• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Trump's Third Term

AmyStrange

Illuminator
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
3,447
Location
PNW
I've been staying away from the political section for personal reasons, but this caught my eye.

If you read the article, Geraldo basically says that trump will soon be chattering about a third term. Now, I don't know if it's possible, especially with the 22nd amendment prohibiting it, but some of the ideas in this story are interesting to say the least, including my own personal prediction that the maga weirdoes might actually argue that since he didn't serve two consecutive terms, that amendment doesn't apply.

Actually, the most intriguing and doable idea is that trump, “just needs 38 of 50 state governments to agree to convene. (3/4ths) Trump won 30 in 2024. Trump in 2028?”

I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks of the idea about whether he can serve three terms, or if it happens, just what the hell will his third term be like?

Personally, I hope I'm dead before this happens.


Geraldo Rivera Predicts What Brazen Idea Donald Trump Will 'Soon Start Chattering About'
Story by Lee Moran


NewsNation correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera on Tuesday predicted Donald Trump’s playbook when it comes to teasing the idea of himself enjoying a potential third term in the White House...


-
 
Given his age and decline over the past 4 years I don't think he would be able to serve a third term but that aside you mention "22nd amendment prohibiting it,", and what will happen when he ignores that? People have been saying for the last 8 years that he can't do something, because the law or constitution stops him - yet it never does.
 
Bannon has been floating the idea that the 22nd amendment didn't specifically mention consecutive terms so a President can serve as many non-consecutive terms as they wish and so Trump can run (and presumably win) again in 2028 - and then perhaps in 2036, 2044, 2052 and so on.
 
Bannon has been floating the idea that the 22nd amendment didn't specifically mention consecutive terms so a President can serve as many non-consecutive terms as they wish and so Trump can run (and presumably win) again in 2028 - and then perhaps in 2036, 2044, 2052 and so on.
Well, he'd only be following in the footsteps of his pimp, Vladimir Putain.
 
Honestly I'm surprised he even made it to the 2024 election. I was sure he'd be so riddled with dementia at this point it'd be impossible for him to run and win.

Then again, I mean, he was, it's just that neither the media nor his cultists cared the least bit about that.
 
Jesus Christ. What does the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing say?
Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
The fact that the word "consecutive" is not mentioned in the prohibition means that the case for "non-consecutive" is also covered, not that it might be an exception. It's not that goddam complicated; why can't these people at least understand basic English?
 
Jesus Christ. What does the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing say?

The fact that the word "consecutive" is not mentioned in the prohibition means that the case for "non-consecutive" is also covered, not that it might be an exception. It's not that goddam complicated; why can't these people at least understand basic English?
You are using facts; this is about using the big lie i.e. they will keep repeating that it only refers to consecutive terms and lo and behold that is what the USA population will believe.
 
You are using facts; this is about using the big lie i.e. they will keep repeating that it only refers to consecutive terms and lo and behold that is what the USA population will believe.
Yeah, it's a pretty big damn lie when they have to contradict not only the plain facts but also basic English. I think they do honestly believe that they are (ala Trump's beloved "weave") being astoundingly brilliant thinkers when they trot out this kind of idiotic drivel- they're like the teenager who didn't do or understand the course work but is convinced he can fake his way to an A+ for it.
 
Jesus Christ. What does the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing say?

The fact that the word "consecutive" is not mentioned in the prohibition means that the case for "non-consecutive" is also covered, not that it might be an exception. It's not that goddam complicated; why can't these people at least understand basic English?


Tell it to the Supreme Court
 
Jesus Christ. What does the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing say?

The fact that the word "consecutive" is not mentioned in the prohibition means that the case for "non-consecutive" is also covered, not that it might be an exception. It's not that goddam complicated; why can't these people at least understand basic English?
But how would the 22nd amendment be enforced? As I posted elsewhere, the political parties have substantial leeway in how they choose their nominees, plus the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 14th amendment's prohibition against insurrectionidts serving as president can only be enforced by Congress, so it's possible that even in an open primary the courts would rule that individual states could not keep Trump off the ballot for 22nd amendment reasons. In the general election, voters vote for electors rather than presidential candidates, so whether a candidate is eligible to serve as president is not legally relevant. AFAIK, the only way to keep the Electoral College from electing an ineligible person would be for a Congress person to object to the votes for the ineligible person. But the objections can be rejected by a mere majority of both houses of Congress, so if the Republicans controlled both houses they could reject all the objections. The only possibility remaining is a lawsuit. But who would have the legal standing to file a lawsuit invalidating a presidential election?
 
