Why are you so sure he doesn't? He demands completely loyalty, he commonly and regularly uses a lot of the same rhetoric, he praises a lot of dictators, and (most importantly) he literally tried to overturn an election he lost, and fired up his followers so much that they violently attempt to block peaceful transition of power. The fact that someone might look at this and have an opinion that he wants to be a dictator is reasonable, and there is absolutely zero false or misleading about reporting that someone said this.
I dont know for sure he doesnt, but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
Well, he tried to hold onto official power, but the system held up against it. Thankfully, I'm not so sure it will again now that he has learned some lessons. Also, he hasn't actually given up much of his power. He has used his political weight to influence republicans the past 4 years, even getting them to vote against a bill that would give them pretty much Republicans everything they wanted when it comes to immigration and border security, with only having to "give up" more funding to Ukraine. He still has a ton of power.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
Let's be honest here. You just don't want them reporting on people sharing their informed opinions about Trump because you are afraid the truth might hurt his chances of winning.
Thats not how dictatorships work, they dont have rules they are forced to follow. In the end all that is happening conspiracy theories that have zero evidence to back them up.
Yeah, we are discussing him wanting to be a dictator. He wants that to happen (hell, he's even arguing in court that he should be held criminally responsible for any crimes he committed while in office). That's what we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop his desires from coming true.
And there is plenty of evidence. We literally have him on tape trying to pressure a GA election official into "finding" enough votes for him to win. We have him still claiming, after being completely unable to produce any evidence that wasn't laughed out of court, that the election was stolen from him. We have him inciting his followers into attacking the capital, and him doing nothing about it for an hour and a half, in an attempt to stop the transfer of power. This idea that there is no evidence to support Trump trying to hold onto power despite losing and claiming he is above the law is laughable.
You are literally doing exactly what I am talking about, you are believing the propaganda that insists he wants to be dictator when there is zero evidence of that. And even if he wanted to be a dictator it doesnt matter because he has followed the rules. You will interpret all the data to confirm your bias and not actually think about what it actually means. Its a big conspiracy theory you guys are a part of.
when there is zero evidence of that.
I literally just demonstrated how this is false. You just ignored it.
I ignored it because at best its circumstantial if not directly incorrect. Point to the best evidence you think there is and I can tell you why its not what you think it is.
Trump literally on tape telling a person to find votes and it's "circumstantial." You probably watch mob movies and think "Well, the boss didn't actually tell him to kill the person!" lol
My dude, don't feed the trolls. They're not interested in good faith discussion.
It was in the context of how he allegedly believed there was a bunch of illegal votes and he wanted them to fine X number of illegal votes so that he would have the most votes. The issue is that I dont think you have heard that side of the story to realize that they manufactured a controversy, unless there is more to that case that they have not told us.
Trump repeatedly told him to find votes, despite the guy repeatedly telling him that his concerns had been addressed and the count was good. He was clearly pressuring him to change the outcome. Any objective person can see that.
And lol at the idea that I've "haven't heard that side before." It's the only thing that people dealing the cognitive dissonance of supporting Trump while at the same saying they hate corruption spout any time you bring it up. It's equally as dumb as "Well, he just said 'ice him' so he probably just meant he wanted him cooled down."
Clearly that meeting started out with them talking about voter fraud. I dont really care if trump was right or wrong, it was about what he intended, and it was clear he was wanting them to find fraudulent votes. You are not being objective if you still think it was about just getting votes. You can believe that, but that is not what the meeting was about, and to say otherwise is just to be wrong.
it was about what he intended, and it was clear he was wanting them to find fraudulent votes.
You clearly haven't even listened to it or read a transcript. He isn't asking him to find fraudulent votes, he's saying (paraphrased) "we both know I won, so find just enough votes for me to win." So you are literally guilty of what you are accusing me of; you haven't even bothered to really be exposed to the opposing view. And it even if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that he was really just trying to make sure the count was good, the guy repeatedly tells him that his concerns have been addressed and the count is valid and accurate. And yet he persists, first pressuring, then intimidating, and then outright telling them to find votes. If you're willing to see it, it's obvious that his intent is for the guy to ignore the actual outcome and change it.
