Posted on 12/05/2022 2:47:47 AM PST by fruser1
In his statement, Trump demanded "immediate steps" to right that wrong. He says that means either 1) "throw the Presidential election results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER", or 2) "have a NEW ELECTION".
But the Constitution itself doesn't permit either of those "immediate steps". Literally the only way to remove a sitting President under the Constitution is by impeachment or the 25th Amendment, and neither of those would permit the installation of Trump as the new President. Under either provision, Kamala Harris would become the new President.
So given the context of the whole statement, I think what he's saying is very clear: that the Democrats stole the election, the Founders would never have wanted that, and that conduct by the Democrats justifies termination of the normal Constitutional provisions regarding removal/replacement of the President. That's the only way the whole statement makes any sense, and that's why most people are interpreting it that way.
You said….”Trump demanded “immediate steps”” with ‘immediate steps’ in quotation marks. Where does PDJT use those words? I don’t see them. In fact, I fail to see how you can use the word ‘demand’ when the first sentence of PDJT’s post is a question…. In fact, I think the entire post taken in its entirety is a very clever statement to flush DemRats and the enemedia out into the open to reveal themselves.
And where do you get the idea that ‘most people are interpreting it that way’? You did a survey or got survey results that show that is the case? How many were in the survey? Can I see the wording of the exact survey question that was used? That’s a pure leftist tactic by the way…. Making a case for something being right because the majority believe it to be right, even though the numbers are all made up.
But it doesn't change the point, and may even help it, because that clarification post essentially just doubled down on him asking for remedies that aren't part of the Constitution. What "immediate steps" are there that would achieve what he asked without abrogating the Constitution?
What “immediate steps” are there that would achieve what he asked without abrogating the Constitution?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you have to take the approach of an alcoholic going to AA... you don’t bypass the ‘twelve steps’ and immediately jump to the solution because that doesn’t work. The first step is to define and acknowledge you have a problem.....has that been done? By ‘you’, I’m not referring to you personally.... I’m referring to citizen in general.
Rather than repeating myself, see my post 112 to PerConPat since it was practically the same discussion point.... https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4114160/posts?page=103
By the way, I see you ignored my question of “And where do you get the idea that ‘most people are interpreting it that way’?”
If by ‘most people’ you are referring to a broad-based sampling of the electorate, sure.... you can likely say ‘most’ since you almost certainly will be at more than 50%. What does that prove? Half the electorate vote DemRat and they never would support any position made by PDJT... and the other half contains a mix of RINOS and never-Trumpers who aren’t clued into the point he actually is making....
Wow! Thank you! The noise is so thick! I think until I see him say in plain English that he wants to terminate the constitution I’m going to go back to work and concentrate on what I’m doing!
Thank you for posting this!
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.