This is the dumbest comment I've ever seen. We couldn't possibly be daft enough to elect someone that young! And a woman nonetheless!
/s
Dolly Parton is not just a random celebrity. She is a legitimate force for good.
https://www.billboard.com/lists/dolly-parton-good-deeds-timeline/
Absolutely and fully agreed. She's a phenomenal person and one of the few figures I'm proud of as an American.
That still doesn't mean I'd consider her for president. The role, I'd say, asks for entirely different skill sets.
Maybe, but based on the two options we're going to have in 2024, I'd take Dolly over either of them.
Over the last few decades i have noticed a 100% correlation between a person's dislike of Dolly and them being a shithead.
Anyone who doesn't like her is simply wrong. That is not an opinion just a statement of fact IMO.
By that standard, Mr. Beast should run for president in 10 years.
Edit: Looked into it, that's already his plan. https://www.insider.com/mrbeast-president-mid-40s-2022-9
Argh
YouTuber Logan Paul announced that he plans to run for president in 11 years when he turns 35
Can’t wait for the 2036 matchup of Mr Beast vs. Logan Paul!
I also recently learned that Mr. Beast has shady connections that lead back to Russian oligarchs and South African real estate money from the apartheid days
I mean, I saw it in a video and did absolutely zero fact checking myself, so your response and the down votes for me aren't exactly unwarranted
My children have a stack of free age-approptiate books, and I will whack you with them until you read more about the good that Dolly has done.
Don't worry, kids books are light.
I do not recognize that title as anything my children have received from Dolly's Imagination Library.
It's unavoidable: politics is a popularity contest, and celebrities are popular...
Also being an actor doesn't automatically mean they're not fit for the role, Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, was an actor.
He was an actor with a degree in politics. It's not like he didn't at least have some knowledge of what was involved.
The people who think Trump should be allowed to run in spite of being an insurrectionist are the same people who support barring other justice-involved people from merely voting in an election
I'm a little out of the loop, serious question, was he ever actually convicted of organizing an insurrection?
Edit: I'm not an American but apparently asking questions makes you "the enemy" over there. Jesus Christ your country is fucked.
•
There's no requirement that he was previously convicted of insurrection - that's a separate charge and carries a higher bar. The constitution only requires that the court concludes as part of this case that he was involved in an insurrection. And there's a wealth of evidence showing that he was so the courts will almost certainly come to that conclusion.
Are you arguing that the judges who concluded he organized an insurrection did so in error? None of the confederates who asked their that disability be removed by vote argued that they didn't need to do so because they had not been so convicted.
There is a process for deciding if criminal behavior happened, it's called a conviction. We've seen judges make mistakes assessing the reality of criminal behavior all the time in Civil Asset Forfeiture cases where the standard of conviction isn't required.
None of the confederates who asked their that disability be removed by vote argued that they didn't need to do so because they had not been so convicted.
Because those confederate involvement in the Confederacy was a matter of public record. If we had fought a war against a military force Trump had organized, and that force surrendered; then we wouldn't need a conviction.
The insurrection and Trumps role in it is a matter of public record. He doesn't dispute the facts of the case he just disagrees with whether his actions are illegal and what the consequences are. The judge's disagree.
No, and that is one of many real and legitimate issues with the legal theory of using the 14th Amendment to bar him from the Presidency.
The silence as to convictions is certainly not by design, the drafters’ committee notes are clear on that much. Indeed, the jurisprudential history of Section 3 is one that requires such a finding.
Cases are seperate. A federal judge already ruled he was guilty of a insurrection. They stated that the removal of them from the ballot needed to go through the proper channels. Colorado's supreme court (1 possible proper channel) then ruled he should not be on the ballot.
Every state has control over their own elections but can be directed by the federal level. The federal case is moving forward, just slowly as per following all proper procedure and people fighting to slow it down.
Same reason there is no criminal charges for fraud in NY at this time. He was found guilty in a civil court which showed the fraud existed, and made it so fraud charges should be an easy case in a criminal court.
A federal judge already ruled he was guilty of a insurrection.
In the riot's aftermath, the US House of Representatives impeached the then-president on a charge of "incitement of insurrection".
Had the US Senate voted to convict him, it would have had the option to take a second, simple-majority vote to bar him from ever serving in office again.
But that never happened: the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to convict Mr Trump, so there was no second vote.
-Still, the judge concluded Trump’s “conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor” to the attack on the Capitol. She found that Trump “engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 through incitement”.
