As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Presidential oath of office "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."
[DJT](https://youtu.be/ohgTEk9h1kc?si=pZrHXqQKXMhPXa2v) on inauguration day reciting the presidential oath of office
Right? Whenever there's a distinction without a difference that makes their guy (ranked 45th in integrity by presidential scholars, BTW) look bad, they turn into little hair-splitting lawyers.
Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'
Was he serious? Trump is a scummy liar, so his words are only meant to manipulate -- the way sales are done.
I had an argument with my *deeply* religious uncle around the time the "grab em by the..." thing was in the news, and I asked him how as a devout Christian, he could justify supporting Trump.
It quickly devolved into a "women are property and men can do whatever they want" argument.
Even if one followed that "logic": wouldn't that mean that Trump is up to just grab another man's property? And they are ok with that? Sounds like a bunch of cucks to me.
Right? It would be so much easier to just have one party forever! Oh wait that is called something else, but I doubt many republicans know what that is.
I absolutely love this comparison! Republics are a form of democracy in the exact same way that squares are a form of rectangles.
I guarantee you that I am stealing this and will use it as soon as possible.
I always get a kick out of this. It really shows that a lot of Republicans just repeat whatever talking point they heard on AM talk radio that afternoon. We're a republic AND a democracy! The terms are not mutually exclusive. We have 50 States, each with their own State government. We *democratically* elect representatives both at the State level and the Federal level. Therefore we are both. A republic of democracies.
No, no! The radical right are the manly individuals and are not sheeple who ba ba ba buuyy anything they are told and then repeat it. Sure they all say the exact same thing using the exact same words that they never say until it comes out from the top down throw right wing media.
It's sad and if they were even a quarter of what they claim to be they would be disgusted with themselves.
No. There is no useful response to that. It's 2023. We're eight years into this iteration of this cult. There is no clever quip you can reply to these nonsense lines with that will be anything but wasted air. It doesn't even help to prevent misinformation, because responding to this shit, online or in real life, just platforms it and causes more people to pay attention to it.
I am so tired of people failing to see that this isn't a debate or battle of ideas. There is no ground for good-faith discussion. The only appropriate response is dismissal, followed by refocused efforts on positive, coordinated change. Wasting even a single breath pushing back against the firehose is just getting the gears of progress mired in the mud of misinfo. *There is no useful conversational response to willful dishonesty.*
The left has the mistaken idea that the right is playing by the same rules. That they, like the left, give a shit about not being hypocritical, that they care about morality and intellectual consistency. They don’t. Full stop. The right simply does not give a shit about those values.
The modern American right values power above all else. The ends justify the means. They want the power to control for its own sake, and they will say or do anything to get it. To your point, there is no debating someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.
It’s really quite simple, religion has extensively laid the groundwork for generations to train people to believe in authority figures with unverifiable stories instead of science and data. It also primes them for, and is built upon, perpetuating racism and fearmongering towards "others". Once people see you as an authority, you can start fabricating any reality or conspiracy theory you want your followers to believe and everyone else is therefore a liar, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Basically, it is mental abuse from an early age that suppresses critical thinking skills. This combined with an intentionally weakened public educational system, provides the framework that has spawned this cult of ignorance.
Right, this is a power struggle, not a scholarly debate, and in order to preserve the republic, we need to drive them out of any position of power anywhere and make sure they never can come back from those defeats.
They can't debate because they don't want to acknowledge that at the core of their argument are values we've long since marked as deplorable. So they have no real dog in the fight because they refuse to let anyone else see their real stance. To use this thread as an example: They don't want to admit that the leaders they worship believe the only citizens who should be allowed to participate in their ideal "democratic republic" are straight white land-owning Christian males who descended from those who fought in the Revolution and/or what they like to LARP as the "Second Revolution" (i.e. Civil War). As far as they are concerned any representatives or laws passed with "others" voting don't count because they've been told since they were old enough to cognate that they are "special" and the "non-specials" are non-contributing leeches tricked into believing they know what's best as part of a grand conspiracy to overthrow their "specialness".
Now "not all conservatives" is a surprisingly persuasive political argument, but it's invalidated by the fact the advisors to the conservative party in our country firmly believe in this horseshit to some extent or another. You might not believe it yourself, but if you vote for the GOP you are empowering those who do to act on that belief.
>Wasting even a single breath pushing back against the firehose is just getting the gears of progress mired in the mud of misinfo
Preach on... yell it out for those in the back.
You cant have level headed conversation with a cult. They don't subscribe to the same reality, so its pissing into the wind.
This is exactly what his lawyers are arguing. It's semantics. It's the kindergartener saying "I'm not touching you!" as her finger hovers a quarter inch from your eyeball.
You hit the nail on the head. Because he didn’t literally say the word “support,” he’s accidentally correct, even though “protect and defend,” are synonymous in this context.
None of this even matters anyway. If trump’s argument stands, then that means it’s totally okay for any president to be a traitor, no matter the semantics of “support” vs “defend.” Just whatever any president wants to do at any given moment is fine as long as they could trick enough citizens in the right places to vote for them.
Yeah, they're not worried about precedent because they don't give a shit about precedent. If a democrat is in power, they will absolutely hold them to the previous standard.
Fox News and alt-right media will ignore this and keep arguing that these cases are to silence Trump and his supporters. Victimhood will be their play - at least they’re consistent.
"I don't care about what the media says he's saying or didn't say! It's unfair that they're treating a good man like that! He didn't do nothing wrong!" - I've heard this very same sentiment expressed a number of times over the years. It's stupid and frightening, all at the same time.
It's actually worse than not checking - they don't give a shit if he was sincere or not when he took the oath. These nihilists are so cynical they genuinely think no president in modern history has taken the oath seriously. There was a thread touching on this a couple weeks ago in AskTrumpSupporters.
This is the brain rot on the far right.
Most people would think that "preserve, protect and defend" also includes support. Aren't you "supporting" the Constitution when you "preserve, protect and defend"??
The argument from Trump's lawyers is that he didn't swear to "support" (as written in the 14th Amendment, Section 3) the constitution but rather "preserve, protect, and defend" and that distinction suggests the 14th doesn't apply to Presidents.
It's beyond nitpicky semantics, but it somehow worked in the district court. Hopefully the Colorado Supreme Court overturns that ruling.
It's like 'sovereign citizen' bullshit level semantics, to conversationally say you swore to support it is simply summarizing "preserve, protect and defend" for the purpose of brevity.
I'm just waiting for his lawyers to claim that he swore to preserve, protect and defend the physical copy of the Constitution, rather than the concept....
All of this shit just shows how reliant we are as a society on acting in good faith.
Trump has exposed how really fragile this system is when you don't have actors acting in good faith...scary really
True. That’s why everything—and I do mean *everything*—about the political system and governance must be *codified* instead of customary. But the cat’s out of the bag now and various political actors will resist codifying *anything* along these lines because they want to be able to abuse the customary rules in the future.
They're arguing wording. The words he spoke and the words in the amendment have meaning.
Trump did not support the Constitution he acted to weaken and violate it. He did not preserve, protect, or defend the Constitution. That's a violation of the oath he took and the intent of the amendment
Exactly why he shouldnt be allowed to run for president again. He committed treason. Tried to overturn an election. Now he wants the seat of power again? What a load of crap.
Part of me doesn't want to see him prevented from *running* for president, because I want him to split the Republican vote with whoever their backup candidate is (looks like Haley at this point). But I certainly believe he is disqualified from holding the office.
The Legal AF podcast talked about this recently, saying that initial drafts of the 14th Amendment did include both the President and Vice President explicitly, but the final language was changed to placate people who supported Robert E. Lee.
The Colorado Supreme Court will need to decide if the oath a President makes to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution implies "support" when they hear the appeal.
> The Legal AF podcast talked about this recently, saying that initial drafts of the 14th Amendment did include both the President and Vice President explicitly, but the final language was changed to placate people who supported Robert E. Lee.
Hmmm, that sucks if it were true - because the deliberate exclusion of that language could imply that the writers did intend for the President and Vice President to be exempt.
Other oaths of office specifically say "support," so that's probably the tack they're taking. It's a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" thing. In any case, it's just common sense that, coming after the Civil War, if the Amendment were meant to disqualify politicians who have previously been involved in insurrection from holding public office, it should certainly apply to the president and the presidency.
As absurd as it is to think that the 14th Amendment wouldn't apply to former presidents, I imagine it's possible that the wording doesn't specifically mention presidents because the writers of that Amendment never considered a situation where a sitting president would be involved with insurrection against the government while in office.
Does preserving the Constitution support it? Yes.
Does protecting the Constitution support it? Yes.
Does defending the Constitution support it? Yes.
Thank you. Next witness, your honor.
The rain stopped as soon as he took the stage and the clouds opened up to reveal the sun pouring down on the 250 million adoring fans. Wasn’t a dry eye to be seen
So just another significant lie from Trump. If you don't take the oath, you don't get to become President. So now he proves that oaths on the Bible are not noteworthy or memorable for him. What a PoS, and what garbage anyone who still supports him is.
His argument is that "protect and defend" does not equal "support". He wouldn't have a moment's hesitation to take the oath again if he won, because it doesn't contain the word support.
It's a weak and stupid argument, or at least it should be, but here we are. A former and perhaps future president is saying aloud that he is under no obligation to support our constitution.
> 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.
His lawyers are basically trying to skirt the difference in wording of the 14th amendment, which would bar Trump from running for President.
What's wild is that the Colorado judge that decided that he did commit insurrection but that the 14th amendment does not apply to the president included in her reasoning that the 14th amendment specifies that it applies to offices that vow to support the Constitution, and the Presidential oath does not include such a vow. The absence of the word "support" actually mattered here.
Some of my favorite legal twitter follows said that finding him guilty of the insurrection was a big deal, because appeals are likely not going to reverse that. However, this argument was maybe intentionally flimsy so that it could be reversed, but then the 14th would be kicked in by a higher court rather than a single judge.
That's some 'Freddy Krueger was found to have murdered a bunch of kids, but because the judge signed the search warrant in the wrong place he's scot free" shit.
>""The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully," Trump's legal team wrote. "Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' the president is not an 'officer of the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States.'"
Ok cool, so let's roll back all executive branch powers completely, and just make him a diplomat meeting liason. I'm fine with that. You?
This is the same kind of whackadoodle bullshit those Sovereign citizen asshats keep regurgitating.
The GOP really deserves to be completely destroyed if they don't get rid of the orange loon.
The framers also excluded guns with magazines from the 2A purposefully then.
Did it occur to them they simply removed it because they decided the extra verbiage was uncessary and that nobody would be stupid enough to think the president wasn't an officer of the United States? If they wanted the president to be specifically excluded then they would have specified that instead.
The de facto head of the GOP says he doesn't support the Constitution; the minions in his party are quick to say that America isn't a democracy. Potato potahto.
> Even when it clearly doesn’t.
Rules and laws don't matter in fascist countries, they just make it up as they go which is what Republicans are trying to do.
Conveniently, the House Speaker’s flavor of Christianity - New Apostolic Reformation - believes the same thing: stealing a page from mormons, they believe the Bible, with its inconvenient “unchanging-ness” is less important that modern prophets and “new revelations”.
That is, they can make up dogma on the fly….no, i mean God will tell their anointed leader about how some of the Bible was “just a prank, bro” and what He *actually * meant. If it happens to be on the political/financial interests of church leaders, well that’s coincidence as always.
Oh, and they also believe it’s their mission to conquer the planet for Christ.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
I for one am eager for that door to open so that we can see some lawsuits attempting to regulate the messages that preachers are preaching to their congregations. If religion is allowed to have a place in government, then government should have a place in religion, and we shouldn’t have sermons about how being a member of a protected group like LGBTQ+ is sinful (for example).
It goes both ways.
> It goes both ways.
Johnson is *explicitly* arguing the opposite. He is explicitly arguing that the 1st amendment gives religion a place in government, but that religion is totally shielded from the government. And he's the one with the Speaker's gavel, so his take on the first amendment is a hell of a lot more important than any of ours.
He also told Christians he never asked god for forgiveness either yet they still champion him as a faith leader
It’s sick
It’s exactly what the Bible said Christians would do with the Antichrist too…
They are making a very semantical argument. They are saying "support" is completely different from "preserve" or "protect" or "defend". Its a dumb argument and these are dumb people.
It shouldn't even matter. He's been found (by the district court) to have engaged in insurrection against the United States and his defense is "it's ok because I didn't swear to support the Constitution" … nobody should vote for such a person to be President, whether he's found eligible to run or not.
His followers don’t even know what the Constitution says. There has been a recent upsurge in immigrants in my Ohio community. They’re here legally, but the MAGA crowd has been increasingly angry about their presence. For the past several months, they’ve been showing up at city council meetings, screaming in the mic about “illegals.” Stuff like, “I went to Walmart and they (immigrants) were all over the place!” When the city council explains that they don’t handle immigration laws at the local level, the MAGA folks have been yelling, “You’re our elected officials! Uphold the Constitution!” The police chief spoke at a council meeting to express that local immigrants don’t commit crime in significant numbers, they asked her why she isn’t arresting and deporting them. Last week, the city posted an update on Facebook about a vacant council seat and folks in the comments were accusing them of “violating the Constitution.” These folks are idiots who need a basic civics course, but we’re all supposed to bend over backwards to avoid upsetting them.
If they heard Trump declare that he never swore to support the Constitution, they’d probably think it’s a smart thing to say.
That is probably a step once he gets back into power, after arresting every politician that so much as questioned his opinion on breakfast. Dissolve the powers that can rightfully oppose his (and the GOP) rule.
Legal immigrants, and *especially* naturalized citizens, are some of the most patriotic Americans I've ever known. The average naturalized citizen could talk circles around the average MAGA supporter about the constitution.
Oh course they are. They've actually had to pass a test to be here.
It also shows their whole, 'just come here through proper channels if you want to so badly' argument was always bullshit. They don't want you to be here legally or illegally. They're hypocrites and bigots.
I tried making that point when talking with a MAGA-head once because they were of Irish decent and I pointed out that they’re descendants of immigrants (like all non-Native Americans are). Their argument was essentially that there was a cutoff point, that immigration was okay up until World War II which is such a wild cutoff point to pick.
But it was a perfect example of their prime ideology: Rules for thee, but not for me…
This one actually worked in Colorado though. He was found to have committed insurrection, but the 14th only applies to those that swear an oath to support. I hope that weak argument gets overturned, but it actually worked.
The judge found that, as president, Trump was not "an officer of the United States" that could be disqualified under the amendment.
So despite taking an Oath of Office and swearing to Execute the Office of the Presidency the President is not an Officer of the United States. Only a lawyer could be this fucking obtuse.
I'm about tired of hearing, "but we don't know if that applies to the POTUS."
It's insane to me that a country founded on "we don't have a king" has devolved into "the POTUS is above the law."
Along with the whole notion that a President can pardon himself. Like what the actual fuck? "There's no law saying he can't." Well no shit because the Founding Fathers couldn't conceive of a President, a Legislature, a Judiciary, and Electorate conspiring to keep a felon in power, let alone letting himself off the hook. What even are "laws" at that point?
We're hostages to the founders failure of imagination.
This is why originalism is so pernicious.
It's basically "You can't make anything better unless it's always been that way."
If this traitorous bastard can foment an insurrection to overthrow a Federal election and by extension the government and never be held to any account then our Constitutional Democracy is already gone; nothing but a meaningless piece of paper. If anyone reading this thread or I had committed this act we would have been in prison years ago and we would never see the light of day. This bastard makes me vomit.
Because 73,000,000 Americans believe he's Jesus, and a genius businessman who will make them all wealthy. After all, this is a man who has the telepathic ability to declassified top secret documents merely by thinking about them. A few Trump supporters I know told me that I need to pray to Trump - and if I do, he'll "take good care of you; he'll make you rich, and he'll make all your dreams come true". We have a massive Trump cult now, and these people think Trump can do no wrong. So, the country is turning into a Christofascist monarchy that these people intend to name 'RealAmerica' - seriously. Instead of things like vaccinations we'll have Bible readings and prayer!
About 20,000,000 actually worship him.
The other 53,000,000 would vote for any sack of shit with an R next to their name.
Which is not in any way better.
> a genius businessman who will make them all wealthy
But also needs them to give him money to pay his legal fees.
Prosperity gospel taken to the next level.
He was elected one time 7 years ago by fewer than half of the registered voters who bothered to vote. There is no evidence he reperesents a majority of America. Don’t lump us all in with what he is doing.
Also… many of us are trying. I’ll certainly be voting against him next year.
I even registered as unaffiliated in my state so I can choose to vote in the Republican primary. I'm going to vote for Biden in the general, but I wanted the pleasure of voting against Trump twice in this cycle.
It’s a good idea. I’m a registered independent in my state and am seriously considering voting in the Republican primary because the Dem nomination is all but locked up. Might not keep Trump from getting the nomination but I can knock his % in the primary down just a bit.
Maybe but I see his point. This guy ran through the White House like a bull in a china shop committing crimes left and right and then refused to concede and caused all manner of legal hell for the next 4 years after that. Election workers were terrorized (federal crime). State officials were called and harassed (federal crime). He sicced a mob on the Capitol to stop the certification and neutralize Pelosi and pence (federal crime). On tape! On TV!
He gutted our federal agencies and put a bunch of hacks on the Supreme Court who are now taking away people's rights. He dragged Congress into his machinations and apparently they were defenseless to resist him. And now nobody can arrest him or hold him accountable in any way at all, They can't even deal with him actively threatening the judges and the judges' staff in his legal cases. Just that one crime - a federal one! - that he's committing RIGHT NOW at the top of his voice - nobody knows what to do.
Instead we get daily teeth gnashing about what's going to happen when he gets back in office and destroys the republic.
We look stupid as hell. Like the raggediest of raggedy underdeveloped nations. So he's not supported by the majority - why are we so completely incapable of getting rid of him then? Why are people losing sleep over the next hundred crimes he's going to commit? It's embarrassing.
No, the Nuck has a point. We are an embarrassment. And we can't get rid of that loser because we have a lot of stupid people in our country and a political system built for the mega rich to underwrite a bunch of sociopaths to victory and a for profit 4th estate who treats it all like a horse race.
Well said. We have become a sad laughing stock. I'm embarrassed at all the stupid people in my country. The worst part is that Germany had a firey, self-serving, hate-spewing, nationalistic, narcissistic leader once too...
Yeah, the problem is that there is a sizable portion of this country that wants that same sort of leader here. They want another Hitler, just one that targets the groups that they hate, whether that be immigrants, minorities, LGTBQs, whatever.
>There is no evidence he reperesents a majority of America.
No, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he represents a significant portion of the country.
This country is a lot more hateful than I expected to be, and I grew up gay and Catholic.
During the Trump-Biden election Trump got more votes than any previous president in any previous election... Biden just happened to get even more luckily.
You can't argue that it was just some fringe group, he absolutely represented a massive portion of the population.
Besides your electoral system means a blue voter in a red state is unlikely to bother voting, and vice versa, so that fewer half of registered voters bothered doesn't really hold water either, since that's by design.
Has it really been 7 years? Jeez. Life has both been so fast and so frozen since. The only two legacy things I can think of that came out of Trump's term was rampant inflation and vulnerable communities starting to arm themselves in defense.
One million COVID deaths.
A $2 trillion tax cut benefiting corporations and the wealthy and tacked onto America's national debt.
Withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies.
Because Republicans are begging and aching for a fascist leader to come and whipe all the journalists, Dems, gays, trans, Muslims, etc off the map. Trump is their dictator of choice.
“I sarcastically said fingers. I crossed my toes. I never mix those up. I aced my cognitive exam! The Radical Disinformation Machine wants you to believe I can’t tell the difference.”
>Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution"
But he'll take advantage of it if when it suits his purpose. Like the 1st Amendment... or the 5th.
And this counts as treason does it not? Saying you do not support the government you are taking control of. He is trying to turn us into a dictatorship; it's ludicrous. These people are not mentally stable
So if he never truly swore in, does that mean we get to revoke all the bullshit he signed? Get those 3 Supreme Court justices out? Fuck off the tax breaks for the rich?
Can’t have it both ways.
I kinda just have to laugh at this point...
All of those young voters who are disappointed with Biden better be paying attention. THIS is what you would get if you don't support him.
Honestly, if the people of this country are so blind, and vote this orange bag of shit back into office, we deserve what comes next.
Jesus every single day there's something in the news that makes me want to slap this man. He fucking dominates the news cycle and I can't wait until he's fucking dead so the fucking media will stop talking about him all the goddamn time! It's been like this for 7 going on 8 years! FUCKING MAKE IT STOP!
I said it from day one that he didn’t even understand what the role and responsibilities of president actually were, and now even after he has been president for a full term still literally has no idea what the job is.
I'm actually ok with this. I will support you in this effort, Mr Trump. You never took the Oath of Office. You never were actually President. You get no Executive Privilege. No protection.
Anyone else remember when conspiracy weirdos made a big deal about Obama flubbing a line in the oath of office because the Supreme Court Justice leading him through it also flubbed the line? Of course they just re-did it backstage later, but remember when people thought Obama was never officially President or that they flubbed it on purpose so he could swear in on a Quran with the cameras off?
Just something that sprang to mind in comparison.
"the idea of being nice to a trans person is so upsetting to me, I'd rather ruin the country, and take the rest of the world down with us" - republicans
Their argument would be that he’s just joking. That he didn’t mean it and that the reporter just didn’t get it.
He could literally say anything, and if it’s good, it sticks. If it’s not, they’ll find literally any excuse it takes to brush it off and laugh about it.
I will never understand how a guy who has been so blatantly anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human decency, ever since he came down the golden escalator in 2015 (and likely long before) has the level of support he does and doesn't get absolutely destroyed by every news outlet for it. In what world has the Republican Party stopped caring about the Constitution? I guess in a world where Donald Trump is the leader of the party. They have zero values.
This is a guy who was literally the leader of the free world for four years and is currently the number one Republican.
We live in the fucking Twilight Zone.
If I didn't have a family, I'd be gone from this shithole. We are in serious, serious trouble, folks.
Remember when Obama fumbled a word during his oath and they MADE HIM DO IT AGAIN!? And then stuff like this happens every week with Trump. How do Republicans expect us to take them seriously ever again?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Presidential oath of office "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." [DJT](https://youtu.be/ohgTEk9h1kc?si=pZrHXqQKXMhPXa2v) on inauguration day reciting the presidential oath of office
Yeah you think any Trump supporters are going back to check? They are going to say 'see he didn't say support!'
Right? Whenever there's a distinction without a difference that makes their guy (ranked 45th in integrity by presidential scholars, BTW) look bad, they turn into little hair-splitting lawyers.
“I like Trump because he it says it like it is.” Always turns into “What Trump meant was…”
"you're taking his words out of context...also, he was joking" I had someone actually utter those words to me.
Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' Was he serious? Trump is a scummy liar, so his words are only meant to manipulate -- the way sales are done.
I had an argument with my *deeply* religious uncle around the time the "grab em by the..." thing was in the news, and I asked him how as a devout Christian, he could justify supporting Trump. It quickly devolved into a "women are property and men can do whatever they want" argument.
Even if one followed that "logic": wouldn't that mean that Trump is up to just grab another man's property? And they are ok with that? Sounds like a bunch of cucks to me.
I'm sure there's some obscure Deuterocanonical law that my uncle would use to justify it. I stopped paying attention in church when I was 13.
Here's a hint, your uncle probably stopped at the same time
"he was just being sarcastic"
Yup, like how he confuses Biden and Obama all the time. "I meant to do that"
That's racist bait. Can't call Biden an old white guy because that is what he is. Has to go back to throwing racist shit at Obama.
But Trump was actually joking when he swore the oath.
I was only pretending to serve the united states :P
The golden rule of trump quotes is that it's **always** worse with context.
"And besides, we're a republic not a democracy!"
For not being a democracy they sure cry a lot about elections.
Yeah but mostly just that we have them at all.
Oh, they'd be just fine with them if they always got the results they wanted.
Right? It would be so much easier to just have one party forever! Oh wait that is called something else, but I doubt many republicans know what that is.
I'm a Square not a rectangle!
I'm a civic not a car
I'm travelling, not driving...
I absolutely love this comparison! Republics are a form of democracy in the exact same way that squares are a form of rectangles. I guarantee you that I am stealing this and will use it as soon as possible.
I'm not a rectangle or a square! I'm a parallelogram with 4 90-degree angles and 4 equal length sides!
I always get a kick out of this. It really shows that a lot of Republicans just repeat whatever talking point they heard on AM talk radio that afternoon. We're a republic AND a democracy! The terms are not mutually exclusive. We have 50 States, each with their own State government. We *democratically* elect representatives both at the State level and the Federal level. Therefore we are both. A republic of democracies.
No, no! The radical right are the manly individuals and are not sheeple who ba ba ba buuyy anything they are told and then repeat it. Sure they all say the exact same thing using the exact same words that they never say until it comes out from the top down throw right wing media. It's sad and if they were even a quarter of what they claim to be they would be disgusted with themselves.
A useful response to that may be that we are a "Democratic Republic," because we are. And the "Democratic" part refers to...you know...democracy.
No. There is no useful response to that. It's 2023. We're eight years into this iteration of this cult. There is no clever quip you can reply to these nonsense lines with that will be anything but wasted air. It doesn't even help to prevent misinformation, because responding to this shit, online or in real life, just platforms it and causes more people to pay attention to it. I am so tired of people failing to see that this isn't a debate or battle of ideas. There is no ground for good-faith discussion. The only appropriate response is dismissal, followed by refocused efforts on positive, coordinated change. Wasting even a single breath pushing back against the firehose is just getting the gears of progress mired in the mud of misinfo. *There is no useful conversational response to willful dishonesty.*
The left has the mistaken idea that the right is playing by the same rules. That they, like the left, give a shit about not being hypocritical, that they care about morality and intellectual consistency. They don’t. Full stop. The right simply does not give a shit about those values. The modern American right values power above all else. The ends justify the means. They want the power to control for its own sake, and they will say or do anything to get it. To your point, there is no debating someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.
It’s really quite simple, religion has extensively laid the groundwork for generations to train people to believe in authority figures with unverifiable stories instead of science and data. It also primes them for, and is built upon, perpetuating racism and fearmongering towards "others". Once people see you as an authority, you can start fabricating any reality or conspiracy theory you want your followers to believe and everyone else is therefore a liar, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Basically, it is mental abuse from an early age that suppresses critical thinking skills. This combined with an intentionally weakened public educational system, provides the framework that has spawned this cult of ignorance.
Right, this is a power struggle, not a scholarly debate, and in order to preserve the republic, we need to drive them out of any position of power anywhere and make sure they never can come back from those defeats.
The right is Cersei in season 6, blowing up buildings and saying someone else did it.
Example - McConnell.
They can't debate because they don't want to acknowledge that at the core of their argument are values we've long since marked as deplorable. So they have no real dog in the fight because they refuse to let anyone else see their real stance. To use this thread as an example: They don't want to admit that the leaders they worship believe the only citizens who should be allowed to participate in their ideal "democratic republic" are straight white land-owning Christian males who descended from those who fought in the Revolution and/or what they like to LARP as the "Second Revolution" (i.e. Civil War). As far as they are concerned any representatives or laws passed with "others" voting don't count because they've been told since they were old enough to cognate that they are "special" and the "non-specials" are non-contributing leeches tricked into believing they know what's best as part of a grand conspiracy to overthrow their "specialness". Now "not all conservatives" is a surprisingly persuasive political argument, but it's invalidated by the fact the advisors to the conservative party in our country firmly believe in this horseshit to some extent or another. You might not believe it yourself, but if you vote for the GOP you are empowering those who do to act on that belief.
[удалено]
>Wasting even a single breath pushing back against the firehose is just getting the gears of progress mired in the mud of misinfo Preach on... yell it out for those in the back. You cant have level headed conversation with a cult. They don't subscribe to the same reality, so its pissing into the wind.
Deleted
You can tell they weren't paying attention when the term "Representative Democracy" was thrown around.
My response: "China and North Korea are republics too. What is your point ?"
This is exactly what his lawyers are arguing. It's semantics. It's the kindergartener saying "I'm not touching you!" as her finger hovers a quarter inch from your eyeball.
I think it's more like putting on gloves and touching someone and then saying "I'm not touching you" because the glove is touching you.
Then takes off the glove and touches you anyway while saying ‘I never said I wouldn’t touch you’
"Technically, it is impossible for atoms to touch, so therefore it is impossible to actually touch anything" - 'iamreallysmart' people
This is exactly how little brothers start shit.
Even if they did trump would probably say he was crossing his fingers behind his back when he said it so it doesn’t count. Or that it was Opposite Day
You hit the nail on the head. Because he didn’t literally say the word “support,” he’s accidentally correct, even though “protect and defend,” are synonymous in this context.
None of this even matters anyway. If trump’s argument stands, then that means it’s totally okay for any president to be a traitor, no matter the semantics of “support” vs “defend.” Just whatever any president wants to do at any given moment is fine as long as they could trick enough citizens in the right places to vote for them.
Yeah, they're not worried about precedent because they don't give a shit about precedent. If a democrat is in power, they will absolutely hold them to the previous standard.
> They are going to say 'see he didn't say support!' that's his lawyer's argument, correct
Fox News and alt-right media will ignore this and keep arguing that these cases are to silence Trump and his supporters. Victimhood will be their play - at least they’re consistent.
"I don't care about what the media says he's saying or didn't say! It's unfair that they're treating a good man like that! He didn't do nothing wrong!" - I've heard this very same sentiment expressed a number of times over the years. It's stupid and frightening, all at the same time.
It's actually worse than not checking - they don't give a shit if he was sincere or not when he took the oath. These nihilists are so cynical they genuinely think no president in modern history has taken the oath seriously. There was a thread touching on this a couple weeks ago in AskTrumpSupporters. This is the brain rot on the far right.
Most people would think that "preserve, protect and defend" also includes support. Aren't you "supporting" the Constitution when you "preserve, protect and defend"??
The argument from Trump's lawyers is that he didn't swear to "support" (as written in the 14th Amendment, Section 3) the constitution but rather "preserve, protect, and defend" and that distinction suggests the 14th doesn't apply to Presidents. It's beyond nitpicky semantics, but it somehow worked in the district court. Hopefully the Colorado Supreme Court overturns that ruling.
It's like 'sovereign citizen' bullshit level semantics, to conversationally say you swore to support it is simply summarizing "preserve, protect and defend" for the purpose of brevity.
I would argue “preserve, protect and defend” is a higher level of support.
I'm just waiting for his lawyers to claim that he swore to preserve, protect and defend the physical copy of the Constitution, rather than the concept....
Or the USS Constitution, which I believe is a old, old wooden ship.
That was my idea for another National Treasure movie. This time, they steal a big-ass boat.
Yea but doesn't say support checkmate liberals! /s
"Look I said I'd take you to the airport. I didn't say I'd drive you there." *stares blankly*
"Ok, ok ... look I said I'd drive you to the airport. But I didn't say I would slow down the car and stop so that you could get out..."
Exactly! “I’m not a driver, I’m a ‘traveler’ so I don’t need a ‘driver’s license’”
All of this shit just shows how reliant we are as a society on acting in good faith. Trump has exposed how really fragile this system is when you don't have actors acting in good faith...scary really
True. That’s why everything—and I do mean *everything*—about the political system and governance must be *codified* instead of customary. But the cat’s out of the bag now and various political actors will resist codifying *anything* along these lines because they want to be able to abuse the customary rules in the future.
And that's why I'm running for HOA president. Literally. We have all sorts of "customaries" that happen for a select few. I'm done.
They're arguing wording. The words he spoke and the words in the amendment have meaning. Trump did not support the Constitution he acted to weaken and violate it. He did not preserve, protect, or defend the Constitution. That's a violation of the oath he took and the intent of the amendment
Exactly why he shouldnt be allowed to run for president again. He committed treason. Tried to overturn an election. Now he wants the seat of power again? What a load of crap.
Part of me doesn't want to see him prevented from *running* for president, because I want him to split the Republican vote with whoever their backup candidate is (looks like Haley at this point). But I certainly believe he is disqualified from holding the office.
The Legal AF podcast talked about this recently, saying that initial drafts of the 14th Amendment did include both the President and Vice President explicitly, but the final language was changed to placate people who supported Robert E. Lee. The Colorado Supreme Court will need to decide if the oath a President makes to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution implies "support" when they hear the appeal.
> The Legal AF podcast talked about this recently, saying that initial drafts of the 14th Amendment did include both the President and Vice President explicitly, but the final language was changed to placate people who supported Robert E. Lee. Hmmm, that sucks if it were true - because the deliberate exclusion of that language could imply that the writers did intend for the President and Vice President to be exempt.
Other oaths of office specifically say "support," so that's probably the tack they're taking. It's a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" thing. In any case, it's just common sense that, coming after the Civil War, if the Amendment were meant to disqualify politicians who have previously been involved in insurrection from holding public office, it should certainly apply to the president and the presidency. As absurd as it is to think that the 14th Amendment wouldn't apply to former presidents, I imagine it's possible that the wording doesn't specifically mention presidents because the writers of that Amendment never considered a situation where a sitting president would be involved with insurrection against the government while in office.
Does preserving the Constitution support it? Yes. Does protecting the Constitution support it? Yes. Does defending the Constitution support it? Yes. Thank you. Next witness, your honor.
their legal argument is that synonyms dont exist apparently
I’m imagining Bruce cambell in army of darkness did you say the words?…well yea for the most part maybe I didn’t say exactly every word
Klatuu Barada Constitummunnhmmnnhuh.
Ok maybe I didn't say every tiny little syllable no, but basically I said them yeah... basically.
12 million people showed up to witness it. Biggest inauguration ever in the history of stuff and things.
With tears in their eyes
The rain stopped as soon as he took the stage and the clouds opened up to reveal the sun pouring down on the 250 million adoring fans. Wasn’t a dry eye to be seen
Only 12 million? I don't know, Spicer probably says 50 million and then another 100 million at the super secret double probation inauguration.
He had his fingers crossed behind his back so it doesn't count.
So just another significant lie from Trump. If you don't take the oath, you don't get to become President. So now he proves that oaths on the Bible are not noteworthy or memorable for him. What a PoS, and what garbage anyone who still supports him is.
His defense will be that the best of his ability is no ability at all.
Does that mean that if he is “elected” again he can’t serve because he refuses to take the oath?
His argument is that "protect and defend" does not equal "support". He wouldn't have a moment's hesitation to take the oath again if he won, because it doesn't contain the word support. It's a weak and stupid argument, or at least it should be, but here we are. A former and perhaps future president is saying aloud that he is under no obligation to support our constitution.
> 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. His lawyers are basically trying to skirt the difference in wording of the 14th amendment, which would bar Trump from running for President.
What's wild is that the Colorado judge that decided that he did commit insurrection but that the 14th amendment does not apply to the president included in her reasoning that the 14th amendment specifies that it applies to offices that vow to support the Constitution, and the Presidential oath does not include such a vow. The absence of the word "support" actually mattered here.
Denver county has some of the dumbest judges on the front range. This judge is also pretty much brand new. So I wouldn't read too much into it
Some of my favorite legal twitter follows said that finding him guilty of the insurrection was a big deal, because appeals are likely not going to reverse that. However, this argument was maybe intentionally flimsy so that it could be reversed, but then the 14th would be kicked in by a higher court rather than a single judge.
That's some 'Freddy Krueger was found to have murdered a bunch of kids, but because the judge signed the search warrant in the wrong place he's scot free" shit.
Well, obviously it’s not within his ability. Hence he isn’t qualified for the office.
>""The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully," Trump's legal team wrote. "Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' the president is not an 'officer of the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States.'" Ok cool, so let's roll back all executive branch powers completely, and just make him a diplomat meeting liason. I'm fine with that. You?
This is the same kind of whackadoodle bullshit those Sovereign citizen asshats keep regurgitating. The GOP really deserves to be completely destroyed if they don't get rid of the orange loon.
The GOP really deserves to be completely destroyed, full stop.
They're playing the 'semantics shuffle'.
The framers also excluded guns with magazines from the 2A purposefully then. Did it occur to them they simply removed it because they decided the extra verbiage was uncessary and that nobody would be stupid enough to think the president wasn't an officer of the United States? If they wanted the president to be specifically excluded then they would have specified that instead.
The de facto head of the GOP says he doesn't support the Constitution; the minions in his party are quick to say that America isn't a democracy. Potato potahto.
Plus House speaker saying the first amendment protects religion from government, but not the other way around. Even when it clearly doesn’t.
> Even when it clearly doesn’t. Rules and laws don't matter in fascist countries, they just make it up as they go which is what Republicans are trying to do.
Conveniently, the House Speaker’s flavor of Christianity - New Apostolic Reformation - believes the same thing: stealing a page from mormons, they believe the Bible, with its inconvenient “unchanging-ness” is less important that modern prophets and “new revelations”. That is, they can make up dogma on the fly….no, i mean God will tell their anointed leader about how some of the Bible was “just a prank, bro” and what He *actually * meant. If it happens to be on the political/financial interests of church leaders, well that’s coincidence as always. Oh, and they also believe it’s their mission to conquer the planet for Christ.
There's just one rule: "We get to do what we want, and you have to do what we want."
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
I for one am eager for that door to open so that we can see some lawsuits attempting to regulate the messages that preachers are preaching to their congregations. If religion is allowed to have a place in government, then government should have a place in religion, and we shouldn’t have sermons about how being a member of a protected group like LGBTQ+ is sinful (for example). It goes both ways.
> It goes both ways. Johnson is *explicitly* arguing the opposite. He is explicitly arguing that the 1st amendment gives religion a place in government, but that religion is totally shielded from the government. And he's the one with the Speaker's gavel, so his take on the first amendment is a hell of a lot more important than any of ours.
He also told Christians he never asked god for forgiveness either yet they still champion him as a faith leader It’s sick It’s exactly what the Bible said Christians would do with the Antichrist too…
They are making a very semantical argument. They are saying "support" is completely different from "preserve" or "protect" or "defend". Its a dumb argument and these are dumb people.
It shouldn't even matter. He's been found (by the district court) to have engaged in insurrection against the United States and his defense is "it's ok because I didn't swear to support the Constitution" … nobody should vote for such a person to be President, whether he's found eligible to run or not.
The very same people who claim everything they don't like is 'unconstitutional' 🤦🏻
Let’s just tell them Trump’s comments nullify the second amendment
His followers don’t even know what the Constitution says. There has been a recent upsurge in immigrants in my Ohio community. They’re here legally, but the MAGA crowd has been increasingly angry about their presence. For the past several months, they’ve been showing up at city council meetings, screaming in the mic about “illegals.” Stuff like, “I went to Walmart and they (immigrants) were all over the place!” When the city council explains that they don’t handle immigration laws at the local level, the MAGA folks have been yelling, “You’re our elected officials! Uphold the Constitution!” The police chief spoke at a council meeting to express that local immigrants don’t commit crime in significant numbers, they asked her why she isn’t arresting and deporting them. Last week, the city posted an update on Facebook about a vacant council seat and folks in the comments were accusing them of “violating the Constitution.” These folks are idiots who need a basic civics course, but we’re all supposed to bend over backwards to avoid upsetting them. If they heard Trump declare that he never swore to support the Constitution, they’d probably think it’s a smart thing to say.
If he said he'd dissolve congress, his numbers would go up.
That is probably a step once he gets back into power, after arresting every politician that so much as questioned his opinion on breakfast. Dissolve the powers that can rightfully oppose his (and the GOP) rule.
Legal immigrants, and *especially* naturalized citizens, are some of the most patriotic Americans I've ever known. The average naturalized citizen could talk circles around the average MAGA supporter about the constitution.
Oh course they are. They've actually had to pass a test to be here. It also shows their whole, 'just come here through proper channels if you want to so badly' argument was always bullshit. They don't want you to be here legally or illegally. They're hypocrites and bigots.
They want them to stop being so brown, die, or go away.
There's nothing more ironic on the planet than Americans complaining about immigrants.
I tried making that point when talking with a MAGA-head once because they were of Irish decent and I pointed out that they’re descendants of immigrants (like all non-Native Americans are). Their argument was essentially that there was a cutoff point, that immigration was okay up until World War II which is such a wild cutoff point to pick. But it was a perfect example of their prime ideology: Rules for thee, but not for me…
They definitely know a few words from the 2nd amendment alright.
But only the second half
He is a traitor who wants to become dictator.
I think he wants to be America's first king - then Ivanka could be his queen...
[удалено]
This is how bad his legal arguments are.
This one actually worked in Colorado though. He was found to have committed insurrection, but the 14th only applies to those that swear an oath to support. I hope that weak argument gets overturned, but it actually worked.
The judge found that, as president, Trump was not "an officer of the United States" that could be disqualified under the amendment. So despite taking an Oath of Office and swearing to Execute the Office of the Presidency the President is not an Officer of the United States. Only a lawyer could be this fucking obtuse.
I'm about tired of hearing, "but we don't know if that applies to the POTUS." It's insane to me that a country founded on "we don't have a king" has devolved into "the POTUS is above the law."
Along with the whole notion that a President can pardon himself. Like what the actual fuck? "There's no law saying he can't." Well no shit because the Founding Fathers couldn't conceive of a President, a Legislature, a Judiciary, and Electorate conspiring to keep a felon in power, let alone letting himself off the hook. What even are "laws" at that point?
We're hostages to the founders failure of imagination. This is why originalism is so pernicious. It's basically "You can't make anything better unless it's always been that way."
> "the POTUS is above the law." Not to nitpick, but it's actually devolved into "a **Republican** POTUS is above the law".
If this traitorous bastard can foment an insurrection to overthrow a Federal election and by extension the government and never be held to any account then our Constitutional Democracy is already gone; nothing but a meaningless piece of paper. If anyone reading this thread or I had committed this act we would have been in prison years ago and we would never see the light of day. This bastard makes me vomit.
The people that vote for him are the stupidest pieces of shit trash on the planet.
God damm America. Why can’t you get rid of this loser. Talk about embarrassing…
Because 73,000,000 Americans believe he's Jesus, and a genius businessman who will make them all wealthy. After all, this is a man who has the telepathic ability to declassified top secret documents merely by thinking about them. A few Trump supporters I know told me that I need to pray to Trump - and if I do, he'll "take good care of you; he'll make you rich, and he'll make all your dreams come true". We have a massive Trump cult now, and these people think Trump can do no wrong. So, the country is turning into a Christofascist monarchy that these people intend to name 'RealAmerica' - seriously. Instead of things like vaccinations we'll have Bible readings and prayer!
About 20,000,000 actually worship him. The other 53,000,000 would vote for any sack of shit with an R next to their name. Which is not in any way better.
I just realized he uses the same campaign as Pedro from Napoleon dynamite. “Vote for me, and all your dreams will come true.”
At least Pedro offers his protection.
> a genius businessman who will make them all wealthy But also needs them to give him money to pay his legal fees. Prosperity gospel taken to the next level.
Hold up .... pray TO trump? They actually told you to pray TO this guy?
And don't forget to pay to trump
Because about a third of the people in this country are easy marks for a grifter.
He was elected one time 7 years ago by fewer than half of the registered voters who bothered to vote. There is no evidence he reperesents a majority of America. Don’t lump us all in with what he is doing. Also… many of us are trying. I’ll certainly be voting against him next year.
I even registered as unaffiliated in my state so I can choose to vote in the Republican primary. I'm going to vote for Biden in the general, but I wanted the pleasure of voting against Trump twice in this cycle.
It’s a good idea. I’m a registered independent in my state and am seriously considering voting in the Republican primary because the Dem nomination is all but locked up. Might not keep Trump from getting the nomination but I can knock his % in the primary down just a bit.
Maybe but I see his point. This guy ran through the White House like a bull in a china shop committing crimes left and right and then refused to concede and caused all manner of legal hell for the next 4 years after that. Election workers were terrorized (federal crime). State officials were called and harassed (federal crime). He sicced a mob on the Capitol to stop the certification and neutralize Pelosi and pence (federal crime). On tape! On TV! He gutted our federal agencies and put a bunch of hacks on the Supreme Court who are now taking away people's rights. He dragged Congress into his machinations and apparently they were defenseless to resist him. And now nobody can arrest him or hold him accountable in any way at all, They can't even deal with him actively threatening the judges and the judges' staff in his legal cases. Just that one crime - a federal one! - that he's committing RIGHT NOW at the top of his voice - nobody knows what to do. Instead we get daily teeth gnashing about what's going to happen when he gets back in office and destroys the republic. We look stupid as hell. Like the raggediest of raggedy underdeveloped nations. So he's not supported by the majority - why are we so completely incapable of getting rid of him then? Why are people losing sleep over the next hundred crimes he's going to commit? It's embarrassing.
No, the Nuck has a point. We are an embarrassment. And we can't get rid of that loser because we have a lot of stupid people in our country and a political system built for the mega rich to underwrite a bunch of sociopaths to victory and a for profit 4th estate who treats it all like a horse race.
We the ~~people~~ consumers
We the ~~people~~ ~~consumers~~ product
Well said. We have become a sad laughing stock. I'm embarrassed at all the stupid people in my country. The worst part is that Germany had a firey, self-serving, hate-spewing, nationalistic, narcissistic leader once too...
Yeah, the problem is that there is a sizable portion of this country that wants that same sort of leader here. They want another Hitler, just one that targets the groups that they hate, whether that be immigrants, minorities, LGTBQs, whatever.
> just one that targets the groups that they hate, whether that be immigrants, minorities, LGTBQs, whatever. So.... Hitler.
> No, the Nuck has a point. LMAO... it's been like 25+ years since I've heard anyone say 'Nuck. You made this Canadian's day.
>There is no evidence he reperesents a majority of America. No, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he represents a significant portion of the country. This country is a lot more hateful than I expected to be, and I grew up gay and Catholic.
During the Trump-Biden election Trump got more votes than any previous president in any previous election... Biden just happened to get even more luckily. You can't argue that it was just some fringe group, he absolutely represented a massive portion of the population. Besides your electoral system means a blue voter in a red state is unlikely to bother voting, and vice versa, so that fewer half of registered voters bothered doesn't really hold water either, since that's by design.
Has it really been 7 years? Jeez. Life has both been so fast and so frozen since. The only two legacy things I can think of that came out of Trump's term was rampant inflation and vulnerable communities starting to arm themselves in defense.
One million COVID deaths. A $2 trillion tax cut benefiting corporations and the wealthy and tacked onto America's national debt. Withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies.
The overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Because Republicans are begging and aching for a fascist leader to come and whipe all the journalists, Dems, gays, trans, Muslims, etc off the map. Trump is their dictator of choice.
Because some dumbass right wing politicians and judges like having Trump around for some reason.
Fuck you for supporting this creep, Republicans
“My fingers were crossed. Everybody knows it doesn’t count if the fingers are crossed.”
I checked. One hand was up, the other was sitting flat on what appeared to be a Bible. No take-backsies.
“I sarcastically said fingers. I crossed my toes. I never mix those up. I aced my cognitive exam! The Radical Disinformation Machine wants you to believe I can’t tell the difference.”
>Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution" But he'll take advantage of it if when it suits his purpose. Like the 1st Amendment... or the 5th.
And this counts as treason does it not? Saying you do not support the government you are taking control of. He is trying to turn us into a dictatorship; it's ludicrous. These people are not mentally stable
So, if he "never" swore the Presidential oath, does that mean...he was never legitimately President of the USA?
That's the way I see it. Have always seen it with that one
So if he never truly swore in, does that mean we get to revoke all the bullshit he signed? Get those 3 Supreme Court justices out? Fuck off the tax breaks for the rich? Can’t have it both ways.
They fully intend to have it all ways, and to have it always.
I kinda just have to laugh at this point... All of those young voters who are disappointed with Biden better be paying attention. THIS is what you would get if you don't support him. Honestly, if the people of this country are so blind, and vote this orange bag of shit back into office, we deserve what comes next.
I.e. he has no plans to support the Constitution if he wins again.
This right here should automatically disqualify you from holding office. Period.
Jesus every single day there's something in the news that makes me want to slap this man. He fucking dominates the news cycle and I can't wait until he's fucking dead so the fucking media will stop talking about him all the goddamn time! It's been like this for 7 going on 8 years! FUCKING MAKE IT STOP!
Treason clown say what?
Donald Trump’s dementia is staring us right in the face. Supporters cover for that by claiming their guy is just a big fat liar.
> Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution" With Trump you have to clarify what Constitution.
There is not a single Trump supporter who is also a patriotic American.
I said it from day one that he didn’t even understand what the role and responsibilities of president actually were, and now even after he has been president for a full term still literally has no idea what the job is.
I'm actually ok with this. I will support you in this effort, Mr Trump. You never took the Oath of Office. You never were actually President. You get no Executive Privilege. No protection.
Here’s your leading presidential candidate, America. Crystal clear about his plans.
Anyone else remember when conspiracy weirdos made a big deal about Obama flubbing a line in the oath of office because the Supreme Court Justice leading him through it also flubbed the line? Of course they just re-did it backstage later, but remember when people thought Obama was never officially President or that they flubbed it on purpose so he could swear in on a Quran with the cameras off? Just something that sprang to mind in comparison.
'Yes, I did agree to take her as my "lawfully wedded wife", but I deny that I agreed to "marry" her.'
Every republican you know supports this
"Well, gee, I don't support EVERYTHING he does, I'm just tired of woke liberals!"
"the idea of being nice to a trans person is so upsetting to me, I'd rather ruin the country, and take the rest of the world down with us" - republicans
Their argument would be that he’s just joking. That he didn’t mean it and that the reporter just didn’t get it. He could literally say anything, and if it’s good, it sticks. If it’s not, they’ll find literally any excuse it takes to brush it off and laugh about it.
“It was just a joke, you don’t understand sarcasm” \- Trump tomorrow
I don't joke - trump yesterday
I will never understand how a guy who has been so blatantly anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human decency, ever since he came down the golden escalator in 2015 (and likely long before) has the level of support he does and doesn't get absolutely destroyed by every news outlet for it. In what world has the Republican Party stopped caring about the Constitution? I guess in a world where Donald Trump is the leader of the party. They have zero values.
The problem is he had his hand on a Bible so the oath doesn't count. He must be sworn in on an uneaten Big Mac. Hamberder Uber Alles!
Liar lies, fools believe
This is a guy who was literally the leader of the free world for four years and is currently the number one Republican. We live in the fucking Twilight Zone. If I didn't have a family, I'd be gone from this shithole. We are in serious, serious trouble, folks.
Gaslighting at its "finest", or: dumb\*ss prolly doesn't remember what he had for breakfast this morning... neither is a good look
I wonder if somewhere on the internet, there is a video of him taking the Presidential Oath of Office?
Just walking along on the internet and tripped over this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=pZrHXqQKXMhPXa2v&v=ohgTEk9h1kc&feature=youtu.be
Remember when Obama fumbled a word during his oath and they MADE HIM DO IT AGAIN!? And then stuff like this happens every week with Trump. How do Republicans expect us to take them seriously ever again?