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
      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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          2 years ago

          I’m not handwaving a damn thing

          Lol you called it “examples” despite it not at all reading like examples, and you’re just ignoring it again now.

            • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              2 years ago

              What else would you call an incomplete list of things, that represents some entries from a complete list of things?

              This is what I’m trying to figure out. You’re basically saying there was no point in them listing those out specifically, it was just a weird set of examples that doesn’t even read as a list of examples, in a document that doesn’t otherwise list examples. Maybe you’re right, but you’re making a terrible case for it. Really you’re just handwaving it away because considering it would make maintaining your position more difficult.

              And considering you keep misrepresenting my position, despite me explicitly laying it out for you, yes you are the one arguing in bad faith. You and I both know it, and we’re likely the only two down this far, so I’m not sure why you’re even bothering to deny it.