Donald Trump posted this in December of 2022 after the story was published explaining Twitter's decision to limit access to a New York Post article, published weeks before the 2020 presidential election, that alleged Hunter Biden tried, in 2015, to arrange a meeting between his father and an executive at a Ukrainian company that Hunter worked for.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the 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. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
So here is what Donald Trump thinks justifying terminating the rules of the US Constitution. The diner was following a fundraiser for the World Food Program USA, a fundraising arm of the U.N. humanitarian organization. At that time Hunter Biden was chairman of World Food Program USA. Among the 10-12 guests were Rick Leach, President and Chief Executive of WFP USA, and Alex Karloutsos, one of the most powerful figures in the Greek Orthodox Church in the United States, and a friend of Joe Biden. Leach and other dinner guests confirmed that the discussion at the table was mainly about the World Food Program, and that Joe Biden was not even a member of the dinner party. He just stopped by briefly to speak with Karloutsos.
So there was nothing to the story that would have effected the way anyone would have voted. Would you be comfortable with the President of the United States suspending the rules of the Constitution just because he claimed an election was not fair?
“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 make it simple enough for even you to understand, here is what he is saying: (A Massive) Fraud (of this type and magnitude) allows for the termination of all rules, (regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution).
One more time, if you still don’t understand, ask an adult.
Fraud allows for the termination of all rules.
Next sentence: “Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
Simple English: Our founding fathers did not want fraud.
Because: Fraud allows for the termination of all rules.
This is why you are a troll. This is the second time today you have tried to deceive a group of adults. This is why you are a failure.
“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 make it simple enough for even you to understand, here is what he is saying: (A Massive) Fraud (of this type and magnitude) allows for the termination of all rules, (regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution).
One more time, if you still don’t understand, ask an adult.
Fraud allows for the termination of all rules.
Next sentence: “Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
Simple English: Our founding fathers did not want fraud.
Because: Fraud allows for the termination of all rules.
This is why you are a troll. This is the second time today you have tried to deceive a group of adults. This is why you are a failure.
So you agree with him? You believe that the decision of Twitter not to push this non-story justifies suspension of Constitutional rule. There is no evidence of any wrong doing of any kind yet you believe that it is grounds to overturn the election based on "fraud"? How would that story effect the way anyone would vote?
My question was in English, but you were unable to answer it.
So you must be the one with trouble understanding the language. Let me try again.
Do you agree with the comment that Trump made? Was the issue he referred to justification to suspend the rules of the Constitution? Because I don't think oit was. In fact I don't think it was any proof of fraud at all. To me this is a perfect example of why Trump is a danger to democracy. He is willing to toss aside the rules of the Constitution over nothing.
So I disagree with his comment.
Anyone else brave enough to give a straight answer.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-10-2024).]
Trump never said he wanted to terminate the Constitution. He said the fraud committed by the Democrats would terminate the Constitution.
Rayb and bingb want to terminate the Constitution. They welcome the fraud. To them, the end justifies the means and might makes right.
Rayb and bingb troll because they seek to destroy America. They hate America because their paranoia leads them to believe that the freedom of others will put an end to their decadent lifestyle.
Don't worry, Trump will not require ID to buy lipstick or eye shadow.
Originally posted by BingB: Do you agree with the comment that Trump made? Was the issue he referred to justification to suspend the rules of the Constitution? Because I don't think oit was. In fact I don't think it was any proof of fraud at all. To me this is a perfect example of why Trump is a danger to democracy. He is willing to toss aside the rules of the Constitution over nothing.
So I disagree with his comment.
Anyone else brave enough to give a straight answer.
Justification to suspend the rules ? Your precious.
You don't think rules can be suspended ? Why do leftoids do it all the time ?
Trump never said he wanted to terminate the Constitution. He said the fraud committed by the Democrats would terminate the Constitution.
Rayb and bingb want to terminate the Constitution. They welcome the fraud. To them, the end justifies the means and might makes right.
Rayb and bingb troll because they seek to destroy America. They hate America because their paranoia leads them to believe that the freedom of others will put an end to their decadent lifestyle.
Don't worry, Trump will not require ID to buy lipstick or eye shadow.
I see no need to reanswer the question since williegoat already did.
