Back

This is absolutely an example of the media - and you, the internet - making the wrong point out of context.

He was speaking to a conservative Christian group making the point that if he were elected he would “fix” it so there wouldn’t be any reason for Christians to vote any more.

Yes - it’s batshit crazy because: (1) they believe he has the power to do everything they want him to do, (2) what they want him to do is unconstitutional, (3) he doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself and even got booed on the same stage for saying he supports limits to abortion, (4) just because the government passes “all” the legislation you support does not mean you should stop participating in democracy.

Was he “joking”? Not the word I would use but I can see how it was chosen.
Does he want to be Supreme Ruler and kill off democratic elections? Possibly.
Was that the intent of this particular sound bite? No.

For me, it’s just really frustrating when so much noise is generated, even with good intent, around misinformation. It obscures the things that are really meaningful.

This is a distraction.

The conversation that should be had around this statement is: what exactly is it that Christians want him to do so they’d never have to vote again.

A responsible journalist would take his statement and investigate what it means. Instead, what we get are headlines that generate an emotional reaction so we click on sites that profit not from educating the public but from serving advertisements.

1. There is no more unconstitutional when it comes to the president.
2. Can you really take that fucking risk? If there is a 0.01% chance that fucker was being serious, and this isn't the first time hes outright said he's gonna be a dictator, you're willing to bet the free world on it?

this isn’t the first time hes outright said he’s gonna be a dictator,

My point is that he did not say that in this speech. He has said it in other speeches but not here. Why are we all focused on this event when we could be discussing the real issues of this speech and / or the other speeches where he threatened to be a dictator?

@oxjox @kbin_space_program Aren’t you creating a distinction without a difference? If things are “fixed” so that everything will forever remain the way his audience wants it (so they won’t have to vote), doesn’t this negate the right to vote? It seems to mean that anyone who DOES want something different is SOL, cause their votes would no longer change anything. If you don’t have to vote to reaffirm your agreement, you’re in an autocracy.

doesn’t this negate the right to vote?

Obviously not. Perhaps it may negate your interest in voting, but certainly not your right to do so.

So when he says you won’t have to vote, that’s different than saying you’ll be unable to vote.

There’s a lot more to this country than the few things Christians care about. Even if he were to fulfill the promise, the world still goes on spinning.