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.

  • 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.

                  • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                    11·
                    2 years 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.