I disagree.
Obviously we are talking about the hypothetical, but I cannot imagine electing a President who would - even within 2 years after his term while seeking another - advocate the termination of the US Constitution.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Part of President Trump's platform for 2024
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Obviously we are talking about the hypothetical, but I cannot imagine electing a President who would - even within 2 years after his term while seeking another - advocate the termination of the US Constitution.
That is the quote.
Massive fraud is not a legitimate reason to terminate the US Constitution.
The question is whether these ex-patriots (you included) will start a new alt-right party and if so what will be the result.
No legitimate Republican will vote for Trump. But a neo alt right party may take away enough from the GOP to guarantee a Dem win.
I have to wonder if this was not the intent to start.
Those who believe that Trump is evil and ignorant will of course read what they want into his post regardless of his intent and the actual meaning. Had Trump actually called to terminate the Constitution — as anti-Trumpers would lead the gullible to believe — he would have lost his constitutional conservative base, and he knows that.
Monday, however, a more level-headed journalist, @ByronYork, tweeted instead, "Question: What do you think is the most accurate way to describe what Trump called for in the Truth Social post below? truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru... pic.twitter.com/58OUiXRUpW."
The predisposed anti-Trump crowd chose to read "allow for" as advocating termination of laws governing elections. Those governing laws include Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides for the unique role of state legislatures (not state bureaucrats) setting the presidential election laws.
Indeed, constitutional arguments presented before January 6, 2021 — which unfortunately have been largely misreported by the corporate press and overshadowed by other issues — are grounded in efforts to prevent false and fraudulent elections. ("Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" [Federalist 68].)
That key states violated Article 2, Section 1 by bypassing state legislatures in making new rules for the 2020 election did result in election law violations that swayed the outcome.
Another common reading of "allow for" is "to make (something) possible," as in "to leave your house unlocked allows for theft." It means to give the necessary time or opportunity for something to happen.
Reading Trump's comment in that context brings a very different meaning to his social media post from a call by him to terminate the Constitution. This reading is more plausible when one knows that Trump was briefed by some brilliant constitutional lawyers about the state fraud and constitutional issues under Article 2, Section 1, whether one agrees with their constitutional arguments or not.
It was the acts of others that "terminated" the laws governing the 2020 elections — like what was seen in the Twitter revelations about collusion with Big Tech aiders and abettors such as those who lied and said the laptop was Russian disinformation. That collusion enabled (allowed for) a false and fraudulent election in 2020. The lies skewed votes, polls reveal.
Leftists and establishment Republicans have been systematically "terminating" the Constitution for decades. In Federalist 44, James Madison wrote about how the United States may eventually be prone to usurpation of constitutional law by elected officials, "[yet] in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers," he wrote.
Madison didn't even envision what we now face with collusion between the Deep State and mega-corporations.
Federalist 53 refers to the "Constitution [as] paramount to the government," and John Marshall called it our "fundamental and paramount law." Had Trump actually called for the Constitution to be broken — when the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress break it every day — he'd have sealed his fate for 2024.
Anti-Trumpers are more than happy to use this new Charlottesville hoax moment to distract from Elon Musk's release of the Twitter censorship files.
did trump say he wanted the constitution terminated
Monday, however, a more level-headed journalist, @ByronYork, tweeted instead, "Question: What do you think is the most accurate way to describe what Trump called for in the Truth Social post below? truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru... pic.twitter.com/58OUiXRUpW."
The predisposed anti-Trump crowd chose to read "allow for" as advocating termination of laws governing elections. Those governing laws include Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides for the unique role of state legislatures (not state bureaucrats) setting the presidential election laws.
Indeed, constitutional arguments presented before January 6, 2021 — which unfortunately have been largely misreported by the corporate press and overshadowed by other issues — are grounded in efforts to prevent false and fraudulent elections. ("Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" [Federalist 68].)
That key states violated Article 2, Section 1 by bypassing state legislatures in making new rules for the 2020 election did result in election law violations that swayed the outcome.
Another common reading of "allow for" is "to make (something) possible," as in "to leave your house unlocked allows for theft." It means to give the necessary time or opportunity for something to happen.
