Donald Trump calls for the 'termination' of the United States Constitution over 2020 loss

You are incorrect on many, many accounts.

 

I'm not saying that Hillary didn't whine about losing, but all your links, except one, are at least 3 years old, and the one that isn't refers to something Hillary said over 3 years ago.
I can't stand Hillary, so I'm not defending her.
But, regardless of what Hillary said a while ago, Trump is actually wanting to be installed as POTUS, because he thinks there was cheating, except he can't show any real proof of it. And thinks that at least parts of the constitution should be disregarded.
Hillary never suggested that.
And personally I think that alone should eliminate Trump from being president, as he swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and shows that he will not and doesn't respect the constitution.
What's really amazing to me is some of these folks around here who claim to be constitutionally savvy are twisting into pretzels to defend Trump on this, letting us know that they really don't support the constitution they claim to uphold.

 

No one cares what Hillary has to say because its just one sore loser whining and on one listening, but in Trump's case you have millions of radical loyalists who bought his story hook line and sinker, and are willing to support him to death, as was witnessed in Jan-6.

 

I agree Trump probably wasn't talking about an amendment - he just wants what he wants and thinks he should be given it regardless of the legalities.

But I go back to my previous point: when you talk about a legal agreement being terminated, that implies the whole thing goes. If you talk about parts of an agreement being terminated (which you admit, and I agree, is what Trump is explicitly doing re. the constitution), other parts of the agreement remain in place. Therefore going simply by what he wrote, it is over-reaching to say he's calling for the constitution to be terminated. To say that and at the same time to say "No-one is arguing he wants every detail of the constitution to go" seems completely contradictory to me. Explain what I'm not understanding.

 

Rex Tillerson sure had Trump pegged..."f*cking moron".

modernpoladin told me there's "precedent" for Trump calling a new election.

Still waiting for the precedent that overturned an election results and called for a new election when the candidate claimed a magnitude of election fraud while showing no evidence of it.

 

Yes, and in this case getting what he wants would involve terminating our Constitutional considerations for elections.

 

Fine - a part of the constitution. Not the whole thing. You make my point for me.

 

That's fair, but I don't think the government or any individual is equipped to deferentiate what is a lie and what isn't. In the end we have to trust the individual but the individual needs to be given the tools to do so. I would say the government should ensure all parties can speak but also ensure that fact checking is done and disclaimers are made. If breitbart makes an article on hunters laptop, require that Twitter and any company receiving the benefits of a platform. Include links and or disclaimers that provide an alternative view. Ie.. "At this time, the contents of this laptop have not been proven to be from Hunter" see MSN article here.

The solution to misinformation isn't censoring, it's more speech.

Another change is to have government fund fact check agencies instead of news agencies.

 

No one is saying that he wanted to get rid of each and every letter of the Constitution. No one is claiming that.

 

He needs a new crop of unpatriotic thugs to start doing his dirty work,
His last 850 ish thugs ruined their lives over someone that gave/gives 2 shits about them.
Curious how many would do it all over again having the same results?

 

Government mandated speech . . . which violates the First Amendment.

 

How does saying he wants to terminate the constitution not mean he wants to get rid of the whole thing?

 

One of the options was decidedly undemocratic. The other option was to have a new election. If that's 'fascist', then we've been 'fascist' for a very long time, because we've been redoing elections for about as long as we've been having elections.

 

Violating the law and the Constitution to "re-do" an election that is already over just because a private platform was nicer to the other guy than to you is, at best, borderline fascist. But I'm glad we can agree that his attempts and desire to just have himself installed anyway are fascist.

And, no, we haven't had "re-dos" like the one Trump is asking for in his slightly-less-fascist of the two options.

 

How does saying that someone mutilated my body mean that they mutilated anything less than every single one of my limbs and organs?

 

Correct the election has been certified, so there is no legal way for the election to be redone.

 

I already explained what is wrong with that analogy: saying "someone was mutilated" and "part of someone was mutilated" are basically synonymous in our usage. That is not true with legal agreements - saying an agreement is terminated and an agreement is partly terminated are completely different things. Given the constitution is a legal document, I'd suggest my example is more relevant than yours, no?

 

You're ignoring reality. You don't even know what the word "literally" means...lol

 

Again, there's a reason why I can talk about his words and you can't. But let me know if you need any help with the word "literally."

 

In THAT Case:
Trump would be exponentially more successful (and have a better chance) "advocating" for The Sun to Rise in the West...

 

Just a tip, but never be embarrassed for someone else.
You guys are arguing over two separate points, but Trump did state that we should dispense with at least part of the constitution. Period. From his fingers to the internet. It's literally in writing. He didn't call for a complete abolishment of the constitution, but he does want to ignore parts of it.
If that is done, there will be no more constitution, as anyone could make up their own reasons why the constitution should be ignored.
Coming from an ex-president, it's actually quite disgusting.
Keep supporting it, but don't be embarrassed for me. Save it for yourself.

 

No, Trump didn't say that... lol. Welcome to the list of the embarrassed.

 

You can talk about it all you want, but as long as you think he "literally called for the Constitution to be terminated", you'll be repeating a lie.

 

And as long as you quibble that "Well, he only called for the parts of the Constitution that involve our elections to be terminated and that makes it okay!" you'll be repeating an intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest excuse.

 

Uh, yeah, I never said that, because he didn't say only part of the Constitution should be terminated, neither....lol. He never said that the Constitution, whole, nor in part, should be terminated.