Trump suggests termination of the Constitution
- Thread starter Joe_Blacke
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
I read this a different way.
"Putting the Founding Fathers in quotes — “Our great ‘Founders'” — the president then essentially seemed to suggest the “termination” of the U.S. Constitution could be allowable."
I read this that he is trying to say that the Dems, by doing what they did with the suppression of MSM and social media, could be prepping to "terminate" the Constitution, or parts of it that don't fit their agenda.
“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!” he added.
This seems to support my thoughts, NOT that Trump wants to terminate the Constitution. I saw nothing in that article to support that train of thought.
"Putting the Founding Fathers in quotes — “Our great ‘Founders'” — the president then essentially seemed to suggest the “termination” of the U.S. Constitution could be allowable."
I read this that he is trying to say that the Dems, by doing what they did with the suppression of MSM and social media, could be prepping to "terminate" the Constitution, or parts of it that don't fit their agenda.
“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!” he added.
This seems to support my thoughts, NOT that Trump wants to terminate the Constitution. I saw nothing in that article to support that train of thought.
SupportTheSecond
Member
cool arrow said:
Agree.
I gotta ask even though it will most assuredly cause me to catch a beating. Does anyone really think that the Hunter story was going to throw the election one way or the other. Unless they could DEFINITIVELY tie corruption back to "The Big Guy" it would have been a muddslinging nothing burger.
Remember .. Trump was elected even with the whole Grab them by the Pu$$Y scandal and I think the Russian golden shower girls story was in full bloom.
Guess I just wish for a candidate or election based on values and issues and not spend every four years looking for some bombastic scandal. Just be the better candidate and be able to articulate why you are.
Remember .. Trump was elected even with the whole Grab them by the Pu$$Y scandal and I think the Russian golden shower girls story was in full bloom.
Guess I just wish for a candidate or election based on values and issues and not spend every four years looking for some bombastic scandal. Just be the better candidate and be able to articulate why you are.
@Joe_Blacke
The TDS is real lol. Instead of reading the masturbatory headline, maybe read the whole article.
Trump wasn't saying to overthrow the Constitution, he was saying the Constitution was overthrown.
Trump is no were near a perfect candidate, re bumpstocks, "take the guns and due process later", and plenty of bad takes. Doesn't change the fact that he was the best option in 16, 20, and likely will be in 24.
I have just as much of a problem understanding the zealot fan boys as I do the TDS tards.
Some people get far to emotionally invested in people that couldn't give 2 shits about them in return, fandom in general is a giant waste of time and effort.
The TDS is real lol. Instead of reading the masturbatory headline, maybe read the whole article.
Trump wasn't saying to overthrow the Constitution, he was saying the Constitution was overthrown.
Trump is no were near a perfect candidate, re bumpstocks, "take the guns and due process later", and plenty of bad takes. Doesn't change the fact that he was the best option in 16, 20, and likely will be in 24.
I have just as much of a problem understanding the zealot fan boys as I do the TDS tards.
Some people get far to emotionally invested in people that couldn't give 2 shits about them in return, fandom in general is a giant waste of time and effort.
sonofbp said:
Basic English language I’m sure you studied basic English in school.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
This says since there is “fraud” the termination of the rules and Constitution is justified. Just like the 2nd amendment has a predatory clause “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, leads into the real meaning “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It’s the lead into the real meaning.
His further statement confirms this:
“UNPRECEDENTED FRAUD REQUIRES UNPRECEDENTED CURE!”
Now of course Trump pushed hard for Pence to refuse to ratify the election results. An action that everyone educated on the topic says would violate the constitution. So it becomes more obvious that what he wants is a way for an election to declared invalid. The only way to accomplish that is to either ignore or change the Constitution.
If he meant otherwise, it’s his fault for using this language.
Joe_Blacke said:
Assume, temporarily, that the fraud he says happened was real.
How would we remedy thhat within the limits of the constitution?
Would that remedy be possible under the current system, bureaucrats, and elected officials we have in DC?
It was lack of standing, a great way to avoid the evidence.
The courts avoided the issue well beyond certification by avoiding having to debate the validity of any evidence so what remedy should be sought?
Like I said:
Assume, temporarily, that the fraud he says happened was real.
How would we remedy that within the limits of the constitution?
Would that remedy be possible under the current system, bureaucrats, and elected officials we have in DC?
courts, next?
The courts avoided the issue well beyond certification by avoiding having to debate the validity of any evidence so what remedy should be sought?
Like I said:
Assume, temporarily, that the fraud he says happened was real.
How would we remedy that within the limits of the constitution?
Would that remedy be possible under the current system, bureaucrats, and elected officials we have in DC?
sonofbp said:
The trump lawsuits weren’t throw out for lack of standing. They were thrown out for lack of evidence. The lawsuit filed by the state of Texas on behalf of trump was thrown out for lack of standing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1
instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”
On Nov 27, 2020 a federal appeals court rejected a Trump campaign proposal to block Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. ( here ). At the time, Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of the three-judge panel wrote: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
Anyone can find an article using someone elses words to back up an opinion, but finding one from a state that broke its own constitutional law that says there is no evidence is pretty weak, not that it has anything to do with my question.
Everyone is attacking his attempts at resolution or comments about any resolution, including me at times.
What I've asked is what other options are there within the limits of the constitution that Trump allegedly wants to toss aside?
I'm also not attempting to argue the validity of the claims as it's been run around and around...
Most people have made up there minds, and even the media has fallen back to, "but it wasn't enough f***ery and fraud to turn the election so its all good in the hood and stop bringing it up."
This is why I asked, how you would remedy the issues, assumed to be true, within the constitution instead of rehashing the "level of truthiness to said stolen election(s)" since we are not discussing the stolen election but rather the alleged pushing for the "termination of the constitution".
Everyone is attacking his attempts at resolution or comments about any resolution, including me at times.
What I've asked is what other options are there within the limits of the constitution that Trump allegedly wants to toss aside?
I'm also not attempting to argue the validity of the claims as it's been run around and around...
Most people have made up there minds, and even the media has fallen back to, "but it wasn't enough f***ery and fraud to turn the election so its all good in the hood and stop bringing it up."
This is why I asked, how you would remedy the issues, assumed to be true, within the constitution instead of rehashing the "level of truthiness to said stolen election(s)" since we are not discussing the stolen election but rather the alleged pushing for the "termination of the constitution".
Multiple courts denied to hear the cases outright for multiple reasons, right or wrong. So, what would be the next step, aside from my personal favorite the tarring and feathering of a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats?
sonofbp said:
You’re not making any sense. You first said that trump didn’t get a fair hearing because the courts threw out the lawsuit for lack of standing. That is factually untrue. He filed over 50 lawsuits and lost every one for lack of evidence. What I quoted were one of the judges rulings.
All the rulings are online. You can check them out. He had his days in court to make his case. He brought zero evidence in every single one. If the fraud he claimed was real, surely he would have found some evidence of it to present to a judge.
It’s pretty simple. To win a court case you have to present evidence. An allegation has to be supported with evidence. In none of the cases trump filed was any valid evidence of fraud presented. That is what EVERY judge determined in 50 different cases.
So the answer to your question is still the same. If there is actual fraud that you have evidence to support, you take that before a judge and show the evidence. If all you have are baseless claims, you will loose just like trump did. That is why a judge is known as a finder of fact. If you don’t have the facts to support your case you will loose.
Similar threads
