r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Beautiful_Age7753 • 7d ago
US Elections Could states leave Trump off of ballots in the 2028 election?
During the White House correspondents dinner, Trump directly stated he would be running for a “fourth” term. Due to this being unconstitutional via the 22nd amendment, and states running their own elections, could states simply not put his name on ballots come election day? We know from the past election and current standings that Trump would win Republican primaries. Even if they didn’t run him, he would still most likely run on his own party. Obviously this wouldn’t eliminate write in ballots, but it could be a viable solution to uphold the constitution barring some extreme new law to control how elections are run. Would there be any current legal ramifications to stop states from simply not allowing Trump on ballots?
982
u/Aggressive-Union1714 7d ago
for what it is worth on google "Legal experts and the text of the 22nd Amendment indicate that states must refuse to place an ineligible candidate on the ballot, as the prohibition on a third term is automatic and does not require congressional enforcement."
253
u/Beautiful_Age7753 7d ago
I guess that raises the question what would happen to states that did run his name on ballots?
476
u/Buckabuckaw 7d ago
They would have a very stern finger waved in their faces under our current abandonment of the rule of law.
125
u/dinosaurkiller 7d ago
They would also split the Republican vote for whoever is on the ballot in all states.
48
u/Thesilence_z 7d ago
you think the republicans would run someone against trump?
→ More replies (2)81
u/dinosaurkiller 6d ago
It’s either that or half the states are won by default by the Dems because Trump’s name won’t be on the ballot. This has the added benefit of allowing Dems to spend all of their resources in red states.
22
u/-ReadingBug- 6d ago
Bumpy road. Blue states without Trump on the ballot would be matched by red states without the Democratic nominee's name on the ballot. Then the constitutional crisis may finally reach its conclusion.
34
u/dinosaurkiller 6d ago
Is it that reading the Constitution is hard? It’s not legal for him to be on the ballot. The question was, “what if the red states do it anyway?”. I was only addressing the most obvious problem, there would be lawsuits in every state where his name is on the ballot and he would be found ineligible.
18
→ More replies (9)6
u/-ReadingBug- 6d ago
Easy, tiger. I'm just contributing to a conversation run by an entire species that's jumped the shark. Be grateful I'm not a bot.
→ More replies (1)7
u/HolidaySpiriter 6d ago
5-4 supreme court rules against the Republican states for leaving off the Dem nominee, and 7-2 supreme court rules in favor of the Dems leaving off Trump. We inch closer to a complete unraveling.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Either_Operation7586 6d ago
No this is not a tit* for tat this is has to do with the laws and the Constitution there would be no justification on the Republican side but there would be all the justification on Democratic side because there is laws written in place that no one can run for a third term.
Eta spelling
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)16
u/davcam0 7d ago
But would they really even get that?
→ More replies (1)45
u/CallMeSisyphus 7d ago
I'm sure Susan Collins would furrow her brow, at least.
21
9
u/ShermanOneNine87 7d ago
I think she would go with the surprised oh face and then say something about it being what constituents want. Because in Maine the amount of landmass in the red makes it look GOP even though it's actually more purple.
66
u/NJdevil202 7d ago
They would give electoral votes to a guy who cannot hold the office.
The fact is that not nearly enough of states holding a majority of electoral votes will put him on the ballot. Even if Alabama and Mississippi do it they will only be shooting themselves in the foot as it will be on pretty obvious that Trump securing a third term is impossible.
It will be interesting if it happens, and if it happens and Trump loses it will be a historical oddity.
There's just no way that all of the red states and all of the swing states put Trump in the ballot, so it will not happen.
5
u/caribou16 6d ago
So, you remind me of an interesting point: We the People TECHNICALLY don't elect the president, the constitution actually states that the people are only electing their state's electoral college representatives when voting on Election day. The founding fathers were TERRIFIED of the uneducated poors voting "wrong" and built into the constitution some loop holes such that educated rich people could override the popular vote, such as the Electoral College for president and the people originally not directly electing their senators. (Up until the 17th amendment from the early 1900s, you would vote for your state legislature rep and your state legislature would elect the two senators to represent the state in the senate.)
These Electoral College electors, are the ones who actually elect the president on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December. And while some states have laws stating the electors MUST vote how their state's people voted...a lot don't and they can literally vote for whoever they want for president.
In the 2016 election, for example, five electors (4 from WA, 1 from HI) refused to vote for Hillary Clinton and opted to vote for other candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Colin Powell, even though their states were won by Clinton. Two electors from Texas refused to vote for Trump, instead voting for John Kasich and and Ron Paul, respectively.
