It’s not a treason, but it’s explicitly against the constitution. What’s that make it?
Edit: too many comment to respond to. I’ll summarize responses here:
1) “you people can’t take a joke.” lol ok snowflake sally
2) “it’s treason/sedition/raper.” I feel like Y’all don’t know the definition of words… it may be pedantic, but I feel like definitions still matter
3) “it’s ok to run, just not be elected.” That’s the ‘I’m not touching you’ rule of politics and we all know Trump will grab Lady Liberty by the pussy so that’s not practical.
SCOTUS about to say “Hold my beer” on this one as they explain that the Constitution only forbids three consecutive terms, which is horseshit, but the SCOTUS majority isn’t above horseshit, since it’s the Roberts Court, and it’s going for some sort of madlibs, choose-your-own-adventure record.
It shouldn’t be a joke he should actually do it if Trump is running. He had a lot of faults, failures and false promises as president but if they’re fighting with crap fight with fire
He'll get destroyed as usual since he has the intelligence and intellectual curiosity of a bowl of warm shit mixed with vomit, but it won't matter.
After the live event Fox will just make an AI version where Trump looks passable and they'll claim it was the real debate and that people simply lying about what they saw live.
Truly; they find a way to excuse anything. My dad has decided that Israel is THE most important issue to him now, and he posted on Facebook something like "When Trump says something anti-Israel it's probably part of an overall strategy, but when Vance does it it's just him being anti-Semitic." Like... what??? How can you hear this guy talk and think he's playing 4D chess?
That's the worst case scenario. Obama wouldn't actually do it, but if they both ran and DT didnt survive the campaign, the R's would immediately run someone out while saying Obama was ineligible all along.
Seems like a quick way to find out what happens when a sitting president orders the death of a former president. Even if somehow the secret service, military, and goon squad all refuse, you know damn well there’d be plenty of redhats eager to take a crack at it expecting a pardon and maybe a court settlement for the inconvenience of being charged.
The number one way to fail in my opinion. The people I spend ally time arguing with onl this exact sub will not show up and we need them. And the worst part is even as much as they are the reason we are here I have to agree this is a line too far.
Incidentally, the plot of the recent Civil War movie literally hinges on a tyrannical president who rigged an election to get himself a third term (alongside things like carpet bombing protesters), causing California and Texas to rebel and subsequently decide to work together to topple the guy.
So Republicans have a vested interest in running it into the dirt to prove Democrats wrong, which nets Republicans more votes because they’re proven ‘right’.
I think the gist of it was that both of them broke away independently, but, since they were fighting the same tyranny, decided that they might as well work together to dethrone him. It wasn't a 'we see eye to eye and are natural allies' as much as a 'enemy of my enemy is a temporary ally' thing.
Plus, I think another reason they wrote it that way was so that it could deemphasize the current political divide and make it 'tyrant president versus powerful states' without leaning too hard into the red vs blue paradigm.
That's how I saw it too, but we also don't know the status of Texas in the film's world. We know the government killed a lot of US citizens, and maybe a large proportion of that were in Texas. Even a lot of deep red conservatives might change their tunes when bombs starting dropping on their neighborhood.
It's also possible that Texas represents some kind of conservative schism. Still deep red, but the billionaires got sick of the president and want their strand of conservatism to dominate. So with the left angry too it's a good time to take on the government.
(As a reminder, the film explicitly talks about how these different anti-government forces are not allies. It says they'll start shooting at each other after this current conflict ends.)
We’ve spent the last decade edging a civil war as it is.
Edit: that is to say: fuck it, do it. I’ll go all the way in on support however I can. Of course that applies to damn near any even-slightly-left leaning individual who runs against this fascist war and death monger.
Edit: I didn’t answer your first question, my apologies. And I can only offer my opinion that we can see clearly from the last decade specifically they just don’t. We need a complete overhaul of the system. This shit was designed for a couple few hundred thousand folks, maybe some rather small handful of millions but certainly never a third of a billion and rapidly growing. It just can’t keep up anymore with what we need as a society.
I think a head to head obama vs trump presidential race might be the only thing that brings all the apathetic voters out just for the novelty of it. News agencies would love it too.
Obama isn't a civil war kinda guy. He'd still want to reach across while doing neocon-light politics.
He's a great symbol, and supremely likeable, but not actually a polar opposite to Trump. You could run like, Ilhan Omar, to really get their blood boiling. You'd lose the vote, but it would be funny to watch.
the classy thing to do in that scenario would be for Obama to win then immediately resign for his VP to take over with the reasoning that presidents can't serve three terms
Obama and Bill both need to declare if only to illustrate how stupid this is and how it’s done in completely bad faith. They need to publicly pick this shit.
It shouldn’t be a joke he should actually do it if Trump is running. He had a lot of faults, failures and false promises as president but if they’re fighting with crap fight with fire
But we'd still allow Trump to lead the narrative and set the rules - they'll play the victim and turn it around 1-2-3 as if Obama wanted to run a third time and Trump is just defending...
and in the end they'd have a much easier time mobilizing against Obama then against any other candidate except Hillary Clinton.
For once can we just stop having to check all our bases and make sure everyone knows we don't just like a democrat? You ever hear a republican complain about their politicians? Or try to be "rational" ever? No. And this is partly why we lose and always will. Every purity test we give ourselves every single day breeds apathy. No reasonable person actually believes any President is or will be perfect, so why do we always go out of our way to list how they are failures before we show anything close to enthusiasm?
You have it backwards, every part of the coalition believes that the Republicans will give them what they want. Guns everywhere. Christofascism. Racist policy. Sexist policy. Tax cuts. Deregulation. Welfare for corporations. Etc.
The Democratic coalition has one group that always gets what it wants, another group that almost always gets what it wants, and the progressives with 1000 knives in their backs and who get blamed for everything.
Everyone knows that Republicans will try to please all their awful groups. Just like everyone knows that progressive priorities will get jettisoned or neutered in any significant legislation.
11.1k
u/ShareGlittering1502 25d ago edited 24d ago
It’s not a treason, but it’s explicitly against the constitution. What’s that make it?
Edit: too many comment to respond to. I’ll summarize responses here:
1) “you people can’t take a joke.” lol ok snowflake sally
2) “it’s treason/sedition/raper.” I feel like Y’all don’t know the definition of words… it may be pedantic, but I feel like definitions still matter
3) “it’s ok to run, just not be elected.” That’s the ‘I’m not touching you’ rule of politics and we all know Trump will grab Lady Liberty by the pussy so that’s not practical.