Can anyone come up with another interpretation of Trump's words than the sedition that every sane person & news organisation in the world sees?

[goaded]

In full, Trump’s post to Truth Social read, “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, 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. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

As even Fox News states: "Trump has failed for years to provide evidence to support his claims of fraud in the 2020 election."

Updates

+1 y

I'm just amazed at how people can look at a perfectly clear statement that they'd be incenced by if it was written by Hillary Clinton and pretend it doesn't mean what it clearly means. Trump even followed up by saying that he meant it, there are circumstances where terminating the constitution is acceptable. (There aren't, it protects the people from the government.)

Updates

+1 y

1. Trump says he believes there was massive fraud in the 2020 election

2. Trump claims in that post that 1. "allows for the termination of... the Constitution"

3. There is no constitutional mechanism for reversing the results of a completed election (even if 1 were true)

4. Trump wants be be declared the "rightful winner" from 2020

Therefore Trump wants the constitution to be terminated so that he can be declared the rightful winner in 2020.

(There was no massive fraud in 2020.)

[FunkyMonkee]

1. Yeah? So? Obviously, there was! Even Twitter is now showing that!
2. Bullshit!! You leftoids just make that shit up the way I make break-in records. even what you showed right there was obvious two different parts strung together to make it whatever bullshit you want it to make up!
3. We'll see!
4. Because he was!!
So? What exactly is it that you're SO SCARED SHITLESS about if he gets back in where he belongs? Are you scared of having the best economy we've ever had, again? Are you scared of very low gas prices? More job availability, WORLD PEACE? What is it about him that's got you wetting your diaper 24/7? So far, not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU has been able to tell us what the hell it's al about!! And, EVERY SINGLE ONE of your wet dreams has been PROVEN to be WRONG!! I think, after 6 years of asking for your proof and you never being able to fork any over, it's time for you to give up the ghost!!

[goaded]

Wrong on every count. Congratulations!

[FunkyMonkee]

Nice to hear that you admit you are! You're on the road to recovery, now!! In a few weeks, they'll not only let you out of the room with the soft wallpaper but they might even take off that nice warm jacket with the wrap-around sleeves!!

[goaded]

You're so funny!

[Ill_made_Knight]

I think that nothing he says anymore can or should be analyzed as one single statement. It has to be viewed through the filter of his actions and rhetoric over time.
He means what he says, none of this "out of context" or "it was a joke" stuff will wash.
To be clear, he doesn't care one whit about abolishing the constitution because of ideology... it is the pure selfishness of a 2 year old. He wants to be the "forever president"... no other effects are even considered... just power... for him.

[Amy10223]

It's like Big Baby orangutan did not get his cake and eat it too. He is simply fuming because most people voted for Biden and not him--and he's trying every trick in the book to get what he wants, because that's what he's used to since he was young. Never mind that he has so many people suing him, and the NY southern district which had his tax returns has been told to and has released them to authorities wanting them. Besides that, the courts are after him for the stolen documents he took from the Whitehouse (Lord knows who he gave copies of them to? I've wondered) He's got plenty to worry about. NO ONE is above the law--and he is just learning about that now. but he's still fighting. I have to admit I admire his will--but not his lunacy.

[UCrayCray]

Yes. I believe the message is…..

[FunkyMonkee]

Exactly how every lefty and liberal is!

[UCrayCray]

@FunkyMonkee
And yet…. we’re talking about Trump 😱

[FunkyMonkee]

Well, YEAH! That WAS the topic of the thread but, what's that got to do with the way dems spend 26/9 crying and whining like little spoiled rotten brat babies that can't get their way?

[UCrayCray]

@FunkyMonkee
Lmao. What’s the matter? Pointing out and discussing things about Trump hurts your feefees, so you have to deflect to the dems?
See Trump IS the topic of this particular conversation. Not WAS, but IS.
All you have is deflection, which is totally understandable. I’d deflect too if I ever found myself supporting a POS like Donald Trump.