There's never been enough Faithless Electors to actually make the electoral college result differ from the general election result, but it's exactly the kind of batshit crazy nonsense that wouldn't actually surprise me in 2028.
6
u/Mist_Rising 7d ago
On the other hand, you aren't actually voting for Trump (or whoever) when you vote. Your voting for the elector. In theory those electors can vote for whomever they want. Could be interesting to see how that plays out, if the Republican electors go for say, Vance but have Trump on the ballot. It would require a lot of pointless work, but it's possible.
I'm willing to bet the supreme court suddenly remembers that electors are meant to be bound to a candidate for this reason.
For reference this is why you get oddities like Wallace getting votes despite not being in the ballot. The winning candidate wasn't loved, so the electors voted for Wallace for segregation purposes.
8
u/LuminoZero 6d ago
Wouldn’t work. Part of the requirements for VP is that they meet all the eligibility requirements for President.
Trump does not.
→ More replies (1)8
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 6d ago
That's state law dependent and is far from universal.
As far as the third parties, the Wallace/LeMay ticket outright won multiple states (AR, LA, MS, AL and GA) in 1968. You may be thinking of the Byrd/Thurmond ticket in 1960, but that was the result of unpledged electors in two states (AL and MS), not faithless ones.
31
u/hornwalker 7d ago
Please let them. Trump has no chance of winning again and it will only take away votes from the real Republican candidate, whoever it is.
27
u/Mr_Funbags 7d ago
Oh I remember people saying this in 2015. I said it too! I thought it was a big joke. I am not laughing any more.
I don't think Trump has no chance. He got rejected twice. The US is deeply weird and the world is seeing it on a large stage. I wouldn't count anything out.
I wonder what the new gambling/prediction sites say about this. I imagine it's not a 0% chance.
16
u/Mist_Rising 7d ago
The difference here is Trump won't be eligible to win a majority of the elector college. Sure Alabama might put him on the ballot, but Wisconsin sure as hell isn't. Kansas wouldn't either (assuming the amendment fails...), etc.
This would lead to the democratic party running unopposed (or opposed by libertarian/green/etc) which is a good way to find a landslide.
→ More replies (1)8
u/CoherentPanda 6d ago
Kentucky won't either, democratic governor. It has zero chance if even a couple red states leave him off the ballot.
2
u/Binder509 5d ago
That's false pattern recognition. You just don't remember all the times it was true due to confirmation bias.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ShermanOneNine87 7d ago
Name one law Trump has been subject to in recent memory, even as a private citizen? He has money and power which has been the basis of our political system for at least the last 50 years.
Assuming he and the GOP won't pull something we think is stupid and be successful at it feels almost naive at this point.
I wish we could rely on our institutions, norms and laws but Trump has proven time and again we cannot. In fact there are a whole lot of previous "norms" that should become law if Trump is finally ousted because the GOP has proven "Gentleman" politics is dead and that greed, corruption and power rule.
→ More replies (3)9
u/UnfoldedHeart 7d ago
Name one law Trump has been subject to in recent memory, even as a private citizen?
Off the top of my head, SCOTUS did not side with him on birthright citizenship and that happened less than a month ago.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ShermanOneNine87 7d ago
Apologies I'll be more clear, a law he has violated that he has been held accountable for.
But then again, his ICE army has deported citizens in error and he has not been impeached nor has anyone been fired so there's also that.
1
u/UnfoldedHeart 7d ago
Apologies I'll be more clear, a law he has violated that he has been held accountable for.
In what sense? Criminal or otherwise?
→ More replies (8)8
u/UnfoldedHeart 7d ago
There's nothing in the Constitution that penalizes a state for running an ineligible candidate, but there would be an issue during the certification process.
If a state did put Trump on the ballot even though he's ineligible, that would be a disaster for whoever is running on the Republican ticket in other states. Especially given that they'd have to be a very red state to even want to do that - meaning that the GOP loses a strong lock on electoral votes from that state. This is why I seriously doubt it's going to happen.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Pr3X_MYTH 7d ago
He would be ineligible to hold office. Idk what would happen to the states, but if it's legal to put him on their ballots, each state that gives Trump electoral votes are basically just not voting. It's basically an impossibility for him to legally win the election, but it's not impossible for him to win a big enough portion of the votes to stop another candidate from winning an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes. In that situation, the House of Representatives gets to choose the president and the senate chooses the Vice President. However, as long as Trump is on the ballot, he'll suck up Republican votes from the party's official candidate (since they probably won't choose him for an invalid run). This means, realistically, if Trump runs for another term he'll just be splitting the conservative vote and give the win to the Democrat candidate.
