this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
217 points (92.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2633 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Never once in your clip did he give any context. You posted his exact words. He said they wouldn't have to vote again because it would be fixed. That's all of the context.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The context, if I need to define this for you, is the words he is speaking, who he is speaking to, and where and when he is saying it.

He said they wouldn’t have to vote again because it would be fixed.

Correct! And what does this tell you?

Does this tell you that he's going to be supreme leader? That he'll refuse to leave office? That he's going to end elections?

Or does this tell you, that as he is speaking to a room full of christians, that he is going to fix the country in such a way that these "beautiful Christians" will never have to vote again?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yea, I got that context, which doesn't add anything to support your point.

His words say he will fix 'it' so they won't have to ever vote again.

He is speaking to a group of Trump thumping Christian Nationalists who's view consistently align with, "Everyone should have to fall in line with my religious views regardless of what they think or what the constitution says".

He is speaking at a rally leading up to the general election after having taken it to the chin the last couple of weeks and getting backed into a corner.

The most important part that you left out though is, "who is saying it", which is a twice impeached, felon, rapist, man child that is as corrupt as space is big and is on the record stating he wants to be a dictator if reelected.

With all of that context, I believe he's telling his cult that he will fix their "problems", which to them are Democrats, and elections won't matter in the future. It tells me that he does want to be supreme leader, Jan 6th shows that he tried and would very possibly try again to not leave office, and his previous rhetoric and actions to suppress voters show he would happily stop all elections.

Even if you ignore all of those red flags and write it all off as speculation and take it as you interpret it, the idea of what would have to happen for these "Christians" to be complicit and to never need to vote again is just as bad. It means Christianity has completely superseded the constitution and US law, which is bad by itself, but would never be able to happen through legal, non-corrupt means in a 4 year span.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok. You're adding your own context and feelings into the story to re-interpret what he said. That's reasonable.

That's not what he said though and the media is irresponsible for publishing that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're removing context. You have no context if you remove the person saying it. You can't take this moment, put it in a vacuum and ignore everything else leading up it.

The media posted exactly what he said, and questioned the intent take into account the person making the statement.

If Jesus were alive today and was the person the Bible claims him to have been, if he made these same statements, I'd think, "cool, he's got a good track record of helping everyone out and being a good dude. I'm sure he's got the best intentions". When Trump says the same words, the implication is different, because his past actions change the context of the conversation. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and should be scrutinized accordingly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Gotcha. I’m not living in the same reality as you. That seems to be a reasonable explanation for politics today. Unfortunately, our different realities impose consequences on one another.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And... you're absolutely right. THIS is exactly what we should be discussing. The media should be pulling notes from the Christian agenda and discussing what a president can or can not do. It should be looking at historical records and Supreme Court rulings to inform the voters if what DT is saying is factual or realistic. The media should be cross referencing what Christians want and what's in Project 2025 and informing the public of what threats another Trump presidency really means.

Instead, we get these false flags about Trump saying he doesn't intended to leave office - which is a blatant lie by the media.

This may be a part of the agenda but there's so much more going on. For the people who think they want a dictator in office, they need to be informed of what that looks like - for better or worse.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

We're discussing this because the media called him out for his comments. The media has also actively been shining more light on project 2025. The media can write more than one story at the same time, and since the universe is canonical, those stories feed into each other and with that bring context.

The media can't just report on past supreme court ruling and reference precedent, when the man saying there will be no need to vote again is the primary reason for the courts corruption. By high lighting his statement and even suggesting that he maybe talking about voter suppression and dictatorship is the media illustrating the threats of another Trump presidency. They are doing exactly what your saying, but on this one particular message, you're fighting to defend him, like this one time is different than the rest.