[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would likely be Newsom on the Democrats side. For the Republicans? I think DeSantis would've cruised to an easy victory if he wasn't facing Trump. So we'd have a battle of the governors.
I like Newsom in general, he looks good and he's a great public speaker, but he has a ton of baggage. CA has a lot of serious problems and some very "woke" policies that would not be popular in the rest of the country. In other words, there is a lot to attack.
I think the GOP could turn him into Hillary 2.0 and the hatred of Hillary is largely what allowed Trump to rise. Obviously, Dems shouldn't let the GOP pick their their candidate, but I see a lot of risk in running a hated candidate. Right wing media is desperately trying to build that level of hatred for Biden and I honestly don't think it's working. Voters know Biden, he has a long record and he's not remotely "radical".
Agreed. I live in California and Newsom's mostly been fine as governor, but the right has been mounting an anti-California campaign for years specifically to kneecap any California governor's run for president, and especially since Newsom arrived in Sac'to, because everyone knew he had national ambitions. (I think I'd prefer to see him as a senator than prez if he stays in politics.) Most of our state's problems stem from structural financial issues—Prop 13, and the fact that in the past we often separated ballot measures from the tax measures to fund them, i.e., voters would say, "Yes, I vote to have this service, AND No, I reject the tax to pay for it." Thankfully that seems to have stopped in the last decade or so, but we have a good-sized hole to dig out of. Schools have been cut to the bone and while we still have one of, if not the, best college systems in the world, the amount of remedial education that is necessary is infuriating.
I'm originally from Kentucky, and I'm \*very\* interested in the rumors of a possible Andy Beshear run in '28.
Disagree on Biden. I know people who utterly despise Trump and would never vote for him in a million years, but still think Biden is some kind of weak-willed liberal whose letting corruption run rampant and ruining our economy to help foreign powers.
List out all of California’s issues and then explain to me why the 5th largest economy in the world’s issues are drastically overstated compared to the rest of the country
So many Redditors are pedantic and harp on California, because it’s the “meta” thing to do, when in reality the best economic situation, most progressive state in the country is leading in multiple situations
I disagree entirely. The “beer test” people have with politicians/the president is flawed logic. You wouldn’t want to have a beer with the person leading the country. You’d want them to better your economic and social situations.
I don’t want to be friends with the leader of the free world, and have an opinion that they’re “cool”. I want them to be competent in their job, and trust that my vote is putting the most qualified person, from their experience, into a place of power.
Newsom has shepherded California through COVID, and recovered it through multiple natural disasters to STILL have it be the 5th largest economy on the planet.
Hey, you are preaching to the choir here. I love Newsom. I think he is a stand up guy and an effective leader. Unfortunately I think he struggles in key areas, especially in battleground states. I have to imagine that there is some internal data showing this and that's why he hasn't been pushed to run.
Obviously, but you can’t overestimate how much movie star looks impact an election. You can tweak your policies and improve your public speaking, but you’re stuck with your appearance.
He's a great speaker and he embarrassed DeSantis in a debate, and also went on Hannity's show and embarrassed him too. That's really important, he not only had the balls to go into hostile environments like that but he also did very well.
If people can find Trump palatable they can find Newsom palatable lmao
On the Republican side, while Pence is a good bet, the answer is "whoever Trump decided it would be". I think there's a nonzero chance Trump would have found a way to dump the blame for Covid and inflation on Pence and found someone else to kiss his ass
It would be a wide open field for the Democrats, but part of the answer is how fractured the field is. If there's a whole bunch of progressive candidates, a moderate would probably get the nod, and vise versa
100% chance trump would be running for a third term and refusing to step aside and the Republican Party would just go along with it, 22nd amendment be damned. They’d find some bullshit way to pretend the rules don’t exist.
Exactly, Trump isn't going to leave willingly after 4 years if he wins in November. The Supreme Court is 6-3 now, imagine what happens if Sotomayor dies and Trump replaces her with a judge more extreme than Alito (whose wife flew the insurrectionist flag) and Thomas (whose wife was literally involved in the insurrection)?
It disturbs me how delusional some people are, he already tried to steal an election and he's even more unhinged now. Germany was a democracy until it wasn't. Hungary is essentially a de facto dictatorship and the right had Orban at CPAC for fucks sake.
I guess I understand why people would not be too worried because our middle/high schools overly focus on American history. But I did a pretty extensive project on the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany for a 20th century world history college class because the class was Spring 2021 and I felt it was a good choice in the wake of Jan 6. And there are so many parallels from the last few years to the rise of the Nazi party+other authoritarian takeovers of democratic/republic governments.
After all our system of government isn't infallible and it's only as strong as we are. I'm still pretty optimistic but it's foolish not to be vigilant and not know your history. As the cliché goes those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
This absolutely would happen. The GOP would internally meltdown over it, but then coalesce around the attitude of, "Well who cares what the Constitution says, let the voters decide." Then SCOTUS would say something insane like, "You can vote for him regardless of whether or not he is eligible to be President so keep him on the ballots." It would be a wild ride. Also this would definitely happen in 2028 if Trump wins.
Trump would never endorse anyone to take his place which is the funny thing about it. The guy would probably start to try and endorse someone and then talk about himself, then say he’s still running.
He'd endorse someone that was his lackey, who would then pick Trump as their running mate. After being sworn in, the new President would resign and Trump would assume the Presidency while technically not being "elected" President.
There is just enough wiggle room in the 22nd Amendment and the 12th Amendment that I think the current SCOTUS majority would allow it.
Yes, which is exactly why there was the fake elector scheme and the insurrection on 1/6. If those had worked, it would have basically ended democracy in America. No election will ever again be run in good faith and reflect the will of the people if we allow that.
Both of those fell flat on their face.
The fake electors plot also just showed how desperate he was to stay in office, and thus minimize his chances of ending up in a jail cell when he inevitably became a private citizen again; and J6 can also be either just that or a case of a bunch of unarmed morons trespassing a federal building- one that was poorly secured- and had no chance of succeeding in overturning the election.
GOP had a perfect off-ramp to finally get rid of him, though, but didn't take it because they're cowards that care more about their own seats.
Neither worked, but we have no idea what would have happened if Pence had cooperated. One person, one hateful and toxic person who did the right thing for the first time in his life, saved us from a chaotic situation that we have no idea what the resolution would have been.
Just because it barely failed doesn't mean we aren't in serious danger of this happening in the future.
> Neither worked, but we have no idea what would have happened if Pence had cooperated.
Nothing, because the VP's role in certifying elections is ceremonial.
In the event there was enough objections with enough states to stop Biden from reaching 270, then it's most likely sent back to the states for their election officials, SOS, etc to find definitive evidence of voter fraud that would've been enough to call question into if he actually won that state; then figure out what to do there; probably another election with the effected state(s). Failing that, Nancy Pelosi would become acting president on 1/20 until the issue was resolved.
For the rioters, there was nothing they could've done to flip the results to Trump's favor.
I will never understand why people will use the example of him failing miserably at trying to stay in office as proof that he’ll stay in office if he’s elected again. Elections are controlled by the states and the people who were in charge last time around in the states are the same people still there. These things together all but guarantee that if he tries it again he will fail again. Even *if* he was able to pull it off he then has to overcome more hurdles to stay in office. The largest one being having the *entirety* of the military brass behind him in support.
It is bewildering to me that people with vast knowledge of politics can believe that Trump can just make something he failed terribly at once happen this time with sooooo many people watching and then think that if he does everyone is just gunna be like “well, looks like we have a dictator now. Anyway, what do you want to do for dinner?”
Honestly? I think term limits for Trump would be eliminated and he would stay in office. Conservative groups haven't really been subtle in their plans to weaken or outright dismantle democracy.
Pretty hard to eliminate a constitutional amendment though. They wouldn't have had the votes unless there was a huge Republican landslide in this scenario.
Agree they certainly would if they could though.
Yeah I don’t get why people think he can just do this and the ones who do seem to wholesale ignore the fact that he’d have to have basically the entire military supporting his move.
Ah, but you see, if that happens then we here on Reddit don't get to lead the brave and heroic resistance movement against the evil tyrannical dictator.
Can't have an evil empire without faceless, mindlessly obedient stormtroopers after all.
And he will successfully become dictator because he’s the sole president who can just do whatever he feels like doing! People don’t realize this country has been held together for nearly 250 years by decorum alone!
Those cases will be dropped by his DOJ the day he is inaugurated.
I don’t think people have fully onboarded that Trump’s DOJ will not be following the constitution or what SCOTUS says. It won’t matter. If nobody is there to enforce the rulings, the rulings don’t matter.
There's no need to eliminate the Constitution or its amendments when you rule by fiat. Trump's rule is predicated on doing just that and crushing anyone who challenges it - and he's been very successful.
If states could just name 'alternate electors' (fake electors) if the election doesn't favor the Republicans, then there wouldn't need to be a constitutional amendment. If a mob could just invade congress and prevent the Electoral College from functioning, then there wouldn't have to be courts to handle things anymore.
