2025 American Political (ob-?)Scene

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steph said:
Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he is seriously considering a third term. It seems to me that the US Constitution does not allow it. On the other hand, Trump has shown that electoral defeat is not an option for him. How far do you think this third-term issue could go?
Click to expand...
www.bbc.com

Trump says he won't seek a third term

"This is not something I'm looking to do," the US president says about speculation he may try to find a way to run again in 2028.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
The Orange Anti-Christ's desire to be Dictator for Life will go down like a lead balloon ... in flames. Not even the boot-licking GOPers are going to want to see him delete the political futures of any who think they might have a shot at POTUS one day.
 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz: former House speaker and husband killed in politically motivated shooting​


BLAINE, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz says former state House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in a politically motivated assassination. A second lawmaker and his wife were shot and wounded.

“We must all, in Minnesota and across the country, stand against all forms of political violence,” Walz said at a press conference Saturday. “Those responsible for this will be held accountable.”

The wounded lawmaker was identified as state Sen. John Hoffman, a Democrat, was first elected in 2012. He runs Hoffman Strategic Advisors, a consulting firm. He previously served as vice chair of the Anoka Hennepin School Board, which manages the largest school district in Minnesota.

Hoffman is married and has one daughter. Hortman was the top House Democratic leader in the state Legislature and a former House speaker. She was first elected in 2004.
 
TrumpCentrist said:
www.bbc.com

Trump says he won't seek a third term

"This is not something I'm looking to do," the US president says about speculation he may try to find a way to run again in 2028.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
The extract would have been better with the question the journalist asked him:


So to the question :

« Are you seriously considering a third term even though it’s prohibited by the constitution ? »


The answer is (in order) :

- so many people want me to do it

- I don’t know if it’s constitutional that they’re not allowing you to do it (has he ever read the Constitution before swearing to defend it?)

- it’s not something I’m looking to do (so maybe he doesn’t want to do it, but with so many people eager to have him in a 3rd term, maybe he’ll make the effort.)



that does not sound like a « no ».
 
Steph said:
The extract would have been better with the question the journalist

- it’s not something I’m looking to do (so maybe he doesn’t want to do it, but with so many people eager to have him in a 3rd term, maybe he’ll make the effort.)



that does not sound like a « no ».
Click to expand...
They want me. How can I turn down that love for me? So naturally I said yes. Wouldn't you?
 
tbm3fan said:
No California taxpayer should be forced to subsidize poorly performing red states.
Click to expand...
Sorry, have to disagree.
We are a nation, not a collection of individual states.
My neighbor's success directly influences the world in which I live; no one wants to live next to a failed state.
 
tbm3fan said:
They want me. How can I turn down that love for me? So naturally I said yes. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Trump is an egomaniac, not a moron. Trump running for a third term would mean Obama would be able to run. Obama is not Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, he actually has a decent shot at winning if Trump runs again. Why on Earth would Trump willingly give the Democrats such a golden opportunity?
 
DOR said:
Sorry, have to disagree.
We are a nation, not a collection of individual states.
My neighbor's success directly influences the world in which I live; no one wants to live next to a failed state.
Click to expand...
Come on now of all people. How could you not realize the irony of my statement paraphrasing the President himself.
 
TrumpCentrist said:
Trump is an egomaniac, not a moron. Trump running for a third term would mean Obama would be able to run. Obama is not Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, he actually has a decent shot at winning if Trump runs again. Why on Earth would Trump willingly give the Democrats such a golden opportunity?
Click to expand...
You seem to overlook President Obama's respect for the Constitution.
Regardless of what the Orange Anti-Christ does, there is no more than a zero chance of Obama running a third time.
 
DOR said:
You seem to overlook President Obama's respect for the Constitution.
Regardless of what the Orange Anti-Christ does, there is no more than a zero chance of Obama running a third time.
Click to expand...
As a Satanist I do hope you liberals are right about Trump being the Anti-Christ. That would be sooooo badass.
 
TrumpCentrist said:
Trump is an egomaniac, not a moron. Trump running for a third term would mean Obama would be able to run. Obama is not Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, he actually has a decent shot at winning if Trump runs again. Why on Earth would Trump willingly give the Democrats such a golden opportunity?
Click to expand...
I think Trump will try running for a third term, or atleast try to cheat to ensure that Jr or Vance win in 2028.

With all the shady stuff this administration, and the Trump family is pulling off during this term for self enrichment, if the Dems ever win again it means endless investigations and hearings and probably a real risk of prison time. And with the precedent set of weaponization of Government agencies against political opponents can one be sure that the Dems will play by the rules next time?
 
InExile said:
I think Trump will try running for a third term, or atleast try to cheat to ensure that Jr or Vance win in 2028.

