They’re not joking about a third term for Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not important right now. FOCUS PEOPLE.

It sounds like you think it's a distraction tactic and it may very well be. But bear in mind that it is part of Trump's established MO to say things that are not true over and over again to lay the groundwork for that thing to happen. He plants the seed in his followers' minds and then nurtures it with repeated false claims so that, over time, they come to believe it. If he starts talking about a third term early in his second term and repeatedly implies that it is not only possible but acceptable and even desirable, then he is laying the groundwork for another election where he will conduct various shenanigans or fraud or claim again that it was stolen if he doesn't win it.

That’s fine. Then Obama, who did win the Nobel Peace Prize and is 20 years younger can run again too.

He could, but I don’t think that we need to. We need to put up exciting and outspoken progressive candidates instead of barely right of center near magas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not important right now. FOCUS PEOPLE.

It sounds like you think it's a distraction tactic and it may very well be. But bear in mind that it is part of Trump's established MO to say things that are not true over and over again to lay the groundwork for that thing to happen. He plants the seed in his followers' minds and then nurtures it with repeated false claims so that, over time, they come to believe it. If he starts talking about a third term early in his second term and repeatedly implies that it is not only possible but acceptable and even desirable, then he is laying the groundwork for another election where he will conduct various shenanigans or fraud or claim again that it was stolen if he doesn't win it.

That’s fine. Then Obama, who did win the Nobel Peace Prize and is 20 years younger can run again too.

He could, but I don’t think that we need to. We need to put up exciting and outspoken progressive candidates instead of barely right of center near magas.

You honestly think that Obama is anywhere comparable to a MAGA?
Hard disagree.

First of all, he believes in rule of law.
Secondly, he's not a liar.

That right there is a huge contrast with the MAGA party. If you don't see that then you're not being honest with yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher has been saying this for almost a decade. 💯 Trump will try for a 3rd term and his MAGA idiot supporters will love it. What do these morons know about the founding of our Democracy? Anyone who thinks they won’t try it is in denial.

Agree. The only way the above doesn't happen is if a large portion of the elected GOP turns on him.

I really wish all the people that called me hysterical about this back in 2016 had been right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is not going to be able to get elected again with his numbers falling. It is getting ugly out there against maga and republicans.

That north Georgia town hall town in a very red safe seat was pretty angry.

He ain't talking about being elected...

[Anonymous]

I saw 2 different Trump 2028 stickers on cars this weekend. Astounding.

Also, many of my MAGA relatives seem to think that if they can't finagle a way to allow Trump to run again, JD Vance is willing to run for President with Trump as VP, then step down after election to allow Trump to become President. Like, they are 100% serious. They really think Vance-pants is on board with that insane plan.

[Anonymous]

My conservative-ish brother chided me for being worried about this last summer, he thought the guardrails stayed up during the first term so of course they would stay up again, lol. He insulted me as reactionary and implied I was mentally imbalanced, and lectured me to take a hard look at my behavior.

I’m slightly curious about his reaction to this, but we aren’t talking anymore. I suspect he still thinks everything is hunky dory.

[Anonymous]

it’s just a distraction, doesn’t want you focusing on signalgate and the dismal economic news, among many other negative things due to his own actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it’s just a distraction, doesn’t want you focusing on signalgate and the dismal economic news, among many other negative things due to his own actions.

+1
Fully expect a lot of drivel from Trump as he finishes his hatchet job on the American economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it’s just a distraction, doesn’t want you focusing on signalgate and the dismal economic news, among many other negative things due to his own actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it’s just a distraction, doesn’t want you focusing on signalgate and the dismal economic news, among many other negative things due to his own actions.

Yes, and he’ll be in full mental decline or dead by then. I agree it’s worrying, but we need to focus on the now.

[Anonymous]

Unless there is a constitutional amendment, I don't see how he can escape the 12th and 22nd amendments. Seems to cover all bases, including the be VP and succeed to the presidency BS.

[Anonymous]

If no one wins a majority of the Electoral College in 2028 - either due to split votes, allegations of fraud, or disingenuous courts/politicians trying to invalidate vote counts - then the selection for POTUS goes to the House of Representative. In that case, they could arguably select Trump since he was not "elected" and would not be in violation of 22A.

And I do not think the Supreme Court would invalidate the House's choice since it's a "political question."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If no one wins a majority of the Electoral College in 2028 - either due to split votes, allegations of fraud, or disingenuous courts/politicians trying to invalidate vote counts - then the selection for POTUS goes to the House of Representative. In that case, they could arguably select Trump since he was not "elected" and would not be in violation of 22A.

And I do not think the Supreme Court would invalidate the House's choice since it's a "political question."

Well, then we need to take over the house. Problem solved. Dementia Don isn’t doing himself any favors in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If no one wins a majority of the Electoral College in 2028 - either due to split votes, allegations of fraud, or disingenuous courts/politicians trying to invalidate vote counts - then the selection for POTUS goes to the House of Representative. In that case, they could arguably select Trump since he was not "elected" and would not be in violation of 22A.

And I do not think the Supreme Court would invalidate the House's choice since it's a "political question."

2028 is going to be a change election. Everybody (both sides) is going to be sick of Trump by then. Aside, he'll be 82. He can barely form a coherent thought now. In four years, he's not going to be allowed out in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If no one wins a majority of the Electoral College in 2028 - either due to split votes, allegations of fraud, or disingenuous courts/politicians trying to invalidate vote counts - then the selection for POTUS goes to the House of Representative. In that case, they could arguably select Trump since he was not "elected" and would not be in violation of 22A.

And I do not think the Supreme Court would invalidate the House's choice since it's a "political question."

Well, then we need to take over the house. Problem solved. Dementia Don isn’t doing himself any favors in that regard.

It's not that simple. In a "contingent election" each state's House delegation gets one vote for President (total of 50 votes). So Wyoming with its one Republican rep gets one vote; this is equal to the California delegation's one vote (representing 52 House reps).

It's a crazy lopsided vote that favors small rural states in contingent elections.