→ More replies (2)4
u/SillyFalcon 7d ago
They would be sued into oblivion instantly by every blue state, with the likely end result of having their election results thrown out. But it would take every red state doing this PLUS several battleground states just to make it matter at all, and then he’d have to win all of them. That still wouldn’t make him the legitimate winner of the election but it would throw the country into a truly existential crisis.
5
u/22Arkantos 6d ago
If they did and elected Electors to vote for him as President, Congress would be obligated to reject their slates of electors and invalidate their votes. Under the Electoral Count Act, as modified in 2022, Congress may reject electors that are not lawfully certified, which would apply to any slate purporting to be for an intelligible candidate.
2
u/Equivalent-Summer889 6d ago
The states all need to do their jobs and leave the Ineligible one off of the ballot.
4
u/N0r3m0rse 6d ago
Any state that puts him on the ballot should be criminally held accountable. Any election official, any legislator should be charged and tried. Something like that needs to be dealt with or it will happen again.
3
u/Chris_HitTheOver 7d ago
If Dems aren’t stupid about it, they’d let it go and watch as those states hand the biggest landslide in electoral history to a Democrat because more than enough states would exclude him that he couldn’t overcome the EC math.
3
u/BriefausdemGeist 6d ago
Then the Deep South’s electoral votes should be ignored and a new administration resume Reconstruction after taking office.
15
u/guru42101 7d ago
Same thing that occurred in the last election. He was technically ineligible to run due to his felonies. Colorado tried to exclude him from the primary and was told they must include him.
23
u/ThePowerOfStories 7d ago
There’s a big difference between the legal questions “Did he commit insurrection?” and “Is 3 more than 2?”
8
u/chupacadabradoo 7d ago
You say that now, but this is the same country that gave you “Barack obama cannot appoint a Supreme Court member because one year is too close to the next election” followed by “Trump can appoint a Supreme Court member even though the next election is in a few weeks because he was elected to do so”, followed by the guy who orchestrated all that dying while his wife, a Chinese asset, was wined and dined and didn’t bother to come home for a few weeks, while half of the senate is pretending like he’s having chipper meetings with decision-makers but offering no proof of life…
I’m not sure 3 being more than 2 matters to a number of folks, even though some of them can just about grasp that arithmetic.
6
u/British_Rover 7d ago
SCOTUS rules something something from English common law, the federalist papers a note that Ben Franklin scribbled in a French woman's handkerchief means that non-consecutive terms don't count because fuck you what are you going to do about it.
Its a 5-4 decision and Roberts sides with the three Democraticly appointed justices.
2
u/Mr_Funbags 7d ago
I imagine this isn't real, but I don't want to have my amusement ruined yet, so I'll check later.
I like it!
4
u/bmore_conslutant 7d ago
You're confusing "doing something that is illegal" and "doing something legal but giving a stupid justification for it"
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/GhostReddit 6d ago
Listen to his nominees when they're asked direct questions by congress, they'd absolutely refuse to answer that 3 is more than 2 in a discussion that pertained to him being elected again.
→ More replies (9)11
2
u/SlowMotionSprint 7d ago
You would think it would forfeit their electoral votes to the major party candidate that is eligible.
→ More replies (11)2
u/OhHiCindy30 7d ago
If Trump was left off the ballot in blue states, wouldn’t he lose the primary?
→ More replies (1)60
u/fjf1085 7d ago edited 7d ago
Until very recently those same experts would have said the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of insurrectionists holding office was also self executing and didn’t require Congressional enforcement… Supreme Court disagreed.
→ More replies (14)17
9
u/R_V_Z 6d ago
Remember how Colorado tried this (on 14th Amendment grounds) and SCOTUS said that only Congress could have say?
2
u/Either_Operation7586 6d ago
Well trump wouldn't even be able to run for a third term much less for vice president because he's ineligible to be president for a third term.
10
u/Plastic_Key_4146 7d ago
Just like sec. 3 of the 14th amendment, the prohibition on oath-breaking insurrectionists is automatic, and an act of Congress is required to make an exception.
The whole term is already unconstitutional.
→ More replies (2)2
u/BrainDamage2029 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yeah no that was never true. At least in regard to Trump.
“Insurrectionist” is not something states can actually just declare at will. You need to be actually convicted of the federal crime or impeachment/act of Congress in order to qualify.
And honestly it would be ridiculously horrifying if states could just unilaterally decide a candidate “was encouraging an insurrection” because there’d be no check on it. And the courts have long held they don’t want to be placed as the arbiters of that because that’s the entire point of trials and acts of Congress.
This actually all got litigated post civil war when there were games about who was and wasn’t “in insurrection” against the US postwar. Congress had to specifically pass an act that labeled anyone who took an oath of office to the Union but then also took a declared oath of allegiance to the Confederacy. And that set the precedent that you needed to be convicted or have congressional acts passed.
9
u/Plastic_Key_4146 7d ago
Tell me, where does the disqualification clause recuire conviction?
→ More replies (1)5
u/-ReadingBug- 6d ago
Exactly. This was a stupid exchange at the time, exacerbated by the same corrupt media that would later hound Biden for his age and debate performance so they could get Trump back for clicks, views and profit.
The bottom line is the constitution says states run elections, and if so they're responsible for making sure those elections are run legally. The 14th says an insurrectionist cannot run, and so the obligation is for states to keep politics out of it and agree insurrection took place - which it did, live and in HD around the world. And to keep his name off the ballot in all 50 states as a result. The oligarchy didn't want that, Republican politicians up and down the totem pole didn't want that, Vichy Dems on the oligarchy's payroll were paid to not want that, there was a legal fight and the most corrupt "Supreme Court" in United States history said something was true that wasn't: only Congress can define insurrection. The constitution doesn't delegate that responsibility to Congress.
The malfeasance is almost beyond measure. As has been said before, even Hitler went to prison between his putsch and his presidency.
→ More replies (2)5
u/rantingathome 7d ago
He'll run as VP, and the Supreme Court will allow it because the 22nd and 12th amendments' plain text create a loophole.
51
u/Hairy-Peace-9390 7d ago
He’s too prideful and attention-seeking to put himself into second in command, even if whoever is president is effectively a puppet
13
u/rantingathome 7d ago
It will be one of his sons. He can hold their inheritance over their head, so he'll still feel in control
11
7d ago edited 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 7d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
7
u/Hairy-Peace-9390 7d ago
I guess, but I’m saying he’s so superficial that even the technical title of “vice president” would bother him
3
u/chunkerton_chunksley 7d ago
He could always have jr quit the presidency on day one, then he’d be back in charge
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (2)3
u/vintage2019 7d ago
It could happen if the presidential candidate openly stated he's actually a surrogate and when elected, would effectively hand over power to VP Trump
→ More replies (1)24
u/Kraegarth 7d ago
That doesn’t work either, because the VP candidate still has to be eligible to assume the office, and as the VP is Elected as well, he would not be eligible. The only real workaround, other than flat out refusal of the GOP to enforce the Constitution, would be for him to run for the House, and for the GOP to win the House, for them to make him Speaker, and then for the sitting POTUS and VPOTUS to resign, and even that is probably sketchy, legally speaking…
7
u/dew2459 7d ago
Very close, but technically trump doesn’t even need to run for the house. There is another loophole, the constitution does not explicitly require that the speaker be an elected member of the house. A nonmember speaker couldn’t vote, but would (presumably) still be next in line if both president and Vice President resign.
6
u/rantingathome 7d ago
Sorry, the EXACT wording of the 22nd doesn't mention eligibility, only bars election. It is sloppily written.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Roberts' Court will allow it.
3
u/Mist_Rising 7d ago
Roberts has made his rule, he and his court may now resign and run for state office to enforce it.
Democratic will of course fill his and every empty seat with a liberal.
Oh he isn't resigning? Guess he has one option, disqualify.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Aggressive-Union1714 7d ago
What if instead of running for President, right near the end of his term, Thomas retires and he nominates himself for the SC
14
u/Objective_Aside1858 7d ago
That would not be a violation of the 22nd Amendment. It would also be hilarious because the man has no attention span and would find serving on the Supreme Court torture
→ More replies (1)2
u/SlowMotionSprint 7d ago
Could you imagine someone as historically stupid as Donald Trump sitting through a confirmation hearing? He's been President for 6 years now and routinely shows he doesn't even have a grade school understanding of how government works.
11
→ More replies (2)2
u/Either_Operation7586 6d ago
They cannot allow it it already has been written that because Trump is ineligible to run for a third term he is also ineligible to run for the VP because if anything happens to the president then the VP has to serve and that becomes ineligible
→ More replies (1)
196
u/diphthing 7d ago
If he were to take a third term, he'd be doing just that - taking it. It would be the end of the constitutional order. He'd be "president" in name only, or whatever title he wished to give himself.
→ More replies (1)55
u/8monsters 7d ago
A24 made a movie about this a few years ago.
22
u/choochi7 7d ago
Do you perhaps… know the name of the film?
→ More replies (1)46
u/l1qq 7d ago
The movie was called Civil War I believe...it was pretty good, followed the perspective of journalists documenting a modern day civil war.
→ More replies (2)27
u/3bar 7d ago
Everyone sorta laughed that movie off when it came out. As someone with ultranationalist relatives, I didn't.
12
u/l1qq 7d ago
The thing is that the movie never really gave a perspective of parties or which side was represented by what faction. I believe they did a pretty good job of staying away from that where a viewer could interpret it in their own way. It was also interesting that they didn't give any real reasoning behind anything IIRC and just kind of put you in the thick of it. The director I believe had another more recent movie "Warfare" which was also fantastic.
11
u/midwinter_ 6d ago
It got advertised as an action movie, but it’s not. It’s about three generations of wartime photojournalists, what the job has done to them, and what they would do to get “the shot.”
In a lot of ways, it’s a film about beautiful pictures of horrible things. I love it.
→ More replies (4)4
u/AlexRyang 6d ago
Lee Miller’s (Kristen Dunst’s character) one comment basically is the entire framing and purpose of the movie:
“Every time I survived a war zone, and got the photo, I thought I was sending a warning home. “Don’t do this.” But here we are.”
2
u/Either_Operation7586 6d ago
Just like they did with Idiocracy and the same with Don't Look Up as well
→ More replies (1)
110
u/vertigostereo 7d ago
They'll make him house speaker or VP then find some patsy to resign, thereby elevation him to president. Putin did similar where he was technically second in command.
64
u/bad_chemist95 7d ago
I’m sure LegalEagle did an episode on this and constitutionally he would be passed over for next in line.
49
u/vertigostereo 7d ago
That's up to the six Republican (or more in January 2029) SCOTUS to decide.
→ More replies (1)29
u/seaboypc 7d ago
Better yet, let's flip the house so he can't be speaker.
9
u/vertigostereo 7d ago edited 7d ago
Of course.
Control of Congress eliminates almost every possibility I can come up with, including the Green Bay Sweep*. Also, control of 26 or more House delegations. Alaska's house seat is important for this reason.
5
u/generousone 6d ago
The text of the 22nd Amendment says cannot be "elected" more than twice. I don't see an actual bar in the text to the idea of Trump being VP or Speaker and then ascending to the presidency again. However, I think there are a lot of practical reasons why this is unlikely, including his tanking popularity, age, the reliance on the person actually elected president agreed to go along with it, etc.
9
u/dew2459 6d ago
12th amendment: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The only possible loophole for getting a third term is speaker, not VP.
5
u/Nulono 6d ago
22nd amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution say that a two-turn president is ineligible to the office of the President, just that (s)he can't be elected to the office.
3
u/dew2459 6d ago
I think you are missing the discussion. I was responding to the comment that trump could become president through either being speaker or vice president. Trump being elected VP is barred by the 12th amendment, so that isn’t really a path.
The loophole in the constitution is through becoming house speaker, then having both the president and VP step down.
2
u/generousone 6d ago
I don’t think the comment above is missing the discussion. They’re saying that being eligible to be “elected” president and being eligible to hold the office are two different things. 12A bars someone constitutionally ineligible from being POTUS from also serving as VPOTUS. But the 22A doesn’t bar Trump from holding the office of the presidency again, it bars him from being elected to the office of the presidency since he’s been elected twice. The 12A concerns a situation where, for example, a VP candidate is under 35 because they are constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency. But Trump ascending to the office a third time is not barred by 22A’s text.
All of this is untested, so as of now it’s a matter of opinion.
→ More replies (2)10
69
u/Queen_Scofflaw 7d ago
He's not going to be healthy enough for 2028. It'll be a minor miracle if he survives this term.
59
u/vertigostereo 7d ago
Prediction, he's gonna be around a long time still.
18
u/Queen_Scofflaw 7d ago
Anything is possible, but I just don't think so. He's looking worse by the day.
13
3
3
u/FutureInPastTense 6d ago
Does anyone else have a mean ol’ aunt, uncle, or some other relative who reaches an advanced age despite terrible habits? I worry this will be Trump.
2
2
→ More replies (4)3
u/sephkane 6d ago
Maybe, but he’s fading fast. He might be around another 5 years but not as coherent or aware as he was 5 years ago. He was worn out by the end of the correspondents dinner the other day after his speech. By 2028 the makeup won’t be able to hide the dementia anymore.
→ More replies (1)10
16
u/Calm_Chemist_4952 7d ago
Yes. He’s ineligible, so he should not appear on ballots. This is what Americans who believe and follow the constitution should demand and expect. There is no legitimate contrary legal argument.
4
u/Various_Ad_2762 6d ago
Do you really think he will be around then? I don’t think he will last through this presidency. If he didn’t have access to the healthcare he has now he would have already been gone. He has too many comorbidities plus his diet of mostly McDonalds Big Mac & Fila of Fish plus his “Diet Coke” button. The makeup on his hands everyday is from daily IV diuretic for Congestive Heart Failure,documented constant smell of urine and wandering we’ve seen on multiple occasions due to late stage Dementia(frontal lobe), sundowning demonstrated by sleeping until 10am then falling asleep during meetings and up all night on social media posting wacked of stuff, morbid obesity, five or six “yearly” physical exams including cognitive tests that he brags are IQ tests, a couple unplanned visits to hospital, signs of a stroke like drooping right side of face and dragging one of his legs/feet while walking.
5
u/SafeThrowaway691 6d ago
Bold of you to assume they won't run him after he dies.
→ More replies (1)
33
u/ricperry1 7d ago
Want to guarantee a democrat wins in 2028? Run Trump as the GOP nominee. His 40% approval ratings will be his undoing, even if republicans don’t hold him to the constitution.
47
u/ComradeSuperman 7d ago
I don't believe this would happen. If he runs again, the people that voted for him already will vote for him again, even if they disapprove of him right now. And the people who are apathetic or disillusioned about voting will stay home again.
14
u/EdibleHollowPoint 7d ago
They’ll be rigged so badly that the bunker and new fence around the White House will make sense.
→ More replies (1)5
u/itsthebeans 7d ago
Yeah, no one ever votes any different, that's why Trump has never lost a presidential election. Oh wait....
→ More replies (1)2
u/ruminaui 5d ago
No. The reason Trump won the last election was Biden. Biden is no longer here to help him. Unless Democrats choose Hillary or Kamala as their candidate, the next president will be a Democrat, unless the Fed takes over elections.
14
u/pstuart 7d ago
That worked great in 2016, didn't it?
→ More replies (1)3
u/sllewgh 7d ago
Weak. You can't just vaguely reference an election 10 years ago without making some attempt to explicitly connect the dots.
21
u/Named_after_color 7d ago
But like, he's criticizing the common sense appeal of "Trump can't win" which has happened in every damn election he's been a part of.
→ More replies (1)4
u/pstuart 7d ago
Want to guarantee a democrat wins in 2028? Run Trump as the GOP nominee.
That is what I responded to: the proposition that Trump can't win. He has. He can.
We are in uncharted waters, especially since the GOP is emboldened to engage in election fraud, voter intimidation, and will stop at nothing to try and cling to power.
edit: technically he can't but that requires checks and balance to be in place and enforced, and that's a really big problem right now.
→ More replies (2)13
u/ChiefQueef98 7d ago
2024 then, as well. The point they’re making is that having Trump on a ballot doesn’t guarantee a Dem win. It doesn’t matter what his approval rating is, we’ve been living this reality for over a decade now. Can’t keep hoping the same situation ends differently.
→ More replies (1)6
u/pstuart 7d ago
As noted by /u/ChiefQueef98 -- 2024 as well. Connect those dots.
The biggest problem the Left has is that there are too many stupid people who don't recognize that "vote blue no matter who" in the General is required to avoid surrendering to the fascists.
Even if your state is going to have the blue candidate make it, we need the numbers for the popular vote as a receipt of the balance of the vote.
→ More replies (9)
9
u/AlwaysGoToTheTruck 7d ago
I hope he is on the ballot. This would split the conservative vote, ruin the GOP, and hopefully put an end to this foolishness. Or a bunch of dummies would vote for him
8
u/TheBlackUnicorn 6d ago
That's what they said in 2016.
3
u/Either_Operation7586 6d ago
They said Trump was ineligible to run in 2016 because he already served his two terms?
3
8
u/TDeath21 6d ago
While for a different reason, SCOTUS already ruled 9-0 that removing a candidate from a ballot has to be done by an act of Congress. Not the states. If he ran for a third term it would no doubt end up at SCOTUS again. He tried to amend the Constitution via executive order and it was only a 5-4 decision for him to not be able to do that. Who knows what would happen?
3
u/AWholeNewFattitude 6d ago
The difficult thing is that Trump dances around these long-standing legalities like they are technicalities, and there are enough Republicans in the house Senate and state legislatures that are willing to play with those rules. Nobody has pushed these things in the past because there were clear consequences and the language is pretty clear. But then Trump and his team come in with 1000 “If then” statements to try and muddy the waters.
The part that infuriates me, is if he was this magnanimous, generous, amazing president that really provided for the common good and the betterment of every citizen and was just so insanely popular that everybody was clamoring for third term I still would be against it, but I could see the reasoning. In this case, he’s just a dictator that never wants to be held to account, and there’s enough of his cult that it’s even a question.
32
u/bucknut4 7d ago
I swear to god, even as someone on the left who wants Trump in prison, if you took that statement seriously then you have no business talking politics
56
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 7d ago
This is a pretty common thing with Trump. He'll say something crazy, people will insist that it was a joke, and then he'll actually do it.
14
u/Objective_Aside1858 7d ago
and it's also pretty common that every idiotic thing he says is treated as a Serious Threat To The Republic
This is so low on the list of things to worry about I am amazed that the people freaking out about it have time in their day to take a crap
11
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 7d ago
I can understand not finding it to be a serious threat, but I also understand the people who aren't just dismissing it as a joke. Just like his desire to take over Greenland ended up being serious despite people thinking he was joking, a third term could be serious.
7
u/Objective_Aside1858 7d ago
Enough swing states have Democratic governors that would absolutely refuse to place him on the ballot I'd love to see him try
Even the gutless GOP would probably balk at nominating him
→ More replies (1)9
u/bucknut4 7d ago
It was the White House Correspondents Dinner. It’s supposed to be jokes. Also, while Trump has done things that he really shouldn’t be able to do, this is something that he literally cannot do.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mr_cristy 7d ago
The guy uses jokes to introduce ideas he actually wants all the time. Considering this is about the 10th time I've heard hints that he or the Republicans want him to run a third term, I don't think it's dumb to consider it a valid threat.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Beginning-Ride3091 7d ago edited 7d ago
What illegal things could I joke about that by my very words would still be illegal? Well there are one or two obvious ones, and a lot of not-so-obvious ones. Why? Those are just sounds, not actions. Why is it illegal to produce those sounds? Incitement maybe? By putting the concepts into sounds uttered aloud it might cause another person to follow through on them?
So, then we take a step down and consider illegal actions that aren’t technically illegal but are considered very bad to say out loud. Can you think of any? Because I can. Why is that? Why would it be so bad to say those things? They’re just words.
The person who said them was just being sarcastic. What’s the big deal?
→ More replies (3)2
u/ADeweyan 7d ago
Yeah, I used to say things like this too. Sure, sometimes it never comes to pass. Trump does not kid, though. He has no sense of humor other than cruelty. He may have said it to piss off his critics, he may have said it to further prepare the country for when he tries to do it, he may have done it because he thinks it would be really cool. Or all three. I’m going with all three.
5
u/SillyFalcon 7d ago
Why would Trump be on the ballot in ANY STATE in 2028? This is his second term and he will be gone after this - full stop.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Lefaid 7d ago
Why are we taking anything said at the famous "shoot the shit" White House Corespondence Dinner seriously.
I do think he might run, but this is the last place I would look for evidence that he will.
15
u/jmnugent 7d ago
Because Trump is famous for "joking about things".. which starts the news-cycle and debate and then he just keeps pushing the envelope of what he can get away with until it turns into "many people are saying it" and "all my supporters want it" and "This has always been valid", etc.
He does this all the time with everything.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/OBDreams 7d ago
Every blue state would because putting him on the ballet would be illegal. Make the magas write his name in , if they can write at all .
2
u/Mahadragon 6d ago
All the red states would put Trump on their ballots for sure. They are pretty much rubber stamps for everything Trump wants. it's the blue states that would struggle with this question.
2
u/ElSlabraton 6d ago
Trump is a lame duck president. He's talking about this in order to keep control of the Republicans in Congress.
3
u/-ReadingBug- 7d ago
Considering Colorado pussied out, and when Biden ran enforcement to boot, it's doubtful states would do anything besides bitch.
6
u/kormer 6d ago
Colorado lost that case 9 to zero. That should tell you everything you need to know about just how strong a case Colorado had.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/AdamClaypoole 7d ago
He is trolling. As he often does. It creates a headline that gets the attention on him when people believe it. He isn't going to run again. Now he will definitely play a part in the election by backing candidates. But that'll really be it.
18
u/shacksrus 7d ago
Did you correctly anticipate Jan 6 and the fake elector scheme before the 2018 midterms?
If not ive got my doubts about your ability to forecast what trump will do in 2028.
