top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 158 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (53 children)

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

Those are the exact words of the 22nd amendment. It's explicit. There's no ambiguity or room for other interpretations. Trump was elected twice, he's hit his limit, that's it.

  • source
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    There is wiggle room in some amendments but this one seems pretty fucking clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    It does specify that he has to be a person. Perhaps they're going to argue he isn't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    The one weasel notion that I wonder about, what if he was elected VP and the president stepped down directly after? Then he wasn't elected a 3rd time but placed by successions. It wouldn't surprise me to see them try some such fuckary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    I don’t remember the exact wording, but basically to be eligible to be VP one must meet the eligibility requirements for being President. So he’s not eligible to be VP either.

    But I recall someone claiming that no such eligibility requirement exists for Speaker of the House, who is in the succession line after the VP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    the legal hippthesis hypothesis is for the house to vote him in as speaker of the house and then the figurehead president and VP resign.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yes, and none of that prohibits him from running for office again. The only prohibition is that he cannot be elected a third time. But here’s the thing: we don’t actually vote for President; we vote for who our Electors elect as President, and they are Constitutionally prohibited from electing Trump to a third term. If Trump runs and “wins”, the Electors cannot elect him. He can win 0 Electoral votes. Doesn’t matter what their States’ laws require because the Constitution is the highest law in the land… until SCOTUS rules the 22nd Amendment violates the 10th Amendment. 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Sure, but we didn't enforce the 14th amendment section 3, which clearly states that he shouldn't be president currently.

    No one enforced our laws, so we have NO LAWS.

    Which means, he can just run for president again and if no one enforced the law then it could happen again.

    I agree with you on the law, but NO ONE IS ENFORCING ANY LAWS LATELY!!!! So what the fuck does any of it even matter anymore? Hmm?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

    Unless those rumors are true and they did manage to game enough voting machines to clinch the election. In which case he was not actually elected twice…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    There better be a real fucking riots in the streets across the entire damn nation if they come out with this bullshit.

    Like I mean burning down federal buildings and police stations, storming the homegrown concentration camps to free the prisoners, a literal million+ person march on Washington DC right to the front door of the White House.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    there should be riots in the street rn though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    How exactly do you guys think riots would go?

    Do you think Trump would just say, "guess they don't like me, I'll leave office"?

    Or do you think he would brutally crack down on everyone against him?

    Riots would be the casus belli he wants to take military control of the country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Idk man. They did fly the army apache over them last time there was a big protest in Tennessee and then that time they did that weird stuff with firing the missiles in Cali. You're right, but something has to change, I think we're supposed to be brave and strong and united instead of shocked daily and then retreating, frightened, back under a rock to safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Like the riots when an insurrectionist was allowed to run for a second term after being ruled ineligible by a State?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    But the Roberts Court, dontchaknow, intervened and went directly against the Constitution and made a BLATANTLY unconstitutional ruling that should have invalidated literally all of their appointments.

    Trump was ineligible for the second term, whether or not the Roberts Court wanted to acknowledge it.

    And hell will freeze over before I give those judges on the Roberts Court the dignity of referring to them with the words that other people call them or that court.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    ...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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    And that's why Vance and the other fascists are waiting until after the midterms to get rid of trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Vance is such a thoroughly unpleasant asshole. Of course, I thought the same thing about donnie for years.

    But I don't think "JD" "Vance" has this weird hold on the idiots like donnie does. I guess we'll see.

    Shrug. Somehow, Ted Cruz manages to get elected and it doesn't seem that anyone really likes him.

    I suppose if the Democrats run a woman and/or someone non-xtian or non-white, there will be people that find a way to support "JD", I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    So it sounds like there's no prohibition against running, just against winning? Sounds like an easy win for the Dems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    It seems pointless to run in an election you are constitutionally barred from winning. But, Trump has proven time and time again he will do pointless things. If he tried running again and somehow he won, however, the constitution is clear: it's a no go. He can't get elected for a third time. That said, I don't think that's necessarily the point. I think the point is to create chaos and crisis. Hopefully he's not around to run in 2028 so it becomes a moot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    There's wiggle room, he's claiming a right to campaign. To run... He's not saying anything about being elected.

    He doesn't actually do the electing. That's up to public, and the officials who are in charge of elections (who he'll try to stack with loyalists). He can't say what they'll do.

    He runs, and if others elect him... Well... That's the wiggle room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 185 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Arrest. Charge. Try. Convict. Execute.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    Who's going to do the first step though? The police? The police that are bought and paid for by the people that should be arrested? The police that are actively murdering people in the streets instead of defending them?

    I keep seeing this "arrest them" and "put them in jail for life" sentiment but nobody has a valid argument of how to do that in our current system without getting disappeared.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 87 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    The 22nd amendment is pretty fucking clear on this one

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    "But what if it means two in a row!?!?!!?"

    That's a literal claim from some Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    No no it has to be the first term, interrupted, then second, then third. The reason? Because they need to exclude Obama from running again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I've heard this too. Utter insanity. Quick, dig up and reanimate the corpse of Carter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    And why wouldn't it be?

    To be a Republican is to be a grifter/conman/shitstain. Cheating is always on the table.

    I know it's hard to plan for all eventualities, but I really wish the founding fathers had covered things in a little more detail.

    "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...regardless of whether the terms are consecutive."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    The founding fathers didn’t come up with the 22nd amendment, that was done in the late 40’s after FDR was elected four times in a row. The founding fathers intentionally left that one open, I think

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago*

    Yes, it was intentional. They wanted the Constitution to be revised and expanded as necessary, rather than being bad law set in stone. They were well aware they couldn't foresee the many issues that would come up, especially over time. That's why the Constitution is often described as a "framework" for the US's "laboratories of democracy".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 71 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    In the third term, he's gonna lower the price of gas and groceries & end the wars in Ukraine/Iran. Day 1. Bigly.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Don't forget the bestest healthcare plan ever. Aaaaaaaaaany day now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's a bigly plan, the most beautiful plan. You can't see it, but many people are saying it's the greatest perfect plan ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • If we understand "now" as less of a time stamp, and more of a constantly shifting, meaningless word, it all makes sense.

    I heard the new healthcare plan is dropping two weeks from "now"! And the Iran war and the genocide in Gaza will end two weeks from "now"! Oh, and Venezuela will be up and running with their new for-US-profit systems two weeks from "now" so we won't have to steal their resources ourselves! Go Trump go!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 2 weeks ago

    Cool. How about those Epstein files?

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    Who could have predicted back in 2016 that giving this man power would turn him into a despot?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Believe it or not, there was actually a small coalition of just a few hundred million people screaming this from their rooftops around the world. If only the maga crowd could've heard their message sooner.. Surely, well presented fact-based arguments would've changed their minds

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    They heard it. They also know that because you don't agree with them on everything that you are a dirty liberal, and thus everything you say is a lie and you should be in jail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I suspect there is a great deal of crossover between maga supporters and flat earthers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Shockingly, I had a coworker who is one of those that thinks they're the smartest person he knows. He was one of those reddit-know-it-alls who spent a lot of time replying to people telling them they're wrong. He claimed he was one of the most well informed people because he "reads both sides". And by "reads both sides" he read the shit he agreed with and the headlines of an article from tHe OtHeR sIdE. He was also a staunch blow rogan supporter.

    When he said he was "well informed" I replied "that's what a lot of flat earthers say". He got pissed and didn't even reply. A fellow coworker of ours could barely hold in the laughter

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    I saw the Good Liars asking donnie supporters about how old the Earth is; and you see some of the dumbest answers.

    Haven't seen them probe on the flat earth thing (yet), but being a young-earther is really quite ignorant as well. Oh, and of course, schools shouldn't teach evolution, because goddidit is better for young minds to contemplate, I guess. 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    Also, they had no other choice. A vote for Democrats means "those people" would get welfare benefits, the border would be wide open, xtians would no longer be allowed to pray, and everyone would be trans and vegan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I bet in his third term he will definitely release the Epstein files right guys?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›