Soooooo, the guy who invented the theory thinks it will work? That is hardly surprising. And he still holds this idea despite the failures in 2020? That’s hardly surprising? And his legal theory is wrong which doesn’t bode well. It takes a majority of each house of Congress - not just the President of the Senate, to accept an alternate slate. I put this with the idea that Trump declares elections illegal and all 50 Secretaries of State will acquiese
Trump/Pubs/MAGA declare something
??
Trump gets a third term
They can’t ignore them, they have to count something.
So … they don’t improvise, they don’t adapt, and they don’t try something else?
From whence the confidence in that position? Is it because of Trump’s lifelong, unimpeachable, indisputable, and well-documented behavior of scrupulously abiding by the laws?
ETA: and since part of the plan w/Eastman was to take it to the Supreme Court, how would anybody be confident in presuming which way that case would have gone?
And why should we keep putting Democracy at that kind of unnecessary risk?
It also speaks to the fact that, Trump himself aside, there are serious people in his orbit who are ready, willing and able to concoct schemes to circumvent the laws and the Constitution in their attempts to secure power for their side. Do you really think that they just gave up entirely after one loss? One they suffered no ill effects from? No one went to jail, no one lost money, and they came back to win the next election, so they didn’t even suffer in the “court of public opinion”.
They’re still there, and they’re still trying to concoct a scheme that will let them retain power. As it stands, Trump is still their best vessel for this, but even if they fail again with Trump, they won’t stop trying until someone else with power makes them stop.
And as the old saying goes, “We have to win every time, they only have to win once.” Once they find a scheme that works, the rest of the US is fucked.
Never said that. I just said the alternate slate strategy was not a success in 2020 and would probably fail in 2028. Now, if Congress passed a law making a counting of the electoral votes more than just procedural then it might work. Although a better strategy would probably reject enough EVs so no one gets a majority then let the House vote (by state).
I’m not motivated by trying to change the minds of @Smapti or @Saint_Cad or anybody else with whose argument I engage.
Just like in the Debate class that I took or in the courtrooms where I once considered I’d one day be arguing … my intended audience is others who are not engaging in the arguments directly and the (probably) numerous lurkers who watch but don’t chime in.
Though the two posters I named seem to come at this question from widely divergent points of view, I still see the totality of the situation very differently from how each of them does, and give profoundly different weight to what has happened, is happening, did not happen, and is not happening … right now than I believe they do.
One important factor of which I think we should never lose sight is the
[“flood the zone with shit” + “muzzle velocity”]
factor (Steve Bannon).
When Trump was still subject to two State and two Federal prosecutions, I was steeped in the documentary evidence. I had endless alleged facts readily at hand. I understood the cases and Trump’s ‘defenses’ to the cases.
Flooding the zone and muzzle velocity are a way to confuse our minds and our memories by overloading the circuits. There’s only so much we can handle, pay attention to, and retain at any given time.
It’s coupled with a masterful demagogic gaslighting campaign that’s been unyielding since 2016.
Resist … those efforts. Resist them in any way you can.
Go remind yourselves of what did and didn’t happen. It’s honestly too much for even the most dedicated and fair-minded media outlets to do.
And I’m not trying to change yours. On this board, there is a lot of posters who put forth that Trump speaks and it happens. I just want more meat to the argument. If (generic) you claim that Trump will win in 2028 by declaring elections illegal, then explain how that will be put into action? Will Trump arrest a Secretary of State that holds an election? Will he send the military out to close down polling places or in Colorado that is vote by mail order the Postmaster General to intercept all of the ballots?
Take your alternate slates idea. It failed in 2020 so what has to happen for it to succeed in 2028?
In October 2020, I had absolutely no idea what the Slate of Electors was really about, nor could I ever have imagined how the Alternate Slate of Electors plot might work.
Neither did I foresee Al Qaeda flying airplanes into buildings or arming sneakers and Jockey shorts before hopping a flight.
Which is the point: are they still out there? Do we have some legitimate basis to believe they’ve had some change of heart and abandoned their malign goals? Does the machinery that backs their strategy look stronger or weaker? Do we have additional evidence of what plots they might be hatching? What are the checks and balances (“guardrails”) on which we’re counting? How impregnable and resilient are they? Have they been under attack and revision relatively recently?
The idea that Alternate Slate of Electors won’t work in 2028 totally misses the point.
Trump and his minions went too far and are going way too much farther, and we just CANNOT afford to lose much more. When it comes stopping this mess, the word “overkill” doesn’t even enter my mind. If the ever hopeful among you turn out by some miracle to be right, then our country only deteriorates slowly-yay whoop.
If you are wrong, then we have already lost it all, but so fast we won’t have any time to react at all-oh, fuck.
The thing is, even the best of news is still a big pile of shit.
Winner winner chicken dinner. He doesn’t care if it’s true or not (although he certainly would like it to be) – he’s flipped the topic of the day to something other than Signal…which, by the way, is going to result in Exactly Nothing. No firings, no hearings, no policy changes. He gets away with it again.
This. Too much “Trump is magic and anything he says he wants to do is totally possible.”
I think those who imagine that Trump will pull some specific trick and thereby achieve total power are missing the big picture. The GOP is now a fascist insurgency. If they could declare the constitution null and void and Donald Trump dictator for life, they absolutely would do it. If Trump could make the same declaration, he would. If they could do it, they would dispense with tricks and just do it.
So why don’t they? Because they can’t. And why can’t they? Well, the simple answer is that they haven’t taken the steps Hitler did in 1933 (and many years leading up to that point) in order to secure total power within a year and a half (Paul Hindenburg, as president, had the ability to fire Hitler, and he was also key to retaining the support of the military. Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, after which Hitler immediately rolled the presidency into his own position of Führer).
None of this is to say that Trump and many in the GOP aren’t morons who think a trick could work. The whole election denial scheme and Jan. 6 are evidence of this. But had Trump “won” through such tricks in 2021, the whole country would have gone up in flames, just as it would now. If anything, it’s much more of a powder keg now than then, since Trump has shown himself to be the worst of bad actors since then.
Trump flatters himself by thinking he will, in 2028, both be alive and have the capacity to run again. He is dying before our eyes. But Trump’s role is no longer to serve as leader. Look at what he is doing with Musk.
Rather, Trump’s role going forward is to keep the Deplorable Cult together so that the GOP fascist insurgency can use it as a power base. That’s it. Once Trump dies or is equivalent to dead via dementia or other forms of incapacitation, the spell will break, and the fascist insurgency will fail. To use the example above, if Hitler had died before Hindenburg, would another nazi such as Göring or Himmler have been able to take over and be as “successful” as Hitler was? I highly doubt it. Hindenburg could easily have appointed someone from a different party. The nazis could have opposed him, but would they have retained the support of the military? Etc. etc.
Trump and the GOP are not going to succeed in consolidating autocracy before Trump can no longer serve his ceremonial role. Then the GOP will be fucked because, once the Trumpian mind control over the Deplorables is gone, not just our side but everyone will see that these are cowardly, evil people who sold their souls and tried to sell out the US.
Also, talk of a third term is a standard Trump troll. He never stops and won’t stop until he can no longer speak or tweet.
If we want to get academic about this thing because it’s actually irrelevant per the reasons above, the Supreme Court (to which this thing would inevitably go) is not going to let Trump run again. No one here has mentioned the context of the 22nd amendment:
Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment on March 21, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951 […]
Why 1947? Because Roosevelt had just died two years previous during his fourth term, and Republicans in particular but apparently the country as a whole did not want a president to be able to do that again. The whole point was to prevent a popular president from serving forever. So, again, tricks like “he can’t be elected to a third term but can succeed someone to one!” aren’t going to work.
As for whether he will do it, he just said he’s not joking.
Whether he tries it will have to do with polls, not judges. If enough voters are fooled into thinking tariffs and cruelty worked, Trump will find a way.
Trump has been musing about a third term for some time, so in many ways this was nothing new. Trump loves to troll the public, and especially liberals, with the idea that he could remain president indefinitely, or that there’s no need for future elections. It sets our collective hair on fire when he does it, so he returns to this theme with satisfaction.
…
When pressed on what methods he was actually talking about, Trump let slip just one: JD Vance could win the next presidential election, Trump said, with himself as Vance’s VP, and then resign, handing Trump the presidency.
…
If the radical majority on the Supreme Court ultimately greenlit this backdoor route for Trump, it would produce political havoc. JD Vance, or whoever else was playing the Medvedev role, would be “running” but everyone would know it was be a sham. Democrats might then try to run someone equally popular as their VP, such as former President Barack Obama, who would suddenly be able to serve again through the same loophole.
This would make a mockery of our system and invite challenges at each state ballot level and then with Congress at the certification stage.
If any argument is going to win over Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, it is likely this one.
…
Bottom line? Trump isn’t likely going to be allowed to run in any capacity that allows him a third term, whether through election or succession. That won’t stop him from arguing that he should be allowed to, if only because he knows it will upset many on the left to hear it.
Why can’t he be elected VP? Like you say, there are two avenues to the Presidency - election and succession - and the 22nd Amendment blocks just one of them: election. He’s still eligible to succeed to the Presidency.
So per the 12th Amendment, he is not a “person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President,” just ineligible to be elected to it, so he is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being VP. (ETA: The only reason to bar someone from being VP is if they’re ineligible to succeed to the Presidency. That’s what the VP is there for.)
So the Don Jr./Don Sr. ticket in 2028 would be as legal as church on Sunday, and Don Jr. would resign immediately after being sworn in on 1/20/29 in order to preserve his inheritance. And FFOTUS would commence his third term.
Also your idea in the OP works, if the GOP wins the House in 2028. The Don Jr./Eric ticket wins, Trump gets chosen as Speaker on 1/3/29, Don Jr. and Eric both resign on the afternoon of 1/20/29, and he’s President again, skipping right past any issues of 12th Amendment interpretation.
The argument that the authors of the 22nd Amendment wouldn’t have meant to leave such a loophole doesn’t carry water with me. Maybe they meant to exclude a 2-term President from having a 3rd term as President by any means, but that isn’t what they said. And it wouldn’t have been that hard for them to say it, so there’s no reason for the courts to stretch the Amendment to cover a situation that it could have easily covered but didn’t. (Seriously, if you don’t take the time to consider what your wording means when you’re writing a mf’ing Constitutional Amendment, don’t come crying to me.) Especially when the courts of 2028 will be even more a bunch of right-wing clowns than they are now.
There’s no need for any “faith”; just recognition that nobody with the ability to do so will even try to stop him. It’s easy for power grabs to succeed in the face of such indifference and cowardice.
Once Trump dies or is equivalent to dead via dementia or other forms of incapacitation, the spell will break, and the fascist insurgency will fail.
Ditto. I’ve lived through a bunch of moments over the past 40 years that supposedly marked the high-water mark of the conservative ascendancy. (ETA: E.g. remember “peak wingnut” in 2008?) Yet here we are.
I tried to make this argument in another thread, but was shot down immediately, so I backed off from a potential derailment. Glad to see that somebody else here agrees with me.
Yeah. I stopped believing in all the rhetoric about the “pendulum swinging back” long ago. There’s no pendulum, there’s a ratchet that only goes rightwards; and once it’s all the way to the Right they’ll nail it in place.
We’ll see if they shoot me down here, but the counterargument always seems to be that the drafters of the 22nd Amendment couldn’t have possibly meant to leave such a loophole. I’ve addressed that; we’ll see how it holds up.
ETA: I just went and looked; I’ve been making this argument since May 2008. To quote Arlo Guthrie, “I’m not proud. Or tired.”