Massive fraud allowing for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution is a far cry from Trump wanting to suspend the constitution. So thanks for the demonstration.

Suspending all rules of the constitution isn’t the same as suspending the constitution.

Talk about Trump derangement syndrome.

P1: Trump believes the 2020 election was a Fraud
P2: Trump believes a fraudulent election justifies suspension of the Constitution *which is the correct reading of "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles...found in the Constitution"
C: Trump doesn't want to suspend the Constitution?

Could you kindly try to make sense of that for me

Your problem is the contextomy.

P2 ought to be: Trump believes “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“.

Upon any confusion, good faith demands you seek clarification, not assume motives and attribute to him words he never said.

A Massive Fraud of this type — AmadeusD

Of what type do you think he was referring? Tax fraud? Or could it be, that I am well aware of the context and I am accurately portraying the situation here? because that's the case.

I’m just wondering how one gets from what is quoted to “Trump wants to suspend the constitution” or “Trump calls for the termination of the constitution”. What leads you to take that leap?

I laid that out, fairly clearly. You had an objection. I pointed out it was an inaccurate objection, the answer to which is in the content of the quotes. You are back to pretending that didn't happen.

P1: Trump believes a Massive Fraud justifies the suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution"
P2: Trump believes the 2020 Election was a Massive Fraud ™

C: Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified (the idea that this doesn't imply he wants it to happen is bogus, and not a real argument).

So again, what type of Fraud do you think he was referring to?? I will take a second brush past this question as a fair estimate that you understand exactly that he's talking about the election, which he believed was a Massive Fraud™

Now, the above is clear any not really amenable to massage. However, lets leave it aside. I know what you're doing. I tend to do the same, when it's actually happening. JPB is a prime example of someone being taken out of context, lied about, interpolated until his entire persona appears to those who know nothing about it, as if a fully-fledge and technicoloured monster. I get it. But...

You would read the same thing that we are out of a Biden statement similar. You would not be so indolently pedantic as to deny the basic and obvious meaning of the statement, as if you didn't get it. So why with Trump?

Of course he’s talking about election fraud. What I’m wondering is how you can get from this quote:

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“

To this assumption regarding his motives:

“Trump wants to suspend the constitution”.

Or his beliefs:

Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.

His clarification directly disputes both assumptions. His absence from any position of power directly disputes even the possibility. So how do you get from one to the other, if not by way of the propaganda of his opponents?

To this assumption regarding his motives: — NOS4A2

That's not a motive.

Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.

His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.

His clarification directly disputes both assumptions. — NOS4A2

My position (the second of your quoted objectionable quotes) is not disputed by anything he has subsequently said that isn't a direct contradiction of what he... said. So, I can accept he misspoke perhaps.

So how do you get from one to the other — NOS4A2

I have outlined, twice, how this is a purely logical and sensible conclusion to draw. If you don't see it, that's within you to fix.

So, I can accept he misspoke perhaps. — AmadeusD

Not possible. Trump doesn’t misspeak and doesn’t lose. When he said Obama was the literal founder of ISIS, repeatedly, he both meant it and didn’t mean it. It’s sarcasm.

Concerning the constitution comment:

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

That comes from Trump, so it has to be true.

Your belief otherwise is just falling for liberal media propaganda. Yada yada “contextomy” and boom, all good. Make America great again.

Your belief otherwise is just falling for liberal media propaganda. — Mikie

Ah, I see. LOL.

Tbf, liberal media is absolutely awful. But that has no bearing here - just wanted to give at least one opinion here haha.

Sometimes I wonder who’s crazier— Wokesters or Trumpers. Then I remember the real question… who’s more dangerous? And it becomes pretty obvious.

Personally, they're as bad as each other, for different reasons.

But, its totally understandable that someone is comfortable in your position. The GOP, and Trumpers more specifically (i.e the Trumpers in their capacities in teh GOP before Trump) have been the same type of dangerous for several decades at the least.

The newer 'woke' problems have been inching on us for only about 15 years, in my estimation. Easy to miss. However, I was chest-deep in it for a time(And i do mean.. DEEP.. I thought I was morally obliged to literally hand a job offer to a female if i got one, as an example of how deranged i was) and must conclude from my experiences they have an equal potential for social destruction unfortunately :(

Eh, I think it’s clear that the Trump crowd are far more dangerous. But in many ways the woke crowd is more obnoxious.

Fair enough; I think it's clear they're 1. Less capable; 2. Less energetic and 3. Less aggrieved. The BLM protests are the 'canary' for that.

But, that said, I have just heard some lines from a podcast about the Conservative/Republican movement in the USA which are.. to my mind.. utterly bizarre and clearly an interpolation from someone who is extremely biased.

Yet, i know that isn't hte case, in this particular case. So i assume i am underinformed :)

I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote. — jgill

She comes through as "no-nonsense" personality-wize (if that means much). She's given no good indication of stepping up though, or what her programme would be, i.e. why to vote for her. I can see her as US president anyway.

His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.

His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, namely, “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”.

You said: “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”

So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other?

I have outlined, twice, how this is a purely logical and sensible conclusion to draw. If you don't see it, that's within you to fix.

So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense?

So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense? — NOS4A2

I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.

So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other? — NOS4A2

I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.

His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, — NOS4A2

They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.

The only possible point you could conceivably make that doesn't require you lying, is that you think 'allow' and 'justify' in this context are somehow materially different, in that they indicate different attitudes or intentions about the objects in question (the rules, articles etc.. of the Constitution).

How you could possibly think that is, I think, not something a sane person could understand.

I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.

Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”

I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.

Is this a full direct quote?

“Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”

They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.

You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like.

Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.” — NOS4A2

It was what's called a proposition, within a syllogism. I'm unsure you're really understanding what's going on here.

Is this a full direct quote? — NOS4A2

No. The direct full quote is. You cannot possibly be this stupid.

You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like. — NOS4A2

I can do you one better - I quoted him. Which, you know, anyone who can read (you) can see. This is how i know you're lying. Nothing i can do with it, but point htis out as it happens.

Your snark doesn’t change the fact you removed most of his argument and filled it with your own assumptions. That’s the way propaganda works, and I was only hoping you wouldn’t allow yourself to be misinformed, and worse, to pass it off as unarguable fact. My apologies.

filled it with your own assumptions — NOS4A2

Cool thing is, I didn't. And it's right there as proof positive that you've just lied.

I was only hoping — NOS4A2

that i was an absolute moron. I know. You were wrong.

i was an absolute moron.

Fair enough

I'm unsure it wise to end this exchange with a school-yard misrepresentation. But you do you, Boo :kiss: I'm sure outside of this thread we'll have great conversations.

Trump is ahead, as the polls predicted, but it's hardly a blowout.

Yeah, that's far less than I expected in terms of disparity. With that many votes to come, is it at all likely he wont win?

Pundits are saying he'll definitely win, but not by as big a margin as expected.

Gotcha. Just seems odd this article declares him a winner with marginally more than 50% in.

Yeah but Trump has been saying it's going to be a hiding, 90% or more.

Anyway, she better keep going. The Republicans are soon going to require a spare ;-)

I predict just before the presidential election Biden will declare war, possibly with Iran. It won't be pretty, but it will draw upon patriotism of the citizenry. It might work or it might not. Remember the disastrous departure from the now Taliban country.