Trump pressed for answers after saying supporters ‘won’t have to vote’ again
Trump pressed for answers after saying supporters ‘won’t have to vote’ again
What did Donald Trump mean when he told supporters they “won’t have to vote anymore“ if he wins? The Republican's latest explanation was hardly reassuring.
I listened to the little bit of the interview they had, and he's just a shitty used car salesman.
Always has been
Used cars are one of the few things he actually hasn’t tried (and failed) to sell, which is ironic as he’s probably be pretty good at it.
We've got fantastic cars, the best cars. They've got all the best parts; windows, air conditioning, leather... nice leather seats. You like leather? I've got a leather couch in my penthouse. White leather, very classy. JD says it chafes but I think it's classy. Made in Germany, you been to Germany? Magnificent couch makers in Germany. And they've got nice cars in Germany but nothing like these cars, we've only got the best cars on this lot. You driven a folkswagon? Wonderful family car, you can fit all your kids in this car, great for kids I'm told. You have kids? I've got my daughter Ivanka, she fits on my lap in this car, it's very roomy. Ivanka? No, she's 42. Very beautiful, everyone agrees, very beautiful, magnificent smell. She smells like the women's changing rooms at Macy's, almost as good as the smell of a new car. You ever test driven? I've never driven myself, they'd be asking all the time, drive here, drive here, drive there; can't get away. They always want me to drive but I say no, I don't drive, never felt like it.
Why did I type this
He either wants to stay in power until death as dictator, or, since he only cares about himself, after the four years cycle elections won't matter anymore because the 22nd amendment
My money is on the fact that he doesn't care what happens after he leaves office. He just wants to win and avoid jail.
Why ask the liar to explain what he meant? He meant what he said, just like in 2020 when he said he would only accept the results of the election if he won.
There won’t be another presidential election if he wins. Not a fair one, at least. Vance will do what Pence wouldn’t; declare all electoral votes against Trump to be fraudulent. Make sure Congress gets to decide who wins, voting by state, with one vote per state. More Republican delegations than Democratic means Trump wins. Then the stooges on the Supreme Court rubber-stamp it. Dictator for life. With scarier people waiting in the wings for after he dies (Hawley is terrifying).
Emigrate now if you can.
just like in 2020 when he said he would only accept the results of the election if he won
That was a lie too. He wouldn't have accepted a win either. He would have claimed he won by more just like 2016.
He didn't even win the vote in 2016, just the electoral college.
He's saying exactly what he means. He doesn't intend to win this election by votes and won't need votes in the future no matter what happens.
Johnson will refuse to certify the results of the election that put Democrats in the House, claiming some kind of bullshit irregularities with no proof, leaving the House controlled by the Republicans. They’ll then claim irregularities in the presidential election and force a contingent election where they have a 100% chance of electing Trump no matter what the public votes.
More people need to be made aware that this is 100% legal for them to do, and more people need to be aware that it is almost certainly what they will try. The only thing that can possibly stop it is significant awareness by the mass population of Americans and significant publicity (similar to how mass awareness of Project 2025 turned it into a poison pill).
EDIT: Oh look, they’ve already started making it super-legal in battleground states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/georgia-local-election-boards-allowed-withhold-vote-certification
You are 100%, 1,000%, 10,000% right.
Remember how cool it was with Kamala up there and the local band playing, and people in the audience bopping around? That’s exactly how it was in Tiananmen Square for a while, and how it felt in Nicaragua when the Sandinistas were doing literacy and immunization, and a dawn of hope was growing that good people might get to run the country for once.
It’s not safe yet. Take it real fuckin serious.
Isn't this the whole purpose of the second amendment?
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Seimper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus
Now you’re pressing him for answers? It’s a bit too late for that sweetie. You and all your media scumbag friends allowed Trump on your shows and didn’t ask him a hard question ONCE. Now you think it’s time?
Fuck you.
.....and? Hello? What the fuck was Ingram's response when he repeated the claim right in front of her? Were the attacks still ridiculous? Did this author forget what the fuck he was just writing about?
Are we pretending that Laura Ingraham is a
hard hittingjournalist now?Weird answers. From an old person.
He shouldn’t be allowed to run after Jan 6 yet alone this
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
MSNBC Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**Medium**] (Click to view Full Report)
MSNBC is rated with Medium Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.[Medium]
What the fuck is the issue now
I was all set to say, okay you redeemed yourself with The Guardian because you actually picked out some factually wrong stuff I didn’t know about and I learned they were maybe more sensationalist a paper than I was aware of and that’s relevant information
Now this I am somewhat confident is some bullshit, but let’s see
Edit: Hm. Here are some of the things they’re calling out as lies, and then the context:
- Says Walmart is “one of the largest sellers of assault-style weapons.” – False
There’s not really any further information, but it kinda looks to me like when this was said, it was true. “Walmart estimates that it contributes just 2% of total US gun sales and 20% of ammunition sales. He said this means Walmart is probably not among the top three guns sellers in the country.” So, they’re potentially among the top 3 means to me they’re one of the largest. I mean you could nitpick what “assault style weapons” means but the point is it’s not wildly off base.
- “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over.” - Pants on fire
They showed, on air, a tweet that said this, Brian Williams and his guest talked about it, and then Brian Williams explained that that’s not how that works. And then, after the show, they put out a tweet just reiterating for anyone who missed the point that that’s not how that works.
I didn’t watch the video so maybe I’m missing something but it sounds like Politifact should not be calling this any kind of untrue.
Idk; I think it’s clear that something is wrong and that this is not a good way to rate news programs. I think maybe they have sort of criteria in mind and they’re suited to print media when applied correctly, but not to a video program where two people are talking to each other, and they’re also not really doing much more than quickly scouring for individual instances instead of trying to get a sense of the overall reliability of the outlet.
It’s not like transparent bullshit like “anti Israel = lying” like they were doing on some other outlets, but it is some type of bullshit.
The boogie man it's coming..