Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 53842
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

Ooof. Are they fringe people in that arena? Or previously (somewhat) sane candidates who became Trump fans because they’re afraid of him?

Also:

Lord of His Pants
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 29703
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

YellowKing wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2024 9:39 am Sadly he's just a representation of millions of Americans who would vote for anything with an (R) rather than admit to themselves that the party they've been groomed to despise is the better option.
Barr is also an ideologue to the core. He's part of Opus Dei, the reactionary Catholic cabal that would be perfectly happy to see theocratic principles enshrined in American law.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55867
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Grifman wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 10:49 pm
Who is the namby pamby RHINO raising his left hand?

Image
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 84642
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

Philip Singleton, former Republican member of the Georgia House of Representatives for District 71.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 55930
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

I want to say that I can't believe that there are still absolute clowns that will continue to push The Big Lie(tm), but when I stopped to think about it a little more I don't think I really am surprised.

Continuing to hope for deep vein thrombosis is my only play at this point.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 55930
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

I think this goes here? As I keep saying, it's all blending:
“We want to help the women because they were going to end fertilization, which is where, when the IVF, where women go to the clinics and they get help in having a baby, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. And we’re for it a 100%. They tried to say that they weren’t for it. They actually weren’t for it and aren’t for it as much as us, but women see that,” he said.
The "party of fertilization". You don't even need me to tell you who said the above; you know it.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 84642
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

I made it about 40% in before I recoiled at you making me read his words.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 53842
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

He just revels in lying. And his sycophantic followers bend over backwards for every incomprehensible word.
Lord of His Pants
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 45681
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

Generally I get annoyed when I see a quote like that without a title or heading to tell me who said it.

He's one of the few people for whom that isn't needed.
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 71491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

Blackhawk wrote: Mon May 06, 2024 11:29 pm Generally I get annoyed when I see a quote like that without a title or heading to tell me who said it.

He's one of the few people for whom that isn't needed.
+1 I was ?? at "end fertilization" and then by "when the IVF" it was obvious :roll: . Though if it weren't for the context of the post, I would have assumed I was missing a reference to some sort of sarcasm in the style of...
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21723
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Here’s one that speaks the truth:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Scraper
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:59 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Scraper »

Grifman wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 8:53 am Here’s one that speaks the truth:

Kudos to him and I hope we see more of this before November. I doubt it though. I can't say I disagree with anything he said in his opinion piece either. (Policy things aside).
FTE
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21723
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

The dog killer speaks:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 20762
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

I'm enraged just reading that, I dare not click play to listen to someone being that stupid (or intentionally obtuse).

I have noticed the "hypothetical defense' being used by politicians more and more recently. It's as if some image consultant has been teaching it to various clients and it's spreading. "Now listen, to avoid the "gotcha" press, anytime they ask you about ANYthing that you or others might or might not do in the future, just say "I don't answer hypotheticals" and BAM! you got em! :D

Except poor, dumb Kristi with a K is only vaguely aware of how it's supposed to work, or even what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, and totally cocked it up.
Last edited by Carpet_pissr on Wed May 08, 2024 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 71491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

N V T S - Nuts! And they made her a governor. Remind to not drive the SD again the next time I head out west. I'd hate to get the dog treatment.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21723
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

The dynasty begins with the heir apparent:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21723
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

LordMortis wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 5:04 pm N V T S - Nuts! And they made her a governor. Remind to not drive the SD again the next time I head out west. I'd hate to get the dog treatment.
As she has gotten older, Kristi continues to “Barbify” herself more and more. Also looking at older photos it’s pretty obvious she’s had done work done over the years.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21723
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Tim Scott takes interview lessons from Kristi Noem, but he’s still in the VP race because he doesn’t shoot dogs:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 29703
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

Grifman wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 8:00 am The dynasty begins with the heir apparent:
"Nomination delegate" is merely a ceremonial position, though. I've known a couple of people who've done it. All they do is cast a predetermined vote.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42973
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

Sure, but this is giving him exposure. It's the beginning of the long con.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 55930
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

I'm kinda surprised - he's been rather invisible, and I think that's been intentional on the part of Melania. But maybe now that he's 18 he was told that if he wants more inheritance - above and beyond whatever she negotiated (and then re-negotiated) in her pre-nup, he had to make an appearance and show support for his dad.

Gross.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 29703
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

GreenGoo wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 11:19 am Sure, but this is giving him exposure. It's the beginning of the long con.
There's really no exposure to be had there.

Quick: off the top of your head, name any nominating convention delegate.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55867
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 5:03 pm I'm enraged just reading that, I dare not click play to listen to someone being that stupid (or intentionally obtuse).

I have noticed the "hypothetical defense' being used by politicians more and more recently. It's as if some image consultant has been teaching it to various clients and it's spreading. "Now listen, to avoid the "gotcha" press, anytime they ask you about ANYthing that you or others might or might not do in the future, just say "I don't answer hypotheticals" and BAM! you got em! :D

Except poor, dumb Kristi with a K is only vaguely aware of how it's supposed to work, or even what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, and totally cocked it up.
Well, there's that, since it's a question about an event that did indeed happen. But she's also saying that if she is VP, she won't take the Pence route. It's an explicit nod that she can be counted on to subvert the constitution for her master. I don't doubt that this was on her flash card for questions about Pence and/or Jan 6.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42973
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

Holman wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 1:00 pm
There's really no exposure to be had there.

Quick: off the top of your head, name any nominating convention delegate.
We are literally talking about it. Because the media is talking about it. For days now.

The point is not that you transition from nomination-delegate directly to the white house. That's absurd. Your friend is not drumpf Jr. (I hope?!) and nomination-delegate is not the final result of all of this.

A better test would be: Quick: Name a nomination delegate that has made national headlines previously.

As I said, this is the start of a long con. Get back to me when he turns 35.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 24133
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

What's an incompetent grifter to do? Yup, blame the staff!
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) revealed in an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail that she believed her former staffers spied on her, mismanaged close to $1 million from the office budget, and “threatened the interns.”...

However, some of those former staffers not only deny the allegations, they refute the idea that anything was “hacked” — because Mace granted them access herself: “Everything the staff had access to was granted by her.” One staffer said:

She had a personal calendar, a political calendar, and official calendar. All three of those calendars were managed and shared with senior staff so that we could go about the daily operations. No one hacked her accounts. She set them all up.

She routinely would try to revoke access, be like “you can no longer see my calendar” for a couple of weeks. And you know what, we couldn’t do our jobs.

A different staffer also retorted: “This seems to be stemming from paranoia and trust issues. She’s clearly unwell and I hope she gets help.”
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 29703
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

GreenGoo wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 3:18 pm
Holman wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 1:00 pm
There's really no exposure to be had there.

Quick: off the top of your head, name any nominating convention delegate.
We are literally talking about it. Because the media is talking about it. For days now.

The point is not that you transition from nomination-delegate directly to the white house. That's absurd. Your friend is not drumpf Jr. (I hope?!) and nomination-delegate is not the final result of all of this.

A better test would be: Quick: Name a nomination delegate that has made national headlines previously.

As I said, this is the start of a long con. Get back to me when he turns 35.
My point was that being a delegate doesn't give him anything. He's already famous for being Trump's son. He would get the same exposure from being seen at a restaurant or at a ballgame.

I really don't think he's the heir apparent. If he were being groomed for that, he would already have been active in the public eye much more than... not at all, ever.

I think the next political Trump will actually be Eric. Don Jr gets a lot of attention for being loud and coked up, but Eric (and his wife Lara, now head of the RNC) are the ones called in for making political talking points on the news. And Eric is apparently Trump's ambassador to the Christian Right, a role everyone knows Don Jr couldn't even pretend to attempt.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42973
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

I don't know what to say. If you don't see any value in tying Junior's name early (like, 17 years early) and often to the Republican party so that the average Republican voter associates the two, fair enough.

I disagree.

When the time comes, he'll be the defacto Rep nominee, because of years of conditioning the Rep party to that fact. He'll be touted as the Right's great white hope until it becomes a fundamental truth long before he's actually eligible.

That's the very definition of conditioning.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55867
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

GreenGoo wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 6:15 pm I don't know what to say. If you don't see any value in tying Junior's name early (like, 17 years early) and often to the Republican party so that the average Republican voter associates the two, fair enough.

I disagree.

When the time comes, he'll be the defacto Rep nominee, because of years of conditioning the Rep party to that fact. He'll be touted as the Right's great white hope until it becomes a fundamental truth long before he's actually eligible.

That's the very definition of conditioning.
So optimistic that he'll be a nominee, as if we'll have voting.

He's an heir and he'll get the crown when his time comes.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 55930
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

Ha! I was right.


News: Trump’s son Barron will no longer serve as a delegate at this summer’s Republican National Convention, per a senior Trump campaign adviser & a statement from Melania Trump’s office

The stmt from Melania Trump’s office said "he regretfully declines due to prior commitments"
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42973
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

Well yeah, but you've got to keep up appearances. Turning the election into a drumpf brand tv show won't work unless people believe it's not fixed.

edit: where's the shrug emoji when you need it?

:shrug:
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 29703
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

The basic objection to Barron being Trump's heir is that Barron has never shown any of the qualities that make Trump Trump.

Is he pugnacious? Is he shameless enough to possess the magic? Does he eat potential rivals for breakfast? Has he ever even spoken a word in public?

No.

Leaving aside the plausible rumors that he is pretty seriously autistic, Barron just doesn't seem to have the Trump aura. Name alone is not enough. Plus, the Melania statement that Barron will not be a delegate supports the idea that she and her son aren't invested in Trump's political future.

The next Trump won't be a Trump. They will be something just as socially toxic but politically worse.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Victoria Raverna
Posts: 5615
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:23 am
Location: Jakarta

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Victoria Raverna »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 1:34 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 5:03 pm I'm enraged just reading that, I dare not click play to listen to someone being that stupid (or intentionally obtuse).

I have noticed the "hypothetical defense' being used by politicians more and more recently. It's as if some image consultant has been teaching it to various clients and it's spreading. "Now listen, to avoid the "gotcha" press, anytime they ask you about ANYthing that you or others might or might not do in the future, just say "I don't answer hypotheticals" and BAM! you got em! :D

Except poor, dumb Kristi with a K is only vaguely aware of how it's supposed to work, or even what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, and totally cocked it up.
Well, there's that, since it's a question about an event that did indeed happen. But she's also saying that if she is VP, she won't take the Pence route. It's an explicit nod that she can be counted on to subvert the constitution for her master. I don't doubt that this was on her flash card for questions about Pence and/or Jan 6.
But if Trump win, it'll be his last time to be president, right? So not going to be another chance for him to have to count on his VP to steal the election.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 20502
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Jaymann »

Victoria Raverna wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 7:46 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 1:34 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 5:03 pm I'm enraged just reading that, I dare not click play to listen to someone being that stupid (or intentionally obtuse).

I have noticed the "hypothetical defense' being used by politicians more and more recently. It's as if some image consultant has been teaching it to various clients and it's spreading. "Now listen, to avoid the "gotcha" press, anytime they ask you about ANYthing that you or others might or might not do in the future, just say "I don't answer hypotheticals" and BAM! you got em! :D

Except poor, dumb Kristi with a K is only vaguely aware of how it's supposed to work, or even what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, and totally cocked it up.
Well, there's that, since it's a question about an event that did indeed happen. But she's also saying that if she is VP, she won't take the Pence route. It's an explicit nod that she can be counted on to subvert the constitution for her master. I don't doubt that this was on her flash card for questions about Pence and/or Jan 6.
But if Trump win, it'll be his last time to be president, right? So not going to be another chance for him to have to count on his VP to steal the election.
You think a two term limit is going to stop the Orange Turd? At a minimum he could steal the election for one of his devil spawn. At a maximum he could "suspend" elections altogether.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 44927
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

Yeah, to the extent that he even knows what's in it, trump disdains the Constitution (while ostensibly worshiping it, of course). And that's fine, with SCOTUS on his side.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 6366
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

Jaymann wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 8:01 pm
Victoria Raverna wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 7:46 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 1:34 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 5:03 pm I'm enraged just reading that, I dare not click play to listen to someone being that stupid (or intentionally obtuse).

I have noticed the "hypothetical defense' being used by politicians more and more recently. It's as if some image consultant has been teaching it to various clients and it's spreading. "Now listen, to avoid the "gotcha" press, anytime they ask you about ANYthing that you or others might or might not do in the future, just say "I don't answer hypotheticals" and BAM! you got em! :D

Except poor, dumb Kristi with a K is only vaguely aware of how it's supposed to work, or even what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, and totally cocked it up.
Well, there's that, since it's a question about an event that did indeed happen. But she's also saying that if she is VP, she won't take the Pence route. It's an explicit nod that she can be counted on to subvert the constitution for her master. I don't doubt that this was on her flash card for questions about Pence and/or Jan 6.
But if Trump win, it'll be his last time to be president, right? So not going to be another chance for him to have to count on his VP to steal the election.
You think a two term limit is going to stop the Orange Turd? At a minimum he could steal the election for one of his devil spawn. At a maximum he could "suspend" elections altogether.
Holy shit? Seriously, VR? Have you not been paying attention to anything that’s been going on in the U.S.?

Exactly what Jaymann said.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 71491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

Jaymann wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 8:01 pm You think a two term limit is going to stop the Orange Turd? At a minimum he could steal the election for one of his devil spawn. At a maximum he could "suspend" elections altogether.
I think I minimum is to choose a puppet who isn't his spawn, but family is the more probable. It's TFG's way. I don't see the maximum happening but he has been know to exceed my expectations and his senility/dementia really does seem to be picking up the pace. If he wins, and I don't see that as highly improbable, I don't see his influence ending in four years unless he dies of natural causes and infighting destroys the party.
User avatar
Victoria Raverna
Posts: 5615
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:23 am
Location: Jakarta

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Victoria Raverna »

Kurth wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 12:52 am
Jaymann wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 8:01 pm
Victoria Raverna wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 7:46 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 1:34 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 5:03 pm I'm enraged just reading that, I dare not click play to listen to someone being that stupid (or intentionally obtuse).

I have noticed the "hypothetical defense' being used by politicians more and more recently. It's as if some image consultant has been teaching it to various clients and it's spreading. "Now listen, to avoid the "gotcha" press, anytime they ask you about ANYthing that you or others might or might not do in the future, just say "I don't answer hypotheticals" and BAM! you got em! :D

Except poor, dumb Kristi with a K is only vaguely aware of how it's supposed to work, or even what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, and totally cocked it up.
Well, there's that, since it's a question about an event that did indeed happen. But she's also saying that if she is VP, she won't take the Pence route. It's an explicit nod that she can be counted on to subvert the constitution for her master. I don't doubt that this was on her flash card for questions about Pence and/or Jan 6.
But if Trump win, it'll be his last time to be president, right? So not going to be another chance for him to have to count on his VP to steal the election.
You think a two term limit is going to stop the Orange Turd? At a minimum he could steal the election for one of his devil spawn. At a maximum he could "suspend" elections altogether.
Holy shit? Seriously, VR? Have you not been paying attention to anything that’s been going on in the U.S.?

Exactly what Jaymann said.
If he is powerful enough to change the term limit and be a candidate for the third term, I don't think he is going to need a VP's help to steal election, right?
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 45681
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

That part is true. If he goes that far, he'll have passed voting 'reforms' that guarantee that he won't lose the electoral college. Ever.
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
milo
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Location: Irvine, CA, USA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by milo »

Victoria Raverna wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 2:05 am If he is powerful enough to change the term limit and be a candidate for the third term, I don't think he is going to need a VP's help to steal election, right?
The President cannot change the US Constitution unilaterally. However, the term limit for president in the US Constitution does not prevent anyone from running for a third term. It only states that they are ineligible to *serve* a third term.

If Trump runs for a third term, say as the Trump Party nominee, he will need his own VP to override the will of the voters and the plain language of the constitution by certifying only the (T) electors. At that point, the Democratic candidate would sue in the US Supreme Court to be elected as the rightful President, by virtue of being the qualified candidate. The Republican-dominated USSC would then deny certiorari to avoid appearing "political". The Democrats in Congress may try to submit a bill of impeachment to the Senate, but the Republicans in the Senate would prevent conviction by the required two-thirds majority.

So you can see that Trump's VP choice for his second term could be the lynch pin to enable his serving a third term.
--milo
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 55930
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

If he gets re-elected, we're going to have much more to worry about in the short-term than what his plans are for 4+ years later.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
Post Reply