Posted on 12/03/2022 4:59:47 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Edited on 12/03/2022 7:07:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Former President Donald Trump suggested the “termination” of the United States Constitution could be allowable in response to the bombshell report that the Democrat Party colluded with Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.
The former president made his observation via his Truth Social account on Saturday following journalist Matt Taibbi’s thorough report on Twitter’s internal communications during the 2020 elections at the behest of newly-minted CEO Elon Musk.
The author of the Breitbart article above is spinning (lying). Here's what Trump actually posted.
See posts #58 and 59 below.
Both bodies aren’t worth what they steal from the American people.
And you apparently view yourself as something of a mind reader.
My stance on Trump is no secret.
You can say that again, which you did.
...and you seem to be on the same Trump mind reading kick as some others on this forum.
Trump has many times jumped the shark, but this is the end. I fight to the death for the Constitution not for Trump.
No - I’m following what Trump said, literally. (And so is the press)
Words - mean things.
vast mind reading in action.
Yes - he’s ONLY calling for terminating those rules in the constitution as they pertain to elections.
That’s not how I read it. Maybe you should phone in and ask what he really meant.
From Trumps own mouth.....
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
6h
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!
CASE CLOSED!!!!!
You can’t even read what was written much less divine what he was thinking.
Sounds like you’re the one who’s mind reading.
So we should now just pick and choose what laws in the constitution we should follow at whim? Now who’s acting like a Democrat?
the press, now there is something to stake you claim on. They chose their interpretation. Trump in their opinion gave them an opening, which he does pretty regularly.
CASE CLOSED!!!!!
Apparently not.
So we should now just pick and choose what laws in the constitution we should follow at whim?
You don’t read well do you.
You’re the one who wrote it.
It is not MY opinion that we pick and choose what constitutional laws to follow so it was obviously yours or you’re construing them to Trump.
Again. Words, mean things.
HI JIM! How wonderful seeing a post from you. You just closed down the debate with prof that Trump was right according to the paragraph you posted. I pray for you regularly. God bless and keep you.
Read the entire response from Trump. He’s saying because the DNC etc allowed the criminal activities basically of the 2020 election, that they oe some others could terminate the Constitution. He states the founding fathers would not want this.
And an enterprise will be sued for that. And the plaintiff will likely win. Because discrimination is illegal (though I don’t know that conservatives are a protected class).
When a business opens (unless it’s a private club) it is expected to serve the public at large without discrimination.
However, a Terms of Service agreement is more like this: “We’ll let you use our platform (”join our club” so to speak) if you agree that we get to censor you.
Isn’t that sort of like saying: You can sign up and participate here, as long as you agree not to be Black
when you do participate.
As for being a member of a protected group, we have over
330 million members of our protected group. They are known
as citizens of the United States of America.
I submit that they are discriminating against Conservatives.
If it were one business, it might not be so bad, but in
this instance you had Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram doing
it in certain instances.
We still have universities across the nation doing it.
We are now finding out that the federal government was
helping them do it.
Unless he is calling for revolution in some kind of code this statement is out of bounds. To answer lawlessness with lawlessness is to incite revolution. That is probably becoming our only resort though. It is the little secret being whispered in many conversations I Imagine. Either we are wrong and elections have not been stolen or if we are right and liberty is fading away fast.
Justice is intentionally moving too slowly to prevent damage if they move at all and that too is intentional. Elections that are so clearly suspect are a crisis and should be addressed as such and immediately; this is not happening as we all know. The lawlessness of the gooberment needs to be answered and Jefferson had the right idea for it. Who will lead and how?
A gooberment holding power, expressed or unintended, granted by the people against the will of the people is what we are seeing. Not just here but in France, Canada, Germany and so on. Warnings by the gooberments against the people protesting the gooberment are tyranny in action and have no relationship to liberty. I would say the gooberment is gasping but they have all the guns, money and power now.
At some point we have to be willing to confront unchecked power. If not we are willing to become slaves to tyranny. Maybe Trump is at that point of confrontation? Maybe we all should be.
“protected class” is a legal term, and I know no legal precedent that recognizes any people espousing any political ideology as a “protected class.”
Race, sex and religion... categories for which people cannot be discriminated against. There are legal protections involved.
I never said that these platforms weren’t being discriminatory. What I said was that because people check the “I Agree” box when signing up to use them, they are pretty much agreeing that the site can censor them. As long as the Terms of Service agreement is the same for everyone... completely legal.
You kept mentioning the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect anyone from Twitter censorship. It protects people from censorship from the Government.
If you write a “Letter to the Editor” of the local news and the local news doesn’t print it, there is no legal recourse for you. Your “First Amendment Rights” have not been violated.
It’s not any different for internet platforms.
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and the FBI collude to silence
Conservatives and you don’t think here has been any violation
of Conservative’s rights.
You have heard of the FBI, right? You do understand it is
part of the federal Government, right?
If Black’s rights are protected by everyone including the
government and private businesses, why do I as a Conservative
have to endure a second class citizen’s status?
Comparing Twitter to a newspaper is a fallacious argument.
Newspapers cannot possibly publish every letter to the
editor.
Twitter can allow everyone’s posts to remain on the forum.
When information is blocked from being on the leading
forums, traffic wise, it affects public perceptions and
therefore elections.
“I don’t like what they are saying”, should not be a good
enough reason to silence people. If they are not lying
and what they are saying is true, it’s foundational to
our amendment rights. Why, because our Founders wanted
there to be open and free communication for this very
purpose.
It seems to me that at some threshold, these large
corporations need to be held to the same standards as a
utility. I’m not sure if that would protect Conservative’s
views or not.
This is too important an issue to simply allow these
massive companies to decide what will be heard and what
won’t.
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.