Reading Trump's comment in that context brings a very different meaning to his social media post from a call by him to terminate the Constitution. This reading is more plausible when one knows that Trump was briefed by some brilliant constitutional lawyers about the state fraud and constitutional issues under Article 2, Section 1, whether one agrees with their constitutional arguments or not.
It was the acts of others that "terminated" the laws governing the 2020 elections — like what was seen in the Twitter revelations about collusion with Big Tech aiders and abettors such as those who lied and said the laptop was Russian disinformation. That collusion enabled (allowed for) a false and fraudulent election in 2020. The lies skewed votes, polls reveal.
Leftists and establishment Republicans have been systematically "terminating" the Constitution for decades. In Federalist 44, James Madison wrote about how the United States may eventually be prone to usurpation of constitutional law by elected officials, "[yet] in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers," he wrote.
Madison didn't even envision what we now face with collusion between the Deep State and mega-corporations.
Federalist 53 refers to the "Constitution [as] paramount to the government," and John Marshall called it our "fundamental and paramount law." Had Trump actually called for the Constitution to be broken — when the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress break it every day — he'd have sealed his fate for 2024.
Anti-Trumpers are more than happy to use this new Charlottesville hoax moment to distract from Elon Musk's release of the Twitter censorship files.
did trump say he wanted the constitution terminated
I like Trumps platform. I think most Republicans do as well.
But Trump has become a cancer in the Republican party. If the GOP does not distance itself from Trump quickly then they will probably have no chance in the upcoming election.
I suspect most American citizens regardless of political leanings were appalled with Trumps call to terminate aspects of the Constitution. That is probably what many politicians want (especially on the far left) but they seem to have enough sence not to say it.
I hope the GOP denounces Trump for his anti-American stance on the US Constitution (that is politically unforgivable), but I hope they keep his platform.
Good grief - talk about brainwashed.Those who believe that Trump is evil and ignorant will of course read what they want into his post regardless of his intent and the actual meaning. Had Trump actually called to terminate the Constitution — as anti-Trumpers would lead the gullible to believe — he would have lost his constitutional conservative base, and he knows that.
Monday, however, a more level-headed journalist, @ByronYork, tweeted instead, "Question: What do you think is the most accurate way to describe what Trump called for in the Truth Social post below? truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru... pic.twitter.com/58OUiXRUpW."
The predisposed anti-Trump crowd chose to read "allow for" as advocating termination of laws governing elections. Those governing laws include Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides for the unique role of state legislatures (not state bureaucrats) setting the presidential election laws.
Indeed, constitutional arguments presented before January 6, 2021 — which unfortunately have been largely misreported by the corporate press and overshadowed by other issues — are grounded in efforts to prevent false and fraudulent elections. ("Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" [Federalist 68].)
That key states violated Article 2, Section 1 by bypassing state legislatures in making new rules for the 2020 election did result in election law violations that swayed the outcome.
Another common reading of "allow for" is "to make (something) possible," as in "to leave your house unlocked allows for theft." It means to give the necessary time or opportunity for something to happen.
Reading Trump's comment in that context brings a very different meaning to his social media post from a call by him to terminate the Constitution. This reading is more plausible when one knows that Trump was briefed by some brilliant constitutional lawyers about the state fraud and constitutional issues under Article 2, Section 1, whether one agrees with their constitutional arguments or not.
It was the acts of others that "terminated" the laws governing the 2020 elections — like what was seen in the Twitter revelations about collusion with Big Tech aiders and abettors such as those who lied and said the laptop was Russian disinformation. That collusion enabled (allowed for) a false and fraudulent election in 2020. The lies skewed votes, polls reveal.
Leftists and establishment Republicans have been systematically "terminating" the Constitution for decades. In Federalist 44, James Madison wrote about how the United States may eventually be prone to usurpation of constitutional law by elected officials, "[yet] in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers," he wrote.
Madison didn't even envision what we now face with collusion between the Deep State and mega-corporations.
Federalist 53 refers to the "Constitution [as] paramount to the government," and John Marshall called it our "fundamental and paramount law." Had Trump actually called for the Constitution to be broken — when the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress break it every day — he'd have sealed his fate for 2024.