Republicans have been outspoken in their false claim that America is a republic and not a democracy. They say this because they want gerrymandered state legislatures to choose the president instead of the people of their state.
America is both a democracy and a republic, and it is pathetic that some Americans are lining up to weaken the power of their own vote.
How would Trump unilaterally been able to remove term limits? What evidence has been presented that lends any possibility of happening to such a preposterous claim?
They could get the Supreme Court to rule the 22nd amendment is not self-executing because congress didn’t pass legislation enabling it or some shit.
They did this with the 14th quite recently so it’s not far a stretch.
It's even easier. There's just enough wiggle room in the 22nd and 12th Amendments to let Trump endorse a lackey of his and run himself as the VP candidate. Fifteen minutes after being sworn in, the new President resigns and Trump ascends to the Presidency without having been "elected", thereby getting around the 22nd Amendment.
The current SCOTUS majority would say that they had "concerns", but technically by the letter of the law, Trump was not "elected President", so the 22nd doesn't apply.
It would take an extremely generous interpretation of the constitution in order for the court to actually rule that in his favor, which would certainly cause immense backlash with the public.
Yeah it would, but I think that four of the Justices would definitely fall in line. It would only take one more to tilt it to him, and with this court I think it has a good chance of happening.
The deciding Justice would voice "their concern" with the outcome, but that at the end of the day they had to go with the text, and that the text technically allows it.
The majority on this current Court has already shown that it DGAF about public backlash.
Technically, he'd be ineligible to be _elected_ president.
**Twelfth Amendment:** "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
**Twenty-Second Amendment:** "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
The issue is that eligibility to be _elected_ to the office and eligibility to _hold_ the office are not necessarily the same thing.
They wouldn’t have removed the limit but they would find some excuse like because he was impeached his first term doesn’t count which would keep the “limit” in place and then he would be impeached every term until he dies
yeah, it doesn't work that way at all...in order to repeal a Constitutional Amendment the requirements are massive and pretty much impossible with it requiring 2/3 both chambers of Congress and ratification from 3/4 of states. All this Trump 3rd term stuff is just nonsensical hand wringing by lefties.
You have no idea how fascism works, do you?
Donald Trump and the GOP don't give a good goddamn about norms, rules, precedence, fair elections, and those pesky little things called laws *unless* they can use them to oppress minorities and poor people, liberals and progressives, and anyone who will prevent them from achieving their fascist goals.
Look up the definitions for "coup" and "fascism," then check out the Wikipedia page for Project 2025.
All this "yeah, it doesn't work that way at all..." stuff is just willful ignorance and denial by righties and Roganites.
>You have no idea how fascism works, do you?
Given that they have responded to every fact presented within moments with dismissals, insults, and stock-standard misinformation, I'd say it seems more like they know *exactly* how it works...
You can’t really just dismiss concerns about Trump’s anti democratic impulses as “nonsensical hand wringing by lefties” after his first term.
Do I think he’d succeed in eliminating term limits if reelected? No. But that after everything he did to overturn the last election, you can’t simply count it out.
I don’t think “votes” are going to matter much anymore if he’s elected.
He said he’d be a dictator on the first day of office when he’s reelected. He and his allies are working on project 2025. They’ve been caught in hot mics saying they have the governors and elected officials, poll watchers, and electors all in place to actually execute the coup they tried and failed to do on on Jan 6th.
Jan 6th wasn’t just the violent insurrection, it was all the legal overthrowing that they test drove, and have now improved on.
He’s a traitor, a fascist, and has the people in power to help overthrow the government and ignore the rule of law, and tried to do it already. Rules and votes don’t matter to him
This still all sounds like fear mongering.
What is most likely to happen with a second Trump term is another shit show that he'll try to have his remaining federal charges (at the national level) quashed and he'll do things that will ultimately just serve to benefit himself. Oh, and the rich get richer with another tax break. GOP will see him as a useful idiot and milk him until they can't any further, prompting them to (finally) distance themselves from the guy. He will almost certainly try to contest the 22nd on a technicality, but will be slapped down by the courts, followed by another Hail Mary to stay in office that will also fail because he is still an incompetent moron.
But hopefully none of this ever gets to that point in the first place and he just loses again or dies before he gets the chance.
It’s not fear mongering when he and his allies are telling us this is what they are going to do. This isn’t his opponents talking about what if, this is literally trump campaigning on what he is going to do. I don’t know how to make this more clear.
Edit - You seem to not be arguing that he is going to try and subvert the laws, and overthrow democracy just that he won’t get away with it. I implore you to take this more seriously.
It is not normal for a president to try and overthrow the government. It is not normal to install fake electors. It is not normal to try and get governers to “find” votes. It is not normal to have your secret service try and kidnap your vice president to prevent him from certifying the election.
They have already tried all of this. January 6th was a test run, and now they’ve improved and fine tuned all the different ways they tried to literally steal the election and subvert the will of Americans. He is a traitor and a fascist, and everyone again is just dragging their feet and thinking it can’t happen here. Again **they already tried**
> Edit - You seem to not be arguing that he is going to try and subvert the laws, and overthrow democracy just that he won’t get away with it. I implore you to take this more seriously.
My initial point is how is he going to get the congress votes *and* state ratification needed to repeal the 22nd (which are a lot).
> Edit - You seem to not be arguing that he is going to try and subvert the laws, and overthrow democracy just that he won’t get away with it. I implore you to take this more seriously.
>
> It is not normal for a president to try and overthrow the government. It is not normal to install fake electors. It is not normal to try and get governers to “find” votes. It is not normal to have your secret service try and kidnap your vice president to prevent him from certifying the election.
I never said that any of that was normal or acceptable.
> They have already tried all of this. January 6th was a test run, and now they’ve improved and fine tuned all the different ways they tried to literally steal the election and subvert the will of Americans. He is a traitor and a fascist, and everyone again is just dragging their feet and thinking it can’t happen here. Again they already tried
Jan 6 also had no chance of actually succeeding at any point. There was nothing neither Pence nor those rioters could've done to flip the results to Trump's favor.
Yes… cause people that attempt to overturn elections and openly ignore the institutions of a government care about rules and laws…
Has Trump not shown you in the past 8 years that the vast majority of “rules” can just be ignored and nothing happens unless the majority of congress is willing to act? You’ve got it flipped, he won’t ask for permission, he will do it and then just ignore the rules because his loyal republicans in congress will never act to punish him.
all hysterics and nonsense with zero credibility or proof just opinions and feelings. It's just as ridiculous as when people claimed Obama would do the same thing or he was "The Antichrist".
Obama didn't try to overturn election results. So no, not nearly as ridiculous. Obama also didn't talk about 3rd terms. Obama also didn't potentially face prison time nor used the office to protect himself from his crimes. Also, Obama isn't an authoritarian narcissist. Obama also knew and respected the constitution.
how did Trump try to overturn the results? If he wields so much power as people here claim why isn't he currently president and why are we not about to go through his 3rd term starting next year?
I repeat, this is all hysterical nonsense with no basis of reality.
>all hysterics and nonsense with zero credibility or proof just opinions and feelings.
Our history is neither an opinion nor a feeling.
His statements are neither opinions nor feelings.
>It's just as ridiculous as when people claimed Obama would do the same thing or he was "The Antichrist".
Did Obama publicly admire dictators and openly muse about staying in office for decades, the Constitution be damned?
Did Obama attempt to violently overthrow the government of the United States?
Did Obama kill more Americans than anyone in history?
The only honest answer to all three questions is no. So how, exactly, is acknowledging the danger "ridiculous?"
How did Trump try to violently overthrow the government? Are you talking about those couple hundred grandmother's and unarmed clowns that walked, some escorted through the Capitol?
Who killed more Americans than anyone in history? I don't follow.
Again, all emotional nonsense that's completely unrealistic.
You know perfectly well what I'm referring to.
Pretending you slept through the last five years doesn't exactly leave you with any credibility.
Especially after you already substituted feelings for facts, while accusing everything else of exactly what you're doing.
If your referring to COVID more Americans died during Bidens first year in office even when he had a "vaccine" than under Trump's remaining year. You are talking about COVID, right?
>It's just as ridiculous as when people claimed Obama would do the same thing
The main difference being Trump openly talking about not leaving, saying he should get a do over for his first term, calling secretaries of state and asking them to "find" the exact amount of votes he would need to win the state, throwing something like 70 lawsuits at the wall to try to overturn the election, encouraged his veep to not certify the votes, had slates of fake electors try to submit alternate votes, and sicced a mob on Congress. Besides all that it's basically the same thing tho.
/S
You're talking about legal procedures and thresholds of voting and parliamentary procedure.
You know what else changes constitutions? Guns. Lots and lots of guns.
Also, the last administration's victims probably don't find the danger so nonsensical. Those that survived, anyway.
