4 ms·

> Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair num

> Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line. The Republicans are human being who do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. The problem is they also literally are saying: "Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more!"[1] "Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote."[1] And they aren't afraid to put physical violence behind those words. They literally broke into the capital building. So, the fate of the country is actually on the line. Meanwhile, you don't seem to take any issue with Republicans saying their opponents are socialists, nazis, and communists, somehow all at once, because we want to do something as benign as provide healthcare for poor people. Is it only okay to say the fate of the country is at stake when Republicans do it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trum... EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing where downvoters think I'm wrong.

marcuskane2 2y ago
You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected". Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares. Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  Actually there are quite a few instances where Trump "said the quiet part out loud", such as with the January 6 insurrection. Passing off his comments as "just Trump saying funny things" is dismissive and dangerous.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected". When Fox News started the lie you're repeating[1], they didn't say what the context was because the context doesn't change anything about the meaning. The context, cited from a conservative news source[2]: "We have to win this election, most important election ever. We want a landslide that’s too big to rig. If you want to save America, get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on Election Day. I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. "I love you, Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta 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." So, what about that context changes anything? > Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares. False. It's my firm belief that the intended meaning was, in fact, "There won't be any voting anymore after I'm elected." The only people who don't understand it that way are the less extreme conservatives who are willing to give Trump an absurd amount of benefit of doubt. Note that when asked, Trump reiterated the statement and refused to clarify.[3] It would have cost him nothing to say "I believe in democracy" or something like that, but he didn't, because he knows that a lot of his extremist base is actually on board with a dictatorship. > Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible. Then why bother defending him? Is defending someone who "is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things" really the hill you want to die on? Aren't there better people you could be defending? [1] I'm calling this a lie because it is a lie. However, I'm not accusing you of lying--you probably believe what you're saying. Fox News on the other hand, is lying. [2] https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2024/08/01/in-context-trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-to-vote-anymore/74624165007/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/us/politics/trump-christians-vote-ingraham.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/us/politics/trump-christi...

marcuskane2 2y ago

You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected". Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares. Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.

candiddevmike 2y ago
Actually there are quite a few instances where Trump "said the quiet part out loud", such as with the January 6 insurrection. Passing off his comments as "just Trump saying funny things" is dismissive and dangerous.
kerkeslager 2y ago
> You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected". When Fox News started the lie you're repeating[1], they didn't say what the context was because the context doesn't change anything about the meaning. The context, cited from a conservative news source[2]: "We have to win this election, most important election ever. We want a landslide that’s too big to rig. If you want to save America, get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on Election Day. I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. "I love you, Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta 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." So, what about that context changes anything? > Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares. False. It's my firm belief that the intended meaning was, in fact, "There won't be any voting anymore after I'm elected." The only people who don't understand it that way are the less extreme conservatives who are willing to give Trump an absurd amount of benefit of doubt. Note that when asked, Trump reiterated the statement and refused to clarify.[3] It would have cost him nothing to say "I believe in democracy" or something like that, but he didn't, because he knows that a lot of his extremist base is actually on board with a dictatorship. > Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible. Then why bother defending him? Is defending someone who "is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things" really the hill you want to die on? Aren't there better people you could be defending? [1] I'm calling this a lie because it is a lie. However, I'm not accusing you of lying--you probably believe what you're saying. Fox News on the other hand, is lying. [2] https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2024/08/01/in-context-trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-to-vote-anymore/74624165007/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/us/politics/trump-christians-vote-ingraham.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/us/politics/trump-christi...