The entirety of the US citizenry.
A person has to demonstrate that they've suffered some sort of damage in order to file a lawsuit. Would the average person be able to prove that they suffered a tangible loss because of someone getting a 3rd term as president?
 
Yeah, it's a pretty big damn lie when they have to contradict not only the plain facts but also basic English. I think they do honestly believe that they are (ala Trump's beloved "weave") being astoundingly brilliant thinkers when they trot out this kind of idiotic drivel- they're like the teenager who didn't do or understand the course work but is convinced he can fake his way to an A+ for it.
They did it with the second amendment and reference to a militia
 
Yeah, it's a pretty big damn lie when they have to contradict not only the plain facts but also basic English. I think they do honestly believe that they are (ala Trump's beloved "weave") being astoundingly brilliant thinkers when they trot out this kind of idiotic drivel- they're like the teenager who didn't do or understand the course work but is convinced he can fake his way to an A+ for it.
You have assumed the Trump movement are people who are constrained by these laws as written. That they give a damn about following them. That is a mistake. They are, essentially, lawless. And SCOTUS has given them carte blanche to be so.
 
The point I was trying to make in my original post in this thread was restricted to Bannon's idea that the language of the 22nd Amendment, the lack of reference to "consecutive terms," is somehow a loophole that the GOP could exploit to get Trump in again in 2028. It's plainly not, it's just Bannon trying too hard, teenage-edgelord style, to be clever. Would they try anyway, or, alternatively, try to amend the amendment so that its language would only cover consecutive terms (an idea that was floated by Bill Clinton in 2000, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject)? ◊◊◊◊ , who knows, I've gotten to the point where I expect anything from the GOP- as everyone is pointing out, they apparently don't feel themselves bound by anything but the good of the party and damn democracy and the good of the country. It's hard for me to imagine them deciding that this is a hill worth killing for; but then it was hard for me at one time to imagine them falling all over themselves as they have to serve a moron like Trump, and I see now how limited my imagination was in light of how the last eight years have gone.
 
The point I was trying to make in my original post in this thread was restricted to Bannon's idea that the language of the 22nd Amendment, the lack of reference to "consecutive terms," is somehow a loophole that the GOP could exploit to get Trump in again in 2028. It's plainly not, it's just Bannon trying too hard, teenage-edgelord style, to be clever. Would they try anyway, or, alternatively, try to amend the amendment so that its language would only cover consecutive terms (an idea that was floated by Bill Clinton in 2000, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject)? ◊◊◊◊ , who knows, I've gotten to the point where I expect anything from the GOP- as everyone is pointing out, they apparently don't feel themselves bound by anything but the good of the party and damn democracy and the good of the country. It's hard for me to imagine them deciding that this is a hill worth killing for; but then it was hard for me at one time to imagine them falling all over themselves as they have to serve a moron like Trump, and I see now how limited my imagination was in light of how the last eight years have gone.
You underestimated the stupidity of the American voter.
 
The point I was trying to make in my original post in this thread was restricted to Bannon's idea that the language of the 22nd Amendment, the lack of reference to "consecutive terms," is somehow a loophole that the GOP could exploit to get Trump in again in 2028. It's plainly not, it's just Bannon trying too hard, teenage-edgelord style, to be clever. Would they try anyway, or, alternatively, try to amend the amendment so that its language would only cover consecutive terms (an idea that was floated by Bill Clinton in 2000, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject)? ◊◊◊◊ , who knows, I've gotten to the point where I expect anything from the GOP- as everyone is pointing out, they apparently don't feel themselves bound by anything but the good of the party and damn democracy and the good of the country. It's hard for me to imagine them deciding that this is a hill worth killing for; but then it was hard for me at one time to imagine them falling all over themselves as they have to serve a moron like Trump, and I see now how limited my imagination was in light of how the last eight years have gone.
Bannon is an unholy anal orifice. But he's a clever unholy anal orifice, even so. I'm sure he knows all too well what the wording is and what the Founding Papas truly meant. So this looks a LOT like trying to lead the SCOTUS to see it this "edgelord" way of reasoning, should the need ever arise in the future. That is, Trump makes it through the next four years alive and not institutionalized or jailed. Because the current SCOTUS has made a lot of fascist-adjacent rulings recently based on just such edge-adjacent interpretations of the constitution. And they have gotten away with it, by and large. So this is Bannon telling them "Here's another one you might do for us..."
 
