Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    You believe because the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned that we can’t know if it was intended to be covered by Section 3

    Incorrect, as proven by the fact that you showed me evidence that they intended to include the presidency and I said this “damning to the ruling by the judge.” But that would require reading comprehension, which a lack of you hilariously projected onto me. Although this was never true and just a straw man you’ve made up.

    Your logic is “they explicitly name certain offices, why not the president”

    As I said, it is a conspicuous omission which is why I had a hard time finding fault with the ruling. But, again, this would have just required some reading comprehension.

    That answers your question, explain how it does not

    I’ve asked it explicitly a number of times, yet you still can’t understand it. Amazing. I’ll try again.

    Why did they list some high importance positions but not the POTUS? I’m not asking you how you think it still includes the POTUS. I’ve always thought it was a reasonable conclusion to think it does. Why list any offices at all, like senator and rep, if the catch all of “any office” gets them as well?

    Their inclusion creates ambiguity which is why I originally found her conclusion to be reasonable. But if we have the framers of the amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer. This is just the first I’ve seen that. Pretty much every other argument has been they couldn’t fathom a POTUS would he the traitor (which is laughable).

    • @voracitude
      link
      11 year ago

      Why list any offices at all?

      They’re called “examples”.

      Their inclusion created ambiguity

      No, it doesn’t. Because “or” and “any” and “office” all have their own meanings, as do all the other words you completely ignored to claim there’s any ambiguity. THAT is why I’m annoyed with you, because you have been obstinately declaring ambiguity and a lack of an answer when it’s been right there in your face, in written words, the whole time.

      But if we have the framers of the Amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer

      Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you? Remember, the framers themselves said it’s clear as day by simply pointing out what the text says. I want to know why you didn’t take that from what’s written. Not being a dick now, I actually want to understand what is ambiguous about “or any other office, civil or military”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        They’re called “examples”.

        Lol you don’t honestly think this is the case do you? Why not give examples in every amendment? But this is certainly not how it’s worded. You’re just trying hand wave away this peculiarity. Why not just admit it’s curious and raises questions?

        Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you?

        At no point was your position unclear; at no point did I not understand what you were arguing. The issue is that they decided to put in “examples” (lol) but not include the POTUS, and I thought that left the door open to interpret as not including the POTUS. One of them clarifying that it does still include the POTUS is very different than you simply claiming it does. The only reason this would be hard to understand is, well, if you lack reading comprehension or cant think outside of black and white.

        • @voracitude
          link
          11 year ago

          No, the reason this is hard to understand is that the text is perfectly clear, and you STILL won’t say why “OR ANY OFFICE” might not clearly cover offices not explicitly listed. Because that is what those words mean and I think you should be concerned that you can’t answer that question. I would also encourage you to research the concept of “or”, and of incomplete lists, as they have been around for millennia and you really ought to get caught up.

          Put another way: what I want to know is why you want to focus so hard on a sentence fragment being ambiguous, when the very next words of the sentence make the meaning perfectly clear (and make no mistake, the meaning is perfectly clear to anyone who can read English).

          This is how this is going, from my point of view: “Why is the President not listed” “See ‘any office’ right after that” “But why are the other offices listed” “Because ‘any office’ covers all of them, even ones that didn’t exist back then” “But the President isn’t listed and that creates ambiguity” “No it doesn’t, because of the ‘any office’ text” “But it doesn’t list every office” “Right. See ‘any office’” “… But it’s ambiguous and you’re not answering my question”

          Now you try.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            you STILL won’t say why “OR ANY OFFICE” might not clearly cover offices not explicitly listed.

            Holy shit this has been my entire point. The more you go, the more obvious you make it that it’s you who lacks reading comprehension. To be clear, once again, it’s because they list high importance positions, and then throw a catch all in at the end that would also cover all of those other positions. Why list those at all? Why not list the most important position? The best explanation you’ve come up with is “they’re examples” which is a joke because it’s clearly not worded in a way that would make one believe they are just examples.

            what I want to know is why you want to focus so hard on a sentence fragment being ambiguous, when the very next words of the sentence make the meaning perfectly clear

            Because this is why a judge, one who is an expert in law, ruled that way and I find her conclusion to be reasonable, without the clarification from a framer of whether this is supposed to cover the POTUS. It’s the crux of the argument. The issue is that you just want to handwave this away because it’s inconvenient for what you (and I, btw) want to be true. You sound like all the people I’ve debated with who claim “a well regulated militia” was just thrown in for funsies and shouldn’t be considered.

            “Why is the President not listed”

            The fact that in none of these you include “but senator is” just leads me to believe you aren’t debating in good faith. Either that or your reading comprehension is even worse than I originally thought.

            • @voracitude
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not handwaving a damn thing. “Why include those at all?” is barely even a curiosity, and absolutely not a reason to rule that the catch-all means nothing just because there’s a partial list before it, nor to defend such a ruling as reasonable. The language is clear as crystal, and there are no two ways about that, because it says what it says. You even called it a catch-all, so you know damn well what those words mean, and implicitly agreed that it is clear from the language alone all those who Section 3 applies to.

              The fact that in none of these you include “but senator is” just leads me to believe you aren’t debating in good faith.

              You only think that because you lost sight of the forest for the trees. If you understand my position, then you understand why that list being incomplete is irrelevant to the question at hand.

              Edit: Also, I’d expect a judge “who is an expert in law” would know about that bloody paper I linked wherein the framers explicitly stated why they listed only some positions and not every position in Federal government. Speaking of which, a point I raised before was that they couldn’t have listed every position that would ever exist. By your logic, it’s “ambiguous” as to whether we can have a traitor serve as a four-star General in the Space Force, just because nobody ever explicitly named that position in the text of Section 3. If arguing that the framers were deficient in their writing because they couldn’t see the future to explicitly name every government position that will ever exist doesn’t highlight how pants-on-head your point has been this whole time, I don’t know what will.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                I’m not handwaving a damn thing

                Lol you called it “examples” despite it not at all reading like examples, and you’re just ignoring it again now.

                • @voracitude
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  What else would you call an incomplete list of things, that represents some entries from a complete list of things? And you say I’m the one arguing in bad faith.

                  If you had a point, it would have been made by now. If you’re genuine, I hope you consider the dialectical spanking you’ve been given today and use it as inspiration to be better. I believe in you, champ.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    What else would you call an incomplete list of things, that represents some entries from a complete list of things?

                    This is what I’m trying to figure out. You’re basically saying there was no point in them listing those out specifically, it was just a weird set of examples that doesn’t even read as a list of examples, in a document that doesn’t otherwise list examples. Maybe you’re right, but you’re making a terrible case for it. Really you’re just handwaving it away because considering it would make maintaining your position more difficult.

                    And considering you keep misrepresenting my position, despite me explicitly laying it out for you, yes you are the one arguing in bad faith. You and I both know it, and we’re likely the only two down this far, so I’m not sure why you’re even bothering to deny it.