Part of President Trump's platform for 2024

[JonC]

Yeah, so am I.

And in addressing, if one misrepresents an opponent’s position and then attacks him on that misrepresentation it merely amounts to a fallacious Strawman argument.

Now, some may claim it is not a misrepresentation but I have no reason to believe their claim about Trump to be the truth. Their bias in such a judgment is not unexpected, often radical and the attempt to twist the meaning of Trump’s statement is quite stereotypical of the methods of those who are obsessed with opposing him.

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).

 

[just-want-peace]

Personally I think TDS has permeated this board to a great extent!

Can you anti-Trumpers step back from your bias LONG ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY READ HIS STATEMENT WITHOUT CONDEMNING BEFORE YOU EVEN FINISH?

What I read into his comment is -- that [since] the gov't/dems/big tech/MSM etc., have colluded to defraud the public, now [that we know it for a fact] what are we going to do about it??? He offered two suggestions; No comment on these.
Next sentence, simply, IMHO, makes the statement that this massive fraud resulted in the termination of many of the rules & regulations etc., even those of the constitution. This "-termination of many of the rules & regulations etc., even those of the constitution-" was the result of the fraud! I DO NOT SEE him calling for any mutilating of the constitution.
I'll admit up front that he worded it poorly - (Remember, he DOES NOT speak lawyer-ese)! But he did that throughout his candidacy and presidency, and the MSM did a masterful job in keeping that focus about him; to the extent many did not vote for him because he talked "naughty"!!! Sad to see so many are still drinking the MSM swill!
I hate to listen to him too, but I'll gladly vote for him in the primary if he chooses to run.

 

[JonC]

Personally I think TDS has permeated this board to a great extent!

Can you anti-Trumpers step back from your bias LONG ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY READ HIS STATEMENT WITHOUT CONDEMNING BEFORE YOU EVEN FINISH?

What I read into his comment is -- that [since] the gov't/dems/big tech/MSM etc., have colluded to defraud the public, now [that we know it for a fact] what are we going to do about it??? He offered two suggestions; No comment on these.
Next sentence, simply, IMHO, makes the statement that this massive fraud resulted in the termination of many of the rules & regulations etc., even those of the constitution. This "-termination of many of the rules & regulations etc., even those of the constitution-" was the result of the fraud! I DO NOT SEE him calling for any mutilating of the constitution.
I'll admit up front that he worded it poorly - (Remember, he DOES NOT speak lawyer-ese)! But he did that throughout his candidacy and presidency, and the MSM did a masterful job in keeping that focus about him; to the extent many did not vote for him because he talked "naughty"!!! Sad to see so many are still drinking the MSM swill!
I hate to listen to him too, but I'll gladly vote for him in the primary if he chooses to run.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

For the record those who try to use the term "alt-right" to describe anyone except racist white nationalists show their ignorance. And with that they are so minuscule they do not show up in any polling. It is an attempt to mischaracterize one side as being something they are not. It is evil and should have no place in Christianity.

 

[JonC]

For the record those who try to use the term "alt-right" to describe anyone except racist white nationalists show their ignorance. And with that they are so minuscule they do not show up in any polling. It is an attempt to mischaracterize one side as being something they are not. It is evil and should have no place in Christianity.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

A

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

See here you have once again twisted my post. Which by the way is also evil. I believe you do it intentionally. I did not say the alt right should have no place in Christianity. I said intentionally presenting the alt right in the wrong way and assigning that moniker to those who it does not belong should have no place in Christianity. This behavior of yours is trollish.

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is the definition of alt right

a political movement originating on social media and online forums, composed of a segment of conservatives who support extreme right-wing ideologies, including white nationalism and anti-Semitism (often used attributively):

alt-right


Using alt right to anyone other than white nationalists is a vile attempt to suggest that they are one and the same. It is pure left wing progressive lying.

