He doesn't actually offer an explanation in that post. youre reaching.
Discussion
What do you want him to explain? He said that it was an illegal boycott. That's it right there in his own words. Are you expecting him to just not really understand the word boycott?
What makes it illegal? You're not even asking that question. It shows how dismissive you are.
He didn't actually say Boycotting Tesla is illegal. But you said he did.
What exactly do you think he said, then? He called a boycott of Tesla illegal. What could the problem be, other than boycotting Tesla?
It doesn't matter what you or I think he meant. It just matters what he meant. Ask him. But since you asked me, I think he meant it's illegal bc of property damage as I've said three times now.
Property damage isn't a boycott, though. Words have meanings regardless of whag he meant to say. A boycott is just not buying stuff. There's no subtle connotations to consider. That's the problem. Either Trump doesn't know what words mean, or he's saying that intentionally avoiding buying Teslas is illegal and doesn't understand the law and constitution. Or he's a wannabe dictator with no respect for laws and the constitution. Those are the three options I can see here. If you've got a fourth, feel free to offer it.
Right hence it being an illegal boycott.
Trump isn't the one that called first it a boycott. He just said it wasn't legal.
Meaning it doesn't fit the definition of a legal boycott. Meaning it isn't a boycott. You're not saying anything different. You're just confused by the words.
It's just more semantic manipulation. The left is calling it a boycott and it's not.
This is just stretching. You're going out of your way to favorably interpret what he said. He himself called it a boycott. There is zero legal distinction on legality of a boycott. The concept doesn't exist. If it's a boycott, it's legal.
If he wants to talk about the vandalism, there's a whole bunch of different terms for that, and Trump needs to use his big boy words to refer to it directly.