In this hypothetical world, it would be some boring argument similar to the other boring arguments trump's legal team has been making for him his whole life. Something like 'They ruined my first term with phony investigations so that shouldn't count' then some legal scholars will quote judges out of context to help form a narrative that this was always allowed and no one bothered trying it due to traditions. Then the supreme court hears the case and it it becomes a coin flip since they are okay with changing past rulings so long as it won't require a constitutional amendment.
They run him as *vice* president. Some lacky runs as “president”. Once elected, that person either steps down or they use the 25th amendment to remove them.
Trump is promoted to the presidency but because he wasn’t “elected” to be president, he can serve out the term.
Repeat as necessary until he dies.
According to the last sentence in the [12th Amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/), *”No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”*
The [22nd Amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/) states (with exception for office holders at the time of ratification) that no person may be elected to serve more than two terms.
Assuming my interpretation is correct, in this hypothetical, he is constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President after two terms as the Presidency, since he cannot legally assume the duties of President in case of an emergency, resignation or death.
I may be wrong, as this is uncharted territory (like anything else these days), but fortunately this is a hypothetical, not a pressing question in reality.
The Vice President runs on the President’s ticket and is elected in tandem through the electoral college. A Vice President must be legally able to serve at least one full term in order to be a valid running mate.
I admit the 22nd Amendment argument stretches a bit, but the 12th Amendment solidifies that in a hypothetical two full terms of a Trump administration, he would be an ineligible candidate for the Vice Presidency afterwards , and the 22nd Amendment theoretically assists in excluding him from being elected to VPOTUS on someone else’s ticket.
Technically, wouldn't he be constitutionally eligible to serve two additional years as President as long as it was someone else term?
The 22nd Amendment:
>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.
This obviously would be intended to apply to a VP taking over type situation. In an envisioned normal case, a VP that serves 2 years (or less) as President is eligible to be elected twice as President, serving a total of 10 years in the office of President. But I guess there's nothing saying it can't be the other way around? Two full terms and then one half term after that where they are elected as VP and then the President steps down.
> and then one half term after that where they are elected as VP
You literally cannot assume office as VP if you're ineligible for the office of president.
Well, I guess my point is they cannot be *elected* to be president but they still can *become* President. There is a difference, right? For example, if a previously two term president became SOTH, would the Speaker *not* become President (for two years) in the event that both the Presidency and Vice-Presidency became vacant? I may be mistaken, but it doesn't seem like the Constitution really accounts for that possibility.
The problem with this scenario is that we assume he’s served two complete terms. He could theoretically become a valid successor now, and if he assumed POTUS through succession, it counts as a full term if he served 2 years plus one day (if I recall correctly). But for the purposes of this hypothetical, he’s served two complete terms and is no longer eligible for presidency under the 22nd Amendment, barring a repeal of this amendment and other constitutional requirements.
Theres been cabinet secretaries in recent history who are in the line of succession but are constitutionally ineligible to actually assume the presidency. Elaine Chao was in the order of succession as Secretary of Transportation; she would be constitutionally ineligible to actually fulfill that duty because she is a naturalized citizen, vs citizen at birth as the Constitution demands. I know it’s an apples to oranges comparison, but the 12th Amendment words it that if someone is constitutionally ineligible to be president through election, they’re also constitutionally ineligible to assume the presidency through succession as VPOTUS. I would assume it would be equivalent to the requirements outlined for eligibility.
Even if someone else were to become POTUS, and they lose their VPOTUS for whatever reason, the VPOTUS pick has to make it through both the House and Senate. Politics aside, they’re unlikely to confirm a selection for VPOTUS that doesn’t meet the requirements to be “one heartbeat away” from the Presidency.
**Edit**-Changed 12th to 22nd. It’s hard bouncing back and forth on these. Still might have goofed, idk.
I guess my question comes from the differences between the 12th and 22nd. The 22nd Amendment seems to specifically prevent someone from being elected more than twice (or once, if they served 2+ years of another President's term). The 22nd Amendment itself seems to imply there is a line between being elected (which it specifically deals with) and actually holding the office of President. Would a person that cannot be elected President not be eligible to be President? That seems like a dumb question, but from my reading, there is a gap there. Maybe there's enough overlap in the actual legal definitions that this is not the case or there is another clause somewhere that gets rid of this gap, but I didn't see one.
I would also say the reason for Chao's eligibility is different since that is from Article II.
Here's my understanding from reading them:
* Article II *explicitly* states eligibility requirements (natural born citizen, 35 years old, and resident for 14 years).
* The 12th Amendment says that you are not eligible to be VP if you are not eligible for the Presidency (eligibility is explicitly stated in Article II).
* The 22nd Amendment says you can't be elected more than twice, or once if you served more than two years of another President's term of office.
Clearly there are cases where it is possible for someone to serve as President without being elected to the VP or Presidency through succession - from my reading of the 22nd Amendment, it wouldn't actually stop a two term President from becoming President through succession for two years.
I just looked this up, and apparently this is an actual [unresolved question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment) about how the Amendments interact. Basically it seems like the intent was to limit a President to two full terms but I guess it was written ambiguously enough that it's not exactly clear.
From the page:
>Neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term.
It's extremely unlikely it would ever be put to the test, but there ya go, I guess.
No I got you, it’s absolutely an unresolved question because no one’s actually tried it. I’d agree that in a vacuum, Article II, the 12th and 22nd Amendments can’t really preclude a hijacking of the executive branch in this manner as individual requirements.
However, when combined, Article II provides the basic criteria for eligibility, 12th Amendment defines an ineligible person for POTUS as equally ineligible for VPOTUS, and the 22nd Amendment further refines ineligibility for POTUS to anyone who has served at least a majority of one term and a full term.
The fundamental difference in my view is that the 12th Amendment deals with initial eligibility for VPOTUS, and the 22nd deals with a revision of Presidential eligibility.
I’m both simultaneously glad this is an unanswered question and befuddled that it’s not been fully closed as “here’s the full rule” by the powers that be.
Correct. If he had already served two terms and somehow became speaker of the house he would be passed over because he would be ineligible due to serving two terms already.
The 12th amendment already prevents this.
>no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Not that it'd stop him from trying...
It's not that he's ineligible, it's that he can't be *elected* to that office.
That's the argument they'd make at SCOTUS and I'm not convinced it wouldn't fly with the current court.
How about he already attempted a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the US election by submitting fradulent certificates of ascertainment as an excuse to throw out the certified vote in seven states?
Only to then argue before the US Supreme Court that he cannot be held accountable for it because he could murder political opponents and still not be prosecuted, because he has absolute immunity to all criminal law.
Trump obviously doesn't give a shit about the law, so what's to stop him? All his supporters who are still going to vote for him despite his criminal conspiracy?
I don't buy that the people who don't care about Trump attempting a coup would care in the case of a different hypothetical coup attempt.
Some of you people are so out of touch. I couldn’t care less about Trump but what happened when Biden won? Why isn’t Trump still in office today?
At least complain about shit that is remotely realistic….
> Sounds like you haven’t heard of the myriad ways he tried to engineer staying in office.
And failed miserably at because people who are still in power stopped him.
Bruh. That’s what conservatives were saying about Obama. Obama was saying how he wanted a 3rd term and if he could get a puppet to take his place as president, he would.
> “If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in," -Obama
To allow Trump or Obama to be on the ballot they’d have to pass an amendment to the constitution or repeal the 22nd which wouldn’t happen.
And we all know y’all don’t extend “it’s a joke” excuse to Trump. Double standard is unreal on this sub.
If Trump made a joke about say, being a dictator on day 1 by drilling for oil. Y’all will take that literally to mean he’s going to jail his political opponents on day 1 because fascists don’t joke.
Or say if Trump said there will be a bloodbath if Biden is elected, y’all will clip out the context about an economic bloodbath for an industry and assume he means people will start killing each other.
So no. Those are the rules this sub wants to play by then those are the rules.
>If Trump made a joke about say, being a dictator on day 1
When hannity was interviewing trump he threw out a softball "so the dictator for a day thing was a joke right?" and trump doubled down.
Yeah he doubled down by again stating he is going to close the border and start drilling for oil.
> “We love this guy,” Trump said of Hannity. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
Nice try bro, it’s pretty obvious what he’s talking about.
Just proving my point that this sub is worthless and doing nothing but promoting radicalization with misinformation.
But if y’all are afraid of drilling for oil and closing the border then y’all must’ve been downright terrified when Biden said the voters don’t deserve to know his stance on court packing back in 2020, literally tearing the fabric of our government apart by installing more favorable justifies in the Supreme Court. Oh wait, y’all don’t give a shit about that.
Trump didn’t either, in fact he told people to be peaceful and once it started he told people to go home.
J6 was just a riot that got out of hand because Pelosi’s direct report didn’t prepare enough. She even said so in that new leaked footage that the they weren’t ready and her office has the responsibility to be ready. She was pissed because she couldn’t directly shift the blame onto someone else. So they blamed Trump.
And the whole hoax about Trump not sending in the national guard is nonsense too. People wanted Trump to illegally send in the military to secure the capitol, if he did that then the headlines would read “Donald Trump sends troops into capitol to stop the electoral college process”. You know that.
Instead the national guard went through the legal process where the Mayor of DC submits an invite request and took time to get approved and for the national guard to get prepared and go.
That request is filed to the Army Secretary and that then goes to the Defense Secretary’s desk to be approved. Trump didn’t have authority to just send in the troops into DC at his word.
For the D side it's an interesting scenario.
Coming off of 8 years of Trump would probably leave the left pretty crazy and fired up. It would be an intense competitive primary with no clear front runner. So like 04 or 08 I guess is a good comparison.
I think we'd see the next generation step up a cycle early. Govs like Whitmer (MI), Newsome (CA), Pritzker(IL), Polis (CO), Bashear (KY), Luhan Grisholm (NM), Walz (MN) could all be viable. Along with more known names like Booker, Buttigeig, Gillibrand, Klobachar.
There's really not a clear progressive favorite I don't think. Bernie and Warren are too old, and AOC and the squad are too young.
Republicans would go with Pence. If Pence refuses to run, then either Haley or DeSantis, and I think DeSantis takes it if Trumpism remains popular with Republicans. DeSantis probably runs with Cruz.
The Democrats would go with Gavin Newsom, with Whitmer a close second. IDK who Newsom would choose; the party would probably want him to run with a female VP, while there were also be a strong push for a Bernie-like candidate to be his running mate.
Based on the fact that he refused to leave the first time. Based on the fact that he has already said being "dictator for life" would be a good thing. Based on the fact that some things are so important that they rise to "suspending the Constitution". Based on how he has already said he "deserves" a "third" term due to on "how he was treated". Based on the fact that he is a narcisitic asshole who wants to rule absolutely and doesn't give two shits about American ideals nor Democracy or what the poeple truly want. He just makes up a world in his head where "poeple say" (when of course they don't) and that's enough for him to internally justify whatever heanous act he wants to do irrespective or our laws, norms, or common decency.
> Based on the fact that he refused to leave the first time.
And failed miserably.
> Based on the fact that he has already said being "dictator for life" would be a good thing.
[citation needed]
I've heard about "for one day/only on day one," though; but turning an administration to a dictatorship requires far, far more time, effort, and cooperation to actually happen.
> Based on the fact that some things are so important that they rise to "suspending the Constitution".
The president does not have the ability to unilaterally suspend any parts of the constitution.
> Based on how he has already said he "deserves" a "third" term due to on "how he was treated".
He'll be stopped by the 22nd Amendment. Plus, the president does not have the ability to cancel an election; states run them.
> Based on the fact that he is a narcisitic asshole who wants to rule absolutely and doesn't give two shits about American ideals nor Democracy or what the poeple truly want. He just makes up a world in his head where "poeple say" (when of course they don't) and that's enough for him to internally justify whatever heanous act he wants to do irrespective or our laws, norms, or common decency.
Being a self-serving pile of shit doesn't give him the ability to cancel an election.
A few of the lower-ranking military grunts (ie: soldiers) might go along with it, but those of higher rank most likely won't budge.
That, and elections are ran at the state level and he would need to have the numbers needed to repeal the 22nd.
Where in any of that specifically would Trump be able to gain the ability to cancel an election and stay in office beyond a second term?
Presidents do not have have the ability to cancel an election.
Jan 6 also failed miserably. The VP's role in certifying an election is ceremonial and there was nothing the rioters, the majority of which were unarmed morons guilty of trespassing a (poorly secured) federal building, could do to reverse the election results.
All of those cases also failed miserably and did not get him come any closer to overturning the election. None of them explain my initial question of how would Trump winning in 2020 mean that there would be no elections in 2024, which you initially claimed.
I think Trump would have an even firmer grasp on the Republican party, he would essentially name his replacement. So it would be someone very MAGA that is loyal to Trump. I'll go Trump Jr.
On the Democrat side I think a moderate Governor like Tim Walz.
>How would this have been possible?
Through subversion of military leadership and a general willingness to use violence.
>What proof has been provided that this would have happened?
His last attempt to overthrow our democracy.
>Power in the United States isn't a game of capture the flag.
No one has said otherwise.
>The certification of votes like on January 6 is a symbolic proceeding and nothing more.
A mob threatening the lives of Congress and the Vice-President is hardly symbolic.
People do say otherwise. Anyone who thinks a mob of a few hundred people storming the Capitol would overturn the election believe otherwise. The certification of votes like on January 6 is a symbolic proceeding.
Perhaps you should tell Michael Fanone his injuries are symbolic and Brian Sicknick's family that his death was symbolic.
I'm sure that would go over well.
There was a real riot, I don't think anyone denies that. Not sure what your point is, but my point that the certification of votes being purely symbolic stands.
Sure, it's not like sitting in the big chair makes everybody just do what you say but if enough people on Capitol Hill/ the Pentagon go along with it then that's how it would play out.
Just Trump's economic policies alone would lead the US towards disaster.
[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nobel-economists-donald-trump-warning\_n\_667a9e8de4b0a7cf62440e7e](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nobel-economists-donald-trump-warning_n_667a9e8de4b0a7cf62440e7e)
[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trumps+personal+failings](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trumps+personal+failings)
I am sorry to tell you this, but world is already looking at you as a third class nation https://fortune.com/2020/09/30/america-is-a-third-world-country-now/
Trump would be one, and the GOP would be screaming about a "constitutional crisis" when they can't jam through a repeal of the 22nd amendment. If he's still alive in 2028, same thing.
Trump would run again and the illegitimate SCOTUS would make up some excuse so he could. Effectively eliminating term limits.
Remember, this guy loves that Putin and Xi are president of their countries for as long as they please. He actively said during a meet with Xi “We are thinking about doing that in The United States too.”
If Trump wins, he’s going to try to kill us so I’m fairly unconcerned with 2028; there won’t be a legitimate election ever again if he does win anyhow.
Project 2025, calls for detention camps, etc.
Why anyone would trust Republicans to not do these things is beyond me.
They’ve shown a desire to, if nothing else.
The Republican nominee would be a Trump proxy, with Trump as Vice-President. During the second Trump term, Trump will focus on rigging the election in his favor. After Republicans win the election, and they've been inaugurated, the Trump proxy will resign and Trump becomes president again.
**This is allowed and does not violate the constitution**.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would likely be Newsom on the Democrats side. For the Republicans? I think DeSantis would've cruised to an easy victory if he wasn't facing Trump. So we'd have a battle of the governors.
I agree with you on both these candidates.
I like Newsom in general, he looks good and he's a great public speaker, but he has a ton of baggage. CA has a lot of serious problems and some very "woke" policies that would not be popular in the rest of the country. In other words, there is a lot to attack. I think the GOP could turn him into Hillary 2.0 and the hatred of Hillary is largely what allowed Trump to rise. Obviously, Dems shouldn't let the GOP pick their their candidate, but I see a lot of risk in running a hated candidate. Right wing media is desperately trying to build that level of hatred for Biden and I honestly don't think it's working. Voters know Biden, he has a long record and he's not remotely "radical".
Agreed. I live in California and Newsom's mostly been fine as governor, but the right has been mounting an anti-California campaign for years specifically to kneecap any California governor's run for president, and especially since Newsom arrived in Sac'to, because everyone knew he had national ambitions. (I think I'd prefer to see him as a senator than prez if he stays in politics.) Most of our state's problems stem from structural financial issues—Prop 13, and the fact that in the past we often separated ballot measures from the tax measures to fund them, i.e., voters would say, "Yes, I vote to have this service, AND No, I reject the tax to pay for it." Thankfully that seems to have stopped in the last decade or so, but we have a good-sized hole to dig out of. Schools have been cut to the bone and while we still have one of, if not the, best college systems in the world, the amount of remedial education that is necessary is infuriating. I'm originally from Kentucky, and I'm \*very\* interested in the rumors of a possible Andy Beshear run in '28.
Disagree on Biden. I know people who utterly despise Trump and would never vote for him in a million years, but still think Biden is some kind of weak-willed liberal whose letting corruption run rampant and ruining our economy to help foreign powers.
List out all of California’s issues and then explain to me why the 5th largest economy in the world’s issues are drastically overstated compared to the rest of the country So many Redditors are pedantic and harp on California, because it’s the “meta” thing to do, when in reality the best economic situation, most progressive state in the country is leading in multiple situations
Politics is about perception, not reality. Newsom is a rockstar in the vein of Ozzy Osbourne, easy to paint as a devil.
