I don't twitter or Truth Social. Is there more information than what is visible in the OP?

Chetos said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

What platform did the trump quote originate from. I don't see and recent post from trump on twitter and tge screenshot gives no indication of the source of the qoute.

---

Trump does not tweet. Tell the truth. You really don't know what social media Trump uses?

---

Do you pick a fight w every stranger you come across?

---

Wow. Sensitive! See the winky face? No one is starting a fight. Take a joke. Lighten up Francis!

I'm not "wanting" anything. That is how I read it. Could it be because I can't believe someone would say something that stupid or seditious therefore I am reading it in a different context? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think many people think he would totally mean it that way so therefore there can be no other possibility.

Did you think when Biden said he (and I am paraphrasing here) has "developed the most comprehensive voter fraud system for the election" that is what he meant or that maybe, just maybe he misspoke.

Obviously, Trump should've stated it more clearly but like me, he may just have heard it in his head just like me. I can be wrong, have been before but I don't think so.

13B said:

---

I don't twitter or Truth Social. Is there more information than what is visible in the OP?

---

Not that I have seen.

Hmmm.
If there was a question mark instead of a period at the end of the next to last sentence (after constitution) would that change the context for you? Just curious. Trying to see where I am going wrong here.

13B said:

---

Hmmm.
If there was a question mark instead of a period at the end of the next to last sentence (after constitution) would that change the context for you? Just curious. Trying to see where I am going wrong here.

---

Question marks do change the intent. Instead of making a declaratory statement, it is a questioning one.

Here's the bottom line. The only way Trump can be President again is to win in the 2024 election. And that should be his focus.

But let's assume for a moment that a case is made and a judge rules in favor of a declaratory judgment that 2020 election was tainted by voter fraud in AZ, NV, MI, GA, PA and WI. Then what? Ask for a writ of quo warranto?

That writ works okay for local and state officials but for a national office? Not so much.

Week 1 Arguing that he didn't DIRECTLY invite the avowed white supremacist to dinner because he only invited the antisemite.

Week 2 Watching the antisemite he did invite going full "I love Hitler"

Week 3 Trying to parse whether he actually meant he wants to terminate the constitution or not because his latest rant over 2020 left room for interpretation on that subject.

This is going about as well as expected.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

I didn't read that as wanting to terminate the constitution. I read that as allowing this type of BS essentially terminates the constitution.

---

Yea, me too. Judd can't read very well.

Anything Trump says should not be taken literally. He's a poor communicator. Every sane person knows what he means but it comes off poorly because he can't communicate well. The worst example I think is telling the Proud Boys to "stand back and standby." We all know what he meant but he was given a layup and that was his response. He knows everything he says will be picked apart but he's still not careful.

Dan Scott said:

---

Anything Trump says should not be taken literally.

---

Then he shouldn't be and never should have been the President! It's not good when the President can't be trusted to generally know what he's saying and why he's saying it and say it coherently, perhaps even with statesmanlike gravitas and eloquence. I took that for granted my whole life and now it's been six years and I want to go back. W was often and rightly enough criticized for falling short in that department, but as an orator these decrepit pudding brains make him look like Winston Churchill, JFK, and Lincoln rolled into one.

Trump is not acting like a serious candidate for 24. He is a sad clown at this point.

He is right.... If you own the media completely, and you also own big tech, there is really only a 1 party system. If you can cheat the system (the boarder) and flood big cities with free votes while getting your people in place at the DA's office all over the country, you can basically have a takeover of the old system.

There is no logical reason for what Newsom did in California except trying to force low income people to red states.

Think about that. The entire country is being remodeled by the left with the intent of total control.

I honestly doubt that either Trump or Biden could, without assistance, read a fairly straightforward novel and write a book report at like an 8th grade level that accurately and coherently describes the major characters and the plot. I'm not talking about analyzing symbolism and themes or anything, just being able to understand, remember, and convey in writing who the book is about and what happens in it.

Dan Scott said:

---

Anything Trump says should not be taken literally. He's a poor communicator. Every sane person knows what he means but it comes off poorly because he can't communicate well. The worst example I think is telling the Proud Boys to "stand back and standby." We all know what he meant but he was given a layup and that was his response. He knows everything he says will be picked apart but he's still not careful.

---

This is ****ing classic Trump apologists. The supposed party of strict constitutional loyalists had their party leader say the constitution should be "terminated" and yet still has his blind followers defend him.

