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

      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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          You believe because the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned that we can’t know if it was intended to be covered by Section 3

          Incorrect, as proven by the fact that you showed me evidence that they intended to include the presidency and I said this “damning to the ruling by the judge.” But that would require reading comprehension, which a lack of you hilariously projected onto me. Although this was never true and just a straw man you’ve made up.

          Your logic is “they explicitly name certain offices, why not the president”

          As I said, it is a conspicuous omission which is why I had a hard time finding fault with the ruling. But, again, this would have just required some reading comprehension.

          That answers your question, explain how it does not

          I’ve asked it explicitly a number of times, yet you still can’t understand it. Amazing. I’ll try again.

          Why did they list some high importance positions but not the POTUS? I’m not asking you how you think it still includes the POTUS. I’ve always thought it was a reasonable conclusion to think it does. Why list any offices at all, like senator and rep, if the catch all of “any office” gets them as well?

          Their inclusion creates ambiguity which is why I originally found her conclusion to be reasonable. But if we have the framers of the amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer. This is just the first I’ve seen that. Pretty much every other argument has been they couldn’t fathom a POTUS would he the traitor (which is laughable).

            • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              2 years ago

              They’re called “examples”.

              Lol you don’t honestly think this is the case do you? Why not give examples in every amendment? But this is certainly not how it’s worded. You’re just trying hand wave away this peculiarity. Why not just admit it’s curious and raises questions?

              Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you?

              At no point was your position unclear; at no point did I not understand what you were arguing. The issue is that they decided to put in “examples” (lol) but not include the POTUS, and I thought that left the door open to interpret as not including the POTUS. One of them clarifying that it does still include the POTUS is very different than you simply claiming it does. The only reason this would be hard to understand is, well, if you lack reading comprehension or cant think outside of black and white.

                • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                  1·
                  2 years ago

                  you STILL won’t say why “OR ANY OFFICE” might not clearly cover offices not explicitly listed.

                  Holy shit this has been my entire point. The more you go, the more obvious you make it that it’s you who lacks reading comprehension. To be clear, once again, it’s because they list high importance positions, and then throw a catch all in at the end that would also cover all of those other positions. Why list those at all? Why not list the most important position? The best explanation you’ve come up with is “they’re examples” which is a joke because it’s clearly not worded in a way that would make one believe they are just examples.

                  what I want to know is why you want to focus so hard on a sentence fragment being ambiguous, when the very next words of the sentence make the meaning perfectly clear

                  Because this is why a judge, one who is an expert in law, ruled that way and I find her conclusion to be reasonable, without the clarification from a framer of whether this is supposed to cover the POTUS. It’s the crux of the argument. The issue is that you just want to handwave this away because it’s inconvenient for what you (and I, btw) want to be true. You sound like all the people I’ve debated with who claim “a well regulated militia” was just thrown in for funsies and shouldn’t be considered.

                  “Why is the President not listed”

                  The fact that in none of these you include “but senator is” just leads me to believe you aren’t debating in good faith. Either that or your reading comprehension is even worse than I originally thought.