He’s openly plotting to persecute his enemies, assume kinglike powers, and deport millions of people. But at least we’ll all have flying cars!

Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

  • @[email protected]English
    1•1 year ago

    That’s the answer to your question.

    No, it isn’t. This is even a shift from your previous argument. But, again, it’s just why you think the POTUS is included, but not why they explicitly call out senators but not the POTUS.

    It’s fair to say you don’t know, which is basically what I’m saying here, but claiming that I’m weaponizing my ignorance when I’m asking you to explain, while you’re claiming a conclusion is clear despite yours… Well that seems incredibly backwards.

    • @[email protected]
      1•1 year ago

      What I am stating hasn’t shifted at all. Your “argument” is that because the President isn’t explicitly listed in the text, then “we can’t know if they’re covered”. Do you think every list everywhere has to be exhaustive, even when criteria and examples are listed? You know what the text does state?

      Section Three states:

      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

      I’ll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that aren’t relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word “or” in lists:

      No person shall hold any office, civil or military under the United States who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.

      The ONLY argument that “this doesn’t cover the Presidency” is that “The Presidency is not an Office of the United States, and the person who holds the Presidency is not an Officer of the United States”. This is obviously wrong as the actual, explicit text is “any office, civil or military”, and the actual requirement is “having previously taken an oath of office, then engaging in insurrection against that office”.

      YOU are obviously wrong, because “any office” is pretty fucking explicit - the Presidency is an Office of the US, as laid out in that 55 page paper you refuse to fucking read. “Civil or military” - the President is both. “Previously having taken an oath as an officer of the United States” - check, taking the Presidency does indeed require an oath beforehand. “Having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” - yep, he did that too. That’s all the requirements, so are you still going to come back with “but president not listed 🤔” as though it’s at all valid?

      Edit: Fuck this, I’ve made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or you’re a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.

      • @[email protected]English
        1•1 year ago

        Your “argument” is that because the President isn’t explicitly listed in the text, then “we can’t know if they’re covered”.

        Incorrect. To be very clear, my argument is that it’s a very conspicuous omission from a list that explicitly calls out some high importance positions, but does not call out the most important position. And due to that, I have a hard time finding it unreasonable when someone interprets the law to not include that conspicuously omitted position.

        I’ll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that aren’t relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word “or” in lists:

        You act like I’ve denied it says “any office.” I have not. I’ve asked you why it calls out a high importance position, but does not call out the most important high importance position. It’s a question that you don’t have any answer for, so you just keep repeating your point. Or, now, making up my position so you can attack a strawman.

        YOU are obviously wrong, because “any office” is pretty fucking explicit

        Incorrect. By definition, the way you are interpreting it, it would implicitly include the POTUS. And this is where my issue lies. It does explicitly call out some high importance positions, but not the presidency. Those high importance positions would also be included under any office. So why explicitly call out some, but not others, if “any office” covers all of them? You’ve completely failed to answer this question. Again, it’s fair to admit you don’t have an answer but you don’t think it matters anyway. It’s just then we would have to “agree to disagree” that it’s reasonable to consider the parts other than “any office” and ask ourselves what the intent was.

        Fuck this, I’ve made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or you’re a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.

        You’re inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.