The judge apparently had issue with the wording in the constitution, stating that he wouldnt have been an officer who swore an oath
Which to me is an oversight in the creation of the amendment but rather obvious the intent. Which is why the Supreme Court should specify the intent would include the commander in chief.
1st definition that comes up when I search the term:
com·mand·er in chief
/kəˈmandər in CHēf/
noun
a head of state or officer in supreme command of a country's armed forces.
an officer in charge of a major subdivision of a country's armed forces, or of its forces in a particular area.
~~~
The arguement that he is not an officer that swore an oath to the constitution is just a boat full of holes
The ruling is heavy on opinion and low on facts.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Doesn't sound inciting.
Or to put it a different way. Thid sets a very low bar for future removal of candidates from the ballot.
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women,”
“We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
Some of Trump’s fiercest allies also made incendiary statements at the rally. “Let’s have trial by combat,” said Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, warming up the crowd for Trump.
“.@senatemajldr and Republican Senators have to get tougher, or you won’t have a Republican Party anymore. We won the Presidential Election, by a lot. FIGHT FOR IT. Don’t let them take it away!” he tweeted Dec. 18. Dec. 12: “WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!” Trump said in another tweet. Dec. 19: Trump tweeted his praise for a report by his adviser Peter Navarro alleging election fraud: “A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
Dec. 26: Trump tweeted: “The ‘Justice’ Department and the FBI have done nothing about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud, the biggest SCAM in our nation’s history, despite overwhelming evidence. They should be ashamed. History will remember. Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.”
Dec. 27: “See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Don’t miss it. Information to follow!” Trump tweeted. Jan. 1: “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!” Trump tweeted. Jan. 4: At a rally in Georgia the day before the Senate runoffs, Trump repeated his grievances about his own election. He spoke about a continued fight, both for himself and the Senate.
“If the liberal Democrats take the Senate and the White House — and they’re not taking this White House — we’re going to fight like hell, I’ll tell you right now,” Trump said.
“We’re going to take it back,” Trump said.
“Our country has had enough,” Trump told his supporters. “We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”
The crowd later chanted: “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!” Trump thanked them.
Trump praised the crowd for traveling from across the nation and for “the extraordinary love.”
“We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy,” Trump said.
Now do you want to discuss what was done to stop reinforcements from arriving to a fight to stop the stealing of democracy to ensure peace and saftey of the senators?
Just as a polite heads up, this is basically all incorrect, with regard to legal procedure and process, at least as it applies to the topic being discussed here.
Yeah, I totally remember how Trump led the charge up the Capitol steps, the whole time shouting "the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants!!"
Yes, apparently that's the ONLY way anyone can ever start an insurrection. Damn your astute logic. If only everyone can be as flawlessly intelligent as you. All he did was plan with the Proud Boys to help rile people up and direct them towards the capital; privately reach out and pressure state election administrators to lie and overturn election results; claim that he was cheated and lied to everyone for weeks prior to Jan 6th, effectively building a political bonfire that he planned to light on Jan. 6th; give a speech where he helped to incite a mob and direct them towards the capital steps, with the Proud Boys helping to lead the chargea and effectively direct the crowds anger; and even actually tried to march to the Capital himself to lead the charge. But other than that, he did absolutely nothing. God damn, if we could only be so smart as you.
...and his counter argument is going to be based on due process and arguing that because he wasn't openly engaged in insurrection that any accusation that he should be disqualified should have to be proven by due process of law.
The sad thing is, that's a totally reasonable take. Which is why his legal team is also going to delay as hard as possible, until they can argue that still having the trial prior to the election is tantamount to election interference and it should be postponed until afterwards.
Because the only chance he has of getting away with any of it is getting elected or getting a GOP president who will pardon him.
People keep saying the GoP will recognize abuse this but they underestimate how little I truly care about politicians. They seem to think everyone cares about politicians as much as they care about Trump. If someone gets disqualified for some minor reason, so what? Seems like a good filter to keep only newer people in the running.
People in politics for decades become corrupt. It happens with power and time. So if they find a way to disqualify Biden, I don’t really care. There’s a hundred million other people who could choose to run. Maybe Greg from down the street might have a shot if politicians who do shit get kicked to the curb when they do shitty shit
[edit] used a wrong word completely. Adding some additional language
About a decade ago, due to a quirk in our voting system which has been changed, we had a senator elected from a fringe motoring enthusiast party - and he only got a fraction of a percent of the vote. He was actually quite good because he was wise enough to know that he didn't know things, so he sought the opinions of experts, and actually read and tried to understand legislation. Unfortunately he only had a short term, but I always use him as an example of how being a good politician isn't about being the smartest guy, it's just about listening to the experts and trying to represent the best interests of your citizens.
I recall this being said about Kennedy. He surrounded himself with the best people he could find and didn't want to be the smartest person in the room. He was no stable genius either.
If someone gets disqualified for some minor reason, so what?
I see the point you're trying to make, but I wouldn't say attempting to overthrow our government to remain in power is a "minor" reason.
I think they're saying the people who care about trump think it's too "minor" of a reason to disqualify him and if another candidate was disqualified for what they thought was a minor reason they wouldn't care.
I think they're saying that the GOP will abuse the precedent and start disqualifying anyone for any minor reason, but op doesn't care if someone else gets disqualified.
I do not think they are saying that what Trump did was being considered minor.
The argument against it is going to be all about due process and how he hasn't been proven to have done that. If we argue that the accusation is enough, that's when they start trying to disqualify candidates left and right because accusations are cheap. Hell, they've already built a whole house of cards suggesting Biden has been essentially receiving foreign bribes routed through family members and their businesses.
And no, comparisons to CSA officers not being convicted of anything but still being disqualified aren't a good fit, because they were engaged in open rebellion. There was no question of fact whatsoever since they had you know, publicly held office in the rebel faction.
Trump calling an election protest rally is well within his 1A rights, and he wasn't openly calling for or leading the actual attack on the capitol. Which will be the whole crux of his fight against being disqualified on constitutional grounds unless tried and convicted.
Yeah, I see Republicans make that argument a lot. I'm glad the judges ruled that the January 6th Commission did follow due process and found it credible that Trump engaged in an insurrection. Of course, most Republicans live within their own news bubbles and would never hear that.
When this inevitably hits SCOTUS, the question is going to surround due process and what standard needs to be met. Is "credible" enough?
Where does "credible" land on the scale of terms they usually use for this thing? Does it mean the odds he did the thing are better than half? Better than 75%? 90%? 99%? How much should be necessary (that last one is typical for criminal trials, the first one for civil)?
Is the House the body that should be deciding who is disqualified, and should they have to vote on that or should a committee investigation funding it likely be enough? Should the Senate have any say at all? The judiciary? Should it be up to states on a state by state basis to decide if and when 14A applies?
Remember, whatever answer gets arrived at will not be Trump-specific, and the GOP will definitely use and abuse that standard against Dem candidates.
People keep saying the GoP will recognize this but they underestimate how little I truly care about politicians.
This isn't about you.
Shit, I made a big typo. I mean to say “the GoP will abuse this” in regards to everyone saying using the 14th amendment to disqualify candidates.
It's not even so much that they they become corrupt. It's that they become entrenched and as a result they end up wielding power that far exceeds their office. For example, Nancy Pelosi was ludicrously powerful for a mere House member, and Mitch McConnell almost single handedly dictates how half the Senate votes on many issues. A second term for Trump would be the end of America because he controls a huge cult on top of any formal powers he would get from being the President.
Career politicians are a cancer for any democracy. But I could also see term limits being another obstacle they overcome by plaguing various other elected positions and using the influence they've gathered.
Career politicians are a cancer for any democracy.
As are career lobbyists - who have an even easier time manipulating inexperienced newly-minted legislators. Term limits are a panacea as far as fixing our democracy is concerned.
We have term limits already. You lose an election, your terms are thereby limited. Im really not trying to be facetious, but passing term limits means we have an electorate that woke up and pushed for them.
That increased level of democratic engagement is what we need, not necessarily term limits themselves. We already have the means to vote out crappy incumbents, but we don’t. You can’t legislate your way out of political disengagement, that’s my take, I guess.
And we thought by law Erdoğan could not run for presidency again, and yet did (also the first time because of his questionable university diploma but that is a story for another night kids)
Still somewhat of an unresolved dispute but already forgotten
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36436200
Bottom line is Erdoğan now elects all the university rectors, including Marmara University's at the time which Erdoğan claims to have graduated from. Soon as there were disputes to his claims of his university degree, Marmara University's rector himself published online Erdoğan'a diploma which suffered from multiple inconsistencies, such as wrong department name. So it was thought that he prepared that diploma on orders from Erdoğan (it is very common now in Turkey for university rectors to receive orders from Erdoğan). Since then some other people claimed that they were class mates with Erdoğan. So it seems like it is an issue still hanging there and unlikely to be resolved now.
