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
I'd like for you to take a moment and truly take in just how insane this idea is. To set the scene, it's 1868, 3 years after the civil war ended. Among the traitors who attacked the nation are a number of people who held public office. The writers of this amendment wanted to make sure that those traitors never had a chance to hold public office again, and so wrote an amendment to specifically bar them. The reason they called out senators and congresspeople in the opening of the 3rd clause is because senators and congressional representatives were among the traitors. Your idea that they thought that it was important to bar traitors from those positions, but were like: "Well, but a traitor for a president is ok" is... well, I've already said insane. Is there a word that's more derogatory than insane? Use that.
The reason that they didn't list "the president" at the beginning of that clause is because the president was the guy who fought the traitors that they were trying to bar. The amendment was both punitive and preventative; they wanted to punish the traitors among them who fought against the US and prevent them from holding office again.
Now, I know that in the light of several years of living in the Post-Trump era, the idea of a president being a traitor has become all too normal, but put yourself back in the late 1860s, and think of how batshit insane that would be to them. They didn't mention the president because under no circumstance did they consider that the president could be a traitor.
Yes, but just because you admitted to being wrong doesn't mean that you've stopped being wrong. You're still wrong. Stupidly, laughably wrong.
Right, because it is. Sorry that I'm not coddling your feelings, but that's the bare truth. If someone is arguing with you that the earth is flat, do you keep showing them pictures from space even after they tell you that NASA faked them? Or do you just call them an idiot and go on with your day? Maybe you're a much more patient person than I am, but I 100% choose the latter.
I'm not sure what you're implying that I'm admitting to. That you're an idiot? Yes. I admit it. You've got me.
First good on you for trying to make an argument again instead of just insulting me. Could have dropped the insults altogether, but this is progress at least.
I'm mainly copy-pasting my post from elsewhere:
Our whole system is based on checks and balances, because they knew full well that any part of the government could become corrupt. Hell, even during that time, Lincoln was called a traitor to the country when he was campaigning. The idea that they couldn’t fathom that a president could also be a threat to the republic doesn’t hold much water. It’s literally arguing that they made a “whoopsie” when crafting the amendment and no one from the 38 states and none of the supermajority of both houses of congress was smart enough to say “hey, maybe we should consider the POTUS too.” I just can’t buy it that people at the time thought the POTUS was some purely noble person that would never do wrong.
Second, and probably more importantly in this case, this actually confirms the ruling. You’re arguing that it was an oversight to not include the POTUS because they never thought that someone who wants to be/was the POTUS would be the one to commit the crime; you're effectively admitting that the POTUS is not included. This is admitting that the POTUS is not part of it, thus making the ruling correct, and thus requiring us to go back and amend it to include the POTUS/VPOTUS.
You accused me of holding a position because I refuse to admit I am wrong. I'm the only one in this thread (between the two of us) that has done so. So the claim that I'm unwilling to rings particularly hollow.
I pointed out the attacks not because I particularly care about you respecting me (although it would be nice), but because you abandoned debating positions in favor of insulting. I know, from many years of debating, that the ad hominem is one of the first refuges of a failing argument. And you've made it clear you still need to rely on it heavily.
You may not realize it, but that "you’re just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end."