This is the biggest rope he's given anyone yet. Expect them to use it.
Taken all together, his posts seem to indicate he's gone all Veruca Salt on us:
Posted on 12/06/2022 4:38:39 AM PST by Lazamataz
Amen
This is clearly the correct literary interpretation of what he was intending to say. The word he chose was present, or future tense. He was projecting an event to come in the present or future, specifically "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."
Those attempting to defend Trump are trying to change the tense of the sentence into past tense. They are trying to changed the word "allows" to either "allowed" or even a completed different word or phrase like "resulted in."
Not to mention the incorrect past tense interpretations ignore the future tense context of the entire paragraph and previous sentence, whereby he talks about his desired outcomes in the future of "throw out the results of the 2020 Presidential election" or "have a new election" both of which would require to do something unConstitutional.
The trouble is, there is no Constitutional path to install him as “the rightful winner”. And no path to holding a redo of a presidential election, either, which Trump says is his second choice ... So what are we supposed to do, given there is no Constitutional remedy?
He doesn't say (or probably even know), even in his posts the next day, where he only says "steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG." Again, this is all future tense, and obviously verifies he was speaking in the future tense originally.
Most importantly, he didn't come back in his supposed clarifying comments and validate what those supporting him on this claim he originally MEANT to say, in that the Democrats were the ones who circumvented the Constitution. He doesn't even allude to that. He spends basically 3 more posts demanding a new election, all future tense, and all unconstitutional.
This is the biggest rope he's given anyone yet. Expect them to use it.
Notice that he mentioned articles of the Constitution, not amendments.
Trump’s statement prefaces as fact that the election was stolen and he puts out an extreme solution. Everyone calls him crazy (though what he says remains accurate). The statement leaves an obvious question of the people reading articles about what he said which is, Then what should or COULD be done? If he can get people to ask that question then it was a winning message eventhough he takes a lot of heat for it because those who ask the question have been converted from questioning whether or not the election was fair to questioning what should be done about a stolen election.
Let's see if it works twice.
One interpretation Simply give me an address by Freepmail and I will snailmail you, free of charge, one of my famous Resist bumper stickers! Click to see it!
I agree. Whichever interpretation, it leads to revolution (see: Declaration). And even his base isn’t up for that.
See my #53:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4114238/posts?page=53#53
The thing is, no matter what he meant, most people will take him literally. Take his statements at face value. Take him at his word. So does it really matter what he “really meant”? The damage is done. His own words can forever be used against him. The Dems are rubbing their hands with glee.
No matter how much some may say he’s playing 5D chess or whatever, I cannot see him being electable in 2024 after this.
There is the issue of the Guarantee of a “Republican form of government”, Article IV, Section 4. Fraudulent elections which do not result in the will of the people being manifested are null and void according to the Guarantee Clause. That’s all the authority needed to void such fake elections. If the courts don’t fix things, the unspoken option comes into play.
“I think he was referring to martial law”.
Yes so do I. I think Trump is telegraphing what’s to come. Every week the reveals are rolling out more and more egregious evidence of fraud and govt malfeasance in 2020. This is the final wake up before action is taken. 2020 simply cannot be allowed to stand.
It's a tough problem. What DO we do about stolen elections?
It is said that we have three boxes: The Soap Box (speech), the Ballot Box(voting), and the Cartridge Box.
Let us assume we are at the Cartridge Box... Where do we assemble? Who do we fight? These are questions that I have not received, or thought of, good answers to.
I don't want some of us to be dismissed as violent kooks. That would be ineffective, and also would dilute our cause. Yet, I can think of no other answer, other than perhaps we cheat harder and better than Democrats do.
This is the biggest rope he's given anyone yet. Expect them to use it.
Taken all together, his posts seem to indicate he's gone all Veruca Salt on us:
Kudos, sir. You have identified the exact Constitutional clause that should void these elections. The only Constitutional way to force the election-thieves out of office, is a successful SCOTUS challenge with PROOF of election fraud. We need to produce that proof in order to secure wins here.
Really?
Personally, I don't suspect we will win with any nominee, from 2024 onwards.
Martial law? ROFL! Who is going to impose that? Biden?
The military isn’t going to step in, either, no matter how much the Q crowd imagines it will.
Exactly where does the Constitution provide for that, and who, specifically, makes the decision that Biden is out and Trump is in? Because I don't think Biden and Harris are just going to leave voluntarily just because Trump asked them to.
...or to hold a second election.
The Constitution doesn't provide for that either unless we're taking about 2024. But in his second post, he said that steps must be taken "immediately", so it doesn't sound like he's talking about waiting until 2025 to take office.
Trump is asking for remedies that don't exist under the Constitution, and for which there is no mechanism to accomplish. How is that not the same as asking for at least a temporary suspension of the Constitution? I just don't see how to reconcile his proposed remedies with the argument that he thinks the Constitution should be followed.
Or is he just venting and not meaning for his points to be taken seriously?
Yes,he certainly has thrown them under the bus. What are the Dems’ charges against them? That they were participating in an “insurrection” and “trying to overthrow the government” which is “sedition”.
Their defenders of the patriots of Jan6 have long argued the opposite: that they were there to ensure the Constitution was followed. Read my post #53 again. Trump demolished that defense with those TS posts
So what if he said the Jan6 protesters were being mistreated? Just words. What has he ever really done for them? After Trump’s TS posts of Dec. 3 and 5, their geese are cooked. Possibly, Trump’s goose as well.
Second thread I have caught you on.
Where have you been?
I’ve missed you
I think you are in for quite the surprise. How did you think this disaster was going to end?
Were you thinking the huge red wave would give us both houses of Congress in 2022 and impeachment would sweep the criminals out?
Were you thinking the Supreme Court would take up an election fraud case and decertify?
Were you thinking the justice dept would root out the fraud and prosecute the bad guys?
Please don’t tell me that we will just move on and win in 2024.
The military is the only way out of this mess. Unless you prefer to see the average citizen out on the street with an AR.
The constitution has been suspended already in case you haven’t noticed. No part of govt is currently operating under the constitution. Its going to take the military to get back to the constitution.
I’m sure this has all been hashed out, but why the freakout over Trump’s rather obvious observation that the Constitution does not have a mechanism for reversing a fraudulent and fraudulently certified election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.