It’s obviously fake. I mean there’s not one smidge of gold gilt in the image.
And phooey on Playskool. I like the Mar a Lego set much better.
But there’s a gold fringe on the American flag. Doesn’t that make it legit?
@realDonaldTrump wrote on Dec 03, 2022, 7:44 AM:
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!
My personal read is that he’s accusing Democrats and Big Tech Companies of massive fraud of a type and magnitude that violates all rules/regulations/articles, even those found in the Constitution. Therefore he asks whether to throw out the fraudulent result and declare himself the rightful President, or whether to hold a new election. Typical Trump. I didn’t even raise an eyebrow, and I’m very much a law and order kind of guy with no love for the man.
RickJay came closest to my read when describing the “Trumpist reaction” in post #129, point 1.
For the sake of comprehension, take it as a premise that the 2020 election was a fraud perpetrated by Democrats and Big Tech Companies. Trump is saying that the fraud itself puts an end to rules, regulations, and even articles of the Constitution. Therefore the rule of law requires you to reject the 2020 election, and either declare Trump the rightful and legal winner or hold new elections.
(If I believed the 2020 election was fraudulent I would give more thought as to what remedy is appropriate, but that’s a high bar to meet.)
It is not in any way implied that rejecting Biden’s victory in 2020 is illegal or unconstitutional; in fact, the underlying premise is that Biden’s victory was fraudulent and therefore itself illegal and unconstitutional. Don’t ask me to justify this argument from a legal standpoint. The premise crumbles under scrutiny, like all other forms of Trump-logic. Election deniers went to court many times and lost.
Nevertheless commentators (even here) who construe Trump’s comments as calling for martial law or suspension of the Constitution haven’t swallowed the Big Lie. That is not his message. He is not justifying, to his supporters, the suspension of law. He is saying the Constitution is on his side, hence the appeal to the “Founders”. Reports that Trump wants to terminate the Constitution are likely to be characterized by himself or his supporters as lies, and have in fact been so characterized.
Mr. Trump clarifies his "termination" post (Click to show/hide)
@realDonaldTrump wrote on Dec 05, 2022, 12:43 PM:
The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to “terminate” the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS. What I said was that when there is “MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,” as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG. Only FOOLS would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA!
@realDonaldTrump wrote on Dec 05, 2022, 1:06 PM:
SIMPLY PUT, IF AN ELECTION IS IRREFUTABLY FRAUDULENT, IT SHOULD GO TO THE RIGHTFUL WINNER OR, AT A MINIMUM, BE REDONE. WHERE OPEN AND BLATANT FRAUD IS INVOLVED, THERE SHOULD BE NO TIME LIMIT FOR CHANGE!
Yeah, right. Where were you when the man was actually serving as President? Remember these “clarifications” on Trump’s social media posts?
“I think the President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.” ~Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2017
“[T]he tweet speaks for itself, I’m moving on.” ~Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2017
“I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing” ~Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 2017
etc. I doubt Trump’s press manager is giving comments right now, or that journalists would be interested in asking. Instead they ask other prominent Republicans and run with their “reactions”.
Shouldn’t, but did anyways.
Bingo! We have a winner!
The reality is, sensational stories bring all the readers. Sensationalism is nothing new in journalism.
I was personally thrilled to hear that the New York Post buried Trump’s 2024 campaign anouncement on page 26, with the headline “Florida Man Makes Announcement.”
~Max
Not only is that not my reading, I don’t think it’s a reasonable interpretation either. He said “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules…” which means that the fraud done by the Democrats allows the other side to throw out the rules (even those in the Constitution). That’s just the plain reading of his words.
(Max_S quoting Trump:)
Oh, what was this revelation? Did Trump elaborate on the revelation? Or was he talking made up fantasy bullshit fucking lies again?
Again?
“Made up
Fantasy
Bullshit
Fucking lies…”
Oh, a “Trump”? There’s a single syllable word for that. Fits on a bumper sticker and everything.
Yep. The alternative involves the usual twisting and complex verbal gymnastics that typically follow a Trumpism when someone is trying to come up with “what he really meant was…”
Wasn’t it that Facebook and Twitter blocked posts showing Hunter Biden nude? I’m pretty sure the Constitution says they have to show those.
It was a Fox News story about the FBI meeting with social media companies to suppress disinformation, cough cough the Hunter Biden story cough cough. Also the Elon Musk twitter files thing.
~Max
Allows who? The original source doesn’t specify explicitly, it is ambiguous. You say it allows the other side (Trump et al) to terminate all rules. It makes more sense to me for Trump to accuse Democrats and Big Tech of ignoring the rules and Constitution.
~Max
What part of the constitution? Cough.
Heck if I know. If I keep digging into this Truth Social my brain will surely rot.
The way I see it the boys (and girls) at the FBI worked for Trump in 2020 so everything they did is on him personally.
~Max
I can’t tell if you’re joking or serious and utterly confused.
The right of a free press attaches to the person who owns one. The constitutional restrictions apply to the federal government and only the federal government. Constitutionally speaking, a private company is free to allow or disallow whatever it wants for whatever reason it wants.
There is statute law enacted by Congress that sets down some rights and corresponding responsibilities for private companies which make the situation more nuanced than a simple reading of the constitution might imply. But if you’re talking constitution, private censorship is totally OK.
Sorry, should have attached an /s. Utterly joking. Naturally, I understand and completely agree with the rest of your post.
Trying to find some interpretation of Trump’s gibberish that everyone will agree is the “most plausible” is impossible. That’s a feature for him, not a bug.
When he said “I want those guys killed, go and murder them now.”, it was obviously not to be taken literally. What he meant was, that they should be “killed” in the business sense, in that they should be out-competed.
Clearly, the fact that the men were subsequently found murdered and cut into tiny pieces is a mere coincidence.
With many a historical precedent e.g. Henry II in 1170 regarding Thomas Becket
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
You know, Article 12.
Or maybe Article 2, the part that says “Trump can do whatever he wants”.
Snopes:
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) dismissed the flub as little more than a small error.
“He was just listing out numbers,” Farenthold said. “I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments. Remember, this guy doesn’t speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart.”
From the what?
Or, and hear me out now, but maybe he has no %#*<ing idea what he’s talking about because he’s a moron.