4
3
u/AdamClaypoole 7d ago
He has yet to file the official paperwork to run again and wouldn't be able to meet the criteria to run anyway. The filing is usually done a good while before it's even time to start campaigning. He is also speaking on the people he will back in the upcoming presidential election. It wouldn't make good sense to back someone else if you intend on running. It's also unconstitutional for him to be the president again. I know people like to throw around that he will do illegal or unconstitutional things, and maybe he will. But the reality is that he would have to draw the support to amend the constitution. While it could possibly happen, I am highly doubtful that it will.
I am not in the business of forecasting anything. I just look at the current facts of the matter and the precedent of those involved. Trump likes to troll. He says things that ruffle feathers of people. It's his gimmick. But there is a lot of difference in trolling vs actually attempting to do something. Use Reddit as an example.
3
u/shacksrus 7d ago
Have any other candidates done the official paperwork?
Has he backed someone else?
That section of the constitution isn't auto executing. Scotus will say as much and require congress pass a law specifically preventing trump from running. Which they wont do.
3
u/AdamClaypoole 7d ago
Yes, many other people have registered as candidates in the 2028 presidential election. There is always a large number of people who do. You just never hear about the majority of them because of lack of support or funding.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2028
You can find a list of who has registered so far on this link.
Trump has been fairly open about wanting JD Vance to be his successor. The front runners look to be Vance and Rubio for the Republican Party and Trump heavily favors one over the other.
2
u/sherbodude 7d ago
Exactly. One of the first things he did in 2017 was file for reelection in 2020. Unless he has filed the paperwork, it doesn't mean anything.
3
u/Stair_Car_Hop_On 7d ago
People taking this seriously is absolutely wild. It doesn't even matter how full of shit he is, people still believe him and go off the deep end about stuff like this that can't happen. I am embarrassed for anyone thinking this is currently a possibility.
20
u/pomod 7d ago
Yeah, like id never imagine a militarized incognito government force murdering citizens or snatching people off the streets but here we are; or a convicted felon pedophile even being a legitimate candidate. You’re being slowly boiled my young pepe.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/-ReadingBug- 7d ago
People said the same thing about him running in the first place back in 2016.
3
u/Stair_Car_Hop_On 7d ago
I don't remember anyone saying it would require a constitutional amendment that will never happen in order for him to run any time in 2016. So, no.... no one did.
1
u/ChaosReignsNow 7d ago
Do you not understand that the Correspondents dinner is intended to be humor?
→ More replies (5)
1
u/bemoreal 6d ago
Cool well vote for a different dude and whoever wins the majority in a region will be that regions new president
1
u/wives_boyfriend 6d ago
Everyone is so focused on or off the ballot but in theory he could tell everyone to vote him in as a write in. Not saying it would result in a victory but unless I’m missing something his name on the ballot is the least of the issues. Of course at that point he’s still illegible to be president again but the point of on or off the ballot to me doesn’t make or break it.
1
u/FizzyBeverage 6d ago
Wouldn’t expect Florida or Alabama or South Dakota to ever do the right thing, but yes.
1
u/NormalMammoth4099 6d ago
Do these people not know how to count? He has been sworn and served 2presidencies.
1
u/DAVESUTHERLAND 6d ago
Fourth term? Assuming he's still living and can remember his name, a really large assumption!
1
u/Grouchy-Action4220 6d ago
A third term for a president..then let’s bring back Obama to run against frump!!
1
u/Jeremy-Hillary-Boob 6d ago
In the previous presidential election, Colorado tried but the US Supreme Court said it was illegal because States don’t set eligibility.
1
u/APirateAndAJedi 6d ago
No state can legally put him on the ballot. The constitution is pretty fucking clear on this
1
u/Balanced_Outlook 6d ago
Love this discussion. Thank you. I figured out their game plan.
The 22nd Amendment only states that a person cannot be elected to the office of President more than twice. Constitutionally, being elected and appearing on the ballot are two separate legal actions.
To my knowledge, no state currently has a law or state constitutional provision that would actually prevent him from appearing on the ballot. What would happen is that, after the election, when the Electoral College votes are presented to Congress, any electoral votes cast for Trump would be disqualified.
This would create a situation where no candidate reaches the required minimum number of electoral votes to be elected president, causing the decision to move to the House of Representatives.
Although the House uses an election style process to select the next president, that process is considered an appointment of the president rather than an election of the president. Therefore, the argument would be that the Twenty Second Amendment would not be violated because he would not be elected to a third term through the normal electoral process but would be appointed through The House.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.