Official Trump second term prediction thread

[Brainonska511]

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/trump-advisers-seek-shrink-or-eliminate-bank-regulators-wsj-reports-2024-12-13/

In recent interviews with potential candidates for leading these regulatory agencies, Trump advisers and officials from the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have inquired about the possibility of the president-elect abolishing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, the WSJ said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Advisers have asked the nominees under consideration for the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, if deposit insurance could then be absorbed into the Treasury Department, the report said.

I know it says that they are just looking to consolidate it under the Treasury Department (read: more political control so that they can expand deposit insurance for friends and keep hard caps for not friends without regard for contagion effects), but I think we should just say they want to get rid of the FDIC. Keep the messaging simple.

 

[Brainonska511]

With every story, it's like they want to touch every live wire in American politics:

 

[hal2kilo]

Seems Trump's already prepping his excuses for food prices not going down. He said it would be easy during the campaign, but now he says he's really, really going to try to do it, but it will be hard.
Sounds strangely familiar with the same bill of goods he sold during the previous campaign about infrastructure upgrades.

 

[nakedfrog]

Trump already admitting he lied about bringing prices down. As if the people who voted for Harris didn't know already he was lying.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1867226378153648273

How to you backtrack from a promise BEFORE taking office. Know you lied?

Trump Backtracks On Campaign Pledge To Bring Down Grocery Prices

The president-elect walked back what was always a wildly unrealistic campaign promise.

www.huffpost.com

Well, to be fair, if he'd stuck to telling the truth about his platform, it would have gone something like this...

 

[uallas5]

Crypto is an easy grift and the ultra wealthy who have invested in it heavily stand to profit from it greatly.

Plus think of all those poor narco heads and the ones running kiddie porn rings. Don't they get the chance to succeed when their hordes of bitcoin go through the roof?

 

[K1052]

This would fuck over rural America and the Republicans who heavily voted for Trump that live there in an incredible way. Services outside major metros are huge money losers and would be the very first to meet the axe in a privatization.

 

[ivwshane]

This would fuck over rural America and the Republicans who heavily voted for Trump that live there in an incredible way. Services outside major metros are huge money losers and would be the very first to meet the axe in a privatization.

View attachment 113223

That sounds extremely unconstitutional. The post office is the one government entity named in the constitution. On the other hand, fuck em, that’s what they vote for every damn time.

 

[alien42]

This would fuck over rural America and the Republicans who heavily voted for Trump that live there in an incredible way. Services outside major metros are huge money losers and would be the very first to meet the axe in a privatization.

View attachment 113223

That's going to cost rural MAGATs a lot of money.

 

[Fenixgoon]

This would fuck over rural America and the Republicans who heavily voted for Trump that live there in an incredible way. Services outside major metros are huge money losers and would be the very first to meet the axe in a privatization.

View attachment 113223

Fuck around...find out

 

[KMFJD]

the corporate bootlicking continues

Nicholas Grossman (@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social)

ABC News had a very strong case on the merits (“we just used the same word the presiding judge used”) They have the in-house lawyers and deep pockets to fight it. They folded anyway. They didn’t need to announce the settlement sum. But apparently they wanted everyone to see their...

bsky.app

 

[pmv]

This makes absolutely no sense to me

Steve Bannon Is Already Claiming Trump Can Run Again in 2028

The political strategist says the Constitution doesn’t count in this case.

www.thedailybeast.com

Bannon appeared unconcerned by any legal barriers, referring at the annual Young Republicans Club gala to Trump’s baseless claim that he won the 2020 election. “Donald John Trump is going to raise his hand on the King James Bible and take the oath of office, his third victory and his second term,” he said.

He went on to raise the specter of a run in 2028, quoting Trump loyalist and self-styled “viceroy” Mike Davis as saying a third term was possible “since it doesn’t say consecutive.”

I mean, it's surely because it doesn't say consecutive that Trump can't run again? Even this "make it up as you go along" Supreme Court surely couldn't find a form of verbiage to pretend the 22nd amendment doesn't mean what it says?

(As it happens I don't know that the amendment was a good idea in the first place - it seems to me it was just a product of the right's hatred of FDR - given how old Presidents seem to be these days and how the business of being President seems to accelerate aging, there seems to be a natural 'term limit' that would kick in not long after a second term anyway - even FDR himself didn't make it through his fourth term)

 

[Brainonska511]

This makes absolutely no sense to me

Steve Bannon Is Already Claiming Trump Can Run Again in 2028

The political strategist says the Constitution doesn’t count in this case.

www.thedailybeast.com

I mean, it's surely because it doesn't say consecutive that Trump can't run again? Even this "make it up as you go along" Supreme Court surely couldn't find a form of verbiage to pretend the 22nd amendment doesn't mean what it says?

(As it happens I don't know that the amendment was a good idea in the first place - it seems to me it was just a product of the right's hatred of FDR - given how old Presidents seem to be these days and how the business of being President seems to accelerate aging, there seems to be a natural 'term limit' that would kick in not long after a second term anyway - even FDR himself didn't make it through his fourth term)

22nd Amendment, Section 1: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, ...