But how would the 22nd amendment be enforced? As I posted elsewhere, the political parties have substantial leeway in how they choose their nominees, plus the
SCOTUS has already ruled that the 14th amendment's prohibition against insurrectionidts serving as president can only be enforced by Congress, so it's possible that even in an open primary the courts would rule that individual states could not keep Trump off the ballot for 22nd amendment reasons. In the general election, voters vote for electors rather than presidential candidates, so whether a candidate is eligible to serve as president is not legally relevant. AFAIK, the only way to keep the Electoral College from electing an ineligible person would be for a Congress person to object to the votes for the ineligible person. But the objections can be rejected by a mere majority of both houses of Congress, so if the Republicans controlled both houses they could reject all the objections. The only possibility remaining is a lawsuit. But who would have the legal standing to file a lawsuit invalidating a presidential election?
Yeah, that was a goddamn ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pile of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
 
Bannon is Jordon Peterson levels of clever and erudite - he can BS his way around to wherever he wants to be ideologically.
he is way too much in love with his image of an intellectual figure of a global MAGA movement and way to depended on his billionaire sugar-momma to be a danger on his own - like Trump, it's his enablers who are responsible for the situation.
 
He is unequivocally constitutionally ineligible to be elected president again. There is no ambiguity. None!

That's the friggin' law!

And yes, those MAGA ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ will almost certainly try to ram through a third election if Trump isn't dead by then. I mean, even then, I wouldn't put it past them to wheel out his stuffed corpse, a la Kim Il-Sung and make him the eternal president with Elon Musk taking over Dear Leader duties. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the head of DOGE cannot be considered a Dear Leader is there? He was annointed by God Donald Trump. If he wasn't the most important president he wouldn't have the biggest face on Mount Rushmore would he??
 
Jesus Christ. What does the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing say?

The fact that the word "consecutive" is not mentioned in the prohibition means that the case for "non-consecutive" is also covered, not that it might be an exception. It's not that goddam complicated; why can't these people at least understand basic English?
In the same vein of logic, the US would have the most restrictive gun ownership policy in the world, restricting it to serving members of the four branches of the armed forces, the active reserves and state militias.
 
I wonder if all of Trump's brash remarks about Panama, Mexico, Canada and Greenland are to set the stage so he can be like his hero Putin and invade someone?
 
Jesus Christ. What does the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing say?

The fact that the word "consecutive" is not mentioned in the prohibition means that the case for "non-consecutive" is also covered, not that it might be an exception. It's not that goddam complicated;
why can't these people at least understand basic English?
Is that a real question?
 
I wonder if all of Trump's brash remarks about Panama, Mexico, Canada and Greenland are to set the stage so he can be like his hero Putin and invade someone?
Unlike Putin however, a US invasion is very likely to be successful
 
Unlike Putin however, a US invasion is very likely to be successful
I wonder if the US military would actually do it. It's one thing to invade a country in response to an attack, or a perceived threat of an attack. It's another to do so because the wacky crooked president says "I want that".
 
Oh sure, there really isn't anyone on the planet we aren't fully capable of kicking the ass of in short order, it's the managing of the aftermath where we seem to blunder spectacularly. I wouldn't expect any better under the Trump infestation two point oh ◊◊◊◊.
 
I wonder if the US military would actually do it. It's one thing to invade a country in response to an attack, or a perceived threat of an attack. It's another to do so because the wacky crooked president says "I want that".
I highly doubt it. Such an order would be seen as insane, which it would be.
 
All they would need to do is have a small, covert group destroy a high value target in a blue state and then blame it on the country that they want to invade. Win-win from their point of view.
 
Back
Top Bottom