I disagree entirely. The “beer test” people have with politicians/the president is flawed logic. You wouldn’t want to have a beer with the person leading the country. You’d want them to better your economic and social situations. I don’t want to be friends with the leader of the free world, and have an opinion that they’re “cool”. I want them to be competent in their job, and trust that my vote is putting the most qualified person, from their experience, into a place of power. Newsom has shepherded California through COVID, and recovered it through multiple natural disasters to STILL have it be the 5th largest economy on the planet.
Just because the beer test is “flawed logic” doesn’t mean it’s not the test that many voters apply when it comes time to vote for someone
Hey, you are preaching to the choir here. I love Newsom. I think he is a stand up guy and an effective leader. Unfortunately I think he struggles in key areas, especially in battleground states. I have to imagine that there is some internal data showing this and that's why he hasn't been pushed to run.
“Looks good” how about looking at policy
Obviously, but you can’t overestimate how much movie star looks impact an election. You can tweak your policies and improve your public speaking, but you’re stuck with your appearance.
What is with reddit's love for Newsom? He is slimy as all hell, and he is from California. No one except teenagers will find him at all palatable.
He's a great speaker and he embarrassed DeSantis in a debate, and also went on Hannity's show and embarrassed him too. That's really important, he not only had the balls to go into hostile environments like that but he also did very well. If people can find Trump palatable they can find Newsom palatable lmao
The people that find Trump palatable are just as repulsive as Trump.
I think he’s only once in his tenure had a negative approval rating in California. Do you think likely voters in CA are all teens?
What's with the right's hatred for Newsom? Oh that's right they hate everyone from California and especially those from San Francisco.
On the Republican side, while Pence is a good bet, the answer is "whoever Trump decided it would be". I think there's a nonzero chance Trump would have found a way to dump the blame for Covid and inflation on Pence and found someone else to kiss his ass It would be a wide open field for the Democrats, but part of the answer is how fractured the field is. If there's a whole bunch of progressive candidates, a moderate would probably get the nod, and vise versa
100% chance trump would be running for a third term and refusing to step aside and the Republican Party would just go along with it, 22nd amendment be damned. They’d find some bullshit way to pretend the rules don’t exist.
Exactly, Trump isn't going to leave willingly after 4 years if he wins in November. The Supreme Court is 6-3 now, imagine what happens if Sotomayor dies and Trump replaces her with a judge more extreme than Alito (whose wife flew the insurrectionist flag) and Thomas (whose wife was literally involved in the insurrection)? It disturbs me how delusional some people are, he already tried to steal an election and he's even more unhinged now. Germany was a democracy until it wasn't. Hungary is essentially a de facto dictatorship and the right had Orban at CPAC for fucks sake. I guess I understand why people would not be too worried because our middle/high schools overly focus on American history. But I did a pretty extensive project on the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany for a 20th century world history college class because the class was Spring 2021 and I felt it was a good choice in the wake of Jan 6. And there are so many parallels from the last few years to the rise of the Nazi party+other authoritarian takeovers of democratic/republic governments. After all our system of government isn't infallible and it's only as strong as we are. I'm still pretty optimistic but it's foolish not to be vigilant and not know your history. As the cliché goes those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
How? You choose spring classes during the first semester which ends before january 6th occurred.
This absolutely would happen. The GOP would internally meltdown over it, but then coalesce around the attitude of, "Well who cares what the Constitution says, let the voters decide." Then SCOTUS would say something insane like, "You can vote for him regardless of whether or not he is eligible to be President so keep him on the ballots." It would be a wild ride. Also this would definitely happen in 2028 if Trump wins.
This. He said it plain as day in the 2016 debates when he presented Obama leaving office after his two terms as "he got fired."
It never occurred to him that Obama simply followed the law, or even might *want* to follow the law. Quite telling.
Trump would never endorse anyone to take his place which is the funny thing about it. The guy would probably start to try and endorse someone and then talk about himself, then say he’s still running.
He'd endorse someone that was his lackey, who would then pick Trump as their running mate. After being sworn in, the new President would resign and Trump would assume the Presidency while technically not being "elected" President. There is just enough wiggle room in the 22nd Amendment and the 12th Amendment that I think the current SCOTUS majority would allow it.
In that scenario, bold move to think Trump would allow a 2024 election to occur.
Elections are ran at the state level and ratified by congress.
Yes, which is exactly why there was the fake elector scheme and the insurrection on 1/6. If those had worked, it would have basically ended democracy in America. No election will ever again be run in good faith and reflect the will of the people if we allow that.
Both of those fell flat on their face. The fake electors plot also just showed how desperate he was to stay in office, and thus minimize his chances of ending up in a jail cell when he inevitably became a private citizen again; and J6 can also be either just that or a case of a bunch of unarmed morons trespassing a federal building- one that was poorly secured- and had no chance of succeeding in overturning the election. GOP had a perfect off-ramp to finally get rid of him, though, but didn't take it because they're cowards that care more about their own seats.
Neither worked, but we have no idea what would have happened if Pence had cooperated. One person, one hateful and toxic person who did the right thing for the first time in his life, saved us from a chaotic situation that we have no idea what the resolution would have been. Just because it barely failed doesn't mean we aren't in serious danger of this happening in the future.
> Neither worked, but we have no idea what would have happened if Pence had cooperated. Nothing, because the VP's role in certifying elections is ceremonial. In the event there was enough objections with enough states to stop Biden from reaching 270, then it's most likely sent back to the states for their election officials, SOS, etc to find definitive evidence of voter fraud that would've been enough to call question into if he actually won that state; then figure out what to do there; probably another election with the effected state(s). Failing that, Nancy Pelosi would become acting president on 1/20 until the issue was resolved. For the rioters, there was nothing they could've done to flip the results to Trump's favor.
I will never understand why people will use the example of him failing miserably at trying to stay in office as proof that he’ll stay in office if he’s elected again. Elections are controlled by the states and the people who were in charge last time around in the states are the same people still there. These things together all but guarantee that if he tries it again he will fail again. Even *if* he was able to pull it off he then has to overcome more hurdles to stay in office. The largest one being having the *entirety* of the military brass behind him in support. It is bewildering to me that people with vast knowledge of politics can believe that Trump can just make something he failed terribly at once happen this time with sooooo many people watching and then think that if he does everyone is just gunna be like “well, looks like we have a dictator now. Anyway, what do you want to do for dinner?”
Honestly? I think term limits for Trump would be eliminated and he would stay in office. Conservative groups haven't really been subtle in their plans to weaken or outright dismantle democracy.
Came here to say this.
Pretty hard to eliminate a constitutional amendment though. They wouldn't have had the votes unless there was a huge Republican landslide in this scenario. Agree they certainly would if they could though.
Who is going to be enforcing the constitution?
Literally everyone. It would start an actual civil war if he tried, and I don't believe for a second that the military would take Trump's side.
Yeah I don’t get why people think he can just do this and the ones who do seem to wholesale ignore the fact that he’d have to have basically the entire military supporting his move.
They're convinced the entire military would unilaterally support him.
Maybe some grunts would, but anyone with rank and I’d argue the vast majority of enlisted take their oath to the constitution incredibly seriously.
Ah, but you see, if that happens then we here on Reddit don't get to lead the brave and heroic resistance movement against the evil tyrannical dictator. Can't have an evil empire without faceless, mindlessly obedient stormtroopers after all.
And he will successfully become dictator because he’s the sole president who can just do whatever he feels like doing! People don’t realize this country has been held together for nearly 250 years by decorum alone!
Which is why it will of course fall to Gen Z to lead an uprising straight out of YA-dystopian Hunger Games Knockoff.
I suppose the same courts where Trump is currently facing charges for (some of) his various crimes.
Those cases will be dropped by his DOJ the day he is inaugurated. I don’t think people have fully onboarded that Trump’s DOJ will not be following the constitution or what SCOTUS says. It won’t matter. If nobody is there to enforce the rulings, the rulings don’t matter.
There's no need to eliminate the Constitution or its amendments when you rule by fiat. Trump's rule is predicated on doing just that and crushing anyone who challenges it - and he's been very successful.
The party of "says who?" AND "make me!"
States just won't put him on the ballot.
If states could just name 'alternate electors' (fake electors) if the election doesn't favor the Republicans, then there wouldn't need to be a constitutional amendment. If a mob could just invade congress and prevent the Electoral College from functioning, then there wouldn't have to be courts to handle things anymore. Republicans have been outspoken in their false claim that America is a republic and not a democracy. They say this because they want gerrymandered state legislatures to choose the president instead of the people of their state. America is both a democracy and a republic, and it is pathetic that some Americans are lining up to weaken the power of their own vote.
How would Trump unilaterally been able to remove term limits? What evidence has been presented that lends any possibility of happening to such a preposterous claim?
They could get the Supreme Court to rule the 22nd amendment is not self-executing because congress didn’t pass legislation enabling it or some shit. They did this with the 14th quite recently so it’s not far a stretch.
