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.”

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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???

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.”

      • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

      • mPony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        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).