BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
tequila4kapp said:
That is such a skewed view of things.
The deep state was an resistance movement against the first Trump administration. HRC, BIden, Harris others have openly discussed Resisting and continuing to fight. They and political opponents used lawfare to prevent Trump from being President in 2025. The agencies of government have been manipulated to advance the political interests of a party (or perhaps both but we don't know it yet). It is entirely foreseeable and appropriate that all of that is dealt with. That is not (just) retribution, it is cleansing our government of inappropriate people for their positions.
On top of that the government is a bloated heap of waste. It is appropriate for the Executive to try to right size and refocus government spending (Clinton and Obama tried the same thing).
It is a legitimate problem that a party can cherry pick to find a political hack US District Judge and that judge can halt the Executive branch. This cuts both ways. The only talk of impeachment I've seen is for judges who have an obvious political bias/conflict of interest and who have issued the most egregious injunctions. Even so, we know those judges won't be removed by not a single D Senator will vote for it.
I personally find the talk of Trump staying in office beyond this term patently absurd. Lump it right in there with Fascist and Existential Threat To Democracy. It is just lazy TDS fearmongering that falls on deaf ears outside a certain segment of the D party. There is no way this is happening.
The question I have is do purportedly educated people actually believe this? Or are they just demagoguing? I don't know which is worse, but either way is bad.
Lawfare and activist judges (who are cherry picked) is bad. Both sides have done it. But the judicial resistance to Trump has been unprecedented. The recent TROs (including the one stayed by Justice Roberts last night) have been patently absurd and unlawful.
Biden's orders were challenged, but there is no comparable example of multiple judges issuing TROs within days (sometimes hours) of executive actions. One judge received a TRO request at 11:00 pm. and issued a TRO the following morning - before the Government even had a chance to respond.
The supreme court is about to come down hard on this. And that was part of Trump's plan.
Hey, if Trump says he'd like to stay in office past his constitutional limit, why shouldn't we believe he will act upon it? Words have meaning, even for Trump.
It's simple! We're not supposed to believe him when it's an obviously bad thing. Otherwise you should believe him entirely! Got it?
This is conspiracy theory nonsense.
First of all, Trump is trolling all the liberals by saying this type of thing. He knows they (and you) will overreact - in fact he's counting on it. It reminds me of Lucy and the football. You know what is going to happen, but Charlie Brown (the liberals) fall for it every time. It is funny (and odd) that you are so easily manipulated, both by Trump and the dems who lead the overreaction.
Beyond that, if Trump did try to run, he would be shut down immediately, He's not eligible to be on a state ballot and most (if not all) states would not list him. It is not different than a US born citizen or person under 35 attempting to run - they can't. And even if he was listed on ballots and somehow won the election (which is a fantasy), then he would not be inaugurated. Full stop.
You basically just did the thing I described above. You said that Trump doesn't really mean it when he says he wants a third term. In other words, don't believe him when he says the obviously bad thing. Just trolling!
Then you argue that the laws would not allow it. I actually agree with that, he would almost certainly be blocked. But that doesn't mean he doesn't want to try. I believe him when he says that.
First of all, its a given that Trump says a lot of crazy and often false/wildly embellished things. Often he's just posturing/negotiating or trolling. Sometimes his narcissism compels him to say stupid things.
The question is how do rationale people, in good faith, sort through these things? The dems strategy has been to react - and most often overreact - to every idiotic thing he says. How did that work out? Chicken little syndrome.
In terms of the third term, it really doesn't matter what Trump says or intends. It will not happen for the reasons stated - which you apparently agree with. So why get spun up about this? He's playing you like a fiddle and you seem to be enjoying it, which is very odd.
You and other liberals are Charlie Brown (or Don Quixote, if you prefer). Meanwhile, the constant overreactions result in a loss of credibility - if everything is terrible or outrageous, then nothing really is. You're being tuned out by swing voters, particularly because of the absurd fascism/Nazi/dictator claims which people generally reject.
Trump is picking issues where he has strong voter approval (border, DOGE, trans sports) and the dems can't help themselves to oppose him for no good reason.
Not sure who you are arguing with here. I'm not spun up about Trump's statements. I'm criticizing the line of argument that says "you shouldn't believe him, unless he's saying a thing I like." Either you believe he means what he says or you don't.
I believe he generally means it. Sure, some of what he says will be impossible for various reasons. But he probably still means it when he says he wants something.
We're arguing about the bolded statement which I believe is a false choice - empirically sometimes he means what he says and sometimes he doesn't. A thinking person tries to filter that, like you would do with any other politician. The Bushes/Obama/Clinton/Biden certainly said things that were not true or were aspirational.
And regardless of whether Trump "means it", the really important question is whether there is any chance what Trump says/claims can actually happen. If it is essentially impossible (i.e., a third term), there is no reason to (over)react to it.
There's another question and it is one of temperament. What does it say about Trump and his relationship to the nation, the Constitution, the rule of law, etc., that he even wants to bother floating the possibility of a third term?
And yes, I'm sure you'll say that Biden or Obama or someone also flouted the rule of law in passing this or that executive order. Fine. Trump does more than a little bit of this himself, but fine. I would say those were usually in favor of advancing some larger goal they were looking to accomplish. Trump getting a third term is pretty much just about him.
Again, not going to happen but I think it does speak to who we've got leading us right now and what his interests are.
