Fact Check: No, Trump Did Not Say 'We've Been Waging an All-Out War on American Democracy'

https://news.yahoo.com/fact-ch...mcoWOI08wLd0Boh2xRrM

So, my question is - what's the difference, in this context, between the words "in" and "on"?

Look at the whole quote:

"For decades, you watched as a corrupt political class in our nation's capitol looted your money, trampled on your dignity and pushed their radical agenda into every aspect of your lives. You know it very well. But in 2016, you voted to stand up to those liars, losers, crooks and creeps, and you elected an outsider as your president. And it was about America first. We want to put our country first. They haven't done that in a long time, but we did it for four years and that's why we did so well. That's why it was one of the great presidencies, they say. Even the opponents sometimes say that he did very well, I have to say, "Take it back," his people scream. His people say "Take it back." From that day on our opponents, and we had a lot of opponents, but we've been waging an all-out war in American democracy. You look at what they've been doing, and becoming more and more extreme and repressive. They have just waged an all-out war with each passing day."

The difference (to normal folks, might not apply) is the implication is pretty clear- he was using every power he could within the system to reduce government power over the individual.

That does mean that it was what he thought available within the system, which he has demonstrated he doesn’t understand all that well… but his stated intent was to do everything possible within his power.

Something most can agree is a good goal, even if executed in a flawed way.

That's a very interesting interpretation, Doc.

So, you think all the things he did, within and beyond his powers, in thwarting the so-deemed "all-out war" "they" waged each passing day, was in service to "the individual", and thus his intentions were good?

I think he defined very well his view of "they" in the speech, and the view he wants to convey on listeners.

Maybe someone else has something to say.

I understand your post to be very much like this defense:

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement called the appeals court's decision “limited, narrow and procedural.”

"The facts fully show that on January 6 President Trump was acting on behalf of the American people, carrying out his duties as President of the United States," the statement added.

From this article:

"An absolute tsunami": Legal experts stunned at "disastrous legal day" for Trump
Story by Gabriella Ferrigine • 1h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...54be7d38cecf2a&ei=36

The irony is that even trump is not stupid enough to say something like that....but it's absolutely true.

No, I think that’s what he meant and what he thought.

Did he exceed the constitution by trying to limit governmental power? Given that’s what the constitution is about, I kind of doubt that.

He might have gone further than most agree with.

He might well be wrong with what he thinks appropriate being correct.

I do think you two attribute way more intelligence to Trump than he really has. I doubt he can weasel word that well.

Doc, you are difficult to argue with on this one. It's not because you make good points, but because what you say - every sentence - is off kilter to me. And a rebuttal would take many words, and do no good.

I feel the need to be brief.

First thing - you seem to believe that Trump does things on behalf of someone else, like we the people, unselfishly.

I can't imagine how you came to think that. It's like you are saying that he, with the help of many others, plotted the insurrection to stay in power, despite the legit election results, just so he could do more good to protect individuals from their government.

And your comment about his intelligence and weasel words, who can say? But we do know that he's exceptional, yugely. Who else could get away with the chit he says, and actually grow his support? A dumb ass could never pull that off, but an ass could. I know there are factors involved other than pure intelligence, call it the instinct of a con artist, or whatever, and another factor is the "intelligence" of his target audience, voters.

And his support from those who have power, such as MAGA Mike, are obviously intelligent. Without them Trump is nothing but a blowhard. They want some of that MAGA voter supporter juice too, again yugely, and they fear Trump's power fueled from MAGA base - you know, the fascist fodder. They are riding the gravy train betting on some favorable to them outcome, and if or when things are not looking good down that tunnel, they will flip again and again to save themselves, so they can do more good for we the people.