Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

Who could have predicted this [unsurprising] revelation?

Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so

President Donald Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call that he was “not joking” about a third term, adding that “it is far too early to think about it.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

That's one of the reasons I've stopped watching mainstream news. They're supposed to be a backstop that forces accountability in the administration in our democratic republic. (and for some reason they're able to do that when Democrats are in office), but all they do with Trump is capitulate, ease their coverage for conservatives and in the end normalize his rancid "thoughts".

This is me as well right now.

 

[RobF]

Please just stop. The media coverage of this is so stupid. It would be like media being like “Chuck’s Daughter Aims to get Pony for Christmas” - it’s not reality.

Every article should lead with the fact that Trump cannot have a third term . . . because we aren’t going to amend the Constitution and if he does it any other way, we no longer have a Constitution and it’s no longer a “term”.

This came up previously back in November. I think I'm still in the same place. I don't see the Supreme Court explicitly ruling against the Constitution, but I don't feel I'd personally completely rule out this Supreme Court taking a very particular literal reading to enable shenanigans.

I don't think the Supreme Court would overtly choose not to enforce the Constitution. But I do think there's question there of just how convoluted, twisted, or even nonsensical a reading of the Constitution they would make in order to support the agenda represented by Trump.

The extent to which that's possible depends on the subject, but language being what it is, it's usually possible to find a way to read something as saying something other than what it clearly means.

For the 22nd amendment, for example, that's very clear. But even then I think it's technically possible to read it as allowing a third term where the candidate isn't elected to the position directly. I think the amendment itself only refers to being "elected to the office". On the face of it, the 12th amendment would then prevent a two-term President running for Vice President, for example, ("no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"), but then that wouldn't apply to a two-term President if the stance taken is that they are eligible to the office, they're just not eligible to be elected to the office, which opens up all kinds of spurious reasoning which could, at a stretch, allow someone to de facto run for a third term.

I'm not saying that as something the Supreme Court would do by the way, just as an example of how these things can be warped. I think/hope it'd be entirely moot, because I don't think Trump is going to get to that even if he wants to (I think one of many things like his age, health, infighting finally boiling over, etc., will catch up with him)

 

[TampaJoe]

This came up previously back in November. I think I'm still in the same place. I don't see the Supreme Court explicitly ruling against the Constitution, but I don't feel I'd personally completely rule out this Supreme Court taking a very particular literal reading to enable shenanigans.

I don’t see this happening. I don’t think the courts will allow it. It’s all talk. No cattle. Noise.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don’t see this happening. I don’t think the courts will allow it. It’s all talk. No cattle. Noise.

Just jokes that shouldn't be taken seriously right?

I mean what two term president hasn't repeatedly joked about a third term?

 

[TampaJoe]

Just jokes that shouldn't be taken seriously right?

I mean what two term president hasn't repeatedly joked about a third term?

It would be preferable if he would just shut up. But unfortunately that isn’t going to happen.

 

[Saint Jack]

In this trying time, at least you have jokes!

 

[Sendai]

This came up previously back in November. I think I'm still in the same place. I don't see the Supreme Court explicitly ruling against the Constitution, but I don't feel I'd personally completely rule out this Supreme Court taking a very particular literal reading to enable shenanigans.

Can’t get more literal or simple than this.

“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.“

All he is doing is getting grins off the rise he gets from angst ridden liberals.

 

[coldseat]

Can’t get more literal or simple than this.

“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.“

All he is doing is getting grins off the rise he gets from angst ridden liberals.

Just like with the "stolen election" in 2020? That didn't produce anything negative.

And he still loves to bring that one up and still claim it's stolen.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't think the failure is the gender of the candidate.

I will always feel like the weird primary proccess is the root of all of the party's current woes. They need to foster an enviroment of competitive, and fair challenges at the primary level. The point should not be to get "your guy" through the process, but the best candidate for the party to win.

I personally don't care if that's AOC, Newsom, Waltz, Buttigieg.

It may not be gender, but the timing isn’t good for groundbreaking. The problem is what will Trump do to rig the election in his favor.

The play I’ve heard is to use the Putin playbook where he had someone in his administration run, then designate Putin as president. Likewise, Trump could arrange for Vance to run and then handing the presidency to Trump. I don’t know if the constitution prevents that. It only forbids him from being elected.

“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.”

 

[TampaJoe]

I don't think the failure is the gender of the candidate.

I will always feel like the weird primary proccess is the root of all of the party's current woes. They need to foster an enviroment of competitive, and fair challenges at the primary level. The point should not be to get "your guy" through the process, but the best candidate for the party to win.

I personally don't care if that's AOC, Newsom, Waltz, Buttigieg.

I’m assuming you mean the best qualified candidate for the party. Hopefully they are one and the same. It is an important job. Qualifications matter as much as charisma wouldn’t you say? Both are important.

 

[superchuck500]

You’re correct about the second half.

Who are you telling to stop? This isn’t hypothetical any more. It’s him. He’s saying it.

Putting your head in the sand isn’t gonna make it any better.

It’s no different than my daughter saying she’s not ruling out getting a pony for Christmas. It’s not sticking my head in the sand to say that’s not going to happen and the whole framing of it is not real.

 

[efil4]

All he is doing is getting grins off the rise he gets from angst ridden liberals.

So is Karoline



with that said, if there was an avenue, there is no question in my mind he would. But outside of ratifying the Constitution, he done.

And we havent gotten to tariff effects yet. Wait til they hit this week.

 

[RobF]

Can’t get more literal or simple than this.

“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.“

All he is doing is getting grins off the rise he gets from angst ridden liberals.

We covered this in November already, along with "maybe the SC would say no to that" (which misses the point that the hypothesis is that they don't):

General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump

Today it begins, Kamala has reached the point that she's the Democratic Party nominee:There's video from today. this link has video from her first public appearance since Biden endorsed her:https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/22/live-updates-harris-democrats-biden-drops-out-trump-campaign.htmlShe...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[Booker]

Theoretically someone else could run as a proxy, and then a Republican led House could name him Speaker, followed by resignations of the newly elected President and VP, which would usher him into an unelected third term. But that would require someone successfully winning the presidency and then immediately giving it up, which I can’t see happening.

 

[superchuck500]

Can’t get more literal or simple than this.

“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.“

All he is doing is getting grins off the rise he gets from angst ridden liberals.

You clearly aren’t familiar with Donald J Trump

 

[TampaJoe]

Theoretically someone else could run as a proxy, and then a Republican led House could name him Speaker, followed by resignations of the newly elected President and VP, which would usher him into an unelected third term. But that would require someone successfully winning the presidency and then immediately giving it up, which I can’t see happening.

That also assumes that everyone in the country and around the world lets that go unanswered. You are correct. It’s not happening.

 

[MT15]

Please just stop. The media coverage of this is so stupid. It would be like media being like “Chuck’s Daughter Aims to get Pony for Christmas” - it’s not reality.

Every article should lead with the fact that Trump cannot have a third term . . . because we aren’t going to amend the Constitution and if he does it any other way, we no longer have a Constitution and it’s no longer a “term”.

NPR put out an article today spelling out ways it could be done. I didn’t read the entire thing, but they mentioned going to SCOTUS to rule that he can only have 2 consecutive terms and since his terms weren’t consecutive he can run in 2028.

Also, he could run for VP and if his running mate wins, they could resign.

Also, he could be elected Speaker of the House and both POTUS and VP resign.

I quit reading at that point because it was too depressing.

 

[superchuck500]

NPR put out an article today spelling out ways it could be done. I didn’t read the entire thing, but they mentioned going to SCOTUS to rule that he can only have 2 consecutive terms and since his terms weren’t consecutive he can run in 2028.

Also, he could run for VP and if his running mate wins, they could resign.

Also, he could be elected Speaker of the House and both POTUS and VP resign.

I quit reading at that point because it was too depressing.

The consecutive thing isn’t real because the language just doesn’t allow that.

The elected thing (ie resignation) is real per the law but it’s pathetic and if people vote for that, then what’s the point of America anyway