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.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    93·
    2 years ago

    That doesn’t EXPLICITLY say they can’t be President. - a Judge in Colorado who probably would also rule the framers PROBABLY meant AR15s in the Second Amendment despite it not being explicitly said.

      • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
        22·
        2 years ago

        There are people in powerful positions who may try to interpret this as favorably to Trump as possible to let him off the hook for it, holding as much integrity for themselves as they can while still achieving the goal. Are you sure it will hold up? I’m not, unfortunately.

        • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
          3·
          2 years ago

          Not with the conservative shills on this Supreme Court, no. Not when it really counts. This is the product of several generations of conservative activism to stack the courts with partisan judges for conservative causes.

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      22·
      2 years ago

      I can’t really find fault with the ruling. The amendment specifically calls out very important positions like senators and representatives, and even electors for POTUS…but they just plumb forgot the even more important position of POTUS? It’s really hard to believe.

      I don’t know why they would exclude the POTUS, and few want trump off the ballot more than me, but the argument that the POTUS is not included is very reasonable.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        32·
        2 years ago

        The text literally says “any office”. Not sure what you’re talking about here.

        • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
          12·
          2 years ago

          So why do you think they left POTUS out of the list when they listed out other important positions? Why not just say “any office” is that’s all inclusive?

            • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
              11·
              2 years ago

              I read the excerpt, and it makes no mention of why they explicitly call out senators but not the post, and vaguely referencing a 55 page paper just leads me to believe you have no explanation.

              If this is not the case, could you put the argument in your own words?

                • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                  11·
                  2 years ago

                  You’re not arguing why one and not the other, but why it should apply to the POTUS even though it doesn’t say POTUS.

                  I’m not saying I disagree, but the same argument could be made for senator or representative as well. So why call out these specifically and not the other?

                  If you’re resting your hat on “well it obviously applies to senator but not POTUS” when I would think, without specific clarification, that it would obviously apply to both … Well then I think they justified her ruling as reasonable.