Does Trump and his supporters not realize...?

That even if Donald Trump was elected president in 2024 (big if) that he could only serve four more years as president? Thus he becomes an instant "lame duck" with all the limitations on his power and influence that automatically goes with that status?

So why bother?

 

Biden would be a lame duck.

 

for ten weeks, Trump would be a lame duck for FOUR YEARS

 

How so? Almost every president you can name was weaker during their second term than they had been during their first. Even Franklin Roosevelt was weaker in his second term. He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed despite that fact that he was coming off one of the largest election victories in history and his party controlled both houses of Congress. There was also a recession in 1937 which made a lot people think that the New Deal had failed. It convinced some of the far left crazies in his administration that communism was the superior system.

So why is Biden only a "lame duck" (I almost wrote "dead duck" which is what he really is.) for only 10 weeks?

 

While I don't think he would be successful, I think Trump would push for more than just 4 more years. He already tried to overthrow democracy once.

 

Whichever one got elected in 2024 they would be a lame duck for 4 years.

 

Is that not also true of Biden?

 

I don't think Trump supporters are voting for who will be President. In their minds, they are voting for who will be God!

 

Well, for Trump, getting elected has nothing to do with what he can do for the country. It's about staying out of jail and exacting revenge on his perceived enemies. So........it's about him.......as is everything he does.

 

Your first three words just about covers it. You don't think - you emote. As much as you brag about your "research" you don't explore all sides of the issue - you invariably seize on the LW catechism.

 

What limitations on presidential power to lame ducks have?

 

They are limited (by the fact that they will never run for the office again) in their influence and ability to get Congress to pass legislation they support.

 

I shortened your post to the most important part of it.

 

Another Biden Presidency would be lame duck also. What's your point?

 

Yeah because to you the height of intellectual proficiency is the ability to take words out of context. VERY dishonest. But would not expect anything better from you.

 

Same at you since you do the same thing to me.

 

NEVER out of context. The few instances in which I have inadvertently quoted something out of context, I have immediately apologized when it is brought to my attention.

 

If you want to preach taking words out of context then perhaps you should not do the same thing in your OWN thread titles, eh?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ace-but-there-is-such-thing-as-racism.603819/
He called you out. The proper thing to do would be to MAN UP and apologize

 

I don't care about "out of context". Here is one example.

"You've repeated this a hundred times and I just ignore it because it's technically true but irrelevant. Weather depends on climate. For example, the weather in tropical areas might be rain, and not snow like in polar regions. That's because of the climate.

Now you know the answer for the next hundred times you feel the urge to repeat this irrelevant nonsense."

There are more and more insulting, That just happened to be the first one I found.

In addition, it was simply wrong.

 

I do! Your "example" doesn't even HAVE a quote. Much less one out of context....

Ok... I gave you three opportunities to apologize and indicate to us that you are honest. But you refuse. That speaks to your intellectual honesty. Nothing more needs be said!

 

Santayna and Churchill "“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”"

Democrats set the precedent when overthrowing democracy.... would you like to talk about it?? George Santyana : "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

""America needs 37 “faithless electors” from states Trump won""
Looks like they will have to explain the “Hamilton electors,” a group of electors who have sworn not to vote for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/15/opinions/faithless-electors-save-america-piro/index.html

Meet the 'Hamilton Electors' Hoping for an Electoral College Revolt
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oping-for-an-electoral-college-revolt/508433/

The last-ditch push for the Electoral College to stop Trump, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

""The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the "Hamilton Electors" co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election


""A group of so-called “Hamilton Electors” — nine Democrats and one Republican who borrowed the Found Father’s name in a nod toward his call for deliberation — has been working to persuade at least 36 other Republicans to ditch Trump, just enough to block his immediate election and send the contest to the House of Representatives.""
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-rogue-electors-hamilton-232802

It is the same trick the Democrats tried in 2000, 2004, 2017....

January 6, 2017.... seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ho...ion-results-fight-republicans-2020-challenges

 

I agree with you, which is one of the reasons that I personally hope that someone else is the nominee.

With that being said, if he IS the nominee, I will support him 100% because I most certainly do not support the notion of another 4 years of a Democrat being in charge.

 

The quotes are there. But, I will repeat it again. Not only needlessly insulting, but wrong.


"You've repeated this a hundred times and I just ignore it because it's technically true but irrelevant. Weather depends on climate. For example, the weather in tropical areas might be rain, and not snow like in polar regions. That's because of the climate.

Now you know the answer for the next hundred times you feel the urge to repeat this irrelevant nonsense."

 

Apologize to you. Never.

You repeatedly insult as you just did above. Your talk about dishonesty is dishonest. I don't ask for an apology because it would be a waste of time.

 

Are you paying attention? I'm not talking about insulting. I'm talking about quoting out of context!!! It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to quote MYSELF out of context. You can insult me all you want. What I won't tolerate is taking my words out of context to make it look as if I were saying something I DIDN'T say.

Ok... no more of this nonsense!