this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
697 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2552 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 161 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Next, he’s going to say that he did repeat the oath, but he had his fingers crossed so it doesn’t count.

[–] negativenull@lemm.ee 95 points 1 year ago

The Narcissist's Prayer:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Damn. Well, you win this time, Mr Donald, but we'll get you in the end!

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 121 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They are arguing that the oath doesn't include the word "support" not that he didn't take the oath. Not saying it's a good argument but that's what they are actually arguing.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Emphasis mine.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 95 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like if that's your argument, you absolutely have no business being president.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 78 points 1 year ago

He didn't and doesn't.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I wonder what their definition of "support" is and how they plan on using that as a defense.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 year ago

Or what their definition of “defend” is, and how they plan to use that as support.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well. I mean he didn't literally carry the constitution around. So he wasn't supporting it that way.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The judge also found that the "Office of President of the United States" was not an office of the United States... so yeah...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's the Air Bud loophole for fascists.

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I would much rather have a golden retriever as my president

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Their argument is that because he did not use the exact word "support" in respect to the Constitution, that he is not able to be excluded from holding office in the US even if he did commit seditious acts. He is saying that his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" is entirely different than an oath to "support" it. It's nonsense, but one judge (in Colorado, I believe?) ~~has already provided legitimacy to that argument, so... the stupid argument now has judicial precedent.~~

Edit: Correcting my mistake about the Judge's verdict. The judge did not uphold the argument that the Presidential oath was not to "support" the Constitution. Instead, the Judge was convinced by Trump's team that the President is not an "officer of the United States". Therefore, Trump took no oath as an Officer of the United States, and, thus, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (which exclude someone who swore such an oath, who then incites an insurrection from holding federal or state office) simply doesn't apply to someone who has only sworn an oath as President.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That judge is insane. The word "officer" literally means "one who holds office". This has always been the dictionary definition of the word. What the fuck is that judge smoking?!

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

He's smoking his fat bribes from the rich cunts that run the country.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KnowledgeableNip@leminal.space 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The fuck Simon Says argument is this? Are we in kindergarten?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 93 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President," Blue wrote.

By the same token, the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns".

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Every American has a right to have one of these:

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Walk down 5th Ave with a good ole fashioned saber and see what happens 🫠

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're all dumber for having this guy around

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Remember that a large portion of the country still rallies behind this person. It's a sad state of affairs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Republicans: “let’s vote for this guy”

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like the founders felt that the voting base would not possibly be dumb enough to support an individual like Trump. They put in appropriate guardrails but never thought such a large portion of the country would push so hard towards fascism.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course they didn't. They wrote all this assuming that wealthy white landowning men would continue to be the only ones who could vote. Populism was not something on their radar.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"I don't stand behind anything." - Trump in the oval office, 2017

So, yeah.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The argument that I've heard from some prominent lawyers is that "preserve, protect and defend" was intended by the framers to be a stronger oath than "support" and that it should be construed as including "support". Hopefully the courts agree with that reasoning.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Even if not stronger per se, surely if I said I was going to "protect" you, we would agree that I am "supporting" you. It's like saying I only promised to make you wealthier, not pay you. They are not literally the same word but paying someone is a way to make them wealthier.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't comprehend how any American who calls himself a patriot can vote for this traitorous pig.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Bam. Perjury.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (6 children)

What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 25 points 1 year ago

At least then we could argue about a lie being a lie, now it's all "he never said that (literally 4 seconds ago), if he did it's fine, if you're mad that's your fault, he never said it anyway. I like that he said it."

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

thing about that is, clinton actually had a point. he said "there is nothing going on between [he and monica lewinsky]" when asked, and was then accused of perjury. He argued that "is" meant "is", and because at the time of asking he and lewinsky didn't have an ongoing relationship he didn't lie.

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing "Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn't be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?"

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bullshit, traitor. Lock him up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 1 year ago

I hope we see this in the political ads next year

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

If the Founders wanted Presidents removed for committing Insurrection they would have EXPLICITLY stated it in the Constitution! Just like how the EXPLICITLY allow people to own AR15 guns and how it's EXPLICITLY allowed to shoot up schools with those guns!

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Harry & Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Trump & The Republican Party.

Not sure which one's the dumbest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh, so he was never the president then? I can dig that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ohlaph@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

It's cool guys, he crossed his toes before he took the stand so it didn't count.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ohgTEk9h1kc&t=36 wtf did I just watch then? Is this some weird DnD timeline, where you can roll to disbelieve?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I mean, the word "support" doesn't appear there, although it's a stretch to say that "Preserve, protect, and defend" doesn't imply "support" also.

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 22 points 1 year ago

It says "to the best of my ability" and since he has no abilities, he has no responsibility to do anything.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah well he didn't swear to read the Constitution either, so it's okay if he doesn't support it /s

It's actually rather painfully clear he's never read it anyway.

This is just some inane bullshit dancing around language.

[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, he was crossing his fingers behind his back. Like every other time when he opens his mouth.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›