Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol and I'm sure all those people will learn their lesson and we'll be well past this all soon, right? right?

They'll blame Biden for all of it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Gap03 said:

If the Dems were smart, they'd be pushing the Supreme Court to consider this in the run-up for the 2028 election.  I know that the SC would say that the issue isn't ripe, but there needs to be existing political pressure in place to prevent Roberts and Co. from pulling the same old "Aw shucks, we just can't rule on this so close to the election, so maybe next time ..." bullshit.   

This right here. Have Obama gear up for some sort of President / Vice President campaign, and MAGA will ensure the Court closes every single loophole* Trump might use just to keep "that boy" (as my uncle called him) off the ballot. 

 

*does not apply to the "I'm going to create a national emergency and eliminate the election for "the good of the country" option 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Trump's going to cut a deal where he and his family and every family friend gets a lifetime pardon and a payment of a billion trillion dollars a year for his lifetime plus 25 years in exchange for him not running for and winning a third term.

 

“That’s one bargain of a buyout, where do we sign?” - Aggy

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
14 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-running-for-a-third-term

Other legal experts, however, point to the last sentence of the 12th Amendment, which covers the Electoral College, as a roadblock for any twice-elected president attempting to return to the White House through the vice presidency. It says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Still, in court, a lawyer could try to argue that being a "natural born" citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years are the only presidential eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution, says Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law, who proposed in 2004 that Clinton run for vice president.

"I want to make it very clear that I'm identifying an argument that Trump could make in order to get back into the White House. I'm not endorsing it," Gillers says. "But we know from experience that even if it's far-fetched and it offers the possibility of a third presidential term, Trump will make it. If his health holds up, he will make the argument he likes the job. Whether or not it succeeds in court is another matter."

Gillers posits that Trump "could make a deal" with Vance that, ahead of the 2028 election, they switch places on the Republican ticket, and if they win the White House again, Vance resigns and Trump becomes president.

To avoid any debate about whether the 12th Amendment forbids presidential electors from choosing a twice-elected president as vice president, Gillers says there could be a similar arrangement in which Trump does not run on the winning Republican ticket but, after the newly elected vice president resigns, becomes vice president with congressional approval.

"It is not implausible. And just the existence of the possibility of it in the next four years gives Trump power that enhances his position," Gillers says. "The members of Congress in 2027 will know that they're not dealing with a lame duck necessarily because Trump could still hold out, through 2027 and 2028, the possibility of his return to power and the power that that possibility gives him — to get Congress to bend to his will."

Does anyone seriously believe Trump would trust Vance (or anyone not named Trump) to step down if they’re elected president and allow him to take their place?

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Does anyone seriously believe Trump would trust Vance (or anyone not named Trump) to step down if they’re elected president and allow him to take their place?

True as far as it goes.  But, what does he have to lose?  

Assuming the law holds as written, he can't run for re-election to a third term.  That much is clear.

Other schemes to avoid application of the 22nd involve certain post-election events that he can't completely control.

Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

True as far as it goes.  But, what does he have to lose? 

His narcissism. Except he can’t lose that. So he will never play second fiddle to anyone for any reason even if it’s an obvious sham. He’s not going to be anyone’s opening act.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, NWBuck said:

This right here. Have Obama gear up for some sort of President / Vice President campaign, and MAGA will ensure the Court closes every single loophole* Trump might use just to keep "that boy" (as my uncle called him) off the ballot. 

 

But Obama had consecutive  terms and Trump didn’t!  See, it’s different you stupid lib.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Well If that guy is also a principled and pragmatic conservative, how about he don’t about to get married, buy a house, and have kids. Simple. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

The Constitution doesn't allow a third term, period.  If he tries, either by arguing that the Constitution does allow it or by just defying the Constitution outright, then it goes to the courts and ultimately SCOTUS will rule.  There, either SCOTUS abandons the Constitution and officially becomes a member of the fascist Trump party or they rule against him and according to the Constitution.  From there, if he defies the SCOTUS order then SCOTUS will order federal marshals to remove him from the White House.  If those dudes refuse to enforce the order then we're fucked.  Trump Co. could also meet those marshals at the White House with armed guards.  There might actually be a shootout.  Whoever is left standing when the smoke clears wins.

They're going to argue that FDR got 4 terms, and that Trump would still only have 2 consecutive terms.

And when push comes to shove, I think the Supreme Court folds and lets it happen.

There is still a decent chance that he drops dead before it comes to that.  He's 78, obese, and filled with rage.

And I'd be willing to bet that every SC Justice is hoping for that so they don't have to make the call.  But if they do, I don't think they'll stand up to him.  His power by that point will be unlike anything any other president has wielded.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

The premise of this thread is important, but I think we are at a point where we just approach this as if Trump and his cult are the enemy of the country and we just have to accept that the folks who voted for him are beyond redemption.

Anyone who comes around -- that's gravy.  And if they come around, they need to be treated like the prodigal son. 

We need to laser focus on the enemies of the country who have power through money or political office.  We all bear the repercussions of allowing them to seize power.  I'm not getting much joy out of shaming the victims who were irresponsible with their votes. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
50 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Leopards for america-first supply chain expert expats

IMG_2929.thumb.jpeg.6eb8f8ee522bbe9c8a90bef4a4a1c790.jpeg
 

They really mean it. Dear is in all caps.

 

47 minutes ago, YChang said:

They post these messages like letters to Santa from little kids. 

e88c49f_1678724001304-3.jpg

231218212603-russians-want-troops-home-chance.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
33 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

They're going to argue that FDR got 4 terms, and that Trump would still only have 2 consecutive terms.

And when push comes to shove, I think the Supreme Court folds and lets it happen.

There is still a decent chance that he drops dead before it comes to that.  He's 78, obese, and filled with rage.

And I'd be willing to bet that every SC Justice is hoping for that so they don't have to make the call.  But if they do, I don't think they'll stand up to him.  His power by that point will be unlike anything any other president has wielded.

I think the Supreme Court will hold the line.  Roberts has shown he's not just a GOP/Trump shill.

Posted
1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

The immunity case was a dead giveaway and anyone who thinks the Supreme Court will get in the way of him running for a third term is a naive fool.

We'll see.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So does this mean we're bringing Obama off the bench?

Do you think Obama wants to deal with it?

After the election he made the comment somewhere along the lines of "Americans no longer want democracy". 

I could see him saying fuck off and enjoying his millions somewhere else. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, GenXer said:

Leopards

IMG_2928.thumb.jpeg.54955d6458c521032957f8b3956a7f45.jpeg

Bootstraps for soulblade

Elect a clown the antichrist, expect a circus the apocalypse.

One of ya'll can offset your financial losses by getting that bumper sticker made.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

I am so fucking sick of people who are allegedly not nazis gargling John Roberts' balls, I swear to christ. Ojo Rojo might be a more annoying poster these days than Icono.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Except for that whole ruled that he might be disqualified but he was special and must still be on ballots and then later made him an unaccountable king thing. 

I must have missed that opinion.

Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I am so fucking sick of people who are allegedly not nazis gargling John Roberts' balls, I swear to christ. Ojo Rojo might be a more annoying poster these days than Icono.

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

ah, so you're that "1/3rd" that I always hear about.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

You are not nearly as rational or objective as you think you are if you can't see John Roberts for who he has always been.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

In order to analyze something objectively, you need to have all available information. Based on the below, you're analyzing based on partial information, which is the equivalent to analyzing based upon misinformation. If you can't see that, you're being neither objective nor rational. 

17 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I must have missed that opinion.

 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

You are not nearly as rational or objective as you think you are if you can't see John Roberts for who he has always been.

Okay, so who do you think John Roberts is?



×
×
  • Create New...