• 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

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.
 
turingtest said:
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.
Click to expand...
You underestimated the stupidity of the American voter.
 
turingtest said:
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.
Click to expand...
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..."
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
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?
Click to expand...
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??
 
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...
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?
 
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...
Is that a real question?
 
Hans said:
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?
Click to expand...
Unlike Putin however, a US invasion is very likely to be successful
 
The Don said:
Unlike Putin however, a US invasion is very likely to be successful
Click to expand...
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 ◊◊◊◊.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom