That noose was a novelty item! And if anyone had been hanged, it would have been an accident, they didn’t mean anyone to get hurt.
So what do you think he was saying? Let’s hear it.
It was basically a love-in/ picnic, and who doesn’t bring a noose to a picnic?
He has no sense of humor, or at least not one that isn’t tinged with psychosis. I might buy “hyperbolic” if history hasn’t borne out that he means what he says, however outlandish it might be.
His buddy Kanye needs to talk him down.
Probably not. There are a few types of things that people can be arrested for saying, but mostly along the lines of explicitly inciting violence. America has a far higher standard protecting speech than most countries do, and it’s a very difficult bar to clear in terms of arresting somebody.
Wasn’t that what happened in the 60 Minutes interview he did with Leslie Stahl?
Every accusation is a confession with the Republicans.
He also admitted that he fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation. Obstruction of justice broadcast on TV.
I can state what he said “ A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”
and I can state what I think this means “It appears that Trump is calling for the termination of the Constitution”.
What I can’t do is state “Trump calls for the termination of the Constitution”. Simply false and an interpretation.
Lord knows the man who lead an Insurrection 2 years ago needs this faithful parsing of his words so we don’t get them confused with someone who ACTUALLY wants to end Jeffersonian Democracy.
Thanks!
Why is anyone bothering splitting hairs over the scumbags latest drivel? He incited an insurrection agains the U.S. government on nationall tv. The only place Trump belongs is in a cell in Guantanamo Bay, never to be heard from again.
That’s fair. In fact, I was pondering this last night and thinking the title should be modified. In the moment, I just wanted to stop the hijack in the Mar-a-Lago thread and created a quick topic. I’ll fix it.
Personally, I have no problem with believing Trump would tear up the whole thing and pack it on a wall with ketchup if it meant he could be “president” again.
He’s just a dumbass. He probably thinks there is a mention about Twitter in the constitution, and that’s why he want’s to get rid of it. He also thought there where airports during the revolutionary war in what would become the USA.
He’s a moron that has no filter.
Can you come up with anything else it could possibly mean?
The absolute best I can manage, and I’m really trying, is ‘Trump calls for the termination of any part of the Constitution that prevents him from being POTUS.’ That’s not IMO a meaningful distinction, even if he is willing to keep the part about not quartering troops in my house.
He unequivocally calls for the termination of rules, regulations, and articles found in the Constitution. Please explain how this is different from calling for the termination of the Constitution, which is nothing more than the rules, regulations, and articles found therein.
Unless your argument is that Trump’s thought process is sufficiently incoherent that we can’t really conclude anything about what he really means based on what he says (which is an argument not without its merits, but would render this entire discussion meaningless) I really don’t see how your semantic argument is valid, even as a pedantic nitpick.
For me, it’s partly that.
But I think his statement could be, and will be, parsed by the right wing as “the election fraud is of such a great magnitude, that it’s worth upending the Constitution.” In other words, the focus of the sentence is on the election fraud, and the bit about rules and articles and the Constitution itself are just there to stress that magnitude.
I don’t think he believes in or cares enough about the Constitution to make statements about it. My own interpretation is simpler: “O True Believers, do whatever it takes to get me out of trouble, no matter how extreme. Use your imagination, but nothing’s off limits.” I think that interpretation is just as bad as the one the majority here are going with, but his statements are designed to mean more than just one thing. It’s a con-artist trick: never say anything that you’ll be held to, but tell people what they want to hear.
Oh, I’m sure he could find some use for the paper it’s written on. He’s OK with keeping that. At least until he flushes.
Remember this?
The Preamble in one hand and a magic wand in the other.
If we are going to parse it exactly, he just calls for anarchy. That’s all.