• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Third Term

AmyStrange

Philosopher
AmyStrange
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,017
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...
Click to expand...


-
 
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.
 
The Don said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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?
 
turingtest said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
turingtest said:
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?
Click to expand...


Tell it to the Supreme Court
 
turingtest said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
plague311 said:
The entirety of the US citizenry.
Click to expand...
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?
 
turingtest said:
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.
Click to expand...
They did it with the second amendment and reference to a militia
 
turingtest said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom