politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"any office"
Oh but not this time.
I've asked this elsewhere, and have not really gotten an adequate response. Why specifically call out "Senator or Representative in Congress" and even explicitly mention "elector of President and Vice-President" . . . but then simply imply that the far more important positions of POTUS and VPOTUS fall under the catch-all of "any office"? The omission here seems pretty intentional.
When you have a English sentence that phrases 'all of the above'/everyone, why then would you need to explicitly state individuals?
Or can an office be held by a non-homosapien?
The issue is that they did explicitly state individuals. Had they not, I would 100% agree that it doesn't make sense to exclude the POTUS from the interpretation. But naming high importance positions like Senator and Representative, and even electors for POTUS, the fact that POTUS is not included seems to be a very intentional omission.
Kind of avoids the point I'm making though.
If it mentions "any office*, then any means all, right? If there were a hundred offices would you literally expect them to explicitly list all 100 of them?
The quantity of offices mentioned explicitly is a red herring, only because "any office" is mentioned as well. If "any office" wasn't mentioned, then you would be correct in your assumptions.
I don't feel like I avoided your point, I directly addressed it and why I think it doesn't hold water.
But I need to ask then, why do you think they specifically mentioned Senators, Representatives, and electors for the POTUS, but then just put POTUS under a catch-all? Why list these very important positions but skip mentioning the most important one of all?
Answer my "any office" point first, and I'll respond in kind.
I feel like I already did, very directly. I'm not sure what further clarification you need. If you answer this for me, it would probably make it more clear to me either why I'm wrong or what needs further explanation.
At this point we're both struggling for the high ground debate point of managing the narrative.
You made the original point. I counted that point with my own point. Now the onus is on you to counter my counter, and not go back to your original point, which would just cause endless circling.
"Any office". Do you think that's 100% inclusive of all offices?
And if so, is the Office of the President an office?
Please don't project. If you're doing this, then it's you alone doing it.
FTR, I can see both arguments. I've maintained that the conclusion by the judge is within the realm of reason. I can also see how your point is within reason.
Could you please answer these specific two questions, with actual yes/no answers ...
“Any office”. Do you think that’s 100% inclusive of all offices?
And if so, is the Office of the President an office?
No, I can't. Because it's not so simple and it's not so black and white. As I said, I can see both arguments based on the wording.
But I get it, at this point, I'm not getting the same respect I showed.
You're being intellectually dishonest.