The things he says he wants to dismantle are bloated executive-branch bureaucracies. If he actually manages to do it (which he didn't during his first term), it would be traumatic for a lot of federal employees, but not exactly the death of democracy.
If he removed licenses from media companies that were critical of him, there would be approximately 0 media companies, and yet he's on track to win. One of the biggest takeaways from this election is that the populace largely doesn't trust the media.
Nobody cares about the free press, their content is, for the most part, garbage.
I think this election has signalled the death of the mainstream media, and the rise of independent media.
I find this absolutely wonderful.
Perhaps a sanity check at those media companies would help. They've been broadcasting propaganda non-stop and you've witnessed a colony collapse just today.
False. Did you see what CBS did to the Harris interview? That behavior is explicitly what he was talking about. CBS edited an interview under the guise of their news department to switch answers to questions with other answers. It wasn’t that CBS was critical of Trump, it’s that they engaged in outright fraud using publicly licensed airwaves. That’s against FCC rules. What CBS did wasn’t disinformation — it was fraud.
Your link entirely agrees with the statement that Trump disbanded the pandemic response team. What it calls false is that the members were fired from government completely instead of shuffled around into other non pandemic related departments.
So yes, that one. Did you actually read your link? Or did you get duped by the headline?
> Based on our research, the claim that President Trump fired the "entire" pandemic response team is PARTLY FALSE. The Directorate of Global Health Security and Biodefense was disbanded under Trump's then-national security adviser John Bolton. But Trump didn't fire its members. Some resigned, and others moved to different units on the National Security Council.
Did you read it? It clearly says the team was far too big, and that even members of Obama's team felt it was too large, so Trump shrunk and reorganized it.
According to Snopes[0] he claims he was urging Christians specifically (who don't usually vote in high numbers) to vote "just this time", then they wouldn't have to vote anymore for four more years, or something (which they wouldn't anyway...)
He was definitely addressing Christians (he repeats it several times) but at the end of the video he says "[...] we'll have it fixed so good you're not gonna have to vote", which does sound a bit suspect to me, even in context and taking into account the fact that he's often loose with his choice of words and phrasing.
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.
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.
> 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".
How does him addressing it to Christians makes anything better? Like, yes, hardcore Christians are his fans, because they want to get rid of abortions, liberals and generally resent anyone but themselves.
The fact that Christians generally don't like to vote (which I wasn't aware of until just now) is relevant to the question of why he said "we'll fix it so good, you won't have to vote".
Christians do vote and see voting as a way to push for the legal restrictions they want. Them not having to vote anymore, because the rest of us cant get abortion, anticonception whatever else allowed through political process anymore is literally definition of "going away with democracy".
Which is actual political goal of radical evangelical christians, if you actually read what they write and listen what they say. It is not about them being allowed to be lazy, it is about them successfully creating religious state.
@mbg721, you seem to be willfully ignorant of anything this man has said and the dangers everyone is talking about. You seem to be completely missing any ideas on his policy and the changes he wants to being to the government and the democratic process.
Please stop commenting "Where?", "What?", "How?" to everyone in the comments here. They do not add any value to the conversation.
I don't see any clear articulation of the dangers, other than that he's a convicted criminal, which I argue is for purely political reasons. Republican candidates have been labeled "HITLER 2" since Goldwater. I'm not cheerleading, but rather am trying to make policy arguments that add as much value as possible.
Can you explain why his conviction is relevant? As it stands, the facts are that it was for hush-money paid to Stormy Daniels, but it's clearly viewed as political by voters. I would agree that it was a grave matter if his felony were an unrelated murder or something, but that's not the situation, and again, voters are not stupid.
He literally said that. He said that if he wins, these are the last elections. He said that he wants to remove license to media that are critical of him. Trump said quite a lot. All it takes is to listen to what he is saying.
And the other thing to listen to what his primary voters - conservative evangelical Christians were saying they want for years. It is literally ridiculous how these people are saying exactly what they want, then they literally do what they said they will do, again and again. But somehow, I am supposed to assume they don't mean it, this time for a change.
