In other words, he means whatever you / any audience member choose to believe, whether pro- or con-.
Utterly post-truth. Putin must be so proud of himself. If he’d kept his paws off Ukraine another couple of years he could have ruled ze vorld!
Yes, I am aware of that. Companies have presidents too. Sports leagues.
They are not, however, the President of the United States. That office as you and I understand it is wholly a creation of the Constitution. If the Constitution is no more, that office is no more. Trump could not be President again in the same capacity he was in 2017-2021.
He can CALL himself President all day long after taking over in a coup, but it would be a totally different office. He would be President of a completely different thing.
I write with not the slightest bit of irony of exaggeration when I state that he would not have a hope in hell of passing such an exam were you to have him take it today. I would literally bet my car on it.
Hell, he’d have trouble with a middle-school Civics final.
1st grade.
I’m pretty sure he couldn’t pick a Honda Civic out of a lineup that otherwise consisted of artichokes.
OK, so doesn’t this make our discussion of fine points about what he might have, did, did not, might have not etc. called for sort of ridiculous?
Early thread winner. 
One such:
“in a (completely imaginary) world where Trump somehow today finally produced actual proof of all his wild 2020 ballot box-stuffing claims, Joe Biden would still be our legitimate president”
Then again the Trumpetistas probably now consider Murdoch part of the “lamestream”.
I’ll add my vote.
Not at all - he is the former president - he has a large, committed, following - a following that is willing to take up arms and violently attempt to hinder the government.
His words have weight - and while we may argue over how well he understands civics - he does know what he is saying and what he is riling up his base to do.
Clever!
Yes. (Clever!)
Trump has always wanted that, but was unable to summon the proper eloquence until now.
It’s all just fun and games to him.
I took a trip to the darkside and wandered around the FreeRepublic (aka the Dope’s evil twin) to see what they were saying about it.
The comments tended to vary along the following lines lies.
- The Democrats call for the destruction of the constitution all the time.
- The Liberal media is lying about what he said (without saying how)
- Kill the messenger (OPs for the two threads I looked at were quoting John Thune (RINO), and the National Review (Liberal rag))
- He’s right the constitution is only a piece of paper, our liberty is at stake.
- He’s got a point about the election fraud but got carried with his hyperbole. In the future he should be more careful about what he posts.
- When he said “[this Fraud] allows for the termination of rules” what he really meant was that was that “this Fraud is equivalent to the overturning of rules”. So he was saying that it was the Democrats and Big tech who were overturning the constitution.
He probably meant, “Permitting a massive fraud of this type and magnitude is allowing the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
If he had said that, he would have gotten none of the publicity he needs to remain relevant.
You should be a speech writer for trump. Not that he would stay in the lines…
I know that is how they are trying to spin it, but it doesn’t really fit the context of his post. The full quote is
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!
So just before this he says that they need to throw out the presidential election and have a new one. He is not talking about what rules have been broken by the fraud he’s talking about a remedy, A remedy which he whenever he brings it up gets called unconstitutional. Hence his claim that the fraud is big enough that it justifies unconstitutionality since the founding fathers wouldn’t have written it that way if they knew what was going to go down some 232 years later.
Effectively he his trying the evoke the “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” type of reasoning.
Actually it sounds to me like he’d be quite happy to throw the results of 2020 out and declare a rightful winner, rather than having a new election.
I appreciate the discussion on this one – partly in the form of devil’s advocacy – of what benign interpretations there could be for this last post from Trump.
But there are a few things that we KNOW he did that make it utterly impossible for me to ever give him the benefit of the doubt again, and make it extremely difficult to understand why anybody thinks he’s earned it:
- The Ukraine phone call with Zelenskyy – blatant Bribery or Extortion (and not for the benefit of the country; just him)
- The Georgia election call with Brad Raffensberger (attempting to circumvent the mechanisms of Democracy)
- January 6th
- The 448-page, two-volume Mueller Report – not what Barr’s fictional version said, not what the Senate Republicans said, but the evidence
There really shouldn’t be too much argument about the facts of those particular incidents.
We could go on and on about his relationship with Putin, his infamous debt level, the shady business dealings, penchant for ‘puffery,’ etc., etc., but the incidents I named are Worse Than Watergate, and they’re worse because he acted with impunity. Nixon got caught. Trump acts as though he never will. He figures a crime in plain sight must not be a crime.
Devil’s advocacy is one thing, and a great feature of the SDMB.
But I hope nobody seriously defends this one, or this guy anymore.