Ed Harley said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Anything Trump says should not be taken literally. He's a poor communicator. Every sane person knows what he means but it comes off poorly because he can't communicate well. The worst example I think is telling the Proud Boys to "stand back and standby." We all know what he meant but he was given a layup and that was his response. He knows everything he says will be picked apart but he's still not careful.

---

This is ****ing classic Trump apologists. The supposed party of strict constitutional loyalists had their party leader say the constitution should be "terminated" and yet still has his blind followers defend him.

---

People need to stand back and take a deep breath if they think trump doesn't always know exactly what he's doing (except for kofefe or whatever that nonsense by the media was)

aggiehawg said:

---

13B said:

---

So, venting or not, you read Trump's tweet (in OP) as him "advocating for" not "commenting on"?

---

He clearly states his goal is to be back in office. How he gets there is where he went off of the rails. So that's closer to advocating than commenting in my book.

Just a very, very stupid thing to say.

Quote:

---

First, let's get down to the facts. The Constitution does not permit "do-overs." There is a process whereby the states vote via the Electoral College, and Congress certifies the result. While I'm sympathetic to President Trump's claims and have little personal doubt that election fraud changed the vote in some states, that claim is hamstrung by the absence of forensic evidence to substantiate the claim. Even with the proof, it was over once the election was certified.

The Founders would not have wanted false or fraudulent elections, but they were also realists who knew that in late 18th century America, election fraud was a way of life. If you haven't read a lot about the Early Republic and roving bands of voters (why do you think a specific election day made its way into the Constitution?), give this article a try.

The very fact that the Founders did not make provisions for re-doing elections tainted by fraud is a strong indicator that they valued the finality of the process over lengthy wrangling over results.

But then, in my view, historical myopia is dwarfed by the nuttiness of the idea that the Constitution can be set aside. That, in turn, is reduced to nothing by giving the Democrats the ability to claim that they are the party that defends the Constitution. It gives the Biden White House the opportunity to issue this statement:

---

Quote:

---

First, this is the same lack of disciplined communication that marred his tenure if office. It doesn't move the ball forward; rather, it directs attention onto President Trump for, as far as I can tell, the sole purpose of directed attention to President Trump.

Second, it is a rhetorical own-goal. You can't, on the one hand, claim you are all about defending the Constitution if, at the same time, you are making a special pleading that your case is extra-Constitutional.

---

Quote:

---

Third, it calls into question President Trump's ability to campaign in 2024. It is one thing to say, "we were cheated, and we won't let it happen again." Two years after Congress certified the results, it is quite another to demand that he be QAnon-like placed into the presidency. We saw the downside of this claim in the Georgia Senate runoff in 2020 when President Trump's harping on electoral fraud caused a lot of voters to stay home because they were convinced any outcome would be fraudulent.

---

LINK

---

You'll rarely find me agreeing with Aggiehawg, but IMHO, she is spot-on here. Trump has been saying for years that America should "throw out" the results of the 2020 election. Even after exhausting all relief afforded by the Constitution and subsequent legal precedents. Trump's message has been, since Jan 6, 2021 anyway, has been "ignore the Constitution and make me President!"

He has never backed down from that message. His message ever since then has always been, "Ignore the Constitution, make me President!" The people who have no problem with this message will vote for him regardless what he says.

Those who feel that there was a lot of knowledge and discussion in writing the Constitution will have a problem with this message. Prior to his latest outburst, it was possible to imagine Trump was really wanting to improve America. This crosses the line, however, and makes it clear that throwing out the Constitution, that which makes America America, is acceptable if it gives Trump more power.

That is by definition, unAmerican.

BMX Bandit said:

---

He's saying because of massive fraud the rules, including constitution. should be terminated and either he should be declared winner or revote

---

He's actually saying that the massive election fraud is what essentially terminated the constitutional protections of our citizens.

If they could prove it in a court of law, I say give them the severest penalty. I know the election was directly interfered with. I don't know it was vote crap but the media pushed the **** out of Floyd and all the other cop shootings. They demonized rational people who refused their lies.

BMX Bandit said:

---

He said he wants to terminate the constitution. pic.twitter.com/LAzXoQkKB7

— CaliEsq (@CaliEsq) December 3, 2022

Enormous political scandal breaks yesterday and Trump decides he needs to go with
"Terminating the constitution"

As Aggiehawg said, this is evidence the special counsel loves. He has such a way of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory

(In before the "derp derp CM" posters show up)

---

I'm just gonna leave this here. pic.twitter.com/WzE2t6pqdF

— MikesRight (@RealLibSmacker) December 5, 2022

I'm old enough to remember when the Trumpists were calling me a RINO because Trump was the true conservative over Ron DeSantis.

