729
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

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

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 15 points 1 year ago

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

[-] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year 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.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

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

[-] profdc9@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

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

[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

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

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)
[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)
[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

Still the dumbest argument.

[-] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 6 points 11 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?

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Did he not have to take an Oath of Office?

[-] extant@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

He had his fingers crossed.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
729 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2044 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS