Miscellaneous Trump (3 Viewers)

From Parliament

“The act of settlement, 1701”

“Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him;

That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons;”


So 86 years later, the former very well educated “Citizens of the Crown” who formulated the constitution were well aware that from this Act it is clear that offices of trust and offices of profit are appointed, not elected. That was their intention. It was established in English law.

Sendai said:

So 86 years later, the former very well educated “Citizens of the Crown...”

Click to expand...

These so called "Citizens of the Crown" lead a rebellion against the Crown. Did you miss that part of American history?

You're obviously responding to @RobF, so why didn't you quote him?

Sendai said:

...who formulated the constitution were well aware that from this Act it is clear that offices of trust and offices of profit are appointed, not elected. That was their intention. It was established in English law.

Click to expand...

The same English law that the founding father's fought a war of rebellion against. How on Earth did you miss that lesson on American history?

What you're basically saying is that the New Republic of Star Wars chose to model their Constitutional definitions and beliefs after the Sith Lord that they threw out of power. See how stupidly illogical that sounds?

It's one of the most desperately dumb arguments I've ever heard anyone make here, and there have been some real doozies.

LA 2 L.A. said:

These so called "Citizens of the Crown" lead a rebellion against the Crown. Did you miss that part of American history?

You're obviously responding to @RobF, so why didn't you quote him?

The same English law that the founding father's fought a war of rebellion against. How on Earth did you miss that lesson on American history?

What you're basically saying is that the New Republic of Star Wars chose to model their Constitutional definitions and beliefs after the Sith Lord that they threw out of power. See how stupidly illogical that sounds?

Click to expand...

It's just mindless repetition as well, we've already been through this specific argument.

That part of the act was to prevent the King, from influencing members of the House of Commons by appointing them to positions of office of place or profit under the King.

It would be tenuous to argue that the concept even relies on appointment by a King - since not only is there nothing in that text that excludes the notion of offices of trust or profit not appointed by the King, but the concept of other offices of trust or profit that aren't appointed by the King is both obvious, and implicit in the need to specify "under the King" in the first place - but if you don't even have a King, it's an absolute non-starter. The concept of an office of trust or profit is that it's an office. Of trust. Or profit. There's literally nothing inherent to it about how a person is placed in the office. A nation without a King, where the relevant offices are under a nation that elects people, can clearly elect people to office.

And, as has already been pointed out, they do; @Sendai originally tried to dump that website about offices of profit in India that cited the 1701 act of settlement, while failing to recognise that in India, the (elected) Presidency is an office of profit (Constitution of India 1950, Article 59, 2) "The President shall not hold any other office of profit.").

So he's citing places that referred to the 1701 act of settlement, that have elected offices of profit, to argue that offices of profit cannot possibly be elected, while simultaneously trying to argue that said act, intended to prevent the King from bribing people, means that the founding fathers, who explicitly and literally said that Kings shouldn't be going around bribing elected officials and that the emoluments clause prevented it, actually meant, no, foreign Kings should totally be able to bribe the President and we're down with that.

Or as you put it:

LA 2 L.A. said:

It's one of the most desperately dumb arguments I've ever heard anyone make here, and there have been some real doozies.

Click to expand...

LA 2 L.A. said:

These so called "Citizens of the Crown" lead a rebellion against the Crown. Did you miss that part of American history?

You're obviously responding to @RobF, so why didn't you quote him?

The same English law that the founding father's fought a war of rebellion against. How on Earth did you miss that lesson on American history?

What you're basically saying is that the New Republic of Star Wars chose to model their Constitutional definitions and beliefs after the Sith Lord that they threw out of power. See how stupidly illogical that sounds?

It's one of the most desperately dumb arguments I've ever heard anyone make here, and there have been some real doozies.

Click to expand...

How did you miss the extraordinary influence of English common law on the constitution?

THE INFLUENCE OF MAGNA CARTA ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT.​

By H. D. Hazeltine, M.A., Litt.D.

For seven centuries Magna Carta has exerted a powerful influence upon constitutional and legal development. During the first four centuries after 1215 this influence was confined to England and the British Isles. With the growth of the British Empire during the last three hundred years, the principles of the Charter have spread to many of the political communities which have derived their constitutional and legal systems from England, and which have owed in the past, or which still owe, allegiance to the mother-country. The earliest, and perhaps the most important phase of this imperial history of Magna Carta is its effect upon the constitutions and laws of the American colonies and of the Federal Union that was established after their War of Independence.

RobF said:

It's just mindless repetition as well, we've already been through this specific argument.

That part of the act was to prevent the King, from influencing members of the House of Commons by appointing them to positions of office of place or profit under the King.