[FunkyMonkee]

You've been flogging a dead horse for at least 6 years!! THE WORLD is fucking TIRED OF HEARING YOU CRY ABOUT IT!! If ANYBODY'S got "hurt feefees" IT'S YOU!!! Otherwise,. you would've shut the fuck up about it at least half a decade ago!! It's time to GROW THE FUCK UP!! Get your mommy to change your diapers for you one last time and BECOME A MAN!! The ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS that you're all a bunch of infantile little shits that have still not learned how to think for yourselves because you're no longer taught that in school BECAUSE it just MIGHT hurt YOUR little :"feefees"!! That's got NOTHING to do with deflection, that's TRUTH!! I KNOW you can't HANDLE the truth but, you HAVE to pull up your big boy pants and live with it!!
You remind me of my nephew. Motherfucker's a couple years older than you, old enough to have a wife and kids of his own, a stead job, a house, bills to pay and, there he is, STILL going out and getting arrested for GRAFFITI!! A little boy crime!!
GROW UP!!

[UCrayCray]

@FunkyMonkee
LMFAO.
I’m sorry. I’m so sorry I fucked up your day by saying mean things about your Trumpy. I had no intention of setting you on the spin cycle, although I must admit, it is amusing.
And I’m nothing like your nephew. My tits are way bigger. Guess the whole pink/blue name thing on Gag has you confused.

[FunkyMonkee]

The only thing you fucked up is your mentallity!

[UCrayCray]

@FunkyMonkee
🤣😂🤣😂
Whatever you need to tell yourself 👍

[WindAtMyBack]

Another interpretation? I only see one way to interpret it. All the people saying Trump wants to do away with the Constitution apparently don't understand English.

He is saying that what the Democrats are doing is tantamount to throwing away the constitution. How can anyone interpret it any differently? That completely baffles me.

[goaded]

Do you understand the words "allows for"? It's not an accusation that it's already happened, it's a call to do it.

But thank you for explaining what right-wingers have managed to twist their brains into believing about an unambiguous statement.

[WindAtMyBack]

You can't be that stupid. It's perfectly clear what he said and what he meant. Yet somehow you manage to totally botch it.

This has nothing to do with right wing or left wing. It's basic English.

[goaded]

Clearly, you are more than that stupid. You know there's nothing in the constitution that allows for re-doing or installing the loser of an election, right? That's why he's calling for the termination of the constitution.

[WindAtMyBack]

What's in the Constitution is completely irrelevant to the question. The question is about what he said.

Basic structure in English is:
Subject - Verb - Object

Subject - very clearly the Democrats ("Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party")
Verb - allow
Object - elimination of the Constitution

Where in the quote does it indicate that Trump is the subject?

[goaded]

He's not the subject of the sentence, he's the one writing it. (He's also the only one committing a massive fraud and you're going along with it.)

If I say "please open the door", I'm asking for the door to be opened, even though I'm not in the sentence. Understand?

[WindAtMyBack]

He never said please open the door. He is talking about the results of someone else's actions. He does not express a desire that they take those actions. Nor does he say he wants the results of those actions. He's simply making a statement.

You asked how it can be interpreted. I answered that. This is VERY clearly third person, not first person. Even if you don't agree with that, I still answered the question. He makes an explicit third person reference and no first person reference.

[goaded]

Ah, my mistake, I didn't specify logical when I asked for an interpretation.

He did say "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" is what should be done in the case of "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude", and he's saying (lying) that there was massive fraud, so he's saying the consitution should be terminated (it's essentially nothing but "rules, regulations, and articles").

"He makes an explicit third person reference and no first person reference."
He's not saying "I, Trump, declare the constitution terminated", he's saying he wants the constitution terminated and himself installed as president.

Does Trump want to be re-installed as president, or not? If he does, and he states the only way it could (in his imagination) happen, he's stating that he wants that to happen. He wants the constitution terminated so he can be president again.

[Sasahara]

Seems like he i saying false and fraudelent elections oes not count.