You conveniently left off the rest of my question. Why are you afraid to give a simple straight answer ?
"Wataboutism" is just a desperate attempt to deflect.
But my answer is that no Democrat has claimed that anything recently has justified "terminating the rules of the Constitution". If they did I would proudly say that I do not agree with them. I certainly do not agree with any attempt to add more Supreme Court Justices.
The fact that you refuse to defend the US Constitution against Donald Trump is kind of scary. He really could shoot a man in the middle of the street and you would not care. You would let him do anything.
"Wataboutism" is just a desperate attempt to deflect.
But my answer is that no Democrat has claimed that anything recently has justified "terminating the rules of the Constitution". If they did I would proudly say that I do not agree with them. I certainly do not agree with any attempt to add more Supreme Court Justices.
The fact that you refuse to defend the US Constitution against Donald Trump is kind of scary. He really could shoot a man in the middle of the street and you would not care. You would let him do anything.
You have elevated running and hiding to avoid answering a question to an art form.
The fact that you refuse to answer just proves my point over and over again.
You claim to defend the Constitution, but as soon as Trump says the rules of the Constitution need to be "terminated" you guys fall right in behind him. No questions asked.
Too weak to think for yourself.
And you can't blame this on any media source because I just used his direct and complete quote. No one denies he said it. You can't accuse me of misquoting it or taking it out of context.
Originally posted by BingB: Wataboutism" is just a desperate attempt to deflect.
As opposed to a desperate attempt of deception ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: But my answer is that no Democrat has claimed that anything recently has justified "terminating the rules of the Constitution". If they did I would proudly say that I do not agree with them.
Okay DingD, you are saying that they have not said anything recently that has justified "terminating the rules of the Constitution". When was the last time a Dumbocrat claimed that anything has justified "terminating the rules of the Constitution" ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Do I agree with the comment that Trump made? What was the issue he referred to as justification to suspend the rules of the Constitution?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BingB: In fact I don't think it was any proof of fraud at all. To me this is a perfect example of why Trump is a danger to democracy. He is willing to toss aside the rules of the Constitution over nothing.
Fitting that you use the word "fraud" and also claim Trump is a threat to democracy. Which party threw out 14 million votes and proclaimed their new dictator ?
So I disagree with your assessment.
Anyone else brave enough to give a straight answer.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: The fact that you refuse to defend the US Constitution against Donald Trump is kind of scary. He really could shoot a man in the middle of the street and you would not care. You would let him do anything.
Is that man in the middle of the street a leftoid ?
You did not defend the Constitution from leftoids back when you practiced law.
Which party threw out 14 million votes and proclaimed their new dictator ?
Neither party did that.
What are you talking about? And don't start with this "Do your own research" bull. I know all the issues regarding the 2020 election and there is no evidence of either party throwing out 14 million votes and proclaiming a new dictator.
What are you talking about? And don't start with this "Do your own research" bull. I know all the issues regarding the 2020 election and there is no evidence of either party throwing out 14 million votes and proclaiming a new dictator.
If there is then post a link to your source.
You don't really expect us to answer something that has been covered endlessly in the media after Biden bowed out of the race, do you?
When you look in the mirror, do you see your nose? It's really that clear.
Originally posted by BingB: I actually have an answer to that question, but I am not going to play these games with you.
There it is. Starting a game and changing the rules as he goes along. He must be losing.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Are you saying that you agree with Trumps quote? "Yes" or "No"? You are free to explain your answer, but first I have to know what your answer is.
If you just answer my question then i will answer yours.
Yes and no. Now answer my question. Don't be afraid. We know logic is not your fluent language.
I do not need you to tell me Leftoids hold disdain for the Constitution.
You don't really expect us to answer something that has been covered endlessly in the media after Biden bowed out of the race, do you?
When you look in the mirror, do you see your nose? It's really that clear.
Here is what is clear. Democrats could not have thrown away any votes because they have more now than they did before.
Candidates who have won delegates before they drop out almost always pledge their delegates to another candidate. Nikki Haley did that this year for Trump, yet I did not hear you squealing about the Republicans throwing away votes for Haley when the delegates she won voted for Trump at the convention.
You are either ignorant or a hypocrite. I'll let you choose.