That was last week.

BMX Bandit said:

---

He's saying because of massive fraud the rules, including constitution. should be terminated and either he should be declared winner or revote

---

EXACTLY THIS.

read the entire crazy paragraph and that is exactly what is clearly and literally written.

he literally states the election can be overturned regardless of what the Constitution proscribes

Im Gipper said:

---

Its because OrangeManGod that you and others refuse to look at what Trump actual wrote on his Truth Social post.

Hell, the poster you quoted had to change the words to push the spin he is selling. Trump didn't write "allowed," He wrote "allows," As in not past tense.

Trump stated possibilities of what he thinks should happen now. Neither of which is allowed by any rule, law or the constitution.

Trump then says massive fraud allows for these rules, etc. to be terminated.

Aggiehawg, who we all can bet was a tenacious litigator back in her day, won't defend this statement by Trump. You know why? She doesn't have TDS. Unlike some others of you.

When a poster starts calling those that can read what Trump clearly wrote (like aggiehawg, BMX Bandit, Aggie93, and Zarathursta for example) "average Dims" or "CMs" it really shows that poster has lost the argument.

I know, I know, you will say I have TDS because thats all you have. I voted for Trump, and will do so again if he beats DeSantis and the field. Let's not try to change what he actually suggested and wrote.

---

best single post in the history of the F16

I especially love how the Trumpist LlTERALLY CHANGES WHAT TRUMP WROTE

to then claim that it's the pro-Constitution crowd who are the idiots!

Two ways to read this horribly worded statement.

I'll preface this by saying Trump needs to get his ego out of his own way.

One way to interpret is he thinks there is wisdom and fairness in suspending the constitution in order to re do the 2020 election. Given Trump's ego this is not a bad take.

The other way to interpret is he is using the word ' allow' to mean " can create the conditions of or for". His last sentence about the founders would only make sense if this were the case.

Why make a declaration that the constitution should be suspend, then two sentences later laud the founders for such a system?

Trump's out here clarifying what he obviously meant - he should be installed or get a do-over in spite of any and all law and authority that would prevent such a thing.

GeorgiAg said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

He's posing the question.

What is the proper course of action if the things he said are true?

---

Fox News suppressed anti Trump stories and leaned heavily on pro Trump stories. The horror.

Y'all really wanted to see Hunter dick picks?

---

What you just said is a blatant lie. Fox News spewed the same propaganda talking points as the rest of the MSM. Often upon hearing a Fox News Radio headlines it was obvious that they were using the same deceptive language as MSNBC and CNN. Fox was just more subtle. The shutdown of the Soros talk and the way too early call for AZ just proved that Fox was in on the steal as much as Twitter, Facebook, and the network news stations.

fixer said:

---

Two ways to read this horribly worded statement.

I'll preface this by saying Trump needs to get his ego out of his own way.

One way to interpret is he thinks there is wisdom and fairness in suspending the constitution in order to re do the 2020 election. Given Trump's ego this is not a bad take.

The other way to interpret is he is using the word ' allow' to mean " can create the conditions of or for". His last sentence about the founders would only make sense if this were the case.

Why make a declaration that the constitution should be suspend, then two sentences later laud the founders for such a system?

---

Again, it comes down to which remedies does the law allow? Justice is a concept that sometimes the law provides a remedy to provide it. Sometimes the law does not have a remedy to get there.

And for Trump after the 2020 election, the law, severe time constraints (and feckless judges) the law failed to provide the justice he wanted. Just the way it is.

aggiehawg said:

---

fixer said:

---

Two ways to read this horribly worded statement.

I'll preface this by saying Trump needs to get his ego out of his own way.

One way to interpret is he thinks there is wisdom and fairness in suspending the constitution in order to re do the 2020 election. Given Trump's ego this is not a bad take.

The other way to interpret is he is using the word ' allow' to mean " can create the conditions of or for". His last sentence about the founders would only make sense if this were the case.

Why make a declaration that the constitution should be suspend, then two sentences later laud the founders for such a system?

---

Again, it comes down to which remedies does the law allow? Justice is a concept that sometimes the law provides a remedy to provide it. Sometimes the law does not have a remedy to get there.

And for Trump after the 2020 election, the law, severe time constraints (and feckless judges) the law failed to provide the justice he wanted. Just the way it is.

