Saying the quiet part out loud

[billvon 3,090]

For about a year now, the meme has been floating around that you can vote for Biden and vote for someone better in four years, or you can vote for Trump and then never vote again.  It comes from his attempts to "terminate" the "phony" Constitution, his stated desire to be a dictator "on day one" and his rejection of verified election results.  The meme suggests that he simply will not relinquish power once he gets it, and indeed has used his appointees on the Supreme Court to state that if he tries that, the Supreme Court will protect him from prosecution and give him unlimited power.

But lately he hasn't just been hinting that, he's been saying that out loud.  

June 22: “You gotta get out and vote. Just this time. In four years you don't have to vote, okay? In four years don't vote, I don't care. But we'll have it all straightened out, so it'll be much different.” 

Then after he got criticized for that he doubled down.  July 27: "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.” 

The right's response to this is the usual "he didn't say that" "OK he said it but what he really meant was X."  (We have not gotten to the usual "Biden did it first" but that will be next.)  And again I am reminded of the German saying popular in the 1930's - "Es wird nichts so heiß gegessen, wie es gekocht wird" - "Nothing is eaten as hot as it is cooked."  This was used to suggest that the incendiary claims of a political campaign will cool off once the person is in power.  It didn't hold then, and we have no reason to expect it will hold today.

[jakee 1,581]

Kind of overshadowed the "I'm not a Christian" line, too.

[Phil1111 1,149]

For Jebus followers you don't have to say your prayers out loud to be heard by him.

For Trump followers the message can be said out loud or implied. The messaging is taken to heart either way. Its always been that way for cults.

[Erroll 80]

 

10 hours ago, billvon said:

It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine.

I saw a report on MSNBC indicating that the GOP already has more than 70 election deniers installed in the battleground states as election officials. The implication was that what they couldn't accomplish on Jan 6  will be done this time at county/state level before it even gets that far.

[billeisele 130]

On 7/30/2024 at 11:19 AM, Erroll said:

 

I saw a report on MSNBC indicating that the GOP already has more than 70 election deniers installed in the battleground states as election officials. The implication was that what they couldn't accomplish on Jan 6  will be done this time at county/state level before it even gets that far.

Quoting MSNBC on politics is not credible. If one watched MSNBC during the RNC the bias was quite clear. They brought in numerous talking heads that did nothing but bash R's with the typical talking points. One even compared the audience to Putin and the Kremlin. It wasn't a passing comment, it was repeated a few times. They didn't show all of the speakers or full coverage some of them. When the speakers were on, MSNBC had a talking head covering another topic. Basically, the coverage was, ballpark, 20% news and 80% D talking points.

FOX was FOX. CNN had fairly moderate/middle-of-the-road coverage. It was interesting watching all three at the same time. 

Politics doesn't have to be that nasty.

It will be interesting watching these 3 channels during the DNC.

[JoeWeber 2,884]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Quoting MSNBC on politics is not credible. If one watched MSNBC during the RNC the bias was quite clear. They brought in numerous talking heads that did nothing but bash R's with the typical talking points. One even compared the audience to Putin and the Kremlin. It wasn't a passing comment, it was repeated a few times. They didn't show all of the speakers or full coverage some of them. When the speakers were on, MSNBC had a talking head covering another topic. Basically, the coverage was, ballpark, 20% news and 80% D talking points.

FOX was FOX. CNN had fairly moderate/middle-of-the-road coverage. It was interesting watching all three at the same time. 

Politics doesn't have to be that nasty.

It will be interesting watching these 3 channels during the DNC.

Disagree. Politics does have to be that nasty, now. Did you catch Laura Ingraham's soft ball, pretty please hop in the Fox News life raft interview with Trump? That is what I consider nasty, and that's the problem.

[tkhayes 348]

On 7/30/2024 at 11:19 AM, Erroll said:

 

I saw a report on MSNBC indicating that the GOP already has more than 70 election deniers installed in the battleground states as election officials. The implication was that what they couldn't accomplish on Jan 6  will be done this time at county/state level before it even gets that far.

yup, refuse to certify the election at whatever level they can install these fucking seditious assholes.  Local, county, state, whatever.  They had 2020 as a practice round and 4 years to hone the plan.

It CERTAINLY will happen, so I am hoping that there are countermeasures being put into place by various authorities but who knows.  

I predict a constitutional crisis of some kind, there will be court interventions, other people will step in to complete the task of certification and much like Jan 6, a whole bunch of people will eventually be getting edkcufssa daily in federal and state prisons for the crimes they have committed.

It is amazing that people are willing to get edkcufssa daily for this guy..... that is some dedication.

Edited August 2, 2024 by tkhayes
seditious vs traitor

[billvon 3,090]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

One even compared the audience to Putin and the Kremlin. It wasn't a passing comment, it was repeated a few times.

Given how much use Trump has made of Putin over the years, and how many compliments he has given him, that would seem to be a valid point of comparison.

Remember when Trump said he was close to Putin, and only Trump himself could get one of the hostages released?   "I will have him out very quickly, as soon as I take office, before I take office,  As soon as I win the election, I will have that reporter out."  Putin would release him "for me, but not for anyone else."

So Trump couldn't, but Biden could.  And Trump immediately launched a two prong attack:

1) The only reason Biden could get those people out is because I am such a good negotiator
2) It was a terrible deal

So while you may feel that MSNBC should have less bias, saying that it's blatant bias to talk about Trump's connection to Putin is absurd.  Trump made this about himself and journalists are reporting on it.

[jakee 1,581]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

One even compared the audience to Putin and the Kremlin. It wasn't a passing comment, it was repeated a few times. 

Sure, but right now a good chunk of that audience would take it as a compliment.

[billeisele 130]

On 8/2/2024 at 12:42 PM, billvon said:

Given how much use Trump has made of Putin over the years, and how many compliments he has given him, that would seem to be a valid point of comparison.

Remember when Trump said he was close to Putin, and only Trump himself could get one of the hostages released?   "I will have him out very quickly, as soon as I take office, before I take office,  As soon as I win the election, I will have that reporter out."  Putin would release him "for me, but not for anyone else."

So Trump couldn't, but Biden could.  And Trump immediately launched a two prong attack:

1) The only reason Biden could get those people out is because I am such a good negotiator
2) It was a terrible deal

So while you may feel that MSNBC should have less bias, saying that it's blatant bias to talk about Trump's connection to Putin is absurd.  Trump made this about himself and journalists are reporting on it.

Bill - The repeated comment was about how when Trump stood up the others stood up. Something like, "just like when Putin stands up in the Kremlim."

I guess the MSNBC speaker never watched any D or R speech, State of the Union or any other political event. That's usually how all politicians behave. There's nothing wrong with the behavior. What's wrong is creating political nastiness by assigning that common behavior to Trump and comparing it to Putin.

What would be the D reaction be if Fox were to say that when a D leader gave a speech?

[jakee 1,581]

12 minutes ago, billeisele said:

What would be the D reaction be if Fox were to say that when a D leader gave a speech?

Fox would never compare a Democrat to Putin - they've put too much effort into training their viewers to think it's a compliment.