Doesn’t even know the presidential oath he pledged.
You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?
All I can do is laugh at this point. This regime is so buffoonish and so open with their intentions that I genuinely wonder how people fell for this shit and continue to believe it. Are we really this fucking dumb ?
Yes, very fearful too, but worse even: selfish, hateful and evil.
I’ve been thinking that for nearly ten years now.
Oh yeah same. I was in 5th grade when trump first won and from the get go i could tell he was full of shit. I was taught very young not to trust the rich lol
Yeah, we sit around and laugh about how stupid he is while he ignores the law and constitution to the detriment of the freedom of citizens and immigrants alike.
We are literally that stupid.
I want an extensive study done on the brains of maga supporters when this is over. I need to know what is going on up there that makes them act the way they do.
There has been a lot of study done to ‘normal’ Germans after Hitler took over, I expect the result to overlap.
I’ve concluded that MAGA people are as afraid of diversity, equity, and inclusion as normal people are of fascism. Their brains react to things like social acceptance of transgender people with the same horror to which our brains react to Trump sending people to concentration camps.
So they’re literally just backwards idiots ?
Same thing that’s been going on for millenia now. Humans being humans, look around the globe and through history. This is not new and we are not special.
Sucks though.
deleted by creator
I can cry too.
You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?
They don’t care. All they care about is their in-group is strong and the out-group is punished. They’re shitty people.
I saw a guy today with two bumper stickers. One said “Trump” the other said “I love the constitution”. I wonder what he would say about this?
Nonsense. He would say nonsense. Because they don’t care. They care as much about sounding serious as they do about other people.
They don’t really love The Constitution. They only like the first two.
Only when it benefits them, however.
They think free speech means no one is allowed to disagree with them. Otherwise they say their right to free speech is being violated.
“Help! I’m being disagreed with! Arrest then for violating my freedom of speech!”
I’m sure he’d be very upset if he could read.
“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.”
This is the oath he had to make when he took office.
Right, but was he lying when he said it? He’s not sure.
He had his fingers crossed…
If I recall, he didn’t even place a hand on the Bible.
he didn’t even place a hand on the Bible.
Fact!. For all his claims of being a “Christian”, he couldn’t be bothered.
Probably
A. Pissed it wasn’t one from his merch store
B. Afraid that if he touched a real Bible, he’d burst into flames.
Pretty crazy that it’s sworn in the Bible when the state is supposed to be separated from the church
It’s actually not mandatory that a Bible, or any religious text be used for swearing in a president. There’s nothing stating that a Jewish president couldn’t use the Torah or a Muslim president couldn’t use the Koran. We’ve just only had Christian presidents so far, though not all of them have used bibles for the ceremony.
Separation from church and state only pretty much states that congress can make no laws favoring one religion over another or make any laws prohibiting the practice of one’s religion. To prohibit a president from swearing in on a religious text of their choice would, in and of itself, be a first amendment violation. Saying they have to, would also be a violation. The strict separation of church from the state, freedom from religion or the “wall of separation,” is something people have argued for, but isn’t actually laid out in the constitution.
I’m pretty sure each person chooses a document/book to swear on that is core to them. So most people in the US would choose the Bible because they identify as Christian, but if a Jewish person or Muslim person was sworn in they could choose the Torah or Quran. And a non-religuous person could choose anything that they could convinceably argue is important/core to their values.
Disclaimer: I did no research right now to confirm this but that’s what I remember.
I remember one politician being sworn in with a stack of comics.
I did not know this … it is both awesome and interesting.
I think the act of being sworn in should also be on one’s passport, give it more weight that if you break the oath you lose the citizenship.
The separation of church and state is exactly why the president can be sworn in on a bible. Barring a member of office from swearing in on a religious text would specifically violate their first amendment right to practice religion. Importantly, the state doesn’t require them to use a bible, and it also doesn’t prevent them from doing so.
That’s the whole point of separation of church and state. If the state required a religious text, that would be establishing a national religion. And if the state prevented it, that would be infringing on peoples’ right to practice religion.
It doesn’t need to be a religious text at all. It simply needs to be something that is important to the person being sworn in. Technically, you could be sworn in on a copy of the constitution itself, or some handwritten letters from your mother, or a stack of hentai comics.
Technically it’s a performative ritual and serves no real purpose. The swearing of the oath is the only important bit and should be enough. You humans and your weird attachment to symbols and artifacts. :)
Coming from a place where we practice laïcity, it’s a weird way to separate the State and religion to say that people can swear allegiance on a religious book.
Lies!
His hands are far too tiny for his fingers to cross.
Probably the reason why he didn’t swear on the Bible.
Swearing on the Bible only holds any weight if you’re actually religious. Trump is, at most, non-practicing.
Obviously he was being “sarcastic” during that too.
The “best of his ability” part is troubling because I have zero faith in his ability to do anything except turn our country into a cesspool.
Although all it would take is one phone call to release Kilmar, Trump never learned how to use a phone. Checkmate, libtards.
This what you get, no-vote cowards.
This is what you get for running two genocidaires.
This is what you get for running two genocidaires.
Ahhh there it is… Finally getting honest are we?
What do you mean? The Democrats ran horribly unpopular genocidal candidates and lost. Do you disagree?
Only disagree on how much they suck. There are many more reasons why they lost.
I hope you are not about to say that they lost because “Kamala is a black woman”.
Obviously that is a larger factor for mainstream American acceptance than distant genocide. Most voters have no concept of political theory or world events.
