Seen one way it's not so bad, but seen another, I'm not convinced it isn't worse. 30 percent of the total won the day because almost 40 percent of eligible voters don't vote. Sure it would be a good idea to get better candidates and better policies and better arguments, but it will be a hard road until you can convince a reasonable number of those 90 million to give a flying ◊◊◊◊.
The correct strategy, if Biden had been serious about protecting the US for Trump and someone like him, would have been to pass laws divest as much federal power as possible to States and Communities: you can abuse power you don't have.
Like I said, he would only do that if there was something in it for him, personally. In this case, "looking presidential" (when in fact he looks like a caged pre-schooler learning to write).
Funny, everything I am reading says otherwise as to swing voters.
At the moment I don't like populism of any flavor.
And besides, he has to pay for the staff at MaL out his own pocket!
The constitution means what the supreme court says it means, nothing more, nothing less.
You're free to believe what you want but this isn't a counter-argument to what I've already pointed out.
It does because you don't need to change the constitution, your governance is set up for the supreme court to be... well the word is supreme, they decide what the constitution means. You may assume it means one thing, but if they say it means something else that's the beginning and end of it. In other words, you may think that the 22nd amendment means Trump can't serve a 3rd term but if the SCOTUS majority decision is that "in these circumstances" it doesn't apply to Trump and he can stand for a third term that's it, he can stand for a third term without a single change to even a comma in the text of the amendment.
This is again. Not a counterargument supported by the facts. You're speculating on your own interpretation of the separation of powers and not referencing any comparable precedent to support that the SCOTUS is going to simply make Trump president for life the way comparable situations did for Maduro (Venezuela) and Putin (Post-Soviet Russia) - relevant examples of the process your suggesting will happen. They set very clear precedents for how these dictators grab power and cement it, as well as the infrastructure needed for it. I explained how they laid out their respective governments to enable their power grabs and constitutional changes.
I don't think it's conceivable that Trump would be able to play the role of second banana for a while, even to get a third term.
I haven't said they would - I just gave an alternate path to seeking to change the constitution's text for Trump to be able to run again.
I don't have any objection to this, or if you were just positing an alternate scenario as a separate discussion point, at least in concept.
I would have liked this but it started with Godwin's Law, otherwise, spot on.
As demonstrated by the Democratic candidate who turned so right i nthe last month she campaigned with the Cheneys losing. Despite raising a trillion dollars and partying with Beyonce.
It's not about the 'lefties' it is about those who felt disenfranchised, left and right. Which is what JD Vance was writing about 8 years ago in his article on why Trump is the opiate of the people. It explains why people voted for both AOC and Trump!
I doubt Dump is going to be in any condition to run for anything come 2028. In fact, I'm surprised he's lasted this long. Also, his influence and appeal was clearly waning even this election. Sure, it might be rejuvenated now that he somehow became POTUS again, but his condition will just keep deteriorating.
