Trump makes conflicting comments, both of them ominous and disturbing

[Kenny]

I think it's quite clear what he said to Hannity, who clearly was taken aback, and what he said to the Christian PAC. He could have negated the obvious implications of his words but hasn't as far as I know.

He explained it later. He was talking to basically Christians of which 60% don’t vote. As I understood it, what he was saying was “go vote this time and then you won’t have to vote again and can go back to not voting because I will have fixed the mess”.

Could he have been clearer the first time around? Sure! But who hasn’t said one thing and had to clear up later? Everyone, including me!

 

[fantome profane]

Christians of which 60% don’t vote

source?

 

[Kenny]

source?

Good question. Googling now is not giving my any of my desires for information.

The only think I could pull up is 30 million Christians aren’t even registered

30 million Christians aren't registered/don't vote | Baptist Press

Voter registration deadlines are approaching, with a few swing states setting the limit at Oct. 9, and pro-family groups are emphasizing the need for Christians to participate in the upcoming election. Several websites allows voters to register online.

www.baptistpress.com

and in 2020 15% of registered Christians did not vote

Percentage of Christian registered voters drops 15% since 2008: Pew

The share of registered voters in the United States who say they are Christian has declined by about 15 since 2008 while the number of religiously unaffiliated voters has nearly doubled, Pew Research

www.christianpost.com

I could be wrong in my figures since now I can’t seem to get the right wording for google to supply info.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

He explained it later. He was talking to basically Christians of which 60% don’t vote. As I understood it, what he was saying was “go vote this time and then you won’t have to vote again and can go back to not voting because I will have fixed the mess”.

Could he have been clearer the first time around? Sure! But who hasn’t said one thing and had to clear up later? Everyone, including me!

With context makes it rather disturbing. Without context makes me think...maybe jibberish. With context makes me think oh there is some semblance of a harmful plan.

 

[Kenny]

With context makes it rather disturbing. Without context makes me think...maybe jibberish. With context makes me think oh there is some semblance of a harmful plan.

Depends on how you approach a subject.

Remember all that they said he would do in his first presidency? Racist, warmonger, destroy democracy, Russiagate, et al? Turns out none of it was true. He didn’t even take a salary!

He finished a war and didn’t start another, prison reforms, helped keep business in the US, tax relief, became energy independent and so much more.

So I look not so much as how he say things (how he says things can be grating) - but what he does. I think it takes that type of personality to break the political corruption that we have in our political system.

So it is all on how you approach a subject. If one is bent towards “he is going to be a dictator”, you will have one perspective. If you approach it along the lines of “He is gong to dismantle the status quo”, which I believe needs to happen, you get another perspective.

 

[metis]

He explained it later. He was talking to basically Christians of which 60% don’t vote. As I understood it, what he was saying was “go vote this time and then you won’t have to vote again and can go back to not voting because I will have fixed the mess”.

Nope, I don't buy that one iota because the reference to not needing to vote at all except for maybe state and local. He knew what he was saying as that fits into other things he's said, including to Hannity and his catering to the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Project 2025 - Wikipedia

Now since this has sent shockwaves when it became public, he's tried to distance himself from the project.

Could he have been clearer the first time around? Sure! But who hasn’t said one thing and had to clear up later?

Again, simply not true. After seeing Hannity's shock, he said he'd then back off somewhat after that. He "clarified" after major networks reported what he had rather clearly said, including Fox.

Why won't you accept what Trump is and why so many Pubs have left the party or say they won't vote for him? He is so utterly dishonest that I cannot understand how a devout Christian or Jew could ever vote for him. Is politics more important than religious faith? Are some pastors and rabbis just catering to their base come hell or highwater?

OTOH, I would NEVER tell someone who they supposedly must vote for, and many Republicans are not leaving the party but are also not supporting or voting for Trump.

 

[metis]

Remember all that they said he would do in his first presidency? Racist, warmonger, destroy democracy, Russiagate, et al? Turns out none of it was true.

From a non-political source: Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

On Russian collusion: Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia Remember when Trump asked the Russians to release Hillary's emails and they did so that same evening?

Remember his attempt to conduct the insurrection of 1-6 and refused to take any actions to stop until almost 4 hours later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

, tax relief

Where 91% of the "relief" went to the wealthiest 1%-- the opposite of what Jesus' taught. The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

Depends on how you approach a subject.

Remember all that they said he would do in his first presidency? Racist, warmonger, destroy democracy, Russiagate, et al? Turns out none of it was true. He didn’t even take a salary!

He finished a war and didn’t start another, prison reforms, helped keep business in the US, tax relief, became energy independent and so much more.

So I look not so much as how he say things (how he says things can be grating) - but what he does. I think it takes that type of personality to break the political corruption that we have in our political system.

So it is all on how you approach a subject. If one is bent towards “he is going to be a dictator”, you will have one perspective. If you approach it along the lines of “He is gong to dismantle the status quo”, which I believe needs to happen, you get another perspective.

I think you and I remember his presidency differently. I assure you my dissatisfaction of him is based in his performance rather than his rhetoric. Not that the rhetoric is benign.

 

[Tomef]

I watched the video by Rachel Maddow/MSNBC contained in this link, and found it thought provoking. Trump says, "get out to vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore ... In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it so fixed that you won't have to vote." The implications of that comment are obvious and disturbing. He intends to end voting in America, although I can't visualize how that could happen. Sham elections, yes, but no voting?

Next, she changes tracks. Beginning at 1:43, she discusses what he said the days before that comment, namely, that his supporters don't need to vote for him this time - the contradiction. At 2:22, she shows several clips of Trump saying that he doesn't need votes - his earlier message. Why would he say that even once?

For the rest of the video, she discusses this apparent contradiction and what it might mean. She suggests that Trump expects to take the White House however the votes fall, which suggests that the comment quoted above was some kind of pivot or damage control following saying that he doesn't need votes. And she suggests that this will be due to Republican controlled state legislatures refusing to certify outcomes that they don't like in their states.

Is there another way of understanding Trump's comments?

And even if she is correct about what Trump is thinking, does he have good reason to think such things? Has he been told something by his handlers? If so, could those words be just words to assuage him, or does he have inside information? Would they even tell Trump such a thing were the case? Are these just the confused thoughts of a man in cognitive decline losing touch with reality, or is there more to it?

I don't think we can answer that now.

And can anything be done if there are states getting ready to gridlock the election process? If they did, how would that put Trump in the White House? Things might get pretty interesting if a few states refuse to certify their results. They would be states with a Republican state government that Harris carried, which would lower her electoral vote count. Trump might have more as a result, but it wouldn't be the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Anyway, it gave me a lot to think about, and I thought that some here at RF would be intrigued by this video and issue as well.

Thoughts?

With the news about election deniers in place as certifiers, could be he has some sort of plan in mind to sow chaos in that way, disrupting the election and thereby hoping to control the outcome.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, but I presented it as a conditional, not as a done deal. IF it's possible, it will happen. I don't see pessimism there. IF Trump gets back into the White House, he'll severely damage America some more, but perhaps that he won't get a chance. Do you agree with that conditional statement? If so, are you being pessimistic?

We're disagreeing about a word, but OK I'll do one more round. I totally agree with the statement. I'm still a bit pessimistic because even a small possibility frightens the smelly stuff out of me. The guy has persisted in his craziness way beyond what anyone before November 2016 would have believed was possible, so I start to wonder if there's some underlying factor that I don't see. That's the Computer Programmer in me talking. What could go wrong when this program goes live? Assume something (probably many things!) will. What can I do to make sure they won't happen?

If something stops it, then it wasn't possible for the dog to eat the steak.

Not really. We're looking at the possibility (probability really) that applies before the train of events starts. It was certainly possible and had a high probability, given the circumstances and the nature of dogs. It was not 100% because some new or unknown factor could arise. After the event, the dog has either eaten the steak or not. Both events have a 100% possibility and probability, as they did happen.

So did I - a heart attack.

Heh. But you would immediately come out of retirement and rush to try to cure him, surely?

Yes, but the dog in the story was untrained.

That's a true story, so I can testify that she had some training, though apparently not enough!

I don't think we disagree here. Nothing you've posted seems to contradict my position, which is that if the dog can eat the steak, we can be sure that it will, and if the Republicans can scuttle the election and they don't like the outcome, they will for exactly the same reason - they lack the self-restraint, whereas trained dogs and ethical, patriotic people don't lack the restraint.

I just did try to contradict it. We generally agree certainly, just with my changing "can be sure " to "it is highly likely that".

(If you have a shortage of nits, I have a large number, some of which I can give you).

 

[Kenny]

I think you and I remember his presidency differently. I assure you my dissatisfaction of him is based in his performance rather than his rhetoric. Not that the rhetoric is benign.

OK...

I can’t say that Biden or Kamala is better.

Democratic Republic in operation here. It is what people died for!

We can still live in peace with our differences. (I believe)

 

[Alien826]

I think you and I remember his presidency differently. I assure you my dissatisfaction of him is based in his performance rather than his rhetoric. Not that the rhetoric is benign.

Performance, whatever. I've always said that if all I had to go on was his actual words, I would still think the man should not be allowed within 100 miles of the White House. Why? He's clearly deranged, unbalanced, pick your own description. With all the (relatively) sane people we could have for President, why pick someone so clearly unhinged? No matter what he may promise, it's a bad bet.

 

[Pogo]

With the news about election deniers in place as certifiers, could be he has some sort of plan in mind to sow chaos in that way, disrupting the election and thereby hoping to control the outcome.

Plan is probably too strong a word, this is more a bunch of domestic terrorists who want to strike their individual blows for freedumb and their messiah.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

OK...

I can’t say that Biden or Kamala is better.

Democratic Republic in operation here. It is what people died for!

We can still live in peace with our differences. (I believe)

Indeed. People will vote and we will see the outcome. But the original point I was making about "within context" is that any move to make this nation more in step with any particular religion seems dangerous and anti-freedom to me. I understand that is what many of the Christians will vote for but the context of saying you won't have to vote again because I will have cemented all of your desires into unshakeable law I think you can see how a non-Christian would find that thought disturbing.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

Performance, whatever. I've always said that if all I had to go on was his actual words, I would still think the man should not be allowed within 100 miles of the White House. Why? He's clearly deranged, unbalanced, pick your own description. With all the (relatively) sane people we could have for President, why pick someone so clearly unhinged? No matter what he may promise, it's a bad bet.

Personally I find him comical. I think everyone did. Everything he says is outlandish and its so obvious that he doesn't mean anything he says beyond the moment he says it. He talks and acts in a way honestly indistinguishable from a comedic portrayal of a character rather than a real person. The danger is that quite a few people don't see him that way.

 

[Pogo]

Personally I find him comical. I think everyone did. Everything he says is outlandish and its so obvious that he doesn't mean anything he says beyond the moment he says it. He talks and acts in a way honestly indistinguishable from a comedic portrayal of a character rather than a real person. The danger is that quite a few people don't see him that way.

Look at his expression when he is being interviewed, it really bad emotions like a grade school play.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

With the news about election deniers in place as certifiers, could be he has some sort of plan in mind to sow chaos in that way, disrupting the election and thereby hoping to control the outcome.

Yes, that's seems like a viable possibility.

That's a true story, so I can testify that she had some training

The story I presented in the dog test was about an actual dog eating a steak, although I am certain things like that have happened. I know somebody whose dog figured out how to open the refrigerator. What do you suppose happened after that? The dog test provides the answer. I had a dog eat a meatloaf once when I wasn't watching.

(If you have a shortage of nits, I have a large number, some of which I can give you).

Did you think I was nitpicking?

in 2020 15% of registered Christians did not vote

That's not what your link says.

I could be wrong in my figures since now I can’t seem to get the right wording for google to supply info.

Let me Google that for you:

He didn’t even take a salary!

He lied to you and you believed it. You won't find any charitable donations in the taxes he promised to supply but which had to be retrieved from the IRS using legal means.

You haven't figured out yet that this man lies continually? I doubt that you care.

He finished a war

Also incorrect. Biden finished a war, but Trump did not.

helped keep business in the US

He tanked the economy.

I look not so much as how he say things (how he says things can be grating) - but what he does

You don't care how immoral he is as long as he supports the church. Like all of those Christians that don't vote, zealous Christians' loyalty is to their church, not their country.

I think it takes that type of personality to break the political corruption that we have in our political system.

You think that one of the most corrupt people ever will combat corruption?

 

[Alien826]

The story I presented in the dog test was about an actual dog eating a steak, although I am certain things like that have happened. I know somebody whose dog figured out how to open the refrigerator. What do you suppose happened after that? The dog test provides the answer. I had a dog eat a meatloaf once when I wasn't watching.

The same dog I was describing ate a whole cake (before the icing was added) that had mistakenly left out in the kitchen. She cleared up the crumbs so well that at first we just wondered where the cake had been put. She didn't suffer any digestive effects. Her name was Willow. She's long gone now and I still miss her terribly.

Did you think I was nitpicking?

I was referring to myself. I have a tendency to point out small inaccuracies (as I see them) when the main thrust of the post I'm replying to is perfectly clear.

Now let's agree that we both think Trump is an unmitigated @@##$$%% pile of )((*&^%.

 

[Kenny]

Indeed. People will vote and we will see the outcome. But the original point I was making about "within context" is that any move to make this nation more in step with any particular religion seems dangerous and anti-freedom to me. I understand that is what many of the Christians will vote for but the context of saying you won't have to vote again because I will have cemented all of your desires into unshakeable law I think you can see how a non-Christian would find that thought disturbing.

That is just the other side of the coin.

I’m not sure what law you are talking about. I think you assume that because it is a Christian vote, that translates into forcing people to be Christians. It is more about going back to the Constitution which includes freedom of religion. And if you choose no religion… that is perfectly fine.

So I am back to “depends on how you approach what you hear”.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, that's seems like a viable possibility.

The story I presented in the dog test was about an actual dog eating a steak, although I am certain things like that have happened. I know somebody whose dog figured out how to open the refrigerator. What do you suppose happened after that? The dog test provides the answer. I had a dog eat a meatloaf once when I wasn't watching.

Did you think I was nitpicking?

That's not what your link says.

Let me Google that for you:

He lied to you and you believed it. You won't find any charitable donations in the taxes he promised to supply but which had to be retrieved from the IRS using legal means.

You haven't figured out yet that this man lies continually? I doubt that you care.

Also incorrect. Biden finished a war, but Trump did not.

He tanked the economy.

You don't care how immoral he is as long as he supports the church. Like all of those Christians that don't vote, zealous Christians' loyalty is to their church, not their country.

You think that one of the most corrupt people ever will combat corruption?

fake news? Influenced by media?