 

[JonC]

See here you have once again twisted my post. Which by the way is also evil. I believe you do it intentionally. I did not say the alt right should have no place in Christianity. I said intentionally presenting the alt right in the wrong way and assigning that moniker to those who it does not belong should have no place in Christianity. This behavior of yours is trollish.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

yep well when you have nothing else attack my calling. You twist posts too often. I am not the only one who has experienced this. It is common with you. The entire context of my post was about calling people alt right when they are not. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. I said nothing about the Alt right itself. Sorry your claim is not credible.

 

[JonC]

yep well when you have nothing else attack my calling. You twist posts too often. I am not the only one who has experienced this. It is common with you. The entire context of my post was about calling people alt right when they are not. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. I said nothing about the Alt right itself. Sorry your claim is not credible.

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.

 

[percho]

Let say, for sake of argument, that on June 6 2021 it was shown without a doubt that massive fraud took place during the Nov 2020 election that would have resulted in Trump having won in all but 3 states by over 15 million votes.

Would there have been any course of action that could have taken place to rectify who was sworn in on Jan 21, 2021 because of fraud?

 

[JonC]

Let say, for sake of argument, that on June 6 2021 it was shown without a doubt that massive fraud took place during the Nov 2020 election that would have resulted in Trump having won in all but 3 states by over 15 million votes.

Would there have been any course of action that could have taken place to rectify who was sworn in on Jan 21, 2021 because of fraud?

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.

 

[canadyjd]

Let say, for sake of argument, that on June 6 2021 it was shown without a doubt that massive fraud took place during the Nov 2020 election that would have resulted in Trump having won in all but 3 states by over 15 million votes.

Would there have been any course of action that could have taken place to rectify who was sworn in on Jan 21, 2021 because of fraud?

Yes, the constitution allows for individual electors to be challenged. If electors are challenged, due to your hypothetical proven fraud, a simple majority vote from house and Senate members (separate votes) would remove the elector.

If enough electors are rejected which results in no candidate getting 270 electoral college votes, then each state’s representatives vote as a block (each state gets 1 vote) and majority wins POTUS.

Problem in 2020 was Dems controlled the house so there was no chance any dem elector would be rejected, much less enough to threaten the 270 needed for victory.

The only real path would have been for the state legislatures to recognize the fraud and refuse to certified the results, refuse to send electors to congress. In that case, if enough state legislatures refused to send electors and the 270 margin is not met, then the states vote as a block (described above). Had that happened, repubs have majority of states and Trump would have been POTUS.

Once the State legislatures certified the results and sent electors to congress, Biden was constitutionally elected POTUS.

peace to you

 

[percho]

Thanks for your answers

 

[JonC]

Yes, the constitution allows for individual electors to be challenged. If electors are challenged, due to your hypothetical proven fraud, a simple majority vote from house and Senate members (separate votes) would remove the elector.

If enough electors are rejected which results in no candidate getting 270 electoral college votes, then each state’s representatives vote as a block (each state gets 1 vote) and majority wins POTUS.

Problem in 2020 was Dems controlled the house so there was no chance any dem elector would be rejected, much less enough to threaten the 270 needed for victory.

The only real path would have been for the state legislatures to recognize the fraud and refuse to certified the results, refuse to send electors to congress. In that case, if enough state legislatures refused to send electors and the 270 margin is not met, then the states vote as a block (described above). Had that happened, repubs have majority of states and Trump would have been POTUS.

Once the State legislatures certified the results and sent electors to congress, Biden was constitutionally elected POTUS.

peace to you

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.

 

[percho]

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.

Did J6 interrupt the possibility of this having taken place?

Who did J6 benefit?

 

[JonC]

Did J6 interrupt the possibility of this having taken place?

Who did J6 benefit?

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.

 

[percho]

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 of the electors?

If yes what prevented the challenge form taking place.

Why did J6 take place and who benefited from it taking place?

Now go read Jan 6 Pelosi's fault in the other forum.

 

[percho]

What 2 + 2 equal?

 

[JonC]

Was there going to be a challenge to some of the electors?

If yes what prevented the challenge form taking place.

Why did J6 take place and who benefited from it taking place?

Now go read Jan 6 Pelosi's fault in the other forum.

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.