I take it you belive Fox news is a credibe source of information now and those who have said otherwise are wrong, since you use their statement.

[goaded]

Everybody knows that Trump hasn't proved any significant election fraud and that the election was fair. I quoted Fox News because that's more likely to convince people further to the right than, say, MSNBC.

People who lie are less likely to be lying if what they're saying goes against their interests.

[Sasahara]

You asked for an interpretation, I gave you what I thought it sounded like.

Didn't Fox say they would not back Trump in 2024, or something like that? So I wouldn't think anti-Trump comments these days goes against their interests that much.

[goaded]

It's not really an anti-Trump comment, simply a statement of fact.

[Sasahara]

Well, since they are not backing him, its not going against their interests to say so, so clearly it should not be seen as more beliveable than other crap they have said

[goaded]

I'm not sure anyone's told Carlson and Hannity that yet, and besides there's not a single media source that says there was massive fraud in the election, not even the ones that are careful just to quote Trump and Lindell. (That's because there isn't any.)

[Sasahara]

And I have never claimed any news source saying there was a massive fraud either, I'm claiming I think this quote from Fox news does not go against their interests and that the people who don't trust fox news shouldn't magically trust this one quote just because it happens to fit their views.

[goaded]

You do understand that there wasn't a "false and fraudelent" election in 2020, don't you?

[Sasahara]

Trump belive there was, and you asked for a interpretation of his comment.
The only thing I added was that I belive the people who don't trust Fox news shouldn't just magically trust them here either just because they said something they agree with. Since you included the statement from Fox in the question description.

My opinions on if the election was false or not is irrelevant to your original question.

[goaded]

Trump doesn't believe the election was stolen, many people have testified under oath that he understood he'd lost, but was unwilling to leave office.

People who don't trust Fox News already knew it was true from any other reputable source, the quote was intended for those who do believe Fox News.

[goaded]

Since it's on topic for this question, and the author of the question you invited me to is deleting any responses that disagree with her, I'll ask you again here.

Does Trump want to be reinstated as president without an election or with a new election to override the 2020 election? Yes or no?

Can someone read Trump's exact post on Truth Social, and explain where Trump said he wants to terminate the Constitution? ↗

[goaded]

Let me try another way. If Hillary had tweeted: "Russian interference in an election allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution and I should be declared president" in 2017, what would you have said she was saying?

[Sasahara]

That she demands to become president. While Trump is currently asking if he can be president or they should have a new election. Relevant part where Trump is asking in a hard way rather than directly demand: "So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION?"

[goaded]

I'm sure you'd be defending Clinton's right to call for the termination of the constitution and her reinstatement. The biggest difference between that hypothetical tweet and what Trump actually wrote was that there was evidence of Russian interference.

[Sasahara]

Sure, I would give it the same "defense" I give Trump, if Clinton had written the same thing.

[FunkyMonkee]

Fox is VERY credible! It's 99% of the others you can't trust any farther than you can throw Lizzo!!

[Juxtapose]

He was just saying false and fraudulent elections are not valid and are not covered by the Constitution. If this many people doubt the elections then they should be redone all by hand, nothing done by machines.

[goaded]

The only reason "this many people doubt the elections" is because they've been lied to by Trump. Besides, once the election is over there is no constitutional way to change the result, so he's calling for unconstitutional ways and breaking his oath of office again.

[Juxtapose]

I will admit the fraudsters did a really good job of covering their tracks but I don't believe the election was legitimate and there are plenty of other elections that were not legitimate either. It's not an election if it's not done properly and it needs to be redone.

[goaded]

Yes, indeed! The lack of evidence is absolute proof!

[Juxtapose]

You're saying anyone doubting the election is brainwashed when you don't even live here. You hear from people in America about all kinds of shady bullshit going on behind the scenes.

If America listened to the people, then weed would be legal. You think we have fair elections with how awful these laws are? The whole government is comprised. Don't think Germany isn't compromised either though, your censorship you must endure is unbearable.