This is the argument that Raphael Cruz was born in Canada and shouldn’t have been a contender for the Republican nomination. I support this logic.
Also, Cruz didn't move to the US until he was 4 years old. And his father became a Canadian Citizen right before the move and wasn't even a US Citizen until 2005.
His mother was an American, he was an American at birth, that's the rule, even Canadians know this. Not where, if. This was long ago decided so children of American soldiers have full rights even if mom and dad are in Taiwan.
And Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico, where their ancestors moved to spite Utah (and the gubbermint) outlawing polygamy in order to become a state. Choosing religion over the Constitution.
Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, also fought most of his life for housing equity for black people and low income housing in general. He fought to allow housing desegregation and to remove barriers that sought to redline areas. He ultimately staked, and lost, his political career over that fight. I suspect that's what made Mitt such a coward, he saw the price Republicans pay for having a conscience when the rest of the party doesn't. George wasn't responsible for what his parents did. I might not agree with everything George Romney believed, but he was a good man.
Cruz was born in Canada as an American citizen. Arnold was born an Austrian citizen and became an American citizen.
Agreed. John McCain was born on (what witnesses claim was a) U.S. military base in Panama.
Regardless of location as long as at least one parent is a citizen the baby is also a citizen.
If my old folks didn't read the Bible that they claim to know so much about, what makes you think they read the Constitution?
The good news is, they aren't judges. The bad news is, there are a lot of judges like your old folks.
They can't vote for people not on the ballot unless they are in a state that allows write-ins, and there's no chance Trump would win nationally as a write-in.
Yup. Writing in would waste your vote, since he’s already deemed ineligible. It’d be the same as writing in a non-citizen or someone under 35 years old.
See the 14th Amendment to the constitution, added after the civil war. It prevents citizens who previously swore an oath to support the constitution (so any federal employee, person in the military, or federally elected politician including President), and who engaged in insurrection against the United States from being eligible to hold public office.
Edit: We really shotgunned you there, didn't we 🦆
Edit 2: Added info about oath
I'm curious why that only prevents people who have sworn an oath. Why should anyone who has engaged in insurrection be able to hold office? Forgive me if this is a dumb question, I am only half awake.
They didn't want to completely disenfranchise southerners after the Civil War. There's an argument to be made that they should have, but I can see their logic in not wanting to antagonize people while trying to put the country back together.
At the time, people were a lot more loyal to their states than to the US as a whole, so it would have been a lot like punishing patriots for fighting for their country.
Probably because they’ve proven that they won’t follow the oath they swore. So if they get reelected and swear the same oath (that they’ve already broken once) again, we already know they can’t be trusted to uphold it. So we don’t even give them the opportunity to be sworn in a second time.
But since an unsworn person never violated an oath of office, they’re still an unknown and could potentially be trusted. It’s a sort of “innocent until proven guilty” situation, where the person hasn’t broken any oath so by default they’re assumed to be trustworthy. But as soon as you break that oath, you’re not going to be trusted again.
•
Another situation I could see is if you had a massive power grab by an authoritarian group and a subsequent insurrection that actually led to them being overgrown. Wouldn't make sense to disqualify the ones that fought for it.
An important point. This insurrection rule could be used by fascist to retain power.
Is it any citizen or just ones who previously held office? Just curious, it sounds to me like it is directed at people who previously or currently hold office.
It says anyone who had previously taken an oath to support the constitution, which is pretty much any federal government employee, including civilian workers, members of the military, members of Congress, members of the Executive Branch (including the president), members of the Judicial Branch, etc.
•
Emphasis mine. Below is the text of section 3 of the 14th amendment. It disqualifies anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the constitution who engages in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This is why Trump was taken off the ballot in Colorado. The court found that he engaged in insurrection.
Most people don't know the Constitution very well even if they've read it before (and most people haven't). So I don't blame you for not knowing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276
In the riot's aftermath, the US House of Representatives impeached the then-president on a charge of "incitement of insurrection".
Had the US Senate voted to convict him, it would have had the option to take a second, simple-majority vote to bar him from ever serving in office again.
But that never happened: the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to convict Mr Trump, so there was no second vote.
There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says that the Senate has to convict him to bar him from office. Or that any state does not have the right to control its own ballot.
Senate has to convict him to bar him from office
The Senate has to agree that he should be barred. That hasn't happened.
any state does not have the right to control its own ballot.
A dangerous precedent if fascists get into power. Clear rules are needed.
The Senate has to agree that he should be barred. That hasn’t happened.
There is nothing in the 14th Amendment which claims that, which is why Colorado took him off the ballot.
A dangerous precedent if fascists get into power. Clear rules are needed.
It has been the precedent since the beginning of the nation. The Secretary of State of each state sets the election rules in that state. That's why some states have mail-in ballots and some states don't.
As a counterpoint, Arizona Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, decided that, in the absence of a criminal conviction, removal from the ballot was unnecessary.
It can also be argued that as primaries are the party choosing who it wants to put forward as a candidate, and parties are private corporations, there is no constitutional relevancy at this stage.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress m****ay by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
14th amendment section 3, emphasis mine
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The 14th amendment, section 3 disqualifies anyone that “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” It was written after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates running for office. Many people believe it also applies to Donald Trump.
Yes, it is. But more importantly:
Robert Bernard Reich (/raɪʃ/ RYSHE;[2] born June 24, 1946) is an American professor, author, lawyer, and political commentator.[3] He worked in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and served as Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton.[4][5] He was also a member of President Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board.[6]
Reich has been the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley since January 2006.[7] He was formerly a lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[8] and a professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. In 2008, Time magazine named him one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the century,[9] and in the same year The Wall Street Journal placed him sixth on its list of Most Influential Business Thinkers.[10]
He has published 18 books which have been translated into 22 languages,[11] including the best-sellers The Work of Nations, Reason, Saving Capitalism, Supercapitalism, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, and a best-selling e-book, Beyond Outrage. He is also board chair emeritus of Common Cause and writes his own blog about the political economy at Robertreich.org.[12] The Robert Reich–Jacob Kornbluth film Saving Capitalism was selected to be a Netflix Original, and debuted in November 2017, and their film Inequality for All won a U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Achievement in Filmmaking at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival in Utah.[13][14]
In 2015, Reich and Kornbluth founded Inequality Media, a nonprofit digital media company.[15] Inequality Media's videos feature Reich discussing topics relating to inequality and power primarily in the United States, including universal basic income, labor rights protection, the racial wealth gap, affordable housing, and gerrymandering.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
In essence, he's definitely someone worth paying attention to.
I've met Sam. He seems to be fine emotionally. Also, he wanted to do comedy and that's what he did.
My father was much more successful than I am too. But we both did what we wanted to do. Same with both Robert and Sam Reich.
It's any good parent's pride and desire to tackle the harshness of the world, so that their children may realize their dreams without the obstacles they had to deal with themselves.
Image Transcription: Social Media
Robert Reich, @RBReich
Billie Eilish can't run for president. She is under 35.
Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president. He was born in Austria.
Donald Trump can't run for president. He engaged in and supported an insurrection.
It's in the Constitution, folks.
The one thing The Simpsons had wrong was Arnie as the POTUS. I wish that was the time they ignored the constitution – I think he did a decent job as the governator.
He did a decent job in that he didn't drive California into the ground. I was living in L.A. at the time. People voted to re-elect him because "he hasn't been that bad" and Phil Angelides was a terrible candidate. I wouldn't say he was an exceptional governor. Mostly he just maintained the status quo. Which, from what I hear (I no longer live in California), is still better than Newsom.
Thanks for taking the time to give a local's insight, as a foreigner my point of view is limited!
A lot of people thought he did a great job. Probably because it's so easy to be governor of California and do a terrible job.
It's not in the constitution. The first 15 presidents and all the original set of American politicians were literally insurrectionists and the original documents were very clear that, that sort of thing is allowed and protected. It's later interpretations of statists that negate it.
•
Isn't it more like guidelines? French constitution has the first thing written be "everyone is equal, regardless of origin, race, or religion." It doesn't prevent Muslim frol being persecuted, or women to be paid less.
If you want to wield a a massive amount of global political and military power, it's pretty important.
Externally it is a powerful position, but can the president do much inside the US itself?
Pardoning and appointments seem to be the limits.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Sorry... what on Earth does that have to do with your claim that the only thing the president can do inside the US is pardoning and making appointments?
Sorry. Wrong context.
So, what other powers does a president have? Us Obama as an example if Trump is distasteful.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
right but you know most people are not even close to that so its really mostly football for them.
Commander in chief of the most powerful military in world history and the largest and most productive economy is, in fact, pretty important. I don't really understand what point you're making, if any
Of this world with, as far as we know, the only life in the entire fucking universe? Yeah, it's the most important job out there, unfortunately.