Biden: "You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America."

[tabzer]

Following an insurrection it would be something entirely new right? In that sense they wouldn't necessarily be pro-America in the sense of America as it is now, but something else.

That's exactly the rhetoric people are trying to fight over. Is it the same? Is it a reboot? Is a return to its roots. Is it a sequel?

I don't think politicians should be a protected class personally. It's a divorce of realities. Also, people who spend so much time hating Trump give him the most publicity. Just by revealing how seriously they believe want to convince others of the hyperbole they are chasing, they make him look more sane.

 

[granville]

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-refuses-sign-pledge-against-overthrowing-government-1858415

"Former President Donald Trump has refused to sign an optional oath that he will not "advocate the overthrow of the government" ahead of the 2024 election, according to an analysis from radio station WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday."

He's still at it.

 

[Hanafuda]

*Looks at posts since I pointed out what the actual thread topic is*

I guess for you guys, it's always about Trump lol.

Sleep well.

 

[KingVamp]

Apparently, beating up cops is just standing on a field and shouting.

Also, he literally stated he will be a "day one" dictator.

 

[Chris2055]

Biden's Tweet was about Trump and his insurrection. Who else do you think he was referring to being pro-insurrection...? Know of any other insurrections that happened lately in America? lol

 

[Xzi]

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-refuses-sign-pledge-against-overthrowing-government-1858415

"Former President Donald Trump has refused to sign an optional oath that he will not "advocate the overthrow of the government" ahead of the 2024 election, according to an analysis from radio station WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday."

He's still at it.

Extremely predictable. Much like a toddler caught drawing on the walls, if there are no consequences for it the first time, of course they'll do it again.

 

[HextarVigar]

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-refuses-sign-pledge-against-overthrowing-government-1858415

"Former President Donald Trump has refused to sign an optional oath that he will not "advocate the overthrow of the government" ahead of the 2024 election, according to an analysis from radio station WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday."

He's still at it.

He literally doesn't have to. That's sort of the entire concept of "optional".

 

[Chris2055]

He literally doesn't have to. That's sort of the entire concept of "optional".

Why should he object? Especially since sedition is illegal anyway. I think they just wanted to make a point and it seems like it worked.

 

[Xzi]

He literally doesn't have to. That's sort of the entire concept of "optional".

His oath to the constitution includes essentially the same language. He has argued recently that he never swore that oath, but that would mean he was never legally president, and more criminal charges would have to be brought against him.

 

[Viri]

The Founding Fathers were Pro-Insurrection and Pro-American.

 

[granville]

He literally doesn't have to. That's sort of the entire concept of "optional".

And can you come up with any GOOD reason not to do so? Because "he isn't required to" isn't a good reason. It doesn't have to be a hard requirement to also be a red flag for anyone with a functional brain.

If someone had to sign a contract promising not to steal from your employer, presumably you would have some thoughts about anyone who refused to sign it.

 

[HextarVigar]

Why should he object? Especially since sedition is illegal anyway. I think they just wanted to make a point and it seems like it worked.

So your argument is literally "He didn't do something he was never obliged to, so he's a bad guy"?

 

[Hanafuda]

Why should he object?

Because it'll take less than 24 hrs for the leftist collective to seize upon a single word or sentence from the man, misapply it, and claim he just broke that oath. It's an obvious setup, right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[Xzi]

The Founding Fathers were Pro-Insurrection and Pro-American.

The founding fathers created the US government and then overthrew it the next day? Be serious now.

If you wanna make a more logical comparison, MAGA is very much like the Southern Confederacy. They want racial and religious supremacy to be the law of the land.

 

[Chris2055]

So your argument is literally "He didn't do something he was never obliged to, so he's a bad guy"?

Yeah pretty much. The devil is in the details though, and let's look at what those details are.

He won't commit to not committing sedition. He's not obliged to sign a document agreeing not to commit sedition, but sedition is against the law anyway. Clearly the reason they wanted him to sign that document is because they have concerns about his plans for the 2024 election after his behavior following the 2020 election.

I don't think the document itself makes much difference tbh. Sedition is already against the law and that's effectively what the document is agreeing not to do. It's like asking someone to sign a document they won't commit any other crime. And really, if you are trying to overthrow the system, what good is the document created by the system going to do?

The real win is that he wouldn't sign it which says a lot about what he plans to do (and is already doing) with the 2024 election.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2024

Because it'll take less than 24 hrs for the leftist collective to seize upon a single word or sentence from the man, misapply it, and claim he just broke that oath. It's an obvious setup, right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

His words have been pretty clear. It's watching conservatives perform mental gymnastics to justify them that would be entertaining if the circumstances weren't so dire.

 

[Xzi]

Because it'll take less than 24 hrs for the leftist collective to seize upon a single word or sentence from the man, misapply it, and claim he just broke that oath. It's an obvious setup, right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

It's just another demonstration of how monumentally stupid the guy is. This particular oath is near-meaningless, so even if he does intend to attempt another insurrection, why not sign it for the optics alone? Instead his refusal gives more ammunition to both his political opponents and prosecutors trying to keep him off the ballot.

 

[Hanafuda]

It's just another demonstration of how monumentally stupid the guy is. This particular oath is near-meaningless, so even if he does intend to attempt another insurrection, why not sign it for the optics alone? Instead his refusal gives more ammunition to both his political opponents and prosecutors trying to keep him off the ballot.

No, youre waiting for him to sign it like a used car salesman drools for the customer's signature on a bill of sale for the P.O.S. car of the month. (and if youre not, smarter strategists than you are) It's only being put in front of him for one reason: use as a weapon. If he won't sign it, then, "He refuses to sign it!!!" If he does sign it, "He took an oath, but today he said 'these sardines are revolting!' .... it's a signal to his followers, he broke the oath!!"

Maybe not the oldest trick in politics, but it's right up there.

 

[Smoker1]

I guess Mr. Biden doesn't know the definition of insurrection nor knows history.

I think he should re-read the Declaration of Independence. Along with....
Title 18 USC, Sections 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law), 2383 (Rebellion and Insurrection), and the 14th Amendment

 

[Xzi]

No, youre waiting for him to sign it like a used car salesman drools for the customer's signature on a bill of sale for the P.O.S. car of the month. It's only being put in front of him for one reason: use as a weapon. If he won't sign it, then, "He refuses to sign it!!!" If he does sign it, "He took an oath, but today he said 'these sardines are revolting!' .... it's a signal to his followers, he broke the oath!!"

He already swore an oath to the constitution, and it's not one he can refuse if he's elected again. He had nothing to lose by signing it. He's just a dipshit.

 

[tabzer]

"It's pretty much meaningless, so why doesn't he just sign it for optics"

Ew.