[Juxtapose]

*compromised

[goaded]

Oh, if the government listened to the people there would also be more reasonable gun control (even if they only listened to gun owners). As to weed, look at who's voting against what's popular:

"The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, championed by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N. Y., Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N. J., looks to legalize marijuana at the federal level while creating FDA monitoring requirements like those that already exist for tobacco and alcohol."

Introduced in July this year, it died in 50-50 Senate committee. Next year, with one more Democratic senator, it won't be a 50-50 committee.

[Juxtapose]

No man, the vast majority of people I talk to understand that we need guns to keep this crazy government in check. Us Americans are proud of our 2nd Amendment and how we can walk into a Walmart and get a gun, then carry the rifle out on the street openly. That's freedom!

The Democrats have had opportunities to do this before when they had majorities. Don't you think the private prison lobby had something to do with that? Look at the vice president..

[goaded]

Uh, "people I talk to"?

[Juxtapose]

That's the people that care enough to answer polls.

I actually live in America and I know how people in America think. The vast majority of people do not want guns restricted unless they are these weirdo, pink haired college campus freaks.

[Juxtapose]

The Second Amendment is pretty clear about not infringing on people's rights to bear arms. There is no militia anymore, it was replaced by a standing army.

[Juxtapose]

The people who want to ban assault weapons don't understand the constitution.

[Juxtapose]

But sure, go ahead and let the government that is corrupt be the sole owners of guns and see how that goes xD

[Juxtapose]

The Second Amendment exists to protect the first.

[Anonymous]

It goes without saying any kind of fraud does terminate any and all rule, regulation, and articles both legislative and constitutional that it violates.

What is to miss-understand here?

[goaded]

The fact that you have to prove that it happened, and that before the election is finalised. Once an election is finalised there's no constitutional way to overturn it. What you do is you keep the constitution and get people to vote for you next time. You can also impeach the president if you have proof that they committed fraud to get into office. Since there's absolutely no proof of that, you're out of luck.

You do not burn the chess board, you play another game when you lose.

[goaded]

If Hillary had tweeted: "Russian interference in an election allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution and I should be declared president" in 2017, what would you have said she was saying?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
Still not reading what Trump said I see When criminals get away with violating the law to assume office they are terminating all rules, regulations and articles. That kind of goes without saying.

No you can't impeach someone nor win the next election simply because both processes require an honest election system.

[goaded]

No. You play within the rules, otherwise you destroy the republic and create a dictatorship.

Trump had two years to prove his bogus claims of massive fraud, and the result would have been a clear sweep for Republicans in the midterms, Trump appointed as Speaker of the House (it doesn't have to be a sitting representative), followed by impeachment of Biden and Harris and Trump president again with complete exoneration for the rest of the term. They might even have been allowed to change the law and extend presidential term limits to allow him to run again.

That's how you deal with massive fraud in an election, if you have evidence of it. Trump doesn't.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded said: "No. You play within the rules, otherwise you destroy the republic and create a dictatorship."

Clearly nobody is disagreeing with that fact in fact that's exactly what Donald Trump just said in saying the laws and the constitution are terminated.

@goaded said: "Trump had two years to prove his bogus claims of massive fraud, and the result would have been a clear sweep for Republicans in the midterms, Trump appointed as Speaker of the House (it doesn't have to be a sitting representative)"

As far as we are concerned he did prove it, and Republicans did in fact sweep in Republican States, with more super majorities than ever. The fact that they did so poorly in the States in question as well as democrat states only reinforces the evidence that said Elections are fraudulent in said states.

If Trump was wrong and there was no voter fraud you would have expected republicans to do as well or as poorly in their own states operating under different more enforceable laws.
I'm sorry your soo ignorant of the details of American politics.

[goaded]

You don't even understand plain English, that's not what he was saying, he was saying his claims of fraud are sufficient to throw out the constitution, when NOTHING is. I even laid out a way to handle real fraud within the bounds of the constitution.