---

Thanks…

I'm Only offering an opinion on two ways to interpret what Trump wrote not that there is or isn't a valid remedy, and certainly not based on a Twitter scandal.

trump could say "the sky is red" and there'd be a reply in the thread with 200 blue stars saying something like "well he never said it was the sky on earth, if he were talking about mars or as-yet-unknown planet in another galaxy he's actually right"

That's right! There are clear laws in place that say if you steal an election through massive overt interference and fraud, it can never be taken away once proven. Respect the fraudulent authority! Law and order!!!

oh no said:

---

That's right! There are clear laws in place that say if you steal an election through massive overt interference and fraud, it can never be taken away once proven. Respect the fraudulent authority! Law and order!!!

---

PROVEN?? Where?!

Squadron7 said:

---

Before all the CM's get too froggy....what is the difference between calling for the suspension of the Constitution and simply ignoring it?

There is something amazing that about the Left going nuts over Trump calling for the suspension of the Constitution when they simply ignore the plain language of the 2nd Amendment and are now openly hostile to the First on a regular basis.

What percentage of victim studies academia wish for the same thing simply based on the fact that it was written by old, dead, White men?

Your outrage here is an act.

---

so your argument is that because:

leftists don't support the Constitution..

and Trump doesn't support the Constitution.

that we have to nominate Trump.

Uh, HOW ABOUT NOMINATING SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DOES SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?

is that a scenario you simply forgot about?!

LMCane said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Before all the CM's get too froggy....what is the difference between calling for the suspension of the Constitution and simply ignoring it?

There is something amazing that about the Left going nuts over Trump calling for the suspension of the Constitution when they simply ignore the plain language of the 2nd Amendment and are now openly hostile to the First on a regular basis.

What percentage of victim studies academia wish for the same thing simply based on the fact that it was written by old, dead, White men?

Your outrage here is an act.

---

so your argument is that because:

leftists don't support the Constitution..

and Trump doesn't support the Constitution.

that we have to nominate Trump.

Uh, HOW ABOUT NOMINATING SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DOES SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?

is that a scenario you simply forgot about?!

---

Check my posting history to see that you went in the ditch on Line 4.

Whether or not voter fraud happened, through half truths and censorship by government, media, and corporations the American people were not provided adequate information to make a reasonable decision for the 2020 election. Threats of violence might also have played a roll. Shortly after the election a study found that proper reporting of the Biden laptop story alone probably would have changed the results of the election.

However, the only election that matters for president is the Electoral College, the delegates of which are sent by the states. If a corrupt bitter senile old man wins the Electoral votes and those results are certified then the corrupt bitter senile old man is the head of the executive branch and the armed forces.

The Founding Fathers didn't want a popular vote to elect the president and 2020 is a great example for why.

You might argue that the members of the EC were negligent by voting for an obvious corrupt, bitter, senile old man, but the Constitution has no recourse for negligence of the Electors. Those on the left could make a similar argument for the 2016 election.

Trump's relentless obsession with the 2020 election results is hurting his chances to be elected in 2024 and hurting chances of anyone fixing obvious voting practices that allow the kinds of corruption about which he is complaining.

As another poster pointed out, Trump either needs to put 2020 in the past and begin focusing on issues for 2024 or he needs to retire as the martyr who tried to rescue the country from the corrupt establishment that now has control.

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Week 1 Arguing that he didn't DIRECTLY invite the avowed white supremacist to dinner because he only invited the antisemite.

Week 2 Watching the antisemite he did invite going full "I love Hitler"

Week 3 Trying to parse whether he actually meant he wants to terminate the constitution or not because his latest rant over 2020 left room for interpretation on that subject.

This is going about as well as expected.

---

I like the cut of your jib sir!

fixer said:

---

Two ways to read this horribly worded statement.

I'll preface this by saying Trump needs to get his ego out of his own way.

One way to interpret is he thinks there is wisdom and fairness in suspending the constitution in order to re do the 2020 election. Given Trump's ego this is not a bad take.

The other way to interpret is he is using the word ' allow' to mean " can create the conditions of or for". His last sentence about the founders would only make sense if this were the case.

Why make a declaration that the constitution should be suspend, then two sentences later laud the founders for such a system?

---

are you stating that it's not a "bad take" for Trump to temporarily suspend the Constitution?

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Trump's out here clarifying what he obviously meant - he should be installed or get a do-over in spite of any and all law and authority that would prevent such a thing.

---

Trump with the all caps rant confirming that yes, he does think we should ignore the constitution and redo the 2020 election in 2022/2023. Nice.

I think even his ardent supporters will be shocked at how badly he presents a year from now during the primary debates. Father time is clearly having his way with Trump and pushing him more and more to sound like our chain-email-sending grandfathers. In another year he'll be a perfect blend of insufferable and incoherent.