Christians only need to vote one more time

[Servus]

I'm thinking maybe he meant there was going to be such a red wave with the Republicans taking control of congress and the senate, they wouldn't need to vote any longer because they'd have enough of the politicians they want in office. But that doesn't make sense since they'd have to keep voting to keep them in.

I think he knows if he was declaring the establishment of a dictatorship, he'd lose a lot of votes from those who would vote for him otherwise. Unless maybe he's banking on conservatives and others being so sick liberalism in government, they'd welcome a total permanent take over.

Whatever the case I'm pretty sure he'll end up elaborating on whatever he meant if it becomes enough of an issue.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm thinking maybe he meant there was going to be such a red wave with the Republicans taking control of congress and the senate, they wouldn't need to vote any longer because they'd have enough of the politicians they want in office. But that doesn't make sense since they'd have to keep voting to keep them in.

I think he knows if he was declaring the establishment of a dictatorship, he'd lose a lot of votes from those who would vote for him otherwise. Unless maybe he's banking on conservatives and others being so sick liberalism in government, they'd welcome a total permanent take over.

Whatever the case I'm pretty sure he'll end up elaborating on whatever he meant if it becomes enough of an issue.

I think it was just a gaffe. His focus is to get them to vote this time and that’s probably what he was thinking about

 

[Servus]

I think it was just a gaffe. His focus is to get them to vote this time and that’s probably what he was thinking about

Probably something that simple and bland.

 

[public hermit]

You mean like when they offer free Krispy Kreme donuts and Starbucks coffee at church?

Yeah, it doesn't take much to convince folks. Bread and circuses?

I heard there's a rumor Kamala Harris is going to ask Al Sharpton to be her VP.

I doubt that will happen, but we'll see.

 

[FenderTL5]

I think it was just a gaffe.

If he hadn't repeated it, I would tend to agree. However, he said (emphasis added),
"Christians get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. 4 more years,
You know what? it'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote in any more my beautiful Christians.
I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you. Get out you got to get out and vote. in 4 years. You don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed So good. You're not going to have to vote."

He said it four times with an implied fifth (just this time). That's intentional, not a gaffe.
Unless, you know, his faculties are impaired, cognitive decline etc.. :/

 

[BPPLEE]

If he hadn't repeated it, I would tend to agree. However, he said (emphasis added),
"Christians get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. 4 more years,
You know what? it'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote in any more my beautiful Christians.
I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you. Get out you got to get out and vote. in 4 years. You don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed So good. You're not going to have to vote."

He said it four times with an implied fifth (just this time). That's intentional, not a gaffe.
Unless, you know, his faculties are impaired, cognitive decline etc.. :/

Sounds like his “ You’ll be winning so much you’ll get tired of winning “

 

[FenderTL5]

Sounds like his “ You’ll be winning so much you’ll get tired of winning “

Maybe. I remember that phrase but I don't recall the speech. Did he repeat that multiple times?

Or - maybe it's just an indication of his extremely poor public speaking skills.
He can be painful to listen to, even more painful to read. I feel 30 IQ points dumber after editing all this transcript stuff.

 

[Tuur]

Yeah, I thought it was a pretty good comment, too. I think he would love to be president forever. More than that, he would love to be worshipped as savior of the people.

My point is that nothing he says can be taken seriously. Was he saying he plans on ending democracy? Who knows? Maybe he just meant he's going to solve all the problems for his Christian voters. That's not going to happen. I mean, let's face it, he's not trustworthy or a person of integrity. I guess we can take whatever he says any way we want because it doesn't matter. It's all just mouth noises.

He can't be both untrustworthy and means what he says. He's either one or the other. To believe the spin in the OP, you must assume he's both trustworthy and intends to end the democratic process. The latter is a stretch from the context of the speech. Such a spin fits Democrat claims, but truth isn't measured by expediency.

 

[public hermit]

He can't be both untrustworthy and means what he says. He's either one or the other. To believe the spin in the OP, you must assume he's both trustworthy and intends to end the democratic process. The latter is a stretch from the context of the speech. Such a spin fits Democrat claims, but truth isn't measured by expediency.

You're wrong. I don't have to believe what he says because he's not shown himself to be a truth-teller, and I also don't trust him. He didn't want to accept his loss last time. Who's to say he won't try to make himself a permanent president. I wouldn't put it past him. That's a reasonable position to take with Donald Trump.

 

[zippy2006]

Does it? I don't know that. His statement is alarming, taken at face value.

The only thing that is alarming is your powers of interpretation. "Four more years, you know what? It will be fixed." PH concludes from this that Trump is trying to end democracy and elections. This is post hoc rationalization taken to an extreme.

Misrepresentations aside, Trump's logic here is transparent and valid, "We have to win this election, [the] most important election ever." If this is the most important election ever, then this is the one that you must vote in (more than any other). This is standard political argumentation.

 

[zippy2006]

You're wrong.

No, he's right. If you think Trump is untrustworthy, then why do you take him at his word when it suits your purposes?

(Not that I think your interpretation takes him at his word, but it does purport to)

 

[public hermit]

No, he's right. If you think Trump is untrustworthy, then why do you take him at his word when it suits your purposes?

(Not that I think your interpretation takes him at his word, but it does purport to)

I think he's fully capable of doing everything he can to stay president (he'sa great admirer of Putin who has stayed "dear leader"), and I believe he's capable of lying and just saying stupid stuff. All of that is on the table w/him.