Anti-Trumpers are more than happy to use this new Charlottesville hoax moment to distract from Elon Musk's release of the Twitter censorship files.
did trump say he wanted the constitution terminated
You think it is really better for Trump to claim his defeat (even if by fraud) allows for the termination of the US Constitution???!!!!!!
Trump is not fit to run for office, much less hold office.
No amount of fraud allows for the termination of any part of the Constitution.
And it's not about hating Trump. I supported him. I came to realize he posed a danger in that he could divide the GOP, but I absolutely agree with his platform. I even enjoyed his candor.
Now you slam patriots for defending the Constitution of the United States against domestic enemies.
At least we know that "once a marine always a marine" is a false saying. Otherwise you'd also have cried foul when Trump said that fraud allows for the termination of the Constitution.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I want to point out what I see as the major problem with Trump’s statement…
He stated the PURPOSE of the action he proposed was to declare himself the winner of 2020….. or…. Have a new election (a do over) for 2020. There is no constitutional path for either of those things to happen.
Had he stated the PURPOSE of his recommendation was to protect the integrity of federal elections or prevent fraud in future elections or to insure citizens don’t have their votes cancelled by fraud… anything other than focusing on himself and 2020, I could have supported a conversation on the issue.
As is, it’s was a catastrophic mistake which I doubt he can recover from.
peace to you
We will see.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Yes, but that disagreement is based on an imagined future event that would not have happened (since he would have won the election) compared to what is actually happening.
And what is actually happening is that the Dems regularly bypass, ignore, undermine, and badmouth the Constitution, and talk of abolishing it altogether.
There is no comparison. The Dems are the greater evil by several magnitudes, and very, very powerful.
(But I realize that choosing the lesser of two evils is not exactly in your working vocabulary, so why should recognizing which is which be any easier for you.
)
Yea....perhaps had Trump won he wouldn't have ended up where he is today. I wonder how much his present ideas were forged by focusing on the 2020 election.Yes, but that disagreement is based on an imagined future event that would not have happened (since he would have won the election) compared to what is actually happening.
And what is actually happening is that the Dems regularly bypass, ignore, undermine, and badmouth the Constitution, and talk of abolishing it altogether.
There is no comparison. The Dems are the greater evil by several magnitudes, and very, very powerful.
(But I realize that choosing the lesser of two evils is not exactly in your working vocabulary, so why should recognizing which is which be any easier for you.
But I agree. We are talking hypothetically.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
I’ve lost count of the times Trump worded something poorly, or spoke when he should have let others do the talking.
Yet he was doing a better job as president than anyone for quite some time, until he was deposed by his enemies via a massive election fraud apparatus.
I agree. And there were many times that the Dems took partial quotes to slander him (and it stuck). Unfortunately this is not one of those times.
I think Trump would have done better had he confronted many of those accusations and reiterated his accomplishments instead of focusing on his closing travel due to covid.
I'm not saying he was wrong to close travel, but I watched every debate and he focused so hard on that when he could have focused on gains he had made.
That is why I say I hope the GOP keeps Trump's platform, only without Trump. He was wrongly a liability, now he is rightly a liability, but either way he is a liability.
I hope I'm wrong, but I cannot see Trump supporting another GOP candidate for President (at least not without self praise). And I'm not sure if his support would help (except for the alt-right, it'd probably hurt) any chance of defeating the Dems.
The best he could do now is fade into the background. Let the Dems keep focused on 2020 while the GOP focuses on the nation.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The list in the OP is a huge reference to the 2020 Dem election fraud apparatus.
The list just happens to be steps that need to be taken now rather than wait for a new Rep presidency that may never come if they aren't.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Well, with a slim repub majority in the house and dem control of Senate and POTUS, there is no chance to pass these proposals into law.
All the more reason to find a candidate that will unite the repubs and have broad appeal in the country.
peace to you
Our resident leftist conservatives fall into this category, their knives are out. I was listening to the can’t be replaced Rush Limbaugh’s time slot-Jimmy Failla the other day. Had to turn him off. Uniparty guy who pretends to be conservative. Flashy, sometimes funny, but for sale. My opinion.
