Part of President Trump's platform for 2024

I am not sure which claim you mean.

Did trump say "Do you throw the Presidential election results of 2020 out and declare a rightful winner, or do you have a new election? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."?

Yes. We know he did. That is not a hypothetical.

Let's look at the statement.



Trump offers two choices:

1. throw the Presidential election results of 2020 out and declare a rightful winner

2. have a new election.

This is supported by a claim:

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


My stance is that even if massive fraud on the scale Trump claims occurred in 2020 did occur it would NOT allow for the "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

Believing that "a Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" disqualifies one from being President. Trump is anti-American in the sense that the US Constitution forms the basis for our government. Trump supporters ate anti-Patriots (they ate no better than the Dems in terms of being progressive).

 

I think we have to read the statement as written (and in order).

I understand that one side will make more of the statement than Trump intended, but also that the alt-right will try to spin ot the other direction.

The problem is Trump mentions two unconstitutional actions -install him or hold another election. Then he says that massive fraud allows for the parts of the Constitution to be terminated.

Granted, the Dems want to change the Constitution to assist their party (like making DC a State). BUT the ONLY side calling for terminating the US Constitution is the alt-right (including Trump).

Parts of the US Constitution will have to be terminated or suspended to install Trump as President or to hold a new election for 2020. The Constitution simply does not allow Trumps agenda.

 

Alt-right does not mean "white nationalists" but rather the alternate right which has sometimes manifested itself in opposirion to racial, gender, or religious equality.

I.e., the dictionary definition - not the Southern Poverty Law Center definition.

I agree the alt-right should have no place in Christianity.

 

No, you are again wrong. I thought you were saying the alt-right has no place in Christianity. That is why I answered as I did.

I agree intentionally presenting the alt-right in the wrong way equates to lying and has no place in Christianity as well.

That said, accusing me of twisting your post (when I simply responded as I understood your post) really has no place in Christianity either.

As Christians our behavior should be better than that, not to mention your username indicates you may be a minister.

 

I'm not attacking your calling. I praise God for calling men into the ministry.

I am cautioning you that your behavior should live up to that calling.

You have a history of throwing stones. Sometimes they are deserved, but often times they are not. You never recognize the difference. You have never developed a method of reproof without trying to inflict injury.

So when you make a mistake, like in this post, you seem only to dig in your heels.

If you do not like the word "alt-right" that's fine. I told you that I use the dictionary (here Websters) definition. But I can use "far-right" as well.

It doesn't matter to me. Whatever word best communicates the group I am speaking about to those with whom I am speaking is fine.

You need to stop making assumptions and stop attacking brethern. You should be better than that.

 

Constitutionally? No.

The US Constitution is clear here. The POTUS is elected via State elector certificates.

We do not live in a nation where the Presidential election is determined by the popular vote.

Electors do not even have to vote the way they were chosen to vote (as evidenced by history).

Some of the ECF's wanted Congress to choose a President. Our current process is a compromise.

The blame falls on the States for not policing their election.

 

We saw this ^^ before, @percho (well, not us. But this is what happened in the election of 1876).

@canadyjd did better than I at explaining.

 

Jan 6 ended up being an attempt to stop the procedure. I do not believe it was an insurrection (that is propaganda) but it was a rebellion against the US Constitution.

Yes, it did interfere with the process.

Many seemed (by their comments) to believe Trump's claim that Pence had the power to overthrow the received certificates.

Ultimately the DNC benefitted. Trump was discredited and the GOP lost the gains they should have seen in the 2022 midterms.

 

Was there going to be a challenge to some electors?

No. There were no grounds to challenge the electors as received. Congress receives the certificates from the states. If there is no conflict then there is no challenge. Had a state sent multiple conflicting electors then Congress would have to investigate.

January 6 took place for many reasons.

The DNC had an active campaign of lies about Trump (more hostile than previously seen).

Trump rightly called the media out, but he also spread lies about the election which helped to fuel an already hostile situation.

Trump lied to his followers about election fraud in electronic systems. Some knew he was lying yet joined in. This was more fuel.

On Jan 6 Congress met as prescribed. Trump misled a group of people into believing Pence could stop the process.