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
      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.

                • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                  11·
                  2 years 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.