Thanks. Not lèse-majesté, but I will agree with you that it was a violation of his 1st Amendment freedom. Besides, what kind of idiot thinks you can vote by text?
If you can suggest a story where the American legal system has come down on critics of whatever administration is currently in power I might give this some credence. Getting ratioed on social media doesn't count.
Not being subject to random terror attacks is a laudable goal. Trying to reach it by causing more people to want to perpetrate them is a questionable strategy.
Addendum: if we're going to treat every raving utterance on Truth Social as a constitutional crisis, we're in for a long 4 years of very dull conversation on this site.
Here are the qualifications for holding the office:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Here is the pardon language: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."
The language is unequivocal. Calling plain language "controversial" is nonsensical.
Threshold of what?
Hit it, maestro.
I was talking about lèse-majesté. You are free to talk about whatever topic you desire.
That is more a problem with the application of qualified immunity than with anything else.
Reminds me of this famous tweet:
https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744
2 countries separated by a common language. My friend's fear is, I believe, wholly novel for a tourist, and not entirely unjustified.
Not touching that one.
Thanks. Not lèse-majesté, but I will agree with you that it was a violation of his 1st Amendment freedom. Besides, what kind of idiot thinks you can vote by text?
Agreed. As has so often been pointed out on these pages, social media is not the real world.
People should not have to be worried about what legal consequences they might face for expressing criticism of anyone in the government.
Pinkie swear not to do that. It's alarming no matter which side you're on.
If you can suggest a story where the American legal system has come down on critics of whatever administration is currently in power I might give this some credence. Getting ratioed on social media doesn't count.
I'm not sure what that means.
Heh. Imagine an American thinking lèse-majesté is OK.
From an English fried on Facebook:
"We're visiting the States in July. Just going through Facebook deleting posts about your political situation, just to be on the safe side..."
WTF have we become?
Unlike that other religion in the Middle East?
The money was in the form of R&D grants.
“The surveys they received asked several questions including whether … their university had recognised only two sexes - male and female.”
We are governed by idiots.
Heh. You got me there, sir.
Right? It's like our government is controlled by a bunch of internet trolls.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/us-authorities-closing-canadian-access-to-library-that-straddles-quebec-vermont-border/
We are governed by idiots.
I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
Hearts and minds, baby, hearts and minds.
Not being subject to random terror attacks is a laudable goal. Trying to reach it by causing more people to want to perpetrate them is a questionable strategy.
10/7 was hardly worse than 9/11, by the by.
Good Lord, the only existential threat Hamas poses is to its own people.
Heh. That's gotta be it!
Now that's JAQing off.
Whatever works for you, my friend.
Addendum: if we're going to treat every raving utterance on Truth Social as a constitutional crisis, we're in for a long 4 years of very dull conversation on this site.
This is like asking the Jewish question in 1933. How about that? Trump is providing an answer for a question that was never asked.
Besides, as DavidTC pointed out below, there is no signature requirement.
If you want a real constitutional crisis, here ya go: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans.
I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!
This is JAQing off.
So be it. He's got no argument. The language of the Constitution (again) is plain. There is no signature requirement.
You think DJT personally signed all of the insurrectionist pardons?
First of all, is this just Trump bloviating at 0300 or is he actually offering some evidence.
Secondly, yes.
If he has evidence of a crime, he should produce it and have the offender charged.
Here are the qualifications for holding the office:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Here is the pardon language: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."
The language is unequivocal. Calling plain language "controversial" is nonsensical.
As far as I know there's no bar to a presidential pardon in the Constitution.