[explain]

> "There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know," he said. He declined to elaborate on any specific methods.

There are, though. No need to act naive.

I support President Trump, but I don't support a third term and he wouldn't be able to pull it off (on the basis that a third term is not a good precedent).

The 22nd Amendment clearly states you can't be elected more than twice, not that you can't serve as President more than twice.

The earlier draft of the amendment was that you cannot serve as President more than twice. The "elected" language was intentional.

[gehwartzen]

So what does that mean? Run as VP and have the president resign after taking office?

[Trasmatta]

Or just claim fraud, and refuse to leave. See if the military will back you or not. He's got 4 years to keep weakening institutions and installing loyalist generals.

[JumpCrisscross]

> what does that mean?

One would be causing red states to vote their Electors for Big Bird or whatever, thereby ensuring that “no Person have a Majority” of electoral votes [1], thus punting the Presidency to the House. (That or having Vance just throw out “bad” votes, again, throwing the election to the House.)

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/

[techpineapple]

I’m pretty sure to be VP you have to be an eligible P candidate.

“ But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

[superb_dev]

When has “not good precedent” ever stopped this president?

[_DeadFred_]

You say you support Trump but draw the line at a third term because “it’s not a good precedent.” But isn’t the deeper issue whether someone respects the spirit of the Constitution at all?

Laws and amendments aren’t just technicalities they only work because we as a society agree to follow not just the literal wording but the intent behind them. The "spirit of the law" the idea that power should be limited, that no one person should rule indefinitely, and that the Constitution sets boundaries we all agree to honor. If someone is already trying to twist the wording of the 22nd Amendment to find a loophole that’s a clear sign they’re not acting in good faith.

If you don't care when a President shows he doesn’t care about the spirit of the Constitution why would caring about precedent be a thing for you? Precedent is way down the line from keeping to the spirit of the Constitution. China has a constitution that guarantees democracy and free speech. Like Trump and your 'elected' workaround, the reality of their constitution is much different, all with China keeping closely to precedent.

[Trasmatta]

You support Trump, but aren't aware of the fact that he openly doesn't care about the constitution, and will do everything he can to circumvent it?

[blibble]

if you're a bad guy trying for third term: you run for VP, then somehow P disappears

and now you're P again

[gryfft]

> disappears

Or simply resigns.

[kccoder]

> I support President Trump

Why? I'm genuinely curious.

[almosthere]

He is delivering on what he promised and I support all of the things he promised. I was a democrat for 40 years of my 45 year old life.

[maxerickson]

This would be more interesting if you elaborated on a couple of promises and what you see as delivering.

[croes]

So prices are down, jobs are up, and the wars are over?

[cf100clunk]

Is there a scorecard I can look at somewhere of promises-made, promises-kept, new-policies-never-promised?

[bediger4000]

I'm surprised that you lean on the constitution's plain wording in your last 2 paragraphs (thank you, I, too, read it that way), but you support Trump. Virtually every one of his actions so far requires mental gymnastics to allow them as constitutional, or are plainly unconstitutional, leaving aside violating norms that have worked very well in the past.