 

[Servus]

He can't be both untrustworthy and means what he says. He's either one or the other. To believe the spin in the OP, you must assume he's both trustworthy and intends to end the democratic process. The latter is a stretch from the context of the speech. Such a spin fits Democrat claims, but truth isn't measured by expediency.

The way it works is; he's too incompetent and powerless to even get a wall built, but at the same time he can take over the world with a snap of his fingers.

 

[okay]

He can't be both untrustworthy and means what he says. He's either one or the other. To believe the spin in the OP, you must assume he's both trustworthy and intends to end the democratic process. The latter is a stretch from the context of the speech. Such a spin fits Democrat claims, but truth isn't measured by expediency.

He can be trusted to do what he thinks is in his own best interest, such as not accepting the outcome of a free and fair election if he loses, or retaliating against perceived enemies, or trying to grab more power.

He cannot be trusted in most other ways.

 

[Tuur]

You're wrong. I don't have to believe what he says because he's not shown himself to be a truth-teller, and I also don't trust him. He didn't want to accept his loss last time. Who's to say he won't try to make himself a permanent president. I wouldn't put it past him. That's a reasonable position to take with Donald Trump.

My initial reaction was to characterize this as quantum mechanics state of superposition manifested in politics, which is smart-aleck. It's neither smart-aleck or derisive to point out this is what George Orwell termed doublethink: accepting two contradictory beliefs as truth. A person's words can only be believed if the person can be believed. If a person cannot be believed, then neither can the person's words. Accepting the spin that Trump's statement means he intends to form a dicatorship means also accepting that he means what he says. In other words, trustworthy.

All this is is based on the presumption that the spin in the OP is correct. If however the spin is incorrect, we have Trump promising Christians that we won't have to concern ourselves with politics after this election. That is a statement I think is false (the spiritual rot in America is too deep), which means Trump has made an untrustworthy campaign promise. I have no problem with Trump being untrustworthy.

 

[BPPLEE]

My initial reaction was to characterize this as quantum mechanics state of superposition manifested in politics, which is smart-aleck. It's neither smart-aleck or derisive to point out this is what George Orwell termed doublethink: accepting two contradictory beliefs as truth. A person's words can only be believed if the person can be believed. If a person cannot be believed, then neither can the person's words. Accepting the spin that Trump's statement means he intends to form a dicatorship means also accepting that he means what he says. In other words, trustworthy.

All this is is based on the presumption that the spin in the OP is correct. If however the spin is incorrect, we have Trump promising Christians that we won't have to concern ourselves with politics after this election. That is a statement I think is false (the spiritual rot in America is too deep), which means Trump has made an untrustworthy campaign promise. I have no problem with Trump being untrustworthy.

Look how much time everyone is spending talking about this.
That’s what Trump did.

 

[eleos1954]

A highlight from Trump’s speach:

"I don't care how, but you have to get out and vote and again," he added. "Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It will be fixed. It will be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians."

Trump warns of vote rigging, asks Christians to vote "just this time"

The former president spoke before a crowd at the conservative Turning Point Action Believers' summit in Florida on Friday.

www.newsweek.com

There are many Christians who do not vote at all ... this is who this is being directed to.

 

[FenderTL5]

The only thing that is alarming is your powers of interpretation. "Four more years, you know what? It will be fixed." PH concludes from this that Trump is trying to end democracy and elections. This is post hoc rationalization taken to an extreme.

Misrepresentations aside..

You have misrepresented the concern. You said, "Four more years, you know what? It will be fixed." PH concludes from this.."

Wrong.

The full quote is:
"Christians get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. 4 more years,
You know what? it'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote in any more my beautiful Christians.
I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you. Get out you got to get out and vote. in 4 years. You don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed So good. You're not going to have to vote."


The conclusion being discussed is parsed (correctly or incorrectly, I don't think we know) from, "..it'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote in any more.. We'll have it fixed So good. You're not going to have to vote."

What will be "fixed so good" that (Christians) will no longer need to vote?

"Give me (term) and I'll fix it.. (your misrepresentation)" is generic campaign speech, That could've come from any politician running for any office in any election present or past. No that's not what has raised the issue here, the issue is:
what will be changed that eliminates the need to vote?

 

[FenderTL5]

fwiw
This was not the first time Trump has used that theme. I was searching another transcript (for a different topic) and I came across this;

the evangelicals and the Christians, they don't vote as much as they should. I don't know if you know that, you know? They go to church every Sunday, but they don't vote. And we have to make sure they vote just this time because -- all you have to do is this time. You don't have to worry about it because we're going to straighten it out very fast, just this time. Go vote. But, you know, they have a -- it's very interesting.

(changes subject to guns and NRA endorsement then comes back)

And Christians go to church, but they don't vote that much. Do you know the power you have if you would vote? It wouldn't even be -- so, you got to get out and vote, just this time. I don't care -- in four years, you don't have to vote, OK? In four years, don't vote. I don't care by that time, but we'll have it all straightened out, so it'll be much different.
- Trump, Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington - June 22, 2024-

 

[Ace777]

First, he is planning on leaving office after 4 years and doesn’t care at all about who gets elected after him. This implies that it is all about him getting power, and has nothing to do with the ‘good’ of the country.

He is saying the same thing Obama said. It will not be easy to undo what he does. This indicates to me that you are biased. Of course most people are. I remember in the day of "I like Ike". No matter what he did, no matter what he said, the response was the same: "I like Ike". So "there is nothing new under the sun" in this regard.