State of elections since 2020

Lerxst1992 · March 31

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

https://www.threads.net/@vincedmonroy/post/DH1TPdzSECc?xmt=AQGzbfhNxeL-ZSuC01A_TUtWa3r_qDbVWMYMWVc-9c51yg

Here is the full transcript (via @BrianStelter) of Kristen Welker’s interview with Donald Trump where he discusses a third term in office —

Welker: “Have you been presented with any potential plans that would allow you to serve a third term?”

Trump: “Well, there are plans. There are – not plans. There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know.”

No she doesn’t fucking know why didn’t she bring up the 22nd amendment?

The "method" is a Constitutional amendment. Which would be nearly impossible to pull off, particularly in three years. Then of course they will bring up that "well, what if JD is elected president and Trump VP and then he'll just make all of the decisions". Well the 12thA cares for that with "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Appointing trump president immediately before he serves as VP would possibly solve both the 12 th and 22nd since he would neither have served as VP nor elected to a third term.

Admittedly a wild scenario but the amendments are vague enough to allow Vance to appoint trump to an enhanced DOGE role and allow him to sit in the Oval, “while these serious constitutional matters are being sorted by the courts.

Of course this gets minimum three votes on the big court.

They aren't vague. A president cannot "appoint" another person president.

Nothing prevents him from being a senior advisor or acting in an authoritative role. However, reality and sanity would say if Vance was elected president, he's not going to just abdicate his authority. At that point, he has all of the power. No one is giving that away.

Appoint is splitting hairs with the word. Vance “would” resign because he knows he won the 2028 race because he promised to bring trump back to power.

and as far as the Court? How confident were all the experts on his presidential immunity case before arguments heard? No chance trump wins that, this law was settled with Nix….

The constitution could have been written to clearly state no person may serve more than two full terms, no matter the method the office obtained. It does not.

Another way…He could easily be appointed as President Emeritus Trump with a DOGE type position with a bully pulpit and they’d all climb over themselves carrying out his will. Emeritus…that’s been done before lol. Certainly they’ll all be pointing that one out.

mrussel1 · March 31

I already said he could serve in a non-presidential role, one that is not in the line of succession. But all of his power would be granted from the current president. Does Vance really abdicate his authority once he is elected? It would go against human extinct so no I don't think that would happen.

Second, it's not vague, it couldn't be any more clear. You tell me where this daylight exists. Trump has already been elected twice and he ineligible in the succession line because of that.

22ndA

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.

12thA
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

mrussel1 · March 31

And in order for this to be a possibility, it would have to be announced as Trump as the VP. And many states would refuse to put him on the ballot due to the Constitutional issues. Remember states determine who is eligible for the general election, not the federal gov't.

OnWis97 · March 31

While I tend to think a third Trump term would be by forceful coup, how about this maneuver:

Trump is appointed speaker of the house (i.e., third in line, for which you do not have to actually be elected) and the Prez and veep bow out.

Now, this would take two people to give up power. But the goal is to get him into power for as long as he lives, thereby owning the libs and keeping Amagaca Great. All MAGA needs is two people willing to do it. Then between Elon's money, the courts, and whatever other crap they come up with "Graham/Greene" wins the election and they both resign on day 1.

HughFreakingDillon · March 31

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

https://www.threads.net/@vincedmonroy/post/DH1TPdzSECc?xmt=AQGzbfhNxeL-ZSuC01A_TUtWa3r_qDbVWMYMWVc-9c51yg

Here is the full transcript (via @BrianStelter) of Kristen Welker’s interview with Donald Trump where he discusses a third term in office —

Welker: “Have you been presented with any potential plans that would allow you to serve a third term?”

Trump: “Well, there are plans. There are – not plans. There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know.”

No she doesn’t fucking know why didn’t she bring up the 22nd amendment?

