4 ms·

Classic example of how the media and the uninformed combine to take him out of context / in bad faith. The absolutely true fact is that that statement had noth

Classic example of how the media and the uninformed combine to take him out of context / in bad faith. The absolutely true fact is that that statement had nothing, even so much as a hint of a dog whistle, to do with that you’re saying. Like not even a shred. He was speaking to a populace that doesn’t typically vote. So he’s saying that they can just vote this one election, because it’s important for them to for their own good. Then, he’s saying “just this once” because, again, they typically don’t vote. And again - after that he says “I’ll fix it so good you won’t have to again” - this is in reference to him fixing the government so well that they won’t need to vote again since it will be so well-functioning. By the way, this was my take originally, on first listen. It was reinforced further my listening to it again. It’s completely clearly the true take, and I think if you have trouble accepting that it’s because you’re disturbingly mislead by bias, probably not your own fault entirely, but undeniably so.

gushogg-blake 2y ago
I agree that he probably wasn't talking about getting rid of voting altogether, but I'm still not sure on the logic of him getting the government into such good shape that Christians wouldn't need to vote anymore -- surely it would still be possible for the populace to vote in a terrible government that would undo all his improvements after his 4 years? But yeah, I suppose he could simply be saying that with his improvements, things would be stabilised and the stakes wouldn't be so high for the next election.
- watwut 2y ago
  > I suppose he could simply be saying that with his improvements, things would be stabilised and the stakes wouldn't be so high for the next election. By stabilized we mean it is not possible to ensure rights for women through election process? Because that is what "good government" per Chrisitians is. How is that not autocracy? Christians do not want improvements as in "better democracy". They want improvements as in "closer to theocracy".

gushogg-blake 2y ago

I agree that he probably wasn't talking about getting rid of voting altogether, but I'm still not sure on the logic of him getting the government into such good shape that Christians wouldn't need to vote anymore -- surely it would still be possible for the populace to vote in a terrible government that would undo all his improvements after his 4 years? But yeah, I suppose he could simply be saying that with his improvements, things would be stabilised and the stakes wouldn't be so high for the next election.

watwut 2y ago
> I suppose he could simply be saying that with his improvements, things would be stabilised and the stakes wouldn't be so high for the next election. By stabilized we mean it is not possible to ensure rights for women through election process? Because that is what "good government" per Chrisitians is. How is that not autocracy? Christians do not want improvements as in "better democracy". They want improvements as in "closer to theocracy".