To: kiryandil
Upon closely reading the text, you could reasonably interpret it either way: That he was calling for the termination of the Constitution, or that the fraud caused the termination of the Constitution.
I'm very uncomfortable with ANY POSSIBILITY of the first interpretation. He should make it VERY CLEAR he was not calling for the termination of the Constitution, and he should have done it in the initial 'tweet'.
212 posted on
12/03/2022 6:49:31 PM PST by
Lazamataz
(Yours is an unusually analytic and thoughtful take.)
To: Lazamataz
No; only the latter. The left wants you to see ambiguity that does not exist.
216 posted on
12/03/2022 6:51:02 PM PST by
Olog-hai
("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
To: Lazamataz
That he was calling for the termination of the Constitution, or that the fraud caused the termination of the Constitution.He thinks the fraud happened, so either way he thinks the Constitution is terminated, or should be.
To: Lazamataz
But he didn’t. There is still time for him to do so but I fear his ego really thinks he should be above the Constitution.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson