oxjox @ oxjox @lemmy.ml

Posts

31

Comments

1,265

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

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.

Great. So let's address that and see why this has me concerned.

"Dictator on day one" or some variation of that has spread to mean that DT intends to fully overstep all boundaries and become a dictator. Because of how the Internet works - because of the old game of telephone - this has taken many turns to mean the greatest threat to ever face the country. Biden has even used this in many speeches.

I wonder how many people have actually looked into what he actually said, what the context was, and what he may have meant by it.

Does it matter? Isn't it great that we can use a presidential candidate's own words against him to generate clicks and manufacturer a propaganda campaign to benefit one political party? I mean, just take Trump out of this and look at the foundation of what's happening.

So what did he actually say? And, given what we know about the dumbest person to ever be elected president, what did he mean?

I'm shortening the exchange found on Snopes.

HANNITY: Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?
TRUMP: Except for Day One.
TRUMP: He says, "You're not gonna be a dictator, are you?" I said no, no, no … other than Day One. We're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator, OK?

Four days later,

"No, no. I am not going to be a dictator," Trump said.
"I'm going to manage like we did," Trump continued, referencing his first term in office. "We were so successful that the country was coming together. It was actually coming together and coming together well. It was a beautiful thing to see. And we're going to do that again."

The context of the dialog was that he wants to "abuse power" and be a dictator on day one in regard to the border and drilling for oil. This is certainly something to have a concern for but, in and of itself, is not this whole story about Trump intending to be a president-turned-dictator.

What's more concerning is Project 2025 which certainly has more intent to work around the barriers of the presidency and form a pseudo-dictatorship.

To put it another way...

On Jan. 6, 2024, Trump told a crowd during a campaign rally in Iowa that he had been "kidding" when he was interviewed by Hannity. He also called the news media "sick" and "so corrupt."

I actually find myself sympathetic to Trump's point here. I am by no means sympathetic to the person but just putting a couple words together in a sentence allows the internet to make a claim that I am sympathetic to him. And, if I were sympathetic to the person, that would be an entirely different subject than the issue of the media being corrupt.

Fair reporting would be '45 promises his conservative Christian base that he'll get everything they want done in four years.'

THAT is his point.

The wording about not having to vote is less relevant than the point that he'll get things done - because he wants them to vote this one time. Any presidential candidate could use the same wording about not needing to vote any longer because they'll get everything done that the voters want. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say because 'democracy' but it's a reasonable assertion to a group of voters who only care about a few issues.

If Harris were to "fix" the Supreme Court, "fix" gun regulations, "fix" health care, "fix" climate change, "fix" inequities; it's a reasonable assertion that I may not have to vote again.

TD says a lot of stupid shit. He says a lot of scary shit. Nothing he says should be taken lightly or ignored. However, a lot of it is taken out of context or re-contextualized. Even his statement about being a dictator on day one, as scary as his genuine intention is in an of itself, is misconstrued.

This isn't about nuance. This is about people inserting their emotions into the statements of others. This is about the media blatantly lying. It happens all the time regardless of party or politics or venue or subject matter. It's exhausting and it's something we should all be greatly concerned about.

Thank you for proving my point so succinctly 😩

Donald Trump: I will be a dictator on day 1.

This has nothing at all to do with this topic.

I wish people actually gave a crap about words and context and responsible journalism. There are real issues to discuss and this is a gigantic distraction. I genuinely don't understand how people are so blinded by their emotions that they can look the facts in the face and reject them.

Our inability to separate rhetoric and disinformation from facts, or in this case, our inability to separate two entirely different statements, is our greatest threat. It's all garbage in garbage out. It's terrifying.

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.

for the highest job in the country you have to be deliberate in everything you say

I agree that a person attempting to hold the highest office in the country should be held to the highest standards. Evidently you and I are in the minority.

he knows his every word will be analyzed to wits end.

This has been the case since day zero. Regardless and in spite of all the lies and intentional disinformation he has spewed, has only excelled in his objectives. He does not care if his words are dissected. He's a moron. And it doesn't matter in this reality we reside in.

He has just been afforded the leeway to doublespeak by apologists

Wrong. He's been afforded the leeway to doublespeak by agencies claiming to be exercising journalism.

To pretend that this group of people here on Lemmy are not well versed on sifting through good, lousy and disinformation is complete crap.

I mean, that's just hilarious that you think this forum maintains some higher level of decorum or intellect. It's barely a shade better than reddit. And as evident by this thread, you're verifiably wrong.

I'm literally doing the opposite of jumping through logical hoops.

I'm attempting to illustrate how so many others are jumping through logical hoops to make one group of words mean something entirely different.

Apparently I'm not doing a very good job.

Try to think about why you vote. Perhaps you enjoy or feel obligated to participate in the democratic process. Perhaps you don't vote unless there's something very important to vote about. Perhaps there's a historically significant reason to show up to the polls.

Trump mentions in the speech that Christians historically don't show up to the polls. He's trying to convince them that they should elect him to office to pass all the legislation they want over the course of his four year term. Once he has done everything they want government to do, they won't have to vote again.

That's the context of this statement.

So, if you want to argue about him claiming to be a dictator or not intending to leave office, that's a valid conversation that could be had in the context of other statements he has made. That is not valid in the context of this statement.

