Surely, everyone who voted for him has at least some measure of responsibility?
Correct. He is responsible for what he says.
And, unlike two posters on a message board, the elected officials of the people are responsible for considering what the current Republican front-runner for the presidency is saying about the Constitution.
Do I believe that Trump disdains the Constitution? Do I believe he’d get a mob to install him on the throne if he could? Of course I do: as you say, he’s proved it.
Do I believe that an old man holding no elected office, in legal trouble, with no private army, can get another insurrection going? No, frankly I don’t.
He is dangerous, certainly. That’s why people should hold him to account for his words rather than merely amplifying them. The more we repeat them, the more likely they are to reach a True Believer with a Gun. The more we demonstrate that ill-chosen words about Serious Subjects are taken seriously, the better.
I’d just have like the reporter to say “when asked about his social media post, the ex-president could not explain it” or “doubled down and confirmed he is against the Constitution.”
I just don’t get what new information this brouhaha is telling us that we didn’t already suspect in 2016 and know in 2020.
Beau weighs in.
What good does a reporter do?
When I was tested for sleep apnea, my breathing stopped for 130 seconds. So there.
Then why did you defend those words, claiming that what he said was ambiguous? Why are you telling the people who are taking it seriously that they need to stop talking about it? Why are you downplaying it as something we already knew and thus don’t need to talk about?
Claiming X happened and that X allows for Y is advocating for Y. And thus it is right for journalist to report that Trump just advocated for overthrowing the Constitution. And by commenting on it like that, they are in fact taking him to account for his words. The only people who can ultimately hold Trump to account are his followers, after all.
You seem to be advocating for not taking him seriously. For the reporters to give him an out by giving him a chance to claim that’s not what he meant. For us to ignore that he finally said the quiet part out loud.
You have mistaken my actions.
I am not defending his words: I think the whole statement was both stupid and irresponsible, like almost everything else that comes from his mouth or keyboard.
I am not telling ANYONE to stop talking about it, and I’m not trying to silence anyone. I am just expressing my opinion that the way people are talking about it is not helping.
I guess I am downplaying it, because it IS something we already knew, and thus adds no new data other than using the C-word. Is there anyone who sat through the last six years that honestly believes Trump has any knowledge of, much less respect for, the rule of law in any way, shape, or form?
I have said for a long time that one mistake we continually make with Trump is taking his words as if they were clear and rational discourse. What he is an expert at is taking emotive words and throwing them into a sentence so that everyone hears what they want to hear. Anti-Trump people say “look! He finally said the quiet part out loud!” Pro-Trump people look at the same data and say “OMG! This election fraud is so big even the Constitution can’t handle it!” It says both things, Trump himself has escaped in the cloud of chaos he creates.
What I’m advocating is holding the man’s feet to the fire. Not giving him an opportunity to claim that’s not what he meant (though I’m sure he’d try), but to force him to articulate his thoughts (if any) clearly. I’ve never seen anybody do this.
Make no mistake, I loathe the man, and I think he’s irredeemable. But I don’t understand why we keep taking his words as if they were uttered by a rational adult, but (if that’s the case), at the same time never call him out directly.
Nice one!
Now we just need to repost that idea in someplace where it’ll get more exposure. Twuth Social maybe?
- Susan Collins is very concerned.
- Not a twuth social reader; did he ask for money?
- He’s really manifesting Trump Derangement Syndrome. The whitewing originally used TDS as a slam against libuurrrals. It more accurately describes HIS state of mindlessness.
True. It’s also true that the Republican Party is a criminal enterprise. The fact that this truth is unrelated to the “Twuth” posted by the America-hating fuckstick does not stop it being a truth.
Mainly because he’d never talk to someone willing and able to do it. He would storm off like a little baby. Der Gropenfuhrer knows how to avoid having to say anything he does, doesn’t, may or may not mean.
Just use a Time Machine to send someone reliable and intelligent-oh. I see the problem already.
Stealing this.
From the very beginning he was never called out for anything. All of his “nobody knows more” bullshit. Everybody just laughed because he was so absurd. It was indeed a lamestream media. Of course, if they asked substantive questions, or god forbid, follow-up questions, they risked losing their press pass.
Cite?
Maybe, just maybe, this is the Shark-jumping we’ve all been waiting for.
Nah. He was either being hyperbolic, or joking.
I hear you loud and clear. I blame the media as a whole who seem to see their jobs nowadays as interpreting the news rather than reporting it. Even the title of this thread is an interpretation. “Trump Calls for the Termination of the Constitution”. ummm… no he didn’t. It’s an interpretation of his word salad. A fair one but still an interpretation. You can’t put what someone says into your own words and then claim that you are quoting them.
And if you do want to make an interpretation, be fair about it. Quote them verbatim then you can put it into your own words why you think it means such-n-such, how you came to that conclusion and why.
But to blast an interpreted quote as verbatim in a headline I find disingenuous. Not just here but throughout all media.