Anonymous wrote:Constitution might say no third term, but is silent on 4th and 5th terms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But Obama will get in Trump’s head. Obama has been in Trump’s head for almost 20 years. I hope he runs if Trump proceeds with this.

I’d absolutely vote Obama back in if there is a 3rd term option. And he should probably just run for Vice President with whomever the Dem primary candidate will be, just to be safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know he's thinking about it. The American people would never tolerate this.

Years ago we would have said the same about Jan 6 and much of what has occurred over the past few months, yet here we are.

But as Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, questions of the law and the Constitution ultimately reduce to power struggles. If you hear somebody say Trump is not allowed to do something, the first question to ask is What’s the enforcement mechanism? The courts may be likely to rule against permitting him to run as either president or vice president. But such cases are unlikely to be decided until after the Republican convention has locked in the party’s choice, forcing the courts to choose between effectively canceling the presidential election and enforcing the Twenty-Second Amendment.

Would five justices on the Supreme Court have the guts? Would the states follow such a ruling in a white-hot atmosphere where Republicans would accuse the judicial branch of nullifying democracy? Every apparently solid assumption about the inviolability of the two-term limit gets porous upon close inspection.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But Obama will get in Trump’s head. Obama has been in Trump’s head for almost 20 years. I hope he runs if Trump proceeds with this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a distraction, yes. Is Trump serious? Probably yes too. What should not be happening is the media covering it the way they do. The way they are presenting it now gives it oxygen. It should be presented as crazy person has another crazy idea. End of story.

Anonymous wrote:Screw off NBC for framing it this way. WTF.

There is a constitutional amendment. ANY talk of this is dictatorial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This take comes to a different conclusion:
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

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.

Anonymous wrote: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 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.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

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.