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.”

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      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?

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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

      • kronisk @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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).

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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?

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          But democrats no longer having any power is exactly the fascist implication we are talking about.

          • kronisk @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.