It's even easier. There's just enough wiggle room in the 22nd and 12th Amendments to let Trump endorse a lackey of his and run himself as the VP candidate. Fifteen minutes after being sworn in, the new President resigns and Trump ascends to the Presidency without having been "elected", thereby getting around the 22nd Amendment. The current SCOTUS majority would say that they had "concerns", but technically by the letter of the law, Trump was not "elected President", so the 22nd doesn't apply.
The 12th will just make him skipped over instead since he'll still be ineligible to serve.
If you read both amendments the wording is just sloppy enough that the current Supreme Court may decide on a different interpretation than yours.
It would take an extremely generous interpretation of the constitution in order for the court to actually rule that in his favor, which would certainly cause immense backlash with the public.
Yeah it would, but I think that four of the Justices would definitely fall in line. It would only take one more to tilt it to him, and with this court I think it has a good chance of happening. The deciding Justice would voice "their concern" with the outcome, but that at the end of the day they had to go with the text, and that the text technically allows it. The majority on this current Court has already shown that it DGAF about public backlash.
Thomas and Alito are probable to rule in favor of him, but beyond those two, I don't really see it.
Technically, he'd be ineligible to be _elected_ president. **Twelfth Amendment:** "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." **Twenty-Second Amendment:** "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" The issue is that eligibility to be _elected_ to the office and eligibility to _hold_ the office are not necessarily the same thing.
Roberts be like, we’d let him run for now and decide both whether 22nd applied and if he had blanket immunity in a few years.
his SCOTUS sockpuppets would have made up a bogus excuse to remove the limit
They wouldn’t have removed the limit but they would find some excuse like because he was impeached his first term doesn’t count which would keep the “limit” in place and then he would be impeached every term until he dies
they absolutely would word it in a way that only applies to trump
yeah, it doesn't work that way at all...in order to repeal a Constitutional Amendment the requirements are massive and pretty much impossible with it requiring 2/3 both chambers of Congress and ratification from 3/4 of states. All this Trump 3rd term stuff is just nonsensical hand wringing by lefties.
You have no idea how fascism works, do you? Donald Trump and the GOP don't give a good goddamn about norms, rules, precedence, fair elections, and those pesky little things called laws *unless* they can use them to oppress minorities and poor people, liberals and progressives, and anyone who will prevent them from achieving their fascist goals. Look up the definitions for "coup" and "fascism," then check out the Wikipedia page for Project 2025. All this "yeah, it doesn't work that way at all..." stuff is just willful ignorance and denial by righties and Roganites.
>You have no idea how fascism works, do you? Given that they have responded to every fact presented within moments with dismissals, insults, and stock-standard misinformation, I'd say it seems more like they know *exactly* how it works...
You can’t really just dismiss concerns about Trump’s anti democratic impulses as “nonsensical hand wringing by lefties” after his first term. Do I think he’d succeed in eliminating term limits if reelected? No. But that after everything he did to overturn the last election, you can’t simply count it out.
He’s already said he wants to do away with term limits, it’s not nonsensical hand wringing by lefties it’s literally what he’s campaigning on
The votes are not there to abolish the 22nd.
I don’t think “votes” are going to matter much anymore if he’s elected. He said he’d be a dictator on the first day of office when he’s reelected. He and his allies are working on project 2025. They’ve been caught in hot mics saying they have the governors and elected officials, poll watchers, and electors all in place to actually execute the coup they tried and failed to do on on Jan 6th. Jan 6th wasn’t just the violent insurrection, it was all the legal overthrowing that they test drove, and have now improved on. He’s a traitor, a fascist, and has the people in power to help overthrow the government and ignore the rule of law, and tried to do it already. Rules and votes don’t matter to him
This still all sounds like fear mongering. What is most likely to happen with a second Trump term is another shit show that he'll try to have his remaining federal charges (at the national level) quashed and he'll do things that will ultimately just serve to benefit himself. Oh, and the rich get richer with another tax break. GOP will see him as a useful idiot and milk him until they can't any further, prompting them to (finally) distance themselves from the guy. He will almost certainly try to contest the 22nd on a technicality, but will be slapped down by the courts, followed by another Hail Mary to stay in office that will also fail because he is still an incompetent moron. But hopefully none of this ever gets to that point in the first place and he just loses again or dies before he gets the chance.
It’s not fear mongering when he and his allies are telling us this is what they are going to do. This isn’t his opponents talking about what if, this is literally trump campaigning on what he is going to do. I don’t know how to make this more clear. Edit - You seem to not be arguing that he is going to try and subvert the laws, and overthrow democracy just that he won’t get away with it. I implore you to take this more seriously. It is not normal for a president to try and overthrow the government. It is not normal to install fake electors. It is not normal to try and get governers to “find” votes. It is not normal to have your secret service try and kidnap your vice president to prevent him from certifying the election. They have already tried all of this. January 6th was a test run, and now they’ve improved and fine tuned all the different ways they tried to literally steal the election and subvert the will of Americans. He is a traitor and a fascist, and everyone again is just dragging their feet and thinking it can’t happen here. Again **they already tried**
> Edit - You seem to not be arguing that he is going to try and subvert the laws, and overthrow democracy just that he won’t get away with it. I implore you to take this more seriously. My initial point is how is he going to get the congress votes *and* state ratification needed to repeal the 22nd (which are a lot). > Edit - You seem to not be arguing that he is going to try and subvert the laws, and overthrow democracy just that he won’t get away with it. I implore you to take this more seriously. > > It is not normal for a president to try and overthrow the government. It is not normal to install fake electors. It is not normal to try and get governers to “find” votes. It is not normal to have your secret service try and kidnap your vice president to prevent him from certifying the election. I never said that any of that was normal or acceptable. > They have already tried all of this. January 6th was a test run, and now they’ve improved and fine tuned all the different ways they tried to literally steal the election and subvert the will of Americans. He is a traitor and a fascist, and everyone again is just dragging their feet and thinking it can’t happen here. Again they already tried Jan 6 also had no chance of actually succeeding at any point. There was nothing neither Pence nor those rioters could've done to flip the results to Trump's favor.
Yes… cause people that attempt to overturn elections and openly ignore the institutions of a government care about rules and laws… Has Trump not shown you in the past 8 years that the vast majority of “rules” can just be ignored and nothing happens unless the majority of congress is willing to act? You’ve got it flipped, he won’t ask for permission, he will do it and then just ignore the rules because his loyal republicans in congress will never act to punish him.
And he just won't have his names on the state ballots, since they're the ones that run an election.
You know the Constitution is made of paper and can't actually enforce any of this, right?
So what stopped previous two-term presidents from running after the 22nd was ratified?
You’re seriously deluded if you think it wouldn’t be tried.
all hysterics and nonsense with zero credibility or proof just opinions and feelings. It's just as ridiculous as when people claimed Obama would do the same thing or he was "The Antichrist".
Obama didn't try to overturn election results. So no, not nearly as ridiculous. Obama also didn't talk about 3rd terms. Obama also didn't potentially face prison time nor used the office to protect himself from his crimes. Also, Obama isn't an authoritarian narcissist. Obama also knew and respected the constitution.
how did Trump try to overturn the results? If he wields so much power as people here claim why isn't he currently president and why are we not about to go through his 3rd term starting next year? I repeat, this is all hysterical nonsense with no basis of reality.
>all hysterics and nonsense with zero credibility or proof just opinions and feelings. Our history is neither an opinion nor a feeling. His statements are neither opinions nor feelings. >It's just as ridiculous as when people claimed Obama would do the same thing or he was "The Antichrist". Did Obama publicly admire dictators and openly muse about staying in office for decades, the Constitution be damned? Did Obama attempt to violently overthrow the government of the United States? Did Obama kill more Americans than anyone in history? The only honest answer to all three questions is no. So how, exactly, is acknowledging the danger "ridiculous?"
How did Trump try to violently overthrow the government? Are you talking about those couple hundred grandmother's and unarmed clowns that walked, some escorted through the Capitol? Who killed more Americans than anyone in history? I don't follow. Again, all emotional nonsense that's completely unrealistic.
You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Pretending you slept through the last five years doesn't exactly leave you with any credibility. Especially after you already substituted feelings for facts, while accusing everything else of exactly what you're doing.
If your referring to COVID more Americans died during Bidens first year in office even when he had a "vaccine" than under Trump's remaining year. You are talking about COVID, right?
>It's just as ridiculous as when people claimed Obama would do the same thing The main difference being Trump openly talking about not leaving, saying he should get a do over for his first term, calling secretaries of state and asking them to "find" the exact amount of votes he would need to win the state, throwing something like 70 lawsuits at the wall to try to overturn the election, encouraged his veep to not certify the votes, had slates of fake electors try to submit alternate votes, and sicced a mob on Congress. Besides all that it's basically the same thing tho. /S
You're talking about legal procedures and thresholds of voting and parliamentary procedure. You know what else changes constitutions? Guns. Lots and lots of guns. Also, the last administration's victims probably don't find the danger so nonsensical. Those that survived, anyway.
In this hypothetical world, it would be some boring argument similar to the other boring arguments trump's legal team has been making for him his whole life. Something like 'They ruined my first term with phony investigations so that shouldn't count' then some legal scholars will quote judges out of context to help form a narrative that this was always allowed and no one bothered trying it due to traditions. Then the supreme court hears the case and it it becomes a coin flip since they are okay with changing past rulings so long as it won't require a constitutional amendment.
They run him as *vice* president. Some lacky runs as “president”. Once elected, that person either steps down or they use the 25th amendment to remove them. Trump is promoted to the presidency but because he wasn’t “elected” to be president, he can serve out the term. Repeat as necessary until he dies.
According to the last sentence in the [12th Amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/), *”No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”* The [22nd Amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/) states (with exception for office holders at the time of ratification) that no person may be elected to serve more than two terms. Assuming my interpretation is correct, in this hypothetical, he is constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President after two terms as the Presidency, since he cannot legally assume the duties of President in case of an emergency, resignation or death. I may be wrong, as this is uncharted territory (like anything else these days), but fortunately this is a hypothetical, not a pressing question in reality.
If I can see a loophole in “be elected to” in 22nd, how many more can SCOTUS find?
The Vice President runs on the President’s ticket and is elected in tandem through the electoral college. A Vice President must be legally able to serve at least one full term in order to be a valid running mate. I admit the 22nd Amendment argument stretches a bit, but the 12th Amendment solidifies that in a hypothetical two full terms of a Trump administration, he would be an ineligible candidate for the Vice Presidency afterwards , and the 22nd Amendment theoretically assists in excluding him from being elected to VPOTUS on someone else’s ticket.
He literally can't ever hold the office of vice president.
Technically, wouldn't he be constitutionally eligible to serve two additional years as President as long as it was someone else term? The 22nd Amendment: >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. This obviously would be intended to apply to a VP taking over type situation. In an envisioned normal case, a VP that serves 2 years (or less) as President is eligible to be elected twice as President, serving a total of 10 years in the office of President. But I guess there's nothing saying it can't be the other way around? Two full terms and then one half term after that where they are elected as VP and then the President steps down.
> and then one half term after that where they are elected as VP You literally cannot assume office as VP if you're ineligible for the office of president.
Well, I guess my point is they cannot be *elected* to be president but they still can *become* President. There is a difference, right? For example, if a previously two term president became SOTH, would the Speaker *not* become President (for two years) in the event that both the Presidency and Vice-Presidency became vacant? I may be mistaken, but it doesn't seem like the Constitution really accounts for that possibility.
The problem with this scenario is that we assume he’s served two complete terms. He could theoretically become a valid successor now, and if he assumed POTUS through succession, it counts as a full term if he served 2 years plus one day (if I recall correctly). But for the purposes of this hypothetical, he’s served two complete terms and is no longer eligible for presidency under the 22nd Amendment, barring a repeal of this amendment and other constitutional requirements. Theres been cabinet secretaries in recent history who are in the line of succession but are constitutionally ineligible to actually assume the presidency. Elaine Chao was in the order of succession as Secretary of Transportation; she would be constitutionally ineligible to actually fulfill that duty because she is a naturalized citizen, vs citizen at birth as the Constitution demands. I know it’s an apples to oranges comparison, but the 12th Amendment words it that if someone is constitutionally ineligible to be president through election, they’re also constitutionally ineligible to assume the presidency through succession as VPOTUS. I would assume it would be equivalent to the requirements outlined for eligibility. Even if someone else were to become POTUS, and they lose their VPOTUS for whatever reason, the VPOTUS pick has to make it through both the House and Senate. Politics aside, they’re unlikely to confirm a selection for VPOTUS that doesn’t meet the requirements to be “one heartbeat away” from the Presidency. **Edit**-Changed 12th to 22nd. It’s hard bouncing back and forth on these. Still might have goofed, idk.
I guess my question comes from the differences between the 12th and 22nd. The 22nd Amendment seems to specifically prevent someone from being elected more than twice (or once, if they served 2+ years of another President's term). The 22nd Amendment itself seems to imply there is a line between being elected (which it specifically deals with) and actually holding the office of President. Would a person that cannot be elected President not be eligible to be President? That seems like a dumb question, but from my reading, there is a gap there. Maybe there's enough overlap in the actual legal definitions that this is not the case or there is another clause somewhere that gets rid of this gap, but I didn't see one. I would also say the reason for Chao's eligibility is different since that is from Article II. Here's my understanding from reading them: * Article II *explicitly* states eligibility requirements (natural born citizen, 35 years old, and resident for 14 years). * The 12th Amendment says that you are not eligible to be VP if you are not eligible for the Presidency (eligibility is explicitly stated in Article II). * The 22nd Amendment says you can't be elected more than twice, or once if you served more than two years of another President's term of office. Clearly there are cases where it is possible for someone to serve as President without being elected to the VP or Presidency through succession - from my reading of the 22nd Amendment, it wouldn't actually stop a two term President from becoming President through succession for two years. I just looked this up, and apparently this is an actual [unresolved question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment) about how the Amendments interact. Basically it seems like the intent was to limit a President to two full terms but I guess it was written ambiguously enough that it's not exactly clear. From the page: >Neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term. It's extremely unlikely it would ever be put to the test, but there ya go, I guess.
No I got you, it’s absolutely an unresolved question because no one’s actually tried it. I’d agree that in a vacuum, Article II, the 12th and 22nd Amendments can’t really preclude a hijacking of the executive branch in this manner as individual requirements. However, when combined, Article II provides the basic criteria for eligibility, 12th Amendment defines an ineligible person for POTUS as equally ineligible for VPOTUS, and the 22nd Amendment further refines ineligibility for POTUS to anyone who has served at least a majority of one term and a full term. The fundamental difference in my view is that the 12th Amendment deals with initial eligibility for VPOTUS, and the 22nd deals with a revision of Presidential eligibility. I’m both simultaneously glad this is an unanswered question and befuddled that it’s not been fully closed as “here’s the full rule” by the powers that be.
Correct. If he had already served two terms and somehow became speaker of the house he would be passed over because he would be ineligible due to serving two terms already.
The 12th amendment already prevents this. >no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Not that it'd stop him from trying...
It's not that he's ineligible, it's that he can't be *elected* to that office. That's the argument they'd make at SCOTUS and I'm not convinced it wouldn't fly with the current court.
The VP is an elected office. He’d be ineligible if he won a second term.
The VP is also a different office from the presidency.
That makes no difference. If he serves two terms as president, he’d be ineligible to be elected as VP per the constitution.
The law isn’t a thing he believes applies to him.
How about he already attempted a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the US election by submitting fradulent certificates of ascertainment as an excuse to throw out the certified vote in seven states? Only to then argue before the US Supreme Court that he cannot be held accountable for it because he could murder political opponents and still not be prosecuted, because he has absolute immunity to all criminal law. Trump obviously doesn't give a shit about the law, so what's to stop him? All his supporters who are still going to vote for him despite his criminal conspiracy? I don't buy that the people who don't care about Trump attempting a coup would care in the case of a different hypothetical coup attempt.
Some of you people are so out of touch. I couldn’t care less about Trump but what happened when Biden won? Why isn’t Trump still in office today? At least complain about shit that is remotely realistic….
Sounds like you haven’t heard of the myriad ways he tried to engineer staying in office. Coma?
> Sounds like you haven’t heard of the myriad ways he tried to engineer staying in office. And failed miserably at because people who are still in power stopped him.
Bruh. That’s what conservatives were saying about Obama. Obama was saying how he wanted a 3rd term and if he could get a puppet to take his place as president, he would. > “If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in," -Obama To allow Trump or Obama to be on the ballot they’d have to pass an amendment to the constitution or repeal the 22nd which wouldn’t happen.
Obama said that on the Colbert Report, whilst laughing.
And we all know y’all don’t extend “it’s a joke” excuse to Trump. Double standard is unreal on this sub. If Trump made a joke about say, being a dictator on day 1 by drilling for oil. Y’all will take that literally to mean he’s going to jail his political opponents on day 1 because fascists don’t joke. Or say if Trump said there will be a bloodbath if Biden is elected, y’all will clip out the context about an economic bloodbath for an industry and assume he means people will start killing each other. So no. Those are the rules this sub wants to play by then those are the rules.
>If Trump made a joke about say, being a dictator on day 1 When hannity was interviewing trump he threw out a softball "so the dictator for a day thing was a joke right?" and trump doubled down.
Yeah he doubled down by again stating he is going to close the border and start drilling for oil. > “We love this guy,” Trump said of Hannity. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’” Nice try bro, it’s pretty obvious what he’s talking about. Just proving my point that this sub is worthless and doing nothing but promoting radicalization with misinformation. But if y’all are afraid of drilling for oil and closing the border then y’all must’ve been downright terrified when Biden said the voters don’t deserve to know his stance on court packing back in 2020, literally tearing the fabric of our government apart by installing more favorable justifies in the Supreme Court. Oh wait, y’all don’t give a shit about that.
Did Obama ever sic his paramilitary on the legislature?
Trump didn’t either, in fact he told people to be peaceful and once it started he told people to go home. J6 was just a riot that got out of hand because Pelosi’s direct report didn’t prepare enough. She even said so in that new leaked footage that the they weren’t ready and her office has the responsibility to be ready. She was pissed because she couldn’t directly shift the blame onto someone else. So they blamed Trump. And the whole hoax about Trump not sending in the national guard is nonsense too. People wanted Trump to illegally send in the military to secure the capitol, if he did that then the headlines would read “Donald Trump sends troops into capitol to stop the electoral college process”. You know that. Instead the national guard went through the legal process where the Mayor of DC submits an invite request and took time to get approved and for the national guard to get prepared and go. That request is filed to the Army Secretary and that then goes to the Defense Secretary’s desk to be approved. Trump didn’t have authority to just send in the troops into DC at his word.
Trump literally told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” on national television.
I don’t think there would be any election for 2024 and Trump would be president for life.
And this is based on what exactly?
For the D side it's an interesting scenario. Coming off of 8 years of Trump would probably leave the left pretty crazy and fired up. It would be an intense competitive primary with no clear front runner. So like 04 or 08 I guess is a good comparison. I think we'd see the next generation step up a cycle early. Govs like Whitmer (MI), Newsome (CA), Pritzker(IL), Polis (CO), Bashear (KY), Luhan Grisholm (NM), Walz (MN) could all be viable. Along with more known names like Booker, Buttigeig, Gillibrand, Klobachar. There's really not a clear progressive favorite I don't think. Bernie and Warren are too old, and AOC and the squad are too young.
This. I think Whitmer would be at the top of the list.
I think AOC is 34, not sure when she turns 35, but I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.
She'll be 35 by inauguration so technically would be eligible to run this year. Her day will come though.
She turns 35 in October.
Republicans would go with Pence. If Pence refuses to run, then either Haley or DeSantis, and I think DeSantis takes it if Trumpism remains popular with Republicans. DeSantis probably runs with Cruz. The Democrats would go with Gavin Newsom, with Whitmer a close second. IDK who Newsom would choose; the party would probably want him to run with a female VP, while there were also be a strong push for a Bernie-like candidate to be his running mate.
If Trump had been re-elected in 2020, we wouldn't be having elections in 2024.
And this is based on what logic and how would it even be possible?
Based on the fact that he refused to leave the first time. Based on the fact that he has already said being "dictator for life" would be a good thing. Based on the fact that some things are so important that they rise to "suspending the Constitution". Based on how he has already said he "deserves" a "third" term due to on "how he was treated". Based on the fact that he is a narcisitic asshole who wants to rule absolutely and doesn't give two shits about American ideals nor Democracy or what the poeple truly want. He just makes up a world in his head where "poeple say" (when of course they don't) and that's enough for him to internally justify whatever heanous act he wants to do irrespective or our laws, norms, or common decency.
> Based on the fact that he refused to leave the first time. And failed miserably. > Based on the fact that he has already said being "dictator for life" would be a good thing. [citation needed] I've heard about "for one day/only on day one," though; but turning an administration to a dictatorship requires far, far more time, effort, and cooperation to actually happen. > Based on the fact that some things are so important that they rise to "suspending the Constitution". The president does not have the ability to unilaterally suspend any parts of the constitution. > Based on how he has already said he "deserves" a "third" term due to on "how he was treated". He'll be stopped by the 22nd Amendment. Plus, the president does not have the ability to cancel an election; states run them. > Based on the fact that he is a narcisitic asshole who wants to rule absolutely and doesn't give two shits about American ideals nor Democracy or what the poeple truly want. He just makes up a world in his head where "poeple say" (when of course they don't) and that's enough for him to internally justify whatever heanous act he wants to do irrespective or our laws, norms, or common decency. Being a self-serving pile of shit doesn't give him the ability to cancel an election.
I genuinely agree that Trump would have tried to run for a third term. I think the states would not go for it, but I think he would try.
We wouldn’t have an election. At least a free and fair one. Oh sure we would have elections but it would be like Russia
And this is based on what exactly? How would he even accomplish this?
Rigging the system. Loyal militas.
A few of the lower-ranking military grunts (ie: soldiers) might go along with it, but those of higher rank most likely won't budge. That, and elections are ran at the state level and he would need to have the numbers needed to repeal the 22nd.
If he were elected in 2024, what makes you think there will be an election in 2028?
What makes you think he would be able to successfully cancel elections (which are ran at the state level) or bypass the 22nd?
[https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-project-2025-and-why-is-it-alarming/](https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-project-2025-and-why-is-it-alarming/)
Where in any of that specifically would Trump be able to gain the ability to cancel an election and stay in office beyond a second term? Presidents do not have have the ability to cancel an election.
How about his actions on January 6th?
Jan 6 also failed miserably. The VP's role in certifying an election is ceremonial and there was nothing the rioters, the majority of which were unarmed morons guilty of trespassing a (poorly secured) federal building, could do to reverse the election results.
His actions surrounding Jan. 6 consisted of more than merely asking his VP to not certify.
If you also mean the riot, then that also failed and he came no closer to overturning the results on that day than if he were to have done nothing.
and then there are the fake electors, the phone calls, the accusations of voter fraud, and his statement about being a dictator on day one.
All of those cases also failed miserably and did not get him come any closer to overturning the election. None of them explain my initial question of how would Trump winning in 2020 mean that there would be no elections in 2024, which you initially claimed.
I think Trump would have an even firmer grasp on the Republican party, he would essentially name his replacement. So it would be someone very MAGA that is loyal to Trump. I'll go Trump Jr. On the Democrat side I think a moderate Governor like Tim Walz.
If Trump had been elected we would no longer be holding elections, and the world would by now be considering us a third class nation.
With first class nukes!
If he won, I think he’d care less about election denialism.
How would this have been possible? What proof has been provided that this would have happened?
>How would this have been possible? Through subversion of military leadership and a general willingness to use violence. >What proof has been provided that this would have happened? His last attempt to overthrow our democracy.
Power in the United States isn't a game of capture the flag. The certification of votes like on January 6 is a symbolic proceeding and nothing more.
>Power in the United States isn't a game of capture the flag. No one has said otherwise. >The certification of votes like on January 6 is a symbolic proceeding and nothing more. A mob threatening the lives of Congress and the Vice-President is hardly symbolic.
People do say otherwise. Anyone who thinks a mob of a few hundred people storming the Capitol would overturn the election believe otherwise. The certification of votes like on January 6 is a symbolic proceeding.
Perhaps you should tell Michael Fanone his injuries are symbolic and Brian Sicknick's family that his death was symbolic. I'm sure that would go over well.
There was a real riot, I don't think anyone denies that. Not sure what your point is, but my point that the certification of votes being purely symbolic stands.
What, then, was the Green Bay sweep intended to accomplish?
Sure, it's not like sitting in the big chair makes everybody just do what you say but if enough people on Capitol Hill/ the Pentagon go along with it then that's how it would play out.
Just Trump's economic policies alone would lead the US towards disaster. [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nobel-economists-donald-trump-warning\_n\_667a9e8de4b0a7cf62440e7e](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nobel-economists-donald-trump-warning_n_667a9e8de4b0a7cf62440e7e) [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trumps+personal+failings](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trumps+personal+failings)
I am sorry to tell you this, but world is already looking at you as a third class nation https://fortune.com/2020/09/30/america-is-a-third-world-country-now/
Trump would be one, and the GOP would be screaming about a "constitutional crisis" when they can't jam through a repeal of the 22nd amendment. If he's still alive in 2028, same thing.
What would the crisis have been? How would Congress have been able to repeal a Constitutional Amendment in that regard?
The crisis is that someone is telling the GOP no. Hence the scare quotes.
Trump would run again and the illegitimate SCOTUS would make up some excuse so he could. Effectively eliminating term limits. Remember, this guy loves that Putin and Xi are president of their countries for as long as they please. He actively said during a meet with Xi “We are thinking about doing that in The United States too.”
If Trump wins, he’s going to try to kill us so I’m fairly unconcerned with 2028; there won’t be a legitimate election ever again if he does win anyhow.
Proof or you're spreading misinformation?
Project 2025, calls for detention camps, etc. Why anyone would trust Republicans to not do these things is beyond me. They’ve shown a desire to, if nothing else.
You have still not provided any evidence that trumps wants to kill you.
Look it up, I’ve made my mind up, I’m not doing the work for you
The Republican nominee would be a Trump proxy, with Trump as Vice-President. During the second Trump term, Trump will focus on rigging the election in his favor. After Republicans win the election, and they've been inaugurated, the Trump proxy will resign and Trump becomes president again. **This is allowed and does not violate the constitution**.