The 22nd Amendment is pretty clear:
Section 1. 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 President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Short answer is that Trump has already served as president for more than 2 years of his term nor was did he take over after a death, so he cannot serve more than 2 terms.
Why even have a moderator at this point?
Seriously, if the debate isn't going to have any actual debate, then lets do this modified Lincoln Douglass style.
Put each mic on a timer of 2 minutes, flip a coin to see who goes first and have it automatically switch every two minutes. Let the candidates use their time to talk about whatever they want. Biden can spend 45 minutes saying how bad orange man is, and Trump can talk about hunter for 45 minutes.
At this point theirs really no reason to have a moderator if they are going to cut the mics anyways.
Honestly trumps team should use this against them. Get a spectrum analyzer to find the frequency, then if it's analog start saying dumb things that biden will repeat or even put a super high pitched sqeele that will force biden to rip it out. If it's digital just jam it at random intervals.
I don't know. Frankly any moderator will be biased d these days. I would rather see no moderator and the candidates mics be on a timer. You get one minute to speak and it switches to the other mic. If the candidates want to read the phone book for their time then so be it. Maybe have a 15 minute break in the middle so both sides can research what the other said.
I'm voting for the man, but Trump can be a bit of a blowhard sometimes, and tends to say things (or tweet them) without fully thinking through the consequences.
That being said, the campaigns do tend to poll daily, so they usually have more up to date if info than what you see on the news, though those polls also have allot of spikes that you have to filter out too.
More than that, I am still not very confident we are in the lead. I know allot of people here who poopoo the polls, but when you look back at 2016 the national polls, and even most of the state polls were not that far off. Pennsylvania and Michigan were within the margin of error, and in the case of Michigan the results were close.
On the other side, we are in a better position than we were 3 months ago, but it only takes one "right-winger" doing something stupid that gets plastered on the news 24/7 to knock us back out again. The proud boys event in Portland this weekend has me worried, I can see that playing right into the media narrative that its "right-wing militia's" who are causing the violence.
I don't think anyone is saying "give up now". In fact I see the opposite. We are at war, at least for the soul of the country. In war you have to make retreats sometimes, and cede territory in order to win the greater war. Basicly taking a tactical loss for a strategic victory.
I don’t see things getting more conservative in coming years.
Probably not, but I would settle for the country not getting any more liberal. I don't need every part of the country to be like Texas, but I don't want to live in a country were every state is like California.
If you are being attacked, then defend yourself. I don't see anyone here saying anything different.
However don't go into places that you know are rioting and then
I see an antifa logo I'm taking care of the piece of shit wearing it
Will just be turned against you and be used to paint the entire conservative electorate as a bunch of reactionaries. It may feel good to you, but you will be arrested, and you will be used to promote everything you hate.
Trump also has to be ready to invoke the Feds to all the cities and arrest the mayors
The problem is what would you charge them with? Their really is no law on the books federally or state that says you can charge an elected official for not doing something. Usually its the job of the electorate to get rid of an official who is letting chaos run free, but theirs really nothing on the books to stop an elected official from letting rioters do what they want.
Especially when the electorate supports the official in question. In hindsight states probably should have had laws to prevent it, but in the end the buck still stops with the electorate. If they are in favor of the rioters then the riots will continue.
So we should allow these commies to continue to metastasize until what?
Until we have the backing to do something about it. If we act now we do so without vast public support, and any gains will be short lived.
Perhaps we need a conservative military coup and suspension of elections for a few years to take care of the problem.
Coups rarely result in the side of "light" winning or even a more democratic state afterwards. In order to hold together a military dictatorship you have to be pretty ruthless or risk one of your underlings taking power for themselves (see North Korea). Those kind of conditions don't lend themselves well to giving up power, since the person in charge would have a very real fear of winding up on the gallows once mob takes back over and wants a little vengeance.
CCP grey made a good video about it a few years ago(who is most of the time pretty liberal, but he was spot on with this video).
Thats why its so important that we keep the federal executive branch, and take back the legislative branch. Once thats done we can prosecute these people federally if the locality doesn't. Cruz's proposal to make cities responsible when they tell police to stand down is a good start, though I would like to see victims be able to sue the mayor's and governors personally as well for their decisions.
Momentum has swung our way. Don't piss it away on some short term feel good measure that will cost everything.
Everyone remembers tiananmen square, even 30 years later. Why, because theirs an image of a guy standing in front of bunch of tanks going to crush a protest.
What do you think the democrats media would do with such an image here in the US? Trump would lose in a landslide. No, don't play their game. Offer help, but make the democrat governors ask for it.
But we are not the majority, and neither are the democrats. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and can be moved one direction or the other by current events. Trumps bullish attitude, and Covid pushed many of them towards the democrats, the riots however have pushed many back towards trump.
Don't make the same mistake that the democrats make in thinking that everyone out their thinks the same way you do and that if they don't they are evil.
No, you are to let the left win a few battles so that we can win the war. This isn't a war you can win with brute force, its a war of optics, hearts and minds.
Think with your brain, not your dick. Our fight is greater than Portland, or Seattle, or even Kenosha. We are fighting for the nation as a whole. The Democrats have openly sided with the rioters, don't let the public forget that by making it about "Trump vigilantes roaming the streets taking out protesters."
If you let that happen, you might as well get use to saying President Biden.
And they will get shot, and their will be an overwhelming call to put the rioters down hard, not only by the right and middle, but by the left too.
Its one thing to burn businesses down, scream in front of peoples houses. Even individual acts of murder in downtown, it seems democrats will tolerate.
However, even they know once you start breaking into people's houses and killing people at home then they will be hunted down like dogs. The public will demand it, and even the democrats would be forced to concede.
Its one of the reasons the agitators try so hard to keep the rioters out of the suburbs, sometimes unsuccessfully, they know its a bad look for them.
Not exactly, you isolate and prosecute. When a democrat city flares up with riots, you put a curfew in place, and pretty much arrest anyone who violates it. Rinse and repeat. Eventually the agitators are all locked up and the riots stop.
Remember these people who are doing this, are still Americans, as much as they are misguided. When this is all over we still have to find a way to live together. Most people won't step outside of the line unless their are people pushing them. The goal is to get rid of the pushers.
Then you might as well get use to saying President Biden, since the middle will turn on you the moment they see tanks in the streets. It would be all over the news 24/7, their would be videos of Army people shooting people, or dragging people for "helicopter rides" as you call them.
Not only would you lose the presidency you would lose the senate, probably to a super majority, and the house would go even further left.
And for what? You might have felt good for a few weeks when you took out a few rioters in left wing cities, but you would lose everything in the long term.
No, we play the long game. We let the Dem cities burn, while offering salvation. Let the country see a democrat rejecting help while people are getting killed. Thats the only way you win thing thing.
Would be nice, but I think you are being optimistic. Personally I think this is going to go down to the wire.