• stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      11 months ago

      The sophistry here is that the presidential oath doesn’t contain the word “support”. It’s complete bullshit but you never know with this SCOTUS.

      • neclimdul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not sure how support doesn’t fall under “preserve, protect and defend” in every way that’s meaningful

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          11 months ago

          That is the sophistry part. It clearly was intended to be a higher level of oath that included the lower one. Watch: SCOTUS will say that the president actually doesn’t have to support the Constitution.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase “office of the president” appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he’s allowed to commit treason and still run for president

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why is this comment so heavily upvoted? His argument is not that he never took an oath, but that the wording of it was not to “support.”

      It still a stupid argument as far as I’m concerned, although it may be a good legal one, but its clear you didn’t even bother to read the argument, yet are very confident in your ignorance.

      These are exactly the type of comments that should be down voted.

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Trymps arguments are moving goal posts, he’s a narcissist. For the past 6 years we have all given him the benefit of the doubt and America and the rest of the world have been debating what he really means at every tweet and followed the narrative that HE wanted us to follow. Had we all taken OPs approach earlier and more often this guy would be in an old people’s house where he belongs, bragging with incontinent people about passing the men, woman camera TV test.

        We should have called a funking liar and a demented that cannot articulate a point instead of talking to each other about what his argument was. This is staring from the media and down to individuals.

        Remember if your uncle behaved like this at thanksgiving dinner you’d have him checked.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Whos been giving this guy the benefit of the doubt for 6 years now? I’m all for calling him a liar and a rambling idiot, which he is.

          But I don’t see what this has to do with anything. Trump didn’t make the argument that he never took an oath, but that he never took an oath to “defend.” This is not debating what he really means, it’s just accepting the facts. You, like trump, might ignore reality to make the point you want, but I can’t do that. Sorry.

          • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            What he really means doesn’t matter, and he will keep changing it as you let him drag you in the mud.

            Sorry we* wouldn’t have accepted a statement like this from Obama or even George w. And that’s the way it should be.

            And by we I mean society, the media, his peers anyone. While you sit proudly on your high horse fascism takes over.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Holy shit this is amazing. I’m just pointing out what his actual argument is, like quite literally what his argument is in court.

              I’m not saying we should accept it. You’re stuck in black and white thinking, and so because I point out that the facts contradict something that someone you agree with is claiming, then I must be drawing the exact opposite conclusion.

              But, just like trump, it appears you don’t want to facts to get in the way of the narrative. If that high horse is basing opinions on facts and reality, then I’ll proudly sit tall upon it.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I disagree that the problem was solved, because this was never the problem to begin with, but I’m okay moving on as well.