It would be tenuous to argue that the concept even relies on appointment by a King - since not only is there nothing in that text that excludes the notion of offices of trust or profit not appointed by the King, but the concept of other offices of trust or profit that aren't appointed by the King is both obvious, and implicit in the need to specify "under the King" in the first place - but if you don't even have a King, it's an absolute non-starter. The concept of an office of trust or profit is that it's an office. Of trust. Or profit. There's literally nothing inherent to it about how a person is placed in the office. A nation without a King, where the relevant offices are under a nation that elects people, can clearly elect people to office.

And, as has already been pointed out, they do; @Sendai originally tried to dump that website about offices of profit in India that cited the 1701 act of settlement, while failing to recognise that in India, the (elected) Presidency is an office of profit (Constitution of India 1950, Article 59, 2) "The President shall not hold any other office of profit.").

So he's citing places that referred to the 1701 act of settlement, that have elected offices of profit, to argue that offices of profit cannot possibly be elected, while simultaneously trying to argue that said act, intended to prevent the King from bribing people, means that the founding fathers, who explicitly and literally said that Kings shouldn't be going around bribing elected officials and that the emoluments clause prevented it, actually meant, no, foreign Kings should totally be able to bribe the President and we're down with that.

Or as you put it:

Click to expand...

All offices of profit or trust were royal appointments. The only elected office was the House of Commons.

Sendai said:

All offices of profit or trust were royal appointments. The only elected office was the House of Commons.

Click to expand...

All those words and mental gymnastics — just to twist plain meaning and defend a president who's blatantly selling out the United States to the highest bidders for personal profit. Do you have no shame? Did you not recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Were those just empty words to you?

Dragon said:

All those words and mental gymnastics — just to twist plain meaning and defend a president who's blatantly selling out the United States to the highest bidders for personal profit. Do you have no shame? Did you not recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Were those just empty words to you?

Click to expand...

Plain meaning is what was meant at the time of writing the document. English common law were the founding principles.

Sendai said:

Plain meaning is what was meant at the time of writing the document. English common law were the founding principles.

Click to expand...

Still trying to justify open corruption and graft by claiming that the words of the documents means something else than what is actually written?

Again - why do you support a president who is openly corrupt ?

Dragon said:

Still trying to justify open corruption and graft by claiming that the words of the documents means something else than what is actually written?

Again - why do you support a president who is openly corrupt ?

Click to expand...

Why are we so forked? It’s this kind of manipulation and abuse to win something corrupt at all costs, for perceived advantage, at the expense of others, coming from the Right, to get one over on the rest of us, and a majority who can’t seem to deal with harsh realities, preferring their fantasies.

Sendai said:

All offices of profit or trust were royal appointments. The only elected office was the House of Commons.

Click to expand...

All offices of profit or trust under the King were royal appointments, thanks for that amazing insight.

Any offices of profit or trust not under the King - which is, literally, any position which brings some financial gain or benefit to the person holding it, not appointed by the King - were not.

That's why the "under the King" bit is there and what it means.

I'm not sure how you're not comprehending this. Do I need to get a small child to explain it to you? I have two who could manage it.

Sendai said:

Plain meaning is what was meant at the time of writing the document. English common law were the founding principles.

Click to expand...

We literally have a exact contemporary quote from a founding father telling us explicitly what was meant, and that it was meant to be, and again I'm literally quoting here, "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments."

Honestly, you're coming across as somewhat deranged at this point. From your inability to recognise that the concept of offices of profit and trust do not at all depend on appointment, whether by a King or not, without election, despite you yourself citing India which has no King and an elected Presidency which is an office of profit, to your willfully ignoring contemporary quotes that are explicitly about this subject while simultaneously asserting we have to know "what was meant at the time of writing the document", this is an incredibly bizarre, and very stupid, hill to die on. Which is what you're doing here. Dying.

Sendai said:

Plain meaning is what was meant at the time of writing the document. English common law were the founding principles.

Click to expand...

Sendai, our founders were not backward simple uneducated folk, they didn't have to rely on plain meaning when they were were writing the Constitution.

SamAndreas said:

Sendai, our founders were not backward simple uneducated folk, they didn't have to rely on plain meaning when they were were writing the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Correct. They were well versed in English common law. They knew clearly that the Settlement Act of 1701 that specified that people appointed to offices of profit under the King, aka by the king, could not hold a seat in The House of Commons, an elected position. And the founders included that feature in the constitution.

RobF said:

All offices of profit or trust under the King were royal appointments, thanks for that amazing insight.

Any offices of profit or trust not under the King - which is, literally, any position which brings some financial gain or benefit to the person holding it, not appointed by the King - were not.

That's why the "under the King" bit is there and what it means.

I'm not sure how you're not comprehending this. Do I need to get a small child to explain it to you? I have two who could manage it.


We literally have a exact contemporary quote from a founding father telling us explicitly what was meant, and that it was meant to be, and again I'm literally quoting here, "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments."

Honestly, you're coming across as somewhat deranged at this point. From your inability to recognise that the concept of offices of profit and trust do not at all depend on appointment, whether by a King or not, without election, despite you yourself citing India which has no King and an elected Presidency which is an office of profit, to your willfully ignoring contemporary quotes that are explicitly about this subject while simultaneously asserting we have to know "what was meant at the time of writing the document", this is an incredibly bizarre, and very stupid, hill to die on. Which is what you're doing here. Dying.

Click to expand...

There were no offices of profit or trust not under the king.

Sendai said:

There were no offices of profit or trust not under the king.

Click to expand...

Firstly, no, that's simply false.

And, again, try to stop being so relentlessly dense.

The concept of an office of profit or trust is not dependent on it being appointed by a King. And in actual fact, offices of profit or trust did exist outside the King - as any office of profit, granted by a superior lord, such as an Earl for example, and typically held on condition of feudal homage. Hence why it specifies "under the King" in the 1701 act of settlement. As already said.

That's just as well for you, because by that 'logic' - i.e. the 'logic' you're trying to use here, that the meaning of an "office of profit or trust" is solely that which exists in the context of the 1701 act of settlement - not only would any office of profit or trust have to be appointed, it would have to be appointed specifically by the King. Doesn't really work in the US Constitution, that.

But that 'logic' is obviously, glaringly, wrong; the concept of an office of profit or trust exists outside the context of the 1701 act of settlement, can be an elected position, and obviously does not have to be appointed by a King, which we already know, because, again, we have founding fathers saying at the time that it applied to the President (which will remain true no matter how much you continue to ignore it), and because we have other examples showing that to be the case.

Even in the UK, the office of Prime Minister is an office of profit and both appointed by the King and elected, as the elected leader of the majority party, or largest party of a coalition, of government. (If you're wondering how that can be when the 1701 act of settlement says they can't be a member of the House of Commons, it's because - shockingly enough - it's not the 18th Century, laws have changed, and, once again for @Sendai, the definition of office of profit or trust was not fixed in all perpetuity by the context in which it was used in the 1701 act of settlement, because of course it wasn't, that's not how any of that works).

Have you finished embarrassing yourself yet?

Okay, we haven’t talked about Trump’s speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. I just saw a TikTok summarizing the crazy shirt he said, and will post it below. I will also look for an article because I know not everyone can see TikTok. But I will say that there were some doozies in there.

The main one was what he is claiming about the Iran strikes on a US military base in Qatar. He said (per this recap) that Iran notified him about the strike and he gave permission for it. Then when they were about to go forward they called him again and asked him if he was ready, and he said “go for it”.

MT15 said:

Okay, we haven’t talked about Trump’s speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. I just saw a TikTok summarizing the crazy shirt he said, and will post it below. I will also look for an article because I know not everyone can see TikTok. But I will say that there were some doozies in there.

The main one was what he is claiming about the Iran strikes on a US military base in Qatar. He said (per this recap) that Iran notified him about the strike and he gave permission for it. Then when they were about to go forward they called him again and asked him if he was ready, and he said “go for it”.

Click to expand...

That information has been circulating on bluesky since the day it happened. I will say the same as I did that day. Any president greenlighting an attack on an american base by an enemy should be impreached for treason on the very same day!

Found an NPR article. The very first thing I noticed is that this event was supposed to be non-partisan and in celebration of America’s 250 year anniversary. It is taxpayer funded. Of course, Trump gave a completely deranged partisan speech where he said he thinks all Dems hate him, but that’s okay because he hates them too and he truly believes they want to destroy America. He also railed about “fake news” at least 7 times, which is a fascist tactic.

Okay, the NPR article didn’t go into the crazy assertion that Trump consented to a strike on an American base at all. So I read as much of the transcript as I could take.

The other thing he is going on about is that he is going to allow farmers to vouch for their farm workers who are undocumented and they will not be deported like everyone else. He really thinks this is just fine, that he can decide who leaves and who stays rather than the rule of law. He also says about it that his far right supporters (meaning white supremacists) won’t be happy about that, and he likes those supporters a lot.

These are on top of the run of the mill lies - he has eradicated inflation, there were zero illegal border crossing last month, gas and eggs are way down, tariffs have brought in something like $800M, which he still acts like that isn’t coming from us, but from foreign countries, oh and a general told him he is the best president ever including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Here is the link to the transcript.

Dragon said:

That information has been circulating on bluesky since the day it happened. I will say the same as I did that day. Any president greenlighting an attack on an american base by an enemy should be impreached for treason on the very same day!

Click to expand...

It’s in the official transcript. Along with a bunch of other crazy talk. I think maybe we need to start carrying these things live, so that people can see how deranged he is. As far as I can tell he’s gotten much worse than his first term.

Oh, and one thing I forgot - he says NYC will never have a communist mayor. By which he means Mamdani. He is planning to do something to him, I’m afraid.