Court then says the President has immunity for illegal acts committed as part of the presidents official duties.

Now Trump is openly promising that everything will be "fixed" so that religious voters wont have to turn out to vote in 4 years.


So no, I'm not making stuff up, just, paying attention.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The Republican party has been trying to make it harder to vote for most people for decades now.

So far, the Republican party and Donald Trump have been complaining about an election they clearly lost for 4 years now, they excused a riot that started and sacked the capitol building and a fraudulent attempt at capturing the electoral college.

Then the Supreme Court then says the President has immunity for illegal acts committed as part of the presidents official duties.

Now Trump is openly promising that everything will be "fixed" so that religious voters wont have to turn out to vote in 4 years.


So no, I'm not making stuff up, just, paying attention.

There's a lot of baloney being force-fed on the news these days... First of all, the Republicans don't want illegal immigrants voting - that's not taking voting rights away, it's just following the law. Second, the MSM made it seem like the Capitol protest was sacking the government, but not a single person was shot at, and I'm not totally sure, but I don’t remember anyone claiming that weapons were even brought into the capitol. Third, Presidential immunity goes both ways, and that was created to protect from radicals using the court system as a weapon, as has become popular recently. It's called lawfare, and it's a type of corruption.

 

[childeye 2]

There's a lot of baloney being force-fed on the news these days... First of all, the Republicans don't want illegal immigrants voting - that's not taking voting rights away, it's just following the law. Second, the MSM made it seem like the Capitol protest was sacking the government, but not a single person was shot at, and I'm not totally sure, but I don’t remember anyone claiming that weapons were even brought into the capitol. Presidential immunity goes both ways, and that was created to protect from radicals using the court system as a weapon, as has become popular recently. It's called lawfare, and it's a type of corruption.

It's like you just brushed away the observable and undeniable facts that @variant presented and answered a different post.

 

[variant]

There's a lot of baloney being force-fed on the news these days... First of all, the Republicans don't want illegal immigrants voting - that's not taking voting rights away, it's just following the law.

Republicans are for making it harder for everyone to vote to address problems in the voting system that they've made up.

Second, the MSM made it seem like the Capitol protest was sacking the government, but not a single person was shot at, and I'm not totally sure, but I don’t remember anyone claiming that weapons were even brought into the capitol.

The capitol was sacked in protest in order to try to overturn a rightful election. It was then excused by the Republican party and downplayed.

Third, Presidential immunity goes both ways, and that was created to protect from radicals using the court system as a weapon, as has become popular recently. It's called lawfare, and it's a type of corruption.

The plot to have alternative slates of electors (an actual coup attempt) was kept from being prosecuted by the Supreme Court.

Republicans want to put it's author back in power. With a different vice president since the last one didn't cooperate.

This is why Trump isn't: Just one man., the point I was replying to. He has the backing of the Republican Party in his schemes and a cooperative supreme court.

He's now openly saying that he'll fix everything so that Christians won't have to turn out to vote in the future.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It's like you just brushed away the observable and undeniable facts that @variant presented and answered a different post.

The first video is of a woman who protested at the capitol, but had no weapon. Why did you post that? I haven't watched the second two videos, on account of the first being irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Can you explain why you posted those, or what they mean in regards to the conversation?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'd be interested to hear your message. I just don't like blank assertions or slander.

I'm saying not to get lost in the semantics. To elaborate, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell a positive from a negative. To elaborate further, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell the truth from the lie.

Example: party A calls party B a liar without any proof, which is a lie in itself. So, B calls A a liar which is true and it's not a lie. <--- There is a distinction.

I'm talking about the ad hominem attack logical fallacy. The ad hominem attack is a tactic where a person engages in a personal attack against the character of their opponent to avoid arguing the substance of their argument.

Since engaging in personal attacks to avoid the substantive argument is a show of bad character in itself, it's not an ad hominem attack logical fallacy to discredit the character of a person who engages in an ad hominem attack logical fallacy.

In propaganda the intention is to turn positives into negatives, and negatives into positives, but more common, is to use propaganda to make them both look neutral so that no one can tell the difference.

Nobody has any evidence of any Trump policy initiative to end Democracy in America... Yet, a soundbyte snippet says it all..?

How is that different from snipping a soundbyte clip of Harris saying she supports defunding the police, and then going around saying she wants to end policing in America.

...The two fallacies are equal. They're both wrong - that is the point.