politics

I've been saying this for a long time.

The people who stayed home or voted third party are still trying to blame Dems for this, because the Dems didn't try hard enough and "didn't inspire them".

Yeah? Well if you need a politician to inspire you to show up and fill out a piece of paper that will help protect marginalized groups, then you're a piece of shit.

I'm not a Dem. Never will be. But I understood what was on the line.

Gaza is gonna get glassed, my gay and trans loved ones are in immediate danger, among God knows how much more heinous shit is going down.

They said they were gonna do this. And a huge group of people who wanted to be seen as morally pure decided to sit it out to feel superior.

You're not superior. You're a monster. The Dems shouldn't have to "inspire" you to stop a fascist regime. It's American exceptionalism at it's fucking worst.

Fuck ALL of them. All of em.

We can blame the MAGA crowd, too. There's enough blame to go around. We can also blame the strategists who killed the momentum that Harris/Walz had.

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/

That's the issue isn't it? Things aren't bad enough that armed rebellion would be successful. If you tried you'd die and the vast majority will simply call you a terrorist and move on. Maybe you'll get some popularity like luigi while the state works on executing you.

So instead people protest, but at best that may swing one or two votes in congress, but not enough to stop anything.

But as things get progressively worse and the state becomes more authoritarian revolution will also be harder as many will be tossed into a gulag before they can take up arms.

Plus any armed resistance will be used as an excuse to declare martial law.

Seems like a no win scenario. The current best chance is he has a stroke and Vance fails to govern effectively

Spot on, but Hippo dung is healthy for the environment. Krasnov is not.

Thank you for the new word!

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..."

The only time when "love and unity" isn't the correct answer he uses it.

He was thinking of the concepts of his own constitution, not the current one....

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.

Obviously he was being "sarcastic" during that too.

Right, but was he lying when he said it? He's not sure.

You think he was awake for that part?

Yes. In fact, you couldn't be more correct about the matter.

I would describe his response to the question as fully preposterous.