Honeypot - It's not Oathbreaking if you don't get caught!
July 10, 2026 at 7:06 PM
Honeypot - It's not Oathbreaking if you don't get caught!
MFers just love oathbreaking
“Frightened for the safety of their families.”
America, 2025.
America, 2025.
March 8, 2025 at 7:50 PM
MFers just love oathbreaking
this oathbreaking motherfucker doesn’t deserve to retire, he deserves to lose
likely won't be long before they hit that FAFO stage
July 17, 2025 at 3:27 PM
this oathbreaking motherfucker doesn’t deserve to retire, he deserves to lose
No one is ever going to convince me that the oathbreaking slaver that took up arms against the United States actually wasn’t so bad.
June 11, 2025 at 2:31 PM
No one is ever going to convince me that the oathbreaking slaver that took up arms against the United States actually wasn’t so bad.
He can't. It takes 535 oathbreaking cowards under Article I of the Constitution to allow him to do that.
April 9, 2025 at 5:02 PM
He can't. It takes 535 oathbreaking cowards under Article I of the Constitution to allow him to do that.
Maybe I'm being a bit of a stickler, but I think we should make oathbreaking deeply shameful, again. 🤷♂️
August 29, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Maybe I'm being a bit of a stickler, but I think we should make oathbreaking deeply shameful, again. 🤷♂️
Not sure it's a crime, but it's definitely oathbreaking, which used to mean something. I, for one, would like to see the crippling social cost of oathbreaking make a comeback.
These Republicans are without honor.
These Republicans are without honor.
September 12, 2026 at 7:27 PM
Not sure it's a crime, but it's definitely oathbreaking, which used to mean something. I, for one, would like to see the crippling social cost of oathbreaking make a comeback.
These Republicans are without honor.
These Republicans are without honor.
This is actually true! Criminals and thugs are not legally disqualified from the office (and shouldn't be)
Oathbreaking traitors, on the other hand, ARE legally disqualified from office!
Oathbreaking traitors, on the other hand, ARE legally disqualified from office!
nothing in the constitution says the president can't be the member of an elite pedophile ring who also has dementia
September 9, 2025 at 3:39 AM
This is actually true! Criminals and thugs are not legally disqualified from the office (and shouldn't be)
Oathbreaking traitors, on the other hand, ARE legally disqualified from office!
Oathbreaking traitors, on the other hand, ARE legally disqualified from office!
They’ve got security as good as money can buy. Either you take this at face value and they’re oathbreaking cowards, or you take the other reading, where they’re pretending they’re oathbreaking cowards because they think it plays better than their actual enthusiastic oathbreaking.
February 20, 2025 at 1:13 AM
They’ve got security as good as money can buy. Either you take this at face value and they’re oathbreaking cowards, or you take the other reading, where they’re pretending they’re oathbreaking cowards because they think it plays better than their actual enthusiastic oathbreaking.
Then again, this is the type of shit lesbians are into to such an extent that I'm sort of surprised that "oathbreaking kink" isn't routinely discussed as a specific variation of the whole knight girl thing?
The place where this hits a snag gameplay-wise is when the rpg has no mechanics to accommodate "Okay but maybe the paladin's rigid moral system was bad for her and breaking free from it is a healthy thing" so the only option is "turn evil instantly"
August 4, 2026 at 5:08 PM
Then again, this is the type of shit lesbians are into to such an extent that I'm sort of surprised that "oathbreaking kink" isn't routinely discussed as a specific variation of the whole knight girl thing?
So help me patron, I will remove the stigma around oathbreaking
February 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
So help me patron, I will remove the stigma around oathbreaking
good analogy for the 3 lib justices saying trump has to be on the ballot but writing a concurrence where they call trump an oathbreaking insurrectionist is when queen elizabeth wore some broach while meeting trump and people were like OH SHIT that's her mean broach!!!
March 7, 2024 at 3:24 PM
good analogy for the 3 lib justices saying trump has to be on the ballot but writing a concurrence where they call trump an oathbreaking insurrectionist is when queen elizabeth wore some broach while meeting trump and people were like OH SHIT that's her mean broach!!!
hey man quick question: does refusing sex to your spouse count as "oathbreaking"
December 31, 2025 at 10:38 AM
hey man quick question: does refusing sex to your spouse count as "oathbreaking"
Again, this egregious violation of our NATO & UN treaty commitments should have ended it all weeks ago. We are a deeply unserious country to allow this massive threat to national & international security to persist. It’s shamefully embarrassing & our Congressional leaders are oathbreaking cowards.