Uniparty
David Rockefeller, a prominent 20th-century globalist and "uniparty" representative
See also: Establishment
The "Uniparty" is a term that describes the globalistestablishment's control over politics and policy to the extent that every or nearly every major political party or politician are controlled by them and, thus, have far more in common than different, policy-wise. It is essentially synonymous with the deep state, as it retains control almost regardless of which political party or politician is elected.
An example is the general movement by both the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States to continually expand the size and reach of the Federal government into every area of one's life, the only significant difference being whether the apparatus should be run by unionized government employees (the Democrat party approach) or private-sector contractors (the Republican party approach).
The uniparty should not be confused with bipartisanship, as the latter views working together as a means to an end, while the uniparty sees different political parties working together as the end in-and-of itself.
Contents
[hide]
Critics of the establishment frequently use the term "uniparty" because the policies of establishment members of various political parties support and advance the same globalist and socialist policies.[1] For example, after the New Deal, many liberal Republicans supported FDR's big government programs and helped preserve them, earning them the nickname of "me too" Republicans.[2][3] This "me too" attitude became prominent again during Barack Obama's candidacy and presidency, when many token conservatives voiced support for his left-wing policies,[4] and when the GOP establishment attempted to adopt the same policies as the Democrats on issues related to immigration and minorities.[5] The uniparty consistently advocates for a net increase in federal spending without any effort to reduce unnecessary social or defense spending,[6] and both parties have a record of supporting gun control.[7] Marxist ideas have "infiltrated" both the Democrat and Republican parties.[8]
During the 2012 U.S. presidential election, conservatives noted that Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney shared many of the same core values and policies.[9][10] Another example of the uniparty in action is the "grand coalition" governments in several European countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria. While the traditional mainstream conservative and liberal parties joined together to govern, they agreed on many agenda items, particularly in advancing big government globalist policies.
The same critics also point out the GOP establishment's readiness to compromise and back down from their stated positions as an example of the uniparty.[11][12] Many neoconservatives and libertarians support the leftist push for abolishing national identity and the nation-state.[13] Republicans have joined Democrats in advancing and protecting open borders policies.[14]
In 1961, Edith Kermit Roosevelt, the granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, wrote what she considered the definition of the establishment to be:
“ The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area….
What is the Establishment’s viewpoint? Through the [past four] administrations, its ideology is constant. That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist state governed by “experts” like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate....[15]
Uniparty influence
Critics of the establishment assert that the uniparty establishment asserts control over every or most major political parties and political figures. The numerous non-governmental organizations that leaders from both parties support, and vice-versa, serve as evidence for this claim. For example, U.S. Presidents of both political parties chose to fill their administrations with members of globalist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Additionally, prominent figures from both political parties tend to be members of the Bilderberg group and the Bohemian Grove.
U.S. Col Douglas MacGregor, a critic of the globalist and Uniparty war on Russia said, "Russia to them [the Uniparty and globalists] represents the last major European state that is not part of the globalist internationalist empire, if you will. They've [Russia] resisted LGBTQ, they've resisted what I would call this interesting blend of nihilism, Marxism, atheism, and as a result, they [Russia] have to be subverted and overthrown."[
Uniparty
David Rockefeller, a prominent 20th-century globalist and "uniparty" representative
See also: Establishment
The "Uniparty" is a term that describes the globalistestablishment's control over politics and policy to the extent that every or nearly every major political party or politician are controlled by them and, thus, have far more in common than different, policy-wise. It is essentially synonymous with the deep state, as it retains control almost regardless of which political party or politician is elected.
An example is the general movement by both the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States to continually expand the size and reach of the Federal government into every area of one's life, the only significant difference being whether the apparatus should be run by unionized government employees (the Democrat party approach) or private-sector contractors (the Republican party approach).
The uniparty should not be confused with bipartisanship, as the latter views working together as a means to an end, while the uniparty sees different political parties working together as the end in-and-of itself.