If you want to build a case to support the idea that he wants to be a supreme leader, perhaps you could use this statement and re-contextualize it in a clever way to support that case in accretion to other statements he has made.

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?

Thank you.

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?

I watched the speech. There was no contedt outside of He is planning on ending Democracy

This is a lie. That was 100% NOT the context of this statement. He has said this in other statements and speeches but not at this event.

https://youtu.be/fHXI-k8dD5g?t=3261

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. 4 more years, You know what? it'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote in any more my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you. Get out you got to get out and vote. in 4 years. You don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed So good. You're not going to have to vote.

Your argument is that Trump said he wants to be supreme dictator so when he says the sky is pink we should interpret that statement to mean he wants to be supreme dictator.

I'm arguing that we should focus on why he's claiming the sky is pink in addition to focusing on the threat of him intent on being supreme dictator.

If you want to spend your time and emotional energy participating in meaningless bullshit, have at it.

I hope others are a little more responsible and realize The Internet and Cable News and Social Media are the wrong places to get real information. Don't count on fourth and fifth hand reporting. Watch CSPAN, watch political leaders speaking in context. Everything else is, sadly, only "reporting" enough to get you worked up enough to click on ads and generate revenue for them. Russia, China, and Iran know this. They know we're gullible, emotional, and broken. It's actually refreshing to observe news as it happens in real time rather than reading the bile that others spew for your attention. It's bonkers how much of "the news" is just out of context sound bites. It's been happening irrespective of political affiliation. And it's destroying this country and our respect for one another.

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. Meaning everything they care so much about would be done. It would be like if a Democrat "fixed" climate change, gun safety, the Supreme Court, consumer protections, health care, etc.

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.

===
Edit: Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Raw Story states that "the comment raised alarms that Trump was hinting he would refuse to leave office, or cancel elections." and fails to actually put the statement in context or offer a reasonable explanation for it. Instead of explaining that Trump was offering a campaign promise to Christians, they look at whether he would leave office at the end of his term - entirely unrelated and frankly difficult for me to wrap my head around the jump. "Raw Story", ironically, fails to link to a source for their article.

===
Raw Story: Trump scrambles to explain what he meant that voting won't be necessary in four years.

Former President Donald Trump triggered outrage when he told supporters at an event in Florida last week if he's elected, “You won’t have to do it anymore."

"Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine," he said. "You won’t have to vote anymore. In four years, you won’t have to vote again.”

The comment raised alarms that Trump was hinting he would refuse to leave office, or cancel elections.

In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Monday, Trump tried to clarify his words a bit, and walk back any possible implication of that.

You won't have to vote in four years, he said, "because the country will be fixed, and frankly, we won't even need your vote anymore."

"I thought everybody understood it," Trump added.

Ingraham proceeded to ask him if he would leave office voluntarily after four years. "I did last time," said Trump. "I keep hearing it, he's not going to leave, he's not going to leave. Look, they are the threat to democracy."

Trump was at the center of a scheme to deny the certification of President Joe Biden's election victory in 2020, which culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump is currently under federal indictment and state indictment in Georgia over these efforts. Both cases are on hold until after the election.

Sometimes prices are a thing too, it can be a lot cheaper online and unless you’re rich this does make a difference

Just a word of caution - I have found some retailers like Amazon and Target to sometimes be more expensive than local stores. Things like kitchen and bathroom items in particular.

Thanks! I'll fix that.

I can definitely appreciate buying clothes in store https://lemmy.ml/post/17369601 What I neglected to include in this account was the incredible staff at the store who went above and beyond to help me find proper sizing when they knew I wasn't even making a purchase then and there.

On the other hand, I did buy sneakers in a store but there wasn't anyone to help me find the right pair. It seems like many corporations aren't willing to pay people to work in stores as much these days. Instead, they can just offer free shipping and free returns for less money than paying someone a living wage.

I can not tell you how many times I wish Radio Shack were still around. I'd gladly pay more money to solve a problem now than have to wait for something to ship over from China.

I used to work in a car stereo and home theater shop. I can tell you that online reviews, even YouTube videos done by "experts", are no where close to an in-person experience. It's sad and incredibly frustrating. I just bought another set of highly regarded headphones which I found to be severely overpriced and under performing. I've been around high end audio for over twenty five years - I actually know what I'm listening for.

I think the point you raise is that people who care about the things they're buying would generally prefer to buy that thing in person. Others who may not care as much or not be as knowledgable are content buying whatever the internet tells them to buy - regardless if it's proper for them to make that specific purchase. I have to wonder how many unsatisfied customers there are out there who either throw things away or have to keep buying replacements.

I appreciate this. I had a hard time coming up with the proper wording. If a value decreases one year by 5% then decreases 7% the following year, is that not an increase in the value's decline?

least of all fucking brick and mortar chain stores.

It's interesting you got that far into what I wrote and that was your takeaway. One of my points is that the chain stores in particular have ruined the shopping experience.

You think online shopping isn't a hellish gauntlet designed for stock prices to go up? Dude, the entire internet is designed to sell you shit.

So, you prefer 'virtual' stores owned by billionaires and mega corps that you'll never have to enter over stores owned and operated by your family and neighbors? You prefer a workforce of robots over employing your community? You prefer your personal information being bought and sold so corporations can target ads towards you for their profit? You prefer that these corporations succeed and eliminate all sense of community and turn humanity into nothing more than consumers?