this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
729 points (97.4% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4574 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's past time for the states to remove Traitor Trump from the ballot.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

From the outside it's absolutely crazy that there is a good chance that he's gonna be president again.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago

From the inside it's enough to cause panic attacks.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Yeah well he didn't swear to read the Constitution either, so it's okay if he doesn't support it /s

It's actually rather painfully clear he's never read it anyway.

This is just some inane bullshit dancing around language.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

There weren't enough people as his inauguration to remember.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, he was crossing his fingers behind his back. Like every other time when he opens his mouth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

It was the disclaimer. It was in his pocket the entire time.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (7 children)

That's a roundabout and somewhat disingenuous interpretation of their defense. They're arguing that the presidency doesn't fall under "officer of the United States" which is obviously weak as hell, but people get weird when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They aren't trying to claim he didn't take an oath.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Weak? It's non-existent. It's an imaginary "argument". The word "officer" has always been defined (in every English language dictionary) as "one who holds office". That is what the word literally means. Their "argument" must therefore be predicated on the idea that a president does not "hold office".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They did actually argue that the Presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" is not the same as an oath to "support" the Constitution.

From the article: "In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Still the dumbest argument.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

of course he does not, the constitution would restrict his power and as we all know, nobody can restrict lord trumps power, how could he rule over us otherwise?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Did he not have to take an Oath of Office?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

He had his fingers crossed.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›