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

      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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              2 years ago

              you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President.

              It’s amazing because I’ve never made this argument. I’ve asked why you think they didn’t specify the POTUS, and that by not doing so the interpretation that the position was not included is reasonable.

              I appreciate the actual attempt to answer my question now, and I will read that piece. Thanks. That seems pretty damning to the ruling by the judge, and I wonder why it wasn’t brought up. I assume if this is appealed to the SCOTUS, it will be.

                • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                  11·
                  2 years ago

                  it says a lot about your reading comprehension

                  It’s amazing that even after I say I’m convinced by your evidence (almost I still need to read the source), you still have to be a dick about it. Can’t help but be a douche, I guess.

                  That being said, you’re wrong and it’s your reading comprehension that sucks. After you misrepresented my position earlier, I explicitly laid out my position and it should have been clear from it that I just think her conclusion was reasonable. But in your small little mind you can’t think beyond the black and white, so the fact that I didn’t find it unreasonable must mean I think it’s unreasonable to include him in the list. You’re seeing yourself in me.

                  And FTR, the part you quote still does not answer my question, but I’m hoping the answer is in the context of what you quoted. so, again, thank you for that.

                  Maybe it’s a tactic, and admittedly the Amendment doesn’t say he must be struck from the ballot. It just says he’s disqualified from taking the office.

                  I suspect, but could very easily be wrong, that to get on the ballot in most states you have to be eligible to be POTUS.