DJT and a Third Term? (Page 1/7)
blackrams MAR 31, 07:14 AM
A report I saw this morning indicated that DJT may have an interest in a "Third Term".

The suggestion has been made that VP Vance and Pres. Trump could reverse roles in another campaign with VP Vance running as President and DJT as VP. Then if elected, Vance could step aside and the DJT would assume the role again as President.

As far fetched as this idea is, it might work although as just about everything else has gone, SCOTUS would end up deciding this. Personally, I just don't see this as working. I also don't see any reason currently why Vance were to step aside. I'm thinking all of this is to just give Dems something else to worry about and I'm loving it.

------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

olejoedad MAR 31, 08:22 AM
Trump loves to troll the Left and they fall for it every single time.
blackrams MAR 31, 09:05 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Trump loves to troll the Left and they fall for it every single time.



The left would include the general media................

Rams
Jake_Dragon MAR 31, 10:28 AM
It wont work, there are rules and if the President steps down and the VP is not eligible then Speaker of the House would be made President.
blackrams MAR 31, 10:35 AM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:

It wont work, there are rules and if the President steps down and the VP is not eligible then Speaker of the House would be made President.


Agreed and that's why I feel like it's just another distraction DJT is giving the Dems high blood pressure over.

Rams
theBDub MAR 31, 11:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Agreed and that's why I feel like it's just another distraction DJT is giving the Dems high blood pressure over.

Rams



He said “I’m not joking” when asked if he was joking.

It’s clearly unconstitutional. Trump knows it, we all know it. To pretend like it’s okay for him to suggest this is just changing the goalposts of acceptability for our POTUS. Our presidents aren’t kings, and that’s by design.

Putin’s first term started out with limits. 25 years later…
olejoedad MAR 31, 11:44 AM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


He said “I’m not joking” when asked if he was joking.

It’s clearly unconstitutional. Trump knows it, we all know it. To pretend like it’s okay for him to suggest this is just changing the goalposts of acceptability for our POTUS. Our presidents aren’t kings, and that’s by design.

Putin’s first term started out with limits. 25 years later…



And Trump just trolled you again....
theBDub MAR 31, 01:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


And Trump just trolled you again....



Joe, ask yourself why our POTUS is “trolling” the American public. Why do you assume he’s kidding or “trolling” here, and why does that make it okay?

He’s talking about doing something that’s explicitly against the Constitution. Do you not care about the Constitution anymore? Why does he get a pass from you, but someone else wouldn’t get a pass?
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 31, 01:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

Joe, ask yourself why our POTUS is “trolling” the American public. Why do you assume he’s kidding or “trolling” here, and why does that make it okay?

He’s talking about doing something that’s explicitly against the Constitution. Do you not care about the Constitution anymore? Why does he get a pass from you, but someone else wouldn’t get a pass?



Ok, first of all... no matter how insanely radical you think I am, or anyone else here. You can be absolutely sure I would not vote for Donald Trump for a 3rd term because it would be ridiculous. I love what the guy is doing right now... but it's completely asinine to think that he would attempt to run for a third term, even if for some reason he thought he could get away with it.

And furthermore, as radical as you think the "conservative" judges are... they literally rule on the basis of language in the code of law and constitutionality. They would not authorize things merely because you think they liked him. This is the difference between an activist judge.


This once again, respectfully, shows that I think you exist in an echo-chamber. Even many radical Democrats are calling it out: https://www.nytimes.com/202...democrats-toxic.html

And sure, Newsom is positioning himself for the next presidential election... but the Democrats right now live in an echo-chamber. Otherwise... they would have likely won the election. But they're so focused on trans rights, and... I don't even know... nothing else? That they've missed all the real-world things... like skyrocketing crime, mass illegal immigration, failing schools, etc.
blackrams MAR 31, 02:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

He said “I’m not joking” when asked if he was joking.




Would you have expected him to answer the question differently? While I can not suggest anything as to what is the truth, he just made it questionable on whether or not he's a "Lame Duck President" this term. That in itself changes many things. We all know how much a "Lame Duck" gets done toward the end of their term. Well that for what must be Congressional approved. Biden (or his staff) seems to have done a lot of financial transaction moving money around so that DJT wouldn't have access to it (Stacey Abrams as one example).

As you and Todd both said, it would be unconstitutional (unless that gets changed by 2/3rds of the states). That's very unlikely to happen.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-31-2025).]