Why are you so sure he doesn't? He demands completely loyalty, he commonly and regularly uses a lot of the same rhetoric, he praises a lot of dictators, and (most importantly) he literally tried to overturn an election he lost, and fired up his followers so much that they violently attempt to block peaceful transition of power. The fact that someone might look at this and have an opinion that he wants to be a dictator is reasonable, and there is absolutely zero false or misleading about reporting that someone said this.
I dont know for sure he doesnt, but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
Well, he tried to hold onto official power, but the system held up against it. Thankfully, I'm not so sure it will again now that he has learned some lessons. Also, he hasn't actually given up much of his power. He has used his political weight to influence republicans the past 4 years, even getting them to vote against a bill that would give them pretty much Republicans everything they wanted when it comes to immigration and border security, with only having to "give up" more funding to Ukraine. He still has a ton of power.
Let's be honest here. You just don't want them reporting on people sharing their informed opinions about Trump because you are afraid the truth might hurt his chances of winning.
Thats not how dictatorships work, they dont have rules they are forced to follow. In the end all that is happening conspiracy theories that have zero evidence to back them up.
Yeah, we are discussing him wanting to be a dictator. He wants that to happen (hell, he's even arguing in court that he should be held criminally responsible for any crimes he committed while in office). That's what we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop his desires from coming true.
And there is plenty of evidence. We literally have him on tape trying to pressure a GA election official into "finding" enough votes for him to win. We have him still claiming, after being completely unable to produce any evidence that wasn't laughed out of court, that the election was stolen from him. We have him inciting his followers into attacking the capital, and him doing nothing about it for an hour and a half, in an attempt to stop the transfer of power. This idea that there is no evidence to support Trump trying to hold onto power despite losing and claiming he is above the law is laughable.
You are literally doing exactly what I am talking about, you are believing the propaganda that insists he wants to be dictator when there is zero evidence of that. And even if he wanted to be a dictator it doesnt matter because he has followed the rules. You will interpret all the data to confirm your bias and not actually think about what it actually means. Its a big conspiracy theory you guys are a part of.
I literally just demonstrated how this is false. You just ignored it.
I ignored it because at best its circumstantial if not directly incorrect. Point to the best evidence you think there is and I can tell you why its not what you think it is.
Trump literally on tape telling a person to find votes and it's "circumstantial." You probably watch mob movies and think "Well, the boss didn't actually tell him to kill the person!" lol
My dude, don't feed the trolls. They're not interested in good faith discussion.
It was in the context of how he allegedly believed there was a bunch of illegal votes and he wanted them to fine X number of illegal votes so that he would have the most votes. The issue is that I dont think you have heard that side of the story to realize that they manufactured a controversy, unless there is more to that case that they have not told us.
Trump repeatedly told him to find votes, despite the guy repeatedly telling him that his concerns had been addressed and the count was good. He was clearly pressuring him to change the outcome. Any objective person can see that.
And lol at the idea that I've "haven't heard that side before." It's the only thing that people dealing the cognitive dissonance of supporting Trump while at the same saying they hate corruption spout any time you bring it up. It's equally as dumb as "Well, he just said 'ice him' so he probably just meant he wanted him cooled down."
Clearly that meeting started out with them talking about voter fraud. I dont really care if trump was right or wrong, it was about what he intended, and it was clear he was wanting them to find fraudulent votes. You are not being objective if you still think it was about just getting votes. You can believe that, but that is not what the meeting was about, and to say otherwise is just to be wrong.
You clearly haven't even listened to it or read a transcript. He isn't asking him to find fraudulent votes, he's saying (paraphrased) "we both know I won, so find just enough votes for me to win." So you are literally guilty of what you are accusing me of; you haven't even bothered to really be exposed to the opposing view. And it even if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that he was really just trying to make sure the count was good, the guy repeatedly tells him that his concerns have been addressed and the count is valid and accurate. And yet he persists, first pressuring, then intimidating, and then outright telling them to find votes. If you're willing to see it, it's obvious that his intent is for the guy to ignore the actual outcome and change it.
Read it with an open mind.