Trump doesn't know if he's supposed to uphold the constitution

[Tripnsweep]

49 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It is disingenuous to say that his remark is in response to following the Constitution.  It is obviously directed toward the question of what level of due process is required. 

Which survey says......is part of the Constitution. Which he swore to uphold, in public. And now he "doesn't know" if he's supposed to do that? 

[Caveira]

22 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Which survey says......is part of the Constitution. Which he swore to uphold, in public. And now he "doesn't know" if he's supposed to do that? 

Like presidents from every era didn’t consult their lawyers as to what was or was not constitutional.  Him saying he had to consult his id a big fat nothing burger y’all are trying to blow into something they are not. 

[Offthemat]

48 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

And now he "doesn't know" if he's supposed to do that?

This is wrong.  That is not what he said.  He wasn’t answering the question of supporting the Constitution.  He answered that when he said he’d do what the Supreme Court said.  

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is wrong.  That is not what he said.  He wasn’t answering the question of supporting the Constitution.  He answered that when he said he’d do what the Supreme Court said.  

Doesn't matter.  Orange man bad.  Orange man wrong.  Orange man lies all the time.  But wait a minute ... that means he does know.   

[Offthemat]

21 minutes ago, ionel said:

that means he does know.   

Ain’t it amazing?

[Tripnsweep]

58 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is wrong.  That is not what he said.  He wasn’t answering the question of supporting the Constitution.  He answered that when he said he’d do what the Supreme Court said.  

“Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” This is the question he was asked. The context of the question is irrelevant. Why? Because one of the things that is in the oath of office, very similar to the same oath I took when I joined the military, is that I will protect and uphold the constitution. You either uphold it or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you don't want to follow. 

Which is why I believe Trump answered the way he did. Because he doesn't feel like he should have to, even though he took an oath saying he would. That's not how this works. Either you do it or you don't. And if you don't then he shouldn't be president. Just like if I didn't do what I was supposed to or did only what I felt like, I'd have been kicked out of the military. 

[Offthemat]

23 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

The context of the question is irrelevant.

I have an Honorable Discharge, but I don’t remember considering the Constitution much while I was earning it and I don’t understand why you bring it up.  You don’t seem to be strong on communication skills, you certainly have misconstrued this subject.  NBC and it’s ’gotcha’ headline works for a minute, but disintegrates quickly upon honest review.  Sorry, but TDS only works on the fellow afflicted. 

[Tripnsweep]

35 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I have an Honorable Discharge, but I don’t remember considering the Constitution much while I was earning it and I don’t understand why you bring it up.  You don’t seem to be strong on communication skills, you certainly have misconstrued this subject.  NBC and it’s ’gotcha’ headline works for a minute, but disintegrates quickly upon honest review.  Sorry, but TDS only works on the fellow afflicted. 

It's a straightforward question. Which he either can't answer or won't answer. 

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

It's a straightforward question. Which he either can't answer or won't answer

He did answer.  He said they’d do what the Supreme Court says.  

[Scouts Honor]

what color today trimp

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

“Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” This is the question he was asked. The context of the question is irrelevant. Why? Because one of the things that is in the oath of office, very similar to the same oath I took when I joined the military, is that I will protect and uphold the constitution. You either uphold it or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you don't want to follow. 

Which is why I believe Trump answered the way he did. Because he doesn't feel like he should have to, even though he took an oath saying he would. That's not how this works. Either you do it or you don't. And if you don't then he shouldn't be president. Just like if I didn't do what I was supposed to or did only what I felt like, I'd have been kicked out of the military. 

So in 1953, you would have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson's interpretation of the 14th amendment?

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

So in 1953, you would have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson's interpretation of the 14th amendment?

Plessy v Ferguson was from 1896. So congrats for not knowing your history. I believe you might have been trying for Brown v Board of Education, but that decision was in 1954. 

And I don't know why you'd be looking to bring up a 130 year old SC decision. The point of this post isn't what is in the constitution, or what interpretation there is for parts of it 

It is that our current president is either ignorant of what his job entails, or cares so little he never bothered to familiarize himself with what he's supposed to do. 

