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

Then you didn't read his post. Which explains quite a bit.

 

Technically you're right. But the clear implication of the whole message is that he thinks some aspects of the constitution could be discarded so he can have an election do-over or simply be made president again. Otherwise, why is he talking about it being allowable to terminate aspects of the constitution?

 

Yes he did.
Direct quote from Trump's Truth Social:
“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a post on the social network Truth Social and accused “Big Tech” of working closely with Democrats. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
I'm absolutely sure you're not embarrassed, and I'm absolutely sure I'm not.
I think you are having a mental block because you realize your hero has trashed what you say you believe in, and you're having trouble reconciling it.

 

True, ym...
22 Pages of people blindly "defending" Trump by making Epically FAILED Attempt after Attempt to "parse semantics"...
WHEN:
It is Crystal Clear (to anyone who is literate in the English Language) that Trump meant EXACTLY what the Headline Said...

 

That was literally the first page of results on a search string I blasted out stream of consciousness when I type over 120wpm.
It took all of 5 seconds to queue the links up for copy and pasting the URLs.
Look a bit more closely if you feel like it, its simply demonstrating facts in common knowledge since other posters seem to be allergic to that.

I can't stand Trump, so I'm not defending him.
What's really amazing to me is the number of people who think themselves savvy who confuse pointing out a fact with defending cheeto dick.

 

Another attempt at taking his comment out of context to dishonestly claim it means something it doesn't... LMAO

 

Millions? Nah.
He doesn't have millions of jan 6 ready followers, or he'd already be in power.
By definition jan 6 ready followers were literally ready to storm congress. If there were millions of them there at once, they would outnumber all law enforcement in the nation.
SO its 100% not millions of jan 6 read followers.
He's got a few thousand that are that crazy at this point, maybe less honestly after how he treated the jan 6 group (no pardons), how many losses he's racked up recently, and how cringe he is.

 

"out of context"
Yet another, Epically FAILED Attempt to "parse semantics"...
WHEN:
It is Crystal Clear (to anyone who is literate in the English Language) that Trump meant EXACTLY what the Headline Said...

 

Yes, out of context...lol

 

Why do you think Trump talked about it being allowable to terminate aspects of the constitution, if not because he wanted that to happen in order to have an election redo/be reinstated as president?

 

They are not required to do it, unless they agree to it by defining themselves as a platform. Plus, It's a structural regulation like many businesses have and doesn't require specific speech. Your argument also makes little sense based on historical applications. Ingredients and labels are required for food and drugs.

 

That's not what you said in your last post. And, yes, what you said requires government-mandated speech.

 

@yardmeat No answer to this?

 

Like drug labels? Also, its not requiring them to have specific speech. It only requires them to implement a fact check process. The third party fact check says what they want without government influence or mandates.

 

Re-read your own post to see the semantics it involves.

 

That still isn't what he said. Holy ****ing ****, you people are something else...lol

 

If the government creates a law governing said process, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. If the government creates no such law and the company is just doing it on their own . . . that's literally what we ****ing have now.

 

Yeah, I know a cop-out when I see one. Explain where I'm wrong if you want.

 

Yes. He absolutely did. He said that this news warrants terminating articles of the Constitution.

 

I already have. It's semantic quibbling that ignores what people are actually saying.

 

If you told them Biden said exactly what Trump said, they would understand it better but they have their partisan glasses on right now.

 

Tell me what's wrong with my analogy. Be specific. Then explain why your analogy is better.

 

There were two analogies. Hell, three really. And even your own analogy acknowledges the justifiability of the summary.

 

Trump didn't say it! He typed it! Big difference!

 

Explain the last sentence.