What do you think of adding these 22 words to oaths of office?

[Anonymous]

The 22 words are: “That I will promptly report all instances of crime and/or corruption by government officials and employees of which I become aware.”

Good idea

Bad idea

No opinion

[BadApple69]

I only said it’s a bad idea because politicians ignore their oaths as it is. As a simple example the oaths already say that they “defend the constitution” well the constitution says that we have the right to free speech... The government wants to silence us. And 2 we have the right to keep and bear arms and the government local, state and federal are always trying to infringe on our rights... Every one of them are oath breakers.

[Asker]

How is the government silencing you?

[BadApple69]

@Asker as a example the FBI went to Twitter and told them what topics were off limits. This has been proven when Musk took over twitter and released the emails. I was banned (silenced) for talking about covid and the vaccine.

[BadApple69]

@Asker by the way... I did notice you asked about 1A not 2A. Because the Second Amendment is in the news every other day when politicians try to step on that right.

[Asker]

Would they have arrested people at Twitter if they'd disagreed? Did they arrest people at Parler for not moderating such opinions? Telling a company that the government thinks some things are harmful if they're broadcast is not the same as telling a company what to do.

[BadApple69]

@Asker social media is our modern-day town hall. During Covid they were silencing Doctors on social media because they disagreed with the government's opinions. A lot of people died that maybe didn't have too.
I don't know about you but when it comes to my personal health, I want to discuss it with my doctor or many doctors... Not some bureaucrats in the government.

And you can be sure of this... If these companies didn't play ball with the government there would be retribution. Teitger was also paid to remove anyone the government saw as a treat. Like Doctors.

nypost.com/.../

[Asker]

I'd listen to the experts, because that's where the doctors will be getting their information from anyway.

Did Parler (or other right-wing social media sites) play ball with the government? Did anything happen to them? Twitter was paid for their time investigating; if they hadn't been, the NY Post would be complaining about the FBI stealing Twitter income.

[Asker]

Anyway, wouldn't it be worth adding it for the people who do take their oaths seriously? It would discourage a lot of people from committing crimes.

[BadApple69]

I would be ok adding your words to the oath AND then actually making politicians live up to their oath under penalty of the law.

[Asker]

Fine by me. But it's the courts that decide what's constitutional and what's not, not you.

[BadApple69]

What's constitutional is in writing, all you need to do is read it... Oh that's right, there was a stop to teaching script across this country... So the younger generation can't read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[ThrillSeeker01]

Report to who...

[Asker]

Your boss, Inspectors General, the AG, the FBI...

[ThrillSeeker01]

Long as you can trust em

[Asker]

Well, then it's their problem. They'll have broken their oath of office if they don't report it, and you can, you have to, report them.

[ThrillSeeker01]

Thanks for the MHO.

[NamerOfStars]

A nice idea, but it wouldn't matter. Notice how when they swear a politician in, they ask them to place their hand on a Bible, on which to make their oath? The same Bible which, in Matthew 5:33-37 explicitly tells people not to swear oaths, from the lips of Jesus Himself? And it's not like it's buried in a corner in some obscure book of prophecy; this is part of the Sermon On The Mount, arguably the most famous part of the most famous part (the Gospels) of the Bible. Swearing on oath on that book is literally less trustworthy than swearing by the Devil.

[Asker]

Well, a good proportion swearing their oath don't believe in God anyway. The point is that you're standing up in front of witnesses and taking the oath. The bible is just a throwback to when people thought God would smite people who lied while touching the bible.

[Snakeyes7]

It's not going to change anything because corruption is subjective.

I would say "upholding the constitution" but that is the entire point of the oath and yet we haven't had a single president go by without disobeying it even once within my lifetime, even Trump. Maybe none of them ever achieved such a feat.

[Asker]

Then you report suspected corruption and the courts sort it out. Not reporting it is worse.

[Snakeyes7]

Anyone can just point to anyone else and accuse them of corruption. I think we need to be more specific than that.

[Asker]

Why would anyone do that? Why can't they do that today? The addition simply puts the onus on people who encounter corruption to report it.

[Snakeyes7]

They do, all the damn time actually and the average person is gullible enough to believe them.