Virtually nobody cared about her being black or a woman.
Her policies were horrible period.
Most importantly: She got nominated by the DNC because of her horrible policies. Not despite of them.
I’m mad at the Democrats for under signing a genocide thus disaffecting their would be voters.
Ikr, so hard to blame the republicans and the people who didn’t vote for the shit us is in rn /s
the world is not binary. there are many people who bare part of the responsibility:
- the republican party - all of them
- republican voters
- the democratic party
- no-voters (who didn’t want to “support genocide” and now you have a worse genocide and a bunch of other horrible shit including a shit load of extra war crimes in ukraine for the foreseeable future)
- the media
these and many more can have played a part all at the same time
Pressed whether his administration is following the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” Trump said he wasn’t sure.
“I don’t know. It seems – it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”
It might say that? Might? This isn’t something that is debatable you hippopotamic dung heap. That’s what it fucking says.
Yeah, 3 million trials to catch the thousands of criminals in his own words… or maybe instead of trials first, they could maybe only be rounded up if there is any actual reason to believe they are a criminal in the first place. Then it would only be thousands of trials and all the problems being caused by rounding up 900+ innocent people per 1 criminal, would all of a sudden go away.
“Well yeah it says that but it’d be pretty inconvenient, so…”
Spot on, but Hippo dung is healthy for the environment. Krasnov is not.
…you sure? I think he’d make decent fertilizer.
Only in the polluted Russian soil, everywhere else, it would be considered a bio-hazard.
Thank you for the new word!
WHY IS THIS SHIT ALLOWED! THIS MAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY RESPONSIBLE POSITION! HE SHOULDN’T BE IN CHARGE OF A LEMONADE STAND MUCH LESS A COUNTRY! WHY DID AMERICA ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! THE MAN DOESN’T WANT TO DO HIS JOB OF UPHOLDING THE CONSITUTION! THAT’S LIKE A DOCTOR SAYING THEY DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH! TRUMP AND ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS NEED TO BE TRIED FOR TREASON! WHY HAS THIS MADNESS GONE ON SO LONG!
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.
-President Trump, just this year.
“to the best of my abilities” is the loophole here
You guys have abilities?
He treats it will all the seriousness that he treats his wedding vows.
Get. Him Out!
he cant swear the truth, because he wants to violate it.
What does it take to get this guy out of office? Genuine question. We impeached this guy like twice but it didn’t go through
A coffin is the only way. It’ll probably be easier to secede.
A democrat majority in congress
Supermajority probably
Super-duper majority, gotta survive the Democrat-defectors
And if your R’s know that, they will never allow it to happen.
“I don’t know” the defense of criminals and toddlers.
Worked for Ronald Reagan, works for Trump, I guess.
A lot of Trumpers here decorate their cars with “We the people…” in Constitution-style script. I wonder how much of it he needs to violate for them to see the disconnect.
Take their guns away and let’s see what the bobble heads do.
Traitor cunt.
I always go back to that early coronavirus briefing where a reporter questioned his authority to dictate state government lockdown policies and he just sat there stunned, repeating “when you’re the president your authority is total because you have total authority, it’s total…” It’s been clear for years that this fucking guy never understood the job description, and rather than learning anything from experience, he’s having it rewritten. The constitution isn’t going to save us from that.
He has no idea what he is doing. Never has.
No, no he knows what he’s doing. He’s just not doing anything for anyone else other than himself and his ilk.
If this comment doesn’t make the case for impeachment idk what does
Upholding the constitution is the most basic part of the job.
If he “doesn’t know” if he can do that he is unfit for the position and should be removed immediately. Not even counting all the other violations of the constitution his administration has committed in just the first 100 days alone
You swear on it when you take the Oath Of Office.
"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."
However,
The Constitution provides no standards for determining whether a President has violated their oath. The fact that other branches interpret the Constitution, and may do do inconsistently with the President, creates difficulties in determining whether the oath has been violated. Just as some Presidents have suggested that the oath may require them to disregard laws when doing so is necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, some lawmakers have argued that the President’s oath requires them to execute all laws, regardless of whether the President believes them to be constitutional. The Supreme Court has not addressed these competing views, and the oath and its surrounding text do not suggest that questions about violations of the oath were intended for judicial resolution. The Court has held that the President is generally immune from civil or criminal liability for official actions taken while in office, which may impede judicial resolution of questions relating to a President’s violation of their oath arising during the President’s tenure. The Constitution’s justiciability requirements are another potential obstacle to resolution in federal court. Impeachment provides a vehicle by which Congress may adjudicate a President’s alleged violation of their oath. Articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson charged the President with being unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office. Draft articles of impeachment to be used against President Richard Nixon alleged that President Nixon violated his oath, though he resigned before these articles were adopted. Articles of impeachment adopted in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton charged the President with violating his constitutional oath, as did articles of impeachment adopted in both impeachments of President Donald Trump. The political process provides another check on the President’s violation of their oath. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton suggested in various contexts that political accountability might help ensure the President’s fidelity to their office. In his second inaugural speech, George Washington observed that violating his oath would invite the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1-5/ALDE_00013936/
“to the best of my ability”
Should you wonder how the SC will argue when they need to rule on trump regarding anything done unconstitutional, here’s their out and logic they will use. They will determine that trump acted “to the best of
myhis ability”Can’t wait for the mental gymnastics required from the complicit press to accept that we shouldn’t expect too much from ‘the best of his abilities’, while simultaneously accepting he’s that an infallible king who’s word is law.