The "method" is a Constitutional amendment. Which would be nearly impossible to pull off, particularly in three years. Then of course they will bring up that "well, what if JD is elected president and Trump VP and then he'll just make all of the decisions". Well the 12thA cares for that with "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Appointing trump president immediately before he serves as VP would possibly solve both the 12 th and 22nd since he would neither have served as VP nor elected to a third term.

Admittedly a wild scenario but the amendments are vague enough to allow Vance to appoint trump to an enhanced DOGE role and allow him to sit in the Oval, “while these serious constitutional matters are being sorted by the courts.

Of course this gets minimum three votes on the big court.

They aren't vague. A president cannot "appoint" another person president.

Nothing prevents him from being a senior advisor or acting in an authoritative role. However, reality and sanity would say if Vance was elected president, he's not going to just abdicate his authority. At that point, he has all of the power. No one is giving that away.

if The Million Dollar Man can do it....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIE8XvGVMbg

Gern Blansten · March 31

OnWis97 said:

While I tend to think a third Trump term would be by forceful coup, how about this maneuver:

Trump is appointed speaker of the house (i.e., third in line, for which you do not have to actually be elected) and the Prez and veep bow out.

Now, this would take two people to give up power. But the goal is to get him into power for as long as he lives, thereby owning the libs and keeping Amagaca Great. All MAGA needs is two people willing to do it. Then between Elon's money, the courts, and whatever other crap they come up with "Graham/Greene" wins the election and they both resign on day 1.

Can't be VP if ineligible to be POTUS

mrussel1 · March 31

Gern Blansten said:

OnWis97 said:

While I tend to think a third Trump term would be by forceful coup, how about this maneuver:

Trump is appointed speaker of the house (i.e., third in line, for which you do not have to actually be elected) and the Prez and veep bow out.

Now, this would take two people to give up power. But the goal is to get him into power for as long as he lives, thereby owning the libs and keeping Amagaca Great. All MAGA needs is two people willing to do it. Then between Elon's money, the courts, and whatever other crap they come up with "Graham/Greene" wins the election and they both resign on day 1.

Can't be VP if ineligible to be POTUS

That's right. The order of operations requires the VP to be president. And to Wis's point, you would need two people with the opportunity to be president, to give that up. It just goes against nature.

The strategy of him being Speaker is the ONLY one with a touch of daylight since teh 12thA doesn't address each person in succession saying they cannot serve if ineligible. For example, the Sec'y of Transportation is in the line of succession but the Constitution doesn't mention them specifically. I think the argument is absurd and click bait for both Trump and the media.

HughFreakingDillon · March 31

It’s more about the fact that he’s even talking about it openly. It’s not going to happen. It’s just triggering to normal people to hear a president opining about something once considered “sacred”.

josevolution · April 1

😂😂 we’ve been saying he can’t do that for years, I’ll never be shocked on what his plans or intentions are

HughFreakingDillon · April 1

josevolution said:

😂😂 we’ve been saying he can’t do that for years, I’ll never be shocked on what his plans or intentions are

For sure. There are very few things I’d say “not gonna happen” with this guy. This is one of the few.

josevolution · April 1

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

😂😂 we’ve been saying he can’t do that for years, I’ll never be shocked on what his plans or intentions are

For sure. There are very few things I’d say “not gonna happen” with this guy. This is one of the few.

I truly hope you are right 😅

Lerxst1992 · April 1

mrussel1 said:

And in order for this to be a possibility, it would have to be announced as Trump as the VP. And many states would refuse to put him on the ballot due to the Constitutional issues. Remember states determine who is eligible for the general election, not the federal gov't.

Your logic relies on red and purple states and the Supreme Court acting rationally. 22 says he can’t be elected and 12 says he’s ineligible to serve as VP. They’ll find other ways. Considering how trump has shaped politics and the court, to not view his third term as a realistic threat, is another example of an overconfident left. I’ll go no further than the dismantling of US v Nixon and the recent wild red state legislative actions…they can’t wait to anoint him emperor. Hopefully there are enough sane conservative voters to stop this, but it’s been ten years into maga and it took a bizarre covid campaign to pause him for four years. If anything, that loss made him stronger.

josevolution · April 1

If he still has control of both houses and SC on his side and Hegseth as his pit bull he will refuse to leave! I’m done underestimating his drive to be a dictator

mrussel1 · April 1

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

And in order for this to be a possibility, it would have to be announced as Trump as the VP. And many states would refuse to put him on the ballot due to the Constitutional issues. Remember states determine who is eligible for the general election, not the federal gov't.

Your logic relies on red and purple states and the Supreme Court acting rationally. 22 says he can’t be elected and 12 says he’s ineligible to serve as VP. They’ll find other ways. Considering how trump has shaped politics and the court, to not view his third term as a realistic threat, is another example of an overconfident left. I’ll go no further than the dismantling of US v Nixon and the recent wild red state legislative actions…they can’t wait to anoint him emperor. Hopefully there are enough sane conservative voters to stop this, but it’s been ten years into maga and it took a bizarre covid campaign to pause him for four years. If anything, that loss made him stronger.

US v Nixon was a supreme court decision, not an Amendment. But by all means, spend lots of sleepless nights worrying about this. Maybe it will distract you from all of the ways that the US and Ukraine are responsible for Putin killing civilians.

Lerxst1992 · April 1

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

And in order for this to be a possibility, it would have to be announced as Trump as the VP. And many states would refuse to put him on the ballot due to the Constitutional issues. Remember states determine who is eligible for the general election, not the federal gov't.

Your logic relies on red and purple states and the Supreme Court acting rationally. 22 says he can’t be elected and 12 says he’s ineligible to serve as VP. They’ll find other ways. Considering how trump has shaped politics and the court, to not view his third term as a realistic threat, is another example of an overconfident left. I’ll go no further than the dismantling of US v Nixon and the recent wild red state legislative actions…they can’t wait to anoint him emperor. Hopefully there are enough sane conservative voters to stop this, but it’s been ten years into maga and it took a bizarre covid campaign to pause him for four years. If anything, that loss made him stronger.

US v Nixon was a supreme court decision, not an Amendment. But by all means, spend lots of sleepless nights worrying about this. Maybe it will distract you from all of the ways that the US and Ukraine are responsible for Putin killing civilians.

Really, I cite a court case and I need to be lectured that it’s a decision? And who exactly determines how the words in 12 and 22 get interpreted ? Who decides? Mick? Hal? Me? You?

When the court was 5v4 before three trump appointments, we’d be in full agreement. That court doesn’t exist anymore I am only saying it’s possible, and US v Nixon is an example of an interpretation no one expected and was mocked by the left when the immunity challenge was first made public. Similar to your mocking comments here. Now we get at hal level whataboutisms bringing up russia. And I slept excellent this week so far, thanks for asking. Cutting back more on Diet Coke is a big help.

mrussel1 · April 1

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

And in order for this to be a possibility, it would have to be announced as Trump as the VP. And many states would refuse to put him on the ballot due to the Constitutional issues. Remember states determine who is eligible for the general election, not the federal gov't.

Your logic relies on red and purple states and the Supreme Court acting rationally. 22 says he can’t be elected and 12 says he’s ineligible to serve as VP. They’ll find other ways. Considering how trump has shaped politics and the court, to not view his third term as a realistic threat, is another example of an overconfident left. I’ll go no further than the dismantling of US v Nixon and the recent wild red state legislative actions…they can’t wait to anoint him emperor. Hopefully there are enough sane conservative voters to stop this, but it’s been ten years into maga and it took a bizarre covid campaign to pause him for four years. If anything, that loss made him stronger.

US v Nixon was a supreme court decision, not an Amendment. But by all means, spend lots of sleepless nights worrying about this. Maybe it will distract you from all of the ways that the US and Ukraine are responsible for Putin killing civilians.

Really, I cite a court case and I need to be lectured that it’s a decision? And who exactly determines how the words in 12 and 22 get interpreted ? Who decides? Mick? Hal? Me? You?

When the court was 5v4 before three trump appointments, we’d be in full agreement. That court doesn’t exist anymore I am only saying it’s possible, and US v Nixon is an example of an interpretation no one expected and was mocked by the left when the immunity challenge was first made public. Similar to your mocking comments here. Now we get at hal level whataboutisms bringing up russia. And I slept excellent this week so far, thanks for asking. Cutting back more on Diet Coke is a big help.

US v Nixon was a case centered around Executive Privilege, which Nixon was relying upon to refuse providing the tapes to the special counsel. Privilege is NOT explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, rather derived from the Separation of Powers provision. Term limits is explicit in the Constitutional Amendments. That's a pretty key difference.

Lerxst1992 · April 1

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

And in order for this to be a possibility, it would have to be announced as Trump as the VP. And many states would refuse to put him on the ballot due to the Constitutional issues. Remember states determine who is eligible for the general election, not the federal gov't.

Your logic relies on red and purple states and the Supreme Court acting rationally. 22 says he can’t be elected and 12 says he’s ineligible to serve as VP. They’ll find other ways. Considering how trump has shaped politics and the court, to not view his third term as a realistic threat, is another example of an overconfident left. I’ll go no further than the dismantling of US v Nixon and the recent wild red state legislative actions…they can’t wait to anoint him emperor. Hopefully there are enough sane conservative voters to stop this, but it’s been ten years into maga and it took a bizarre covid campaign to pause him for four years. If anything, that loss made him stronger.

US v Nixon was a supreme court decision, not an Amendment. But by all means, spend lots of sleepless nights worrying about this. Maybe it will distract you from all of the ways that the US and Ukraine are responsible for Putin killing civilians.

Really, I cite a court case and I need to be lectured that it’s a decision? And who exactly determines how the words in 12 and 22 get interpreted ? Who decides? Mick? Hal? Me? You?

When the court was 5v4 before three trump appointments, we’d be in full agreement. That court doesn’t exist anymore I am only saying it’s possible, and US v Nixon is an example of an interpretation no one expected and was mocked by the left when the immunity challenge was first made public. Similar to your mocking comments here. Now we get at hal level whataboutisms bringing up russia. And I slept excellent this week so far, thanks for asking. Cutting back more on Diet Coke is a big help.

US v Nixon was a case centered around Executive Privilege, which Nixon was relying upon to refuse providing the tapes to the special counsel. Privilege is NOT explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, rather derived from the Separation of Powers provision. Term limits is explicit in the Constitutional Amendments. That's a pretty key difference.

The intent was not to raise specific merits of the case, only that trump has been able to accomplish very surprising things with that court, that was mocked by most if not all left leaning experts at the time it was filed.

mickeyrat · April 10

https://www.threads.net/@czvnwd/post/DIQ35x5pn2f?xmt=AQGzFsEMK6sQvK4u7346IDyrExDSZ3pqQKH3-e3F5qSJWg

BREAKING: Judge rules in $1.6 BILLION defamation case that Newsmax’s coverage of Dominion Voting Systems was false & defamatory.

Jury will decide on damages.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/delaware-judge-rules-newsmax-defamed-dominion-voting-systems-2025-04-09/

mickeyrat · April 10

https://www.threads.net/@carolyna2/post/DISCbb5yREm?xmt=AQGzC_fkkbAtu_Pp-cXnP4mpzG-HM6duZZMF4RYxzXId6w

One of the questions coming up re: dealing with the SAVE Act is whether a state issued REAL ID proves citizenship.

Yes, " At a minimum, you must provide documentation showing: 1) Full Legal Name; 2) Date of Birth; 3) Social Security Number; 4) Two Proofs of Address of Principal Residence; and 5) Lawful Status."

But! REAL IDs are intended as identification documents only and REAL IDs do not include/show citizenship status.

So you had to prove it to get one but it doesn't prove it.

Go Beavers · April 11

Isn’t a passport the only ID that would prove citizenship?

State of elections since 2020

Comments

Categories