With all the shady stuff this administration, and the Trump family is pulling off during this term for self enrichment, if the Dems ever win again it means endless investigations and hearings and probably a real risk of prison time. And with the precedent set of weaponization of Government agencies against political opponents can one be sure that the Dems will play by the rules next time?
Click to expand...
Projection: "The GOPers are a bunch of criminals; can we be sure the Dems aren't, too?"
 
DOR said:
Projection: "The GOPers are a bunch of criminals; can we be sure the Dems aren't, too?"
Click to expand...
If Biden had an Attorney General who listened to him, even a little bit, not a Pam Bondi who seems to take orders from Trump, we would not be in the situation we are in today.

Trump would have been prosecuted for Election interference and perhaps the documents case at the very least if the proceedings had stared immediately after Jan 6th. Ofcourse he might have run and won from prison......but maybe not....
 
InExile said:
If Biden had an Attorney General who listened to him, even a little bit, not a Pam Bondi who seems to take orders from Trump, we would not be in the situation we are in today.

Trump would have been prosecuted for Election interference and perhaps the documents case at the very least if the proceedings had stared immediately after Jan 6th. Ofcourse he might have run and won from prison......but maybe not....
Click to expand...
And your point is ... ?
I see nothing in these statements to relate GOPer criminality to the Democrats.
Failing to prosecute a former president is not unprecedented.
 
DOR said:
And your point is ... ?
I see nothing in these statements to relate GOPer criminality to the Democrats.
Failing to prosecute a former president is not unprecedented.
Click to expand...
I think that when the Dems get back in power they should be willing to bend the rules to defeat the MAGA's and hold members of the Trump administration accountable.

They don't need to be as lawless as the Trump administration, but you can't be competitive in the system when the other sides always cheats and you feel bound by 'rules'
 
DOR said:
Nope.
Not a fan of out-fascisting the fascists.
I'd rather lose elections, honestly, and rule when we win with integrity.
You know, Obamaism,
Click to expand...
Thats admirable, but if we are heading to a more authoritarian future I would rather it be a centrist, somewhat liberal regime like Singapore rather the crazies on either side.

Besides if the MAGA's get a taste of their own medicine, perhaps they might start to appreciate the 'rules' or norms of a Democracy a bit you know, rather than just seeing them as loopholes to exploit.
 
InExile said:
Thats admirable, but if we are heading to a more authoritarian future I would rather it be a centrist, somewhat liberal regime like Singapore rather the crazies on either side.

Besides if the MAGA's get a taste of their own medicine, perhaps they might start to appreciate the 'rules' or norms of a Democracy a bit you know, rather than just seeing them as loopholes to exploit.
Click to expand...
Ever been to Singapore? They don't allow opposition politicians to gain any degree of support. First sign of that, and they bankrupt you so that you are no longer legally eligible to run for office. The only thing "liberal" about Singapore is that they do it (mostly) with the consent of the people, and without physical violence.

As for respecting the outcome of elections and ruling with integrity, that has absolutely nothing to do with left, right, or middle-of-the-road. George HW Bush lost, with honor. He may have been the last GOPer to do so, and in today's political spectrum he might just be a left-of-center Democrat. But, the point is this: fair, honest, open, and constitutionally valid elections do not have any claim to a certain part of the political spectrum.

Oh, and the only thing "progressive" about Obama was his popularity.
 
The US seem indeed to be moving toward a more authoritarian regime, and I fear that the question of what the Democrats will be able to do once they are in power will be postponed until much later.

By definition, Trump cannot lose an election. Prosecuting the January 6 rioters was a "grave national injustice." Big law firms are being urged to bend the knee. The military has been sent to the largest city in the largest state governed by a Democrat.
I don't see the Democrats winning an election for a long time. :(
 
Steph said:
The US seem indeed to be moving toward a more authoritarian regime, and I fear that the question of what the Democrats will be able to do once they are in power will be postponed until much later.

By definition, Trump cannot lose an election. Prosecuting the January 6 rioters was a "grave national injustice." Big law firms are being urged to bend the knee. The military has been sent to the largest city in the largest state governed by a Democrat.
I don't see the Democrats winning an election for a long time. :(
Click to expand...
I am not so sure about that. Trump has guts to fight, he can be reckless when really wants something bad, like Jan 6th shows. But I don't think he has the focused discipline to break down the US system of checks and balances in just 4 years.

But I believe that he will force a constitutional crisis before he is done which will require a compromise like the one of 1876; if we are lucky.

Worst case, it could be really bad, I wouldn't think it would lead to civil war, but we could definitely see violence and breakdown of order in parts of the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top