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Plessy v Ferguson was from 1896. So congrats for not knowing your history. I believe you might have been trying for Brown v Board of Education, but that decision was in 1954. 

And I don't know why you'd be looking to bring up a 130 year old SC decision. The point of this post isn't what is in the constitution, or what interpretation there is for parts of it 

It is that our current president is either ignorant of what his job entails, or cares so little he never bothered to familiarize himself with what he's supposed to do. 

What is ignorant is you keep saying he said something, or inferred something that he didn't...all because you, which you clearly stated, don't believe context matters.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

29 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Plessy v Ferguson was from 1896. So congrats for not knowing your history. I believe you might have been trying for Brown v Board of Education, but that decision was in 1954. 

And I don't know why you'd be looking to bring up a 130 year old SC decision. The point of this post isn't what is in the constitution, or what interpretation there is for parts of it 

It is that our current president is either ignorant of what his job entails, or cares so little he never bothered to familiarize himself with what he's supposed to do. 

No, look at my quote... y'know the one you responded to.  

I said 1953.  So, that was constitutional law at the time.  You would have enforced it, correct?

[mspart]

21 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

What is ignorant is you keep saying he said something, or inferred something that he didn't...all because you, which you clearly stated, don't believe context matters.

Correct.   You don't care about context, it is just what  he said.   With reference to what?   The context matters.  And I can tell because this is no longer a thing in the news.   The alphabets are no longer talking about this.   So it was easily explained as we have explained it.   It is a silly discussion started as a troll job. 

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

No, look at my quote... y'know the one you responded to.  

I said 1953.  So, that was constitutional law at the time.  You would have enforced it, correct?

This isn't about enforcing the law. This is about us having a president who is unclear on what his job is supposed to be. 

Now can anyone answer the simple yes or no question if Biden ever said he didn't know if he was supposed to uphold the constitution? 

[Gene Mills Fan]

Can someone get Trip Bidens number? Trip has a question, only he cares about.

Trip I hope you can understand the mumbles.

Edited 10 hours ago by Gene Mills Fan

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

This isn't about enforcing the law. This is about us having a president who is unclear on what his job is supposed to be. 

Now can anyone answer the simple yes or no question if Biden ever said he didn't know if he was supposed to uphold the constitution? 

Your still on this ha 

[ionel]

21 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

This isn't about enforcing the law. This is about us having a president who is unclear on what his job is supposed to be. 

Now can anyone answer the simple yes or no question if Biden ever said he didn't know if he was supposed to uphold the constitution? 

Does it matter?  We all know he did not uphold/fullfil his oath of office so ... 

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

No, look at my quote... y'know the one you responded to.  

I said 1953.  So, that was constitutional law at the time.  You would have enforced it, correct?

he doesn't understand

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

No, look at my quote... y'know the one you responded to.  

I said 1953.  So, that was constitutional law at the time.  You would have enforced it, correct?

I can tell you what he did say...

well, no i can't... 

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

I can tell you what he did say...

well, no i can't... 

but but he’s as a fiddle lol 

[mspart]

We were all played like a fiddle when he was in office.   Sharpest Biden I've seen, runs circles around me, he's really much better and fully in command at his meetings, very engaged and asking probing questions.    Uh huh. 

mspart

[Caveira]

12 minutes ago, mspart said:

We were all played like a fiddle when he was in office.   Sharpest Biden I've seen, runs circles around me, he's really much better and fully in command at his meetings, very engaged and asking probing questions.    Uh huh. 

mspart

50 years from now when shyte gets declassified we will be shocked at the team of not Joe Biden that made every single decision and signed every single document.  Etc.  

 

underlings are always theoretically more aggressive with their rhetoric.  Because the burden of leadership is not on them.  Leaders even in modern companies tone down aggressive decisions.  My belief is the underlings of the democrat party opened the boarder and not Joe.   (0 factual evidence).  That Joe was their puppet.  

Edited 9 hours ago by Caveira

[Tripnsweep]

So how is Biden being brought up in a conversation about Trump not knowing or not caring about his job functions?