JD Vance, "Denmark is not being a good ally"
"If we need to take Greenland that is what President Trump will do because he doesn't care about what Europeans scream at us"
"If we need to take Greenland that is what President Trump will do because he doesn't care about what Europeans scream at us"
March 23, 2025 at 11:10 PM
Again, this egregious violation of our NATO & UN treaty commitments should have ended it all weeks ago. We are a deeply unserious country to allow this massive threat to national & international security to persist. It’s shamefully embarrassing & our Congressional leaders are oathbreaking cowards.
this woman is now in jail for oathbreaking
Creampie In An Innocent Housewife! Anticipating To Take In A Stranger's Penis, The Housewife's Vagina Is Wet And Ready. Despite Having A Husband, She Swallows A Stranger's Penis! Reiko Sawamura
December 31, 2025 at 8:37 AM
this woman is now in jail for oathbreaking
But Trump shd be held ineligible for a reason indep of the 22d Am: Per Sec 3 of the 14th Am, he’s ineligible as an oathbreaking insurrectionist against the US Constitution for trying to upend 2020. In Trump v Anderson, SCOTUS held only that States cdn’t keep him out of their primaries on that basis.
Anyone discounting a 3d Trump term per the 22d am + the 12th am is thinking magically: The 22d dsn’t bar *serving* a 3d term, only being *elected* 3 times. The 12th dsn’t bar running for VP unless “ineligible” to serve as Pres, but Trump isn’t ineligible. QED!
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/u...
Trump Says He’s ‘Not Joking’ About Seeking a Third Term in Defiance of Constitution
In wide-ranging remarks to “Meet the Press,” Mr. Trump said “a lot of people” wanted him to serve a third term and vowed to impose tariffs on global rivals, according to a transcript of the interview ...
www.nytimes.com
March 31, 2025 at 12:05 PM
But Trump shd be held ineligible for a reason indep of the 22d Am: Per Sec 3 of the 14th Am, he’s ineligible as an oathbreaking insurrectionist against the US Constitution for trying to upend 2020. In Trump v Anderson, SCOTUS held only that States cdn’t keep him out of their primaries on that basis.
We thought the “not punishing coup plotters” would be relevant. Maybe the elites chasing power over the common good. But I didn’t specially expect oathbreaking.
February 17, 2025 at 1:05 AM
We thought the “not punishing coup plotters” would be relevant. Maybe the elites chasing power over the common good. But I didn’t specially expect oathbreaking.
Right it isn't just that Section Three applies, it's that we are living in a demonstration of why we need to have a Section Three
Turns out oathbreaking traitors really cannot be trusted to honor their next oath! Not even a little bit!
Turns out oathbreaking traitors really cannot be trusted to honor their next oath! Not even a little bit!
September 12, 2026 at 4:41 AM
Right it isn't just that Section Three applies, it's that we are living in a demonstration of why we need to have a Section Three
Turns out oathbreaking traitors really cannot be trusted to honor their next oath! Not even a little bit!
Turns out oathbreaking traitors really cannot be trusted to honor their next oath! Not even a little bit!
We need to be making more noise about how we will, if trusted with power, use the arm of the state to claw every time back and, where possible, put oathbreaking scoundrels like Flynn in prison.
Trump 2 started with companies paying corrupt bribes to Trump by “settling” totally frivolous lawsuits. Now Trump will order his DOJ to “settle” a series of frivolous lawsuits by his cronies as a mechanism for stealing your money straight from the federal treasury.
DOJ reaches an undisclosed financial settlement with former national security adviser Michael Flynn in a lawsuit alleging "wrongful prosecution" in Florida www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
March 25, 2026 at 8:26 PM
We need to be making more noise about how we will, if trusted with power, use the arm of the state to claw every time back and, where possible, put oathbreaking scoundrels like Flynn in prison.
Good morning to Juan Linz & no one else, especially the thousands of oathbreaking cowards in the legislative & executive branches whose actual oaths were to country & Constitution
December 29, 2025 at 4:03 PM
Good morning to Juan Linz & no one else, especially the thousands of oathbreaking cowards in the legislative & executive branches whose actual oaths were to country & Constitution
Trump v. Colorado, too.
Today they say we trust the president will uphold his oath; in that decision they said the same president’s oathbreaking can’t justify disqualifying him.
Today they say we trust the president will uphold his oath; in that decision they said the same president’s oathbreaking can’t justify disqualifying him.
June 27, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Trump v. Colorado, too.
Today they say we trust the president will uphold his oath; in that decision they said the same president’s oathbreaking can’t justify disqualifying him.
Today they say we trust the president will uphold his oath; in that decision they said the same president’s oathbreaking can’t justify disqualifying him.
We should have tried not electing an oathbreaking traitor to our highest office in blatant disregard of our fundamental law, that would've been better
October 26, 2025 at 8:20 PM
We should have tried not electing an oathbreaking traitor to our highest office in blatant disregard of our fundamental law, that would've been better