Doesn't need to say consecutive. It's a flat 2 terms, consecutive or non-consecutive. The wording is plain. But Republicans don't want us to believe our lying eyes.

 

[Pens1566]

22nd Amendment, Section 1: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, ...


Doesn't need to say consecutive. It's a flat 2 terms, consecutive or non-consecutive. The wording is plain. But Republicans don't want us to believe our lying eyes.

So is the emoluments clause, so is the 14th sec. 3, so does it only explicitly provide immunity for speech and debate, so is ...

 

[Brainonska511]

So is the emoluments clause, so is the 14th sec. 3, so does it only explicitly provide immunity for speech and debate, so is ...

Well, yeah... That's why I wrote that part about Republicans not really caring what things say.

 

[Muse]

22nd Amendment, Section 1: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, ...


Doesn't need to say consecutive. It's a flat 2 terms, consecutive or non-consecutive. The wording is plain. But Republicans don't want us to believe our lying eyes.

I figure by 2027 Mr. T won't be very popular anyway. And yeah the constitution is quite clear on this. I figure that T is out the door again on 1/20/29 if he doesn't die or become incapacitated first.

 

[fskimospy]

I figure by 2027 Mr. T won't be very popular anyway. And yeah the constitution is quite clear on this. I figure that T is out the door again on 1/20/29 if he doesn't die or become incapacitated first.

The law/Constitution being utterly clear on something is not as comforting as it used to be.

After all I'm pretty sure six months ago we would have all agreed that it wasn't legal for the president to murder his political enemies and yet here we are.

 

[Muse]

Seems Trump's already prepping his excuses for food prices not going down. He said it would be easy during the campaign, but now he says he's really, really going to try to do it, but it will be hard.
Sounds strangely familiar with the same bill of goods he sold during the previous campaign about infrastructure upgrades.

And the Wall (and Mexico paying for it), and replacing the ACA. Promises, promises. "It's all just talk."

 

[Muse]

The law/Constitution being utterly clear on something is not as comforting as it used to be.

After all I'm pretty sure six months ago we would have all agreed that it wasn't legal for the president to murder his political enemies and yet here we are.

I'm not clear on the legality of his murdering his political enemies, actually. That's not even legal in Russia AFAIK. It's done sub rosa.

 

[K1052]

22nd Amendment, Section 1: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, ...


Doesn't need to say consecutive. It's a flat 2 terms, consecutive or non-consecutive. The wording is plain. But Republicans don't want us to believe our lying eyes.

SCOTUS decided that a state cannot disqualify a candidate from the presidential race for any reason which would include the term limit set down by the 22nd. Only congress can act AFTER he is elected to remove him (not happening). So no, there is likely nothing really preventing a 3rd Trump term.

 

[Brainonska511]

SCOTUS decided that a state cannot disqualify a candidate from the presidential race for any reason which would include the term limit set down by the 22nd. Only congress can act AFTER he is elected to remove him (not happening). So no, there is likely nothing really preventing a 3rd Trump term.

Yes. SCOTUS has created some impossible pretzel logic in its partisan attempts to protect Trump.

 

[K1052]

The law/Constitution being utterly clear on something is not as comforting as it used to be.

After all I'm pretty sure six months ago we would have all agreed that it wasn't legal for the president to murder his political enemies and yet here we are.

Not worth the paper it is written on anymore in front of such radical partisan court untethered from any accountability who wants a certain result.

 

[Pens1566]

I'm not clear on the legality of his murdering his political enemies, actually. That's not even legal in Russia AFAIK. It's done sub rosa.

SCOTUS has decided that anything done in the course of his normal duties is immune. Period. CIC can order a drone strike on anyone that is deemed a threat to national security. Immune.

Would their be pushback/outrage? Sure. Would there be any real legal consequences for it? Nope.

 

[K1052]

Yes. SCOTUS has created some impossible pretzel logic in its partisan attempts to protect Trump.

Which it will be more than happy to reverse for reasons should a Democrat end up in the same situations. Rotten, failed institution.

 

[Muse]

SCOTUS decided that a state cannot disqualify a candidate from the presidential race for any reason which would include the term limit set down by the 22nd. Only congress can act AFTER he is elected to remove him (not happening). So no, there is likely nothing really preventing a 3rd Trump term.

OK, since this is a prediction thread I'll just say I think it pretty unlikely. I don't know what the SCOTUS did with regard to this that would make it possible. That's downright weird. Plus he would be 82 and probably experiencing accelerating decline.

 

[Muse]

SCOTUS has decided that anything done in the course of his normal duties is immune. Period. CIC can order a drone strike on anyone that is deemed a threat to national security. Immune.

Would their be pushback/outrage? Sure. Would there be any real legal consequences for it? Nope.

Oh come on. He can't wave his hand and the constitution disappears. He's going to swear to uphold it on Jan. 20.