Left of global center? No. Left of USA center? Probably.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx

More Americans identify as conservative than liberal. It’s not something we have to like, and certain policies may be quite different individually, but in order to win nationally, Democrats have to defeat voters’ own self-identification. Obviously it happens, so this isn’t some insurmountable challenge, but the deck is stacked.

I call them “my people.”

2. if he ran as VP for another person, which is constitutionally allowed, he could be elected as VP

This is an interesting, but untested, legal theory. When Al Gore ran in 2000, there were murmurings of whether he should try to get Bill Clinton on the ticket as VP. Ultimately, there was some consensus that this part of 12th Amendment wasn’t superseded by any others: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

It’s a bit of an open question whether that means only those parts of the eligibility requirements in place at the time (35 years old, natural born citizen, etc), or whether new requirements are also included, such as already serving two full terms as President. Clinton/Gore didn’t want to push those boundaries, but Trump certainly could try.

Edit: The 2012 book Constitutional Cliffhangers has a whole chapter dedicated to this and similar scenarios. It became a must-read in Trump’s first term, and is even more of one now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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 the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the 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.

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” doesn’t say consecutively. It would take a HUUUUGE leap of logic to insert that word where it doesn’t exist. I’m sure someone will make the argument, but by the letter and the intent of the law, Trump is done after this term.

“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.” If Trump has a heart attack and dies before January 20, 2027, Vance would take over and serve 2+ years as President, meaning he could only be elected once for one four-year term.

The rest of Section 1 just means anyone who was in office at the time is grandfathered into the old rules (no limits).

Dejiulio Jr. reportedly admitted his crime at that point.

Dead giveaway that he’s not a real cop.

For federal stuff, yes … probably, it’s never been tested, but the current SCOTUS won’t stop him.

Not for state crimes. Like the 34 felony counts in NY. But enforcement of any sentence (probably financial) is unclear. Also unprecedented.

He is over 35, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years. He was impeached, but not convicted. Accused of insurrection, but the wheels of justice turned too slowly.

That’s the extent of the legal requirements to be eligible to be President. The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.

That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.

Name one of the ten commandments Trump hasn’t broken challenge [impossible]

The conventional wisdom is that Social Security is a so-called “Third Rail” of politics. Nobody is going to touch that and live to tell the tale.

Of course, we would have had a similar thought about non-controversial stuff like “cooperating with the World Health Organization,” so there are no guarantees, but wholesale restructuring of the program would (hopefully) cause more backlash than any politician wants to deal with.

The blueprints he’s working from doesn’t say anything about SS by name: https://www.newsweek.com/what-project-2025-could-do-social-security-1923892

Despite being over 900 pages long and spanning most of the departments of government, including defense, homeland security, agriculture, education and energy, the mandate text does not provide direct policy positions on Social Security or its government agency.

That’s not to say the program will be entirely unaltered, but that page suggests the extent of the (public) policy proposals seems to be raising the retirement age by a few years. Not great, but nobody seems to be loudly advocating for slashing existing benefits.

deleted by creator

I don’t see the original source (probably some dense campaign finance disclosures), but there’s some numbers going around on bluesky the last day or two:

Trump’s “small dollar” donations are only like 1/4 of what they were four years ago. Three different billionaires have each spent more than all the normal people combined.

The grassroots support sure seems like it has cratered, and he’s being puppeted into a virtual tie by a very small number of people.

You didn’t think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

If this is US, find your state labor board here:

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts

It’s a very specific question, so probably won’t be spelled out exactly on any website, but you should be able to contact somebody with more knowledge of the laws in your area.

Something like 63% of the US population identifies as Christian. That number is over 75% in Latin America.

If they really wanted more Christians, they’d welcome the immigrants. But that’s just an excuse to cover for the racism.

The UFO could be issued a citation for taking an unauthorized vehicle on a public roadway, which would give you a very strong case to have them pay for any damages to your car in the event of a collision.

However, if you don’t have full coverage, or uninsured motorist coverage at least, you will be in for a battle with your insurance company when they can’t track down the other driver (pilot?).

As always, defensive driving is your best bet. Avoid the collision and none of the other details matter.

The math might change if it’s one of those anal probe aliens, though. No judgement if that’s your thing, but I also won’t blame anyone for avoiding that situation even if it costs them a few out of pocket repairs.

Giuliani, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Adams…

Somewhere along the line, I’m sure NYC has had a decent mayor, but the recent history has been pretty fucked up.

If we’re gaming the whole scenario out, I imagine it would go something like this.

None of his current convictions are expected to come with a custodial sentence, but say he loses the election, and the more serious trials are heating up. At that point, he knows he’s toast. 2028 is too late to run a fourth time; he’s got no more hail marys, so he dismisses his detail completely, retreats to Florida, and sneaks away to Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night.

He’s got a private jet, so getting out of the country shouldn’t be a huge problem. But I think you’re right that he has to set all this in motion before a guilty verdict is delivered. At that point, getting away from the secret service would be much more difficult.

Security is a privilege, not a mandate. Nixon dropped his in 1985.

Becoming a fugitive from justice would count as voluntarily giving up lots of privileges, the very least of which would be a publicly funded security detail.

You want to feel really old?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OADXNGnJok