Contents
[hide]
- 1 Different parties, same policies
- 2 Uniparty influence
- 3 Notable figures not part of the uniparty
- 4 See also
- 5 External Links
- 6 References
Critics of the establishment frequently use the term "uniparty" because the policies of establishment members of various political parties support and advance the same globalist and socialist policies.[1] For example, after the New Deal, many liberal Republicans supported FDR's big government programs and helped preserve them, earning them the nickname of "me too" Republicans.[2][3] This "me too" attitude became prominent again during Barack Obama's candidacy and presidency, when many token conservatives voiced support for his left-wing policies,[4] and when the GOP establishment attempted to adopt the same policies as the Democrats on issues related to immigration and minorities.[5] The uniparty consistently advocates for a net increase in federal spending without any effort to reduce unnecessary social or defense spending,[6] and both parties have a record of supporting gun control.[7] Marxist ideas have "infiltrated" both the Democrat and Republican parties.[8]
During the 2012 U.S. presidential election, conservatives noted that Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney shared many of the same core values and policies.[9][10] Another example of the uniparty in action is the "grand coalition" governments in several European countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria. While the traditional mainstream conservative and liberal parties joined together to govern, they agreed on many agenda items, particularly in advancing big government globalist policies.
The same critics also point out the GOP establishment's readiness to compromise and back down from their stated positions as an example of the uniparty.[11][12] Many neoconservatives and libertarians support the leftist push for abolishing national identity and the nation-state.[13] Republicans have joined Democrats in advancing and protecting open borders policies.[14]
In 1961, Edith Kermit Roosevelt, the granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, wrote what she considered the definition of the establishment to be:
“ The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area….
What is the Establishment’s viewpoint? Through the [past four] administrations, its ideology is constant. That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist state governed by “experts” like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate....[15]
Uniparty influence
Critics of the establishment assert that the uniparty establishment asserts control over every or most major political parties and political figures. The numerous non-governmental organizations that leaders from both parties support, and vice-versa, serve as evidence for this claim. For example, U.S. Presidents of both political parties chose to fill their administrations with members of globalist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Additionally, prominent figures from both political parties tend to be members of the Bilderberg group and the Bohemian Grove.
U.S. Col Douglas MacGregor, a critic of the globalist and Uniparty war on Russia said, "Russia to them [the Uniparty and globalists] represents the last major European state that is not part of the globalist internationalist empire, if you will. They've [Russia] resisted LGBTQ, they've resisted what I would call this interesting blend of nihilism, Marxism, atheism, and as a result, they [Russia] have to be subverted and overthrown."[
We live in that environment already. For decades we have had a "uni-political system" made up of two parties representing opposite sides of the same coin. We have reached a point of interdependence with the GOP and the DNC. They derive political identity by representing the opposite of their adversary. Anybody who has seen a political ad realizes this. It is not about how good your party would be for the nation but about how bad the opposing party is for the nation.
I am not sure that you are correct about people being leftist and conservative. Left-wing politics does not seem to represent conservatism at all.
In what ways do you believe the political Left are conservative?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
That seems to miss the gist of the comment. A candidate with broad appeal was defeated last time even with record votes cast, and by a senile opponent with a silly running mate.
Unless the 2020 massive election fraud apparatus is seriously dealt with, hoping for a Rep win again looks like wishful thinking.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The expression “guy who pretends to be conservative” seems to clarify that. It’s your real “wolf in sheep’s clothing” Rep, aka a RINO.
A usual twist to fit response from you. I said “OUR RESIDENT LEFTIST CONSERVATIVES”, i.e. the Baptist Board.
I don't get "leftist conservatives".
I see a few leftists (people who support left-wing politics), particularly around election time. But I do not see any on the BB who are leftist AND conservative.
I just don't see how those two can mix as left-wing politics are not conservative.
This goes back to definitions (beliefs vs actions). In sure the GOP would welcome RINOs if they vote Republican.
That said, I have found that many "RINOs" ate Republicans - they are just on the alt-right or the left of the Republican party.
The alt-right mislabeles traditional and mainstream Republicans as RINOs, the traditional-mainstream Republicans mislabeles those to left of their view as RINOs.
Republican and Democrat is not about beliefs but party support (many Independents hold the exact same beliefs as Republicans).
I can see no benefit for a leftist to pretend to be conservative. That does not make sence. I did mention Trump could be, but in retrospect I don't think so as there is no benefit.
I doubt there is such a thing as a conservative leftist.