Why do you think massive fraud has been proven? Where's the evidence?

"As far as we are concerned he did prove it, and Republicans did in fact sweep in Republican States, with more super majorities than ever. The fact that they did so poorly in the States in question as well as democrat states only reinforces the evidence that said Elections are fraudulent in said states."
No surprise there. Elections you win are fair, elections you lose are fraudulent. Even when you win statewide elections but lose the ones where candidates are election deniers on the same ballot.

"If Trump was wrong and there was no voter fraud you would have expected republicans to do as well or as poorly in their own states operating under different more enforceable laws."
Trump was wrong, which is why almost every candidate he put forward or denied the 2020 results lost, even in Republican states. People see what him for what he is.

[Opinion Owner]

@Goaded I speak American English every day, I specifically speak the kind of English Trump was trying to communicate in unlike you. I know exactly what Trump said as I am part of the target Audience unlike you.

[goaded]

Yes, you're the target audience. The ones who think it's OK to terminate the constitution.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded if we thought it was ok to end the Constitution it wouldn't we would be ok with what has happening in theses State 'elections' nor what the Federal Goverment has been doing.

Like it or not for the most part the Federal constitution is not in force anymore. We can use its terms to rally behind in trying to force the federal goverment back into its constitutional box. But right now the Constitutional box no more exist than the same Goverment is effectively limited in its power.

[goaded]

But you're defending Trump when he says something "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". It's practically nothing but "rules, regulations, and articles".

By the way, the constitution says that it's up to SCOTUS to decide what's constitutional, not you.

[Opinion Owner]

If you want to insist upon your own opposite understanding of someone elses words, words not even spoken to you how do you expect us to communicate or take anything you say seriously?

by the way: OUR Federal Constitutions does NOT say SCOTUS has the only word on the meaning of the constitution never has nor could any free constitution give so much power to 1 group of men.

For that 1 group of men would via their unilateral power OVER the constitution be unbounded by said constitution.

[goaded]

Black is white again?

[Opinion Owner]

I don't speak germane so I can't correctly translate What trump said into something you would understand. All I can say is your understanding of what he said is the opposite of what he said.

[goaded]

That would be you, again. Breaking rules does not "allow for terminating" the rules, it allows for disqualification and punishment for rule breaking within the rules. Terminating the rules ends any possibility of returning to the game. It ends the republic.

[Opinion Owner]

Breaking the rules and getting away with it is CALLED terminating the rules in English.

[goaded]

No, it's not, it's called cheating. You don't then throw out the rulebook.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded 'We' didn't throw out the rule book, the cheaters did.

[goaded]

No, you want to throw out the rulebook so that you can cheat better next time. There was no cheating in the voting in 2020, just in the lies Trump told about it.

[Opinion Owner]

@Goaded I'm sure when republicans start doing exactly what democrats have been doing they will be accused of cheating and not without merit.

But Democrats made and broke the unenforceable rules. Republicans either do the same or there will not be a viable opposition party.

[goaded]

Republicans try to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote? That's never going to happen. Look around you. The Republican candidates who denied the election lost even when other Republicans on the same ballot won. People have caught on to what Trump and election denial means - the end of the republic.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Not exactly true. Republicans generally did well in some states with well enforced election laws and poorly in the states who's election laws were in dispute.

Some voters might have tried to punish some of them for questioning the legitimacy of the election processes but that was not an overwriting trend. The differences in rules and their enforcement were.

[goaded]

They did poorly, the ones that did, "in the states who's election laws were in dispute" because they were the ones disputing them. They were liars who people recognised are very bad news for the country as a whole.

[msc545]

The disjoined rantings of a psychiatrically ill old man.

[msc545]

I know you think you're being clever and I take it you and probably everybody else realized I wasn't speaking about goaded.

[shortster]

Massive fraud in the election is the same as terminating the constitution.

[goaded]

It's not an accusation that it's already happened, it's a call to do it in response. In response to something that never happened, by the way.