274

Doesn't even know the presidential oath he pledged.

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 51 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath he had to make when he took office.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

Right, but was he lying when he said it? He's not sure.

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

He had his fingers crossed...

[-] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

If I recall, he didn't even place a hand on the Bible.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

Pretty crazy that it's sworn in the Bible when the state is supposed to be separated from the church

[-] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The separation of church and state is exactly why the president can be sworn in on a bible. Barring a member of office from swearing in on a religious text would specifically violate their first amendment right to practice religion. Importantly, the state doesn’t require them to use a bible, and it also doesn’t prevent them from doing so.

That’s the whole point of separation of church and state. If the state required a religious text, that would be establishing a national religion. And if the state prevented it, that would be infringing on peoples’ right to practice religion.

It doesn’t need to be a religious text at all. It simply needs to be something that is important to the person being sworn in. Technically, you could be sworn in on a copy of the constitution itself, or some handwritten letters from your mother, or a stack of hentai comics.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Mooncheeze@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm pretty sure each person chooses a document/book to swear on that is core to them. So most people in the US would choose the Bible because they identify as Christian, but if a Jewish person or Muslim person was sworn in they could choose the Torah or Quran. And a non-religuous person could choose anything that they could convinceably argue is important/core to their values.

Disclaimer: I did no research right now to confirm this but that's what I remember.

[-] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I remember one politician being sworn in with a stack of comics.

Found it

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

he didn’t even place a hand on the Bible.

Fact!. For all his claims of being a "Christian", he couldn't be bothered.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] JailElonMusk@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago

Obviously he was being "sarcastic" during that too.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 46 points 2 weeks ago

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

They don't care. All they care about is their in-group is strong and the out-group is punished. They're shitty people.

[-] Newsteinleo@infosec.pub 14 points 2 weeks ago

I saw a guy today with two bumper stickers. One said "Trump" the other said "I love the constitution". I wonder what he would say about this?

[-] wagesj45@fedia.io 14 points 2 weeks ago

Nonsense. He would say nonsense. Because they don't care. They care as much about sounding serious as they do about other people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lightsong@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

They don't really love The Constitution. They only like the first two.

[-] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Only when it benefits them, however.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

I'm sure he'd be very upset if he could read.

[-] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 35 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

WHY IS THIS SHIT ALLOWED! THIS MAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY RESPONSIBLE POSITION! HE SHOULDN'T BE IN CHARGE OF A LEMONADE STAND MUCH LESS A COUNTRY! WHY DID AMERICA ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! THE MAN DOESN'T WANT TO DO HIS JOB OF UPHOLDING THE CONSITUTION! THAT'S LIKE A DOCTOR SAYING THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH! TRUMP AND ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS NEED TO BE TRIED FOR TREASON! WHY HAS THIS MADNESS GONE ON SO LONG!

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 7 points 2 weeks ago

THERE IS NO ADULT WAITING IN THE WINGS TO SWOOP IN AND SAVE YOUR NATION! BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE! THE REASON NO ONE IS STOPPING THIS IS EVERYONE IS BUSY ASKING "WHY IS THIS SHIT ALLOWED!"!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago

Pressed whether his administration is following the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Trump said he wasn't sure.

"I don't know. It seems – it might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," he said. "We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth."

It might say that? Might? This isn't something that is debatable you hippopotamic dung heap. That's what it fucking says.

[-] PlantJam@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

"Well yeah it says that but it'd be pretty inconvenient, so..."

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Thank you for the new word!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, 3 million trials to catch the thousands of criminals in his own words... or maybe instead of trials first, they could maybe only be rounded up if there is any actual reason to believe they are a criminal in the first place. Then it would only be thousands of trials and all the problems being caused by rounding up 900+ innocent people per 1 criminal, would all of a sudden go away.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 24 points 2 weeks ago

This what you get, no-vote cowards.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] carrion0409@lemm.ee 21 points 2 weeks ago

All I can do is laugh at this point. This regime is so buffoonish and so open with their intentions that I genuinely wonder how people fell for this shit and continue to believe it. Are we really this fucking dumb ?

[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago

I've been thinking that for nearly ten years now.

[-] carrion0409@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Oh yeah same. I was in 5th grade when trump first won and from the get go i could tell he was full of shit. I was taught very young not to trust the rich lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, we sit around and laugh about how stupid he is while he ignores the law and constitution to the detriment of the freedom of citizens and immigrants alike.

We are literally that stupid.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sunflier@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

-President Trump, just this year.

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 weeks ago

"to the best of my abilities" is the loophole here

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago

He treats it will all the seriousness that he treats his wedding vows.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

At this point I’m just curious how long this will go on. What would have to tilt for a group of politicians to overhaul his ass and the r’s supporting him?

[-] ijedi1234@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago

I believe it will continue until the politicians are scared of an angry mob kicking in their door.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Food shortages will do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago

Get. Him Out!

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago

What does it take to get this guy out of office? Genuine question. We impeached this guy like twice but it didn't go through

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago

A coffin is the only way. It’ll probably be easier to secede.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Lexam@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

"I don't know" the defense of criminals and toddlers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] redlemace@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"don't know" ?? isn't that like the first thing in his job description?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago

"I don't think so" is what he meant

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago

he cant swear the truth, because he wants to violate it.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

That's because he can't spell it without looking at his phone

[-] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

He doesn't know what the Declaration of Independence is — something that's taught all through grade and middle school in the U.S. The odds are he has no idea what that pesky Constitution says, nor does he care.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

he means he doesn't know what constitution means

[-] Zimroxo@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

If this comment doesn't make the case for impeachment idk what does

Upholding the constitution is the most basic part of the job.

If he "doesn't know" if he can do that he is unfit for the position and should be removed immediately. Not even counting all the other violations of the constitution his administration has committed in just the first 100 days alone

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
274 points (98.2% liked)

politics

23540 readers
1906 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS