• barneyrubble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Yeah. I guess he hypothetically decided to tear down the West Wing of the Whitehouse, without permission, where he was just a tennant. Hypothetically speaking.

      Dude. You tear down a part of my house where you are a temporary guest and we’ll see how that goes.

      Hypothetically speaking.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah. I guess he hypothetically decided to tear down the West Wing of the Whitehouse, without permission, where he was just a tennant. Hypothetically speaking.

        This isn’t a statement from the Trump admin, it’s a lawyer who was presented with a hypothetical by the courts, asking if their logic would hypothetically extend to the Statue of Liberty. You have to do some incredible leaps of logic to get from there to thinking that the Trump admin has any intention of tearing down the Statue of Liberty.

        Dude. You tear down a part of my house

        It’s not “your house,” lol. The government doesn’t represent the people.

        • barneyrubble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          No it didn’t happen.

          But you’ve got to nip this guy in the bud, because he will do some crazy ass shit before you know it. Before he tells you.

          Iran war, west wing, no audits, 1.776 billion dollar slush fund… kind of come to mind.

          • artyom@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            You cannot “nip in the bud” random hypothetical situations all day. Its a waste of time. There are too many actual problems to be freaking out over something no one expressed any intention of doing.

            • barneyrubble@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Like hypothetically taking over Greenland? The dude is off his rocker. If he, or his cabinet even hints at doing something, you can bet he’s already discussed it, and probably had someone draw up plans for it.

              • artyom@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                That was not a hypothetical. It was not even a suggestion. He said that many times in the affirmative.

                • barneyrubble@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  You are right. I misread the order of the responses. He did completely demolish the East Wing (i mistakenly said West Wing) as a temporary tenant of the Whitehouse, without permission. That is a fact. His lawyers (DOJ) spuriously argued that he could pretty much destroy whatever he wanted to, provided he did it quickly enough and without notice, regardless of its legality. Therein lies the danger with this man.

                  1. He just does illegal shit without permission, before anyone is even aware of it.

                  2. The DOJ defends his illegal actions as though they were his personal lawyers, by offering specious arguments.


                  The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it. Those attorneys at the DOJ who argued for this on behalf of the the Whitehouse should be disbarred with prejudice.

                  • artyom@piefed.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    18 hours ago

                    The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it.

                    It wasn’t an idea and no one “argued for this”. It was a hypothetical, used for demonstrative purposes. No one expressed any intent or made any suggestion.