politics

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.

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.

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.

Every American has a right to have one of these:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Super easy: if you feel strongly enough, words don't need to mean anything. There, all fixed!

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

From the outside it's absolutely crazy that there is a good chance that he's gonna be president again.