Trump for House Speaker?

[dannno]

Looks like it's being floated.

If Trump won a House seat in 2022 and Republicans take over the house, they can nominate him as speaker.

Now you got a few different options to retake the White House:

The vote audits show clear evidence he won the election, and some how Trump gets back into office.

Trump impeaches Biden and Harris, and takes over through succession.

Trump does as much damage to the deep state as possible as speaker of the House for 2 years, then re-runs for President in 2024.


https://populist.press/trump-run-2022/

[oyarde]

Or Trump doesnt risk another loss and moves onto other things .

[dannno]

Or Trump doesnt risk another loss and moves onto other things .

Has he ever lost?

[Invisible Man]

The vote audits show clear evidence he won the election, and some how Trump gets back into office.

What possible way is there to leap vote audits, no matter what the results are, to him somehow getting back into office?

[jmdrake]

Has he ever lost?

Yes. Even if he lost from cheating, and that hasn't been proven, he lost. That said I doubt Trump's ego would let him run for anything less than U.S. Senate.

[oyarde]

Has he ever lost?

The avg person will never know .

[Invisible Man]

If he wants to be Speaker of the House, and if the party as a whole, and the House Republicans want him in that position, then they can elect him to it without him needing to be elected to a House seat.

[oyarde]

If he wants to be Speaker of the House, and if the party as a whole, and the House Republicans want him in that position, then they can elect him to it without him needing to be elected to a House seat.

I'd take that gig part time but only if I could just work from home.

[Pauls' Revere]

The avg person will never know .

LOL

[TheTexan]

Yes. Even if he lost from cheating, and that hasn't been proven, he lost. That said I doubt Trump's ego would let him run for anything less than U.S. Senate.

Depends on how you define lost. There is certainly proof that election laws were broken on a massive scale, in numerous numbers of ways. Almost entirely by the Democrat party.

That in of itself should either force a revote or disqualify their candidates in the districts where this occurred. That didn't happen.

Further, given that they refused to allow any kind of audit or investigation, at all, indicates that they never had any intentions of it being a fair election.

If a participant in any other kind of tournament behaved the way they did, they would be disqualified immediately.

The election was stolen, full stop. Biden lost, at minimum, via disqualification.

[Swordsmyth]

Depends on how you define lost. There is certainly proof that election laws were broken on a massive scale, in numerous numbers of ways. Almost entirely by the Democrat party.

That in of itself should either force a revote or disqualify their candidates in the districts where this occurred. That didn't happen.

Further, given that they refused to allow any kind of audit or investigation, at all, indicates that they never had any intentions of it being a fair election.

If a participant in any other kind of tournament behaved the way they did, they would be disqualified immediately.

The election was stolen, full stop. Biden lost, at minimum, via disqualification.

You must spread some reputation around......

[dannno]

Yes. Even if he lost from cheating, and that hasn't been proven, he lost. That said I doubt Trump's ego would let him run for anything less than U.S. Senate.

So if you played in a 1v1 basketball tournament, and won 21-10, but the scoreboard showed 10-21 and they put your opponent into the next round robin, you lost?

[jmdrake]

So if you played in a 1v1 basketball tournament, and won 21-10, but the scoreboard showed 10-21 and they put your opponent into the next round robin, you lost?

Except we don't have proof that Trump won 21-10 or whatever it is you're trying to say. The "kracken" never surfaced. Even Tucker Carlson called Trump's lawyers out on that BS. Were there problems and irregularities? Yes. I'll agree with @TheTexan on that point. Could Trump have actually won? Certainly. I haven't seen the proof of that. Gore most likely won Florida in 2000 and which meant he most likely won the presidency. But that was never proven.

But since you want to go sports analogies, consider this. I have watched Mike Tyson go through the "slow count" of his lost to Buster Douglas. It's pretty clear that Tyson was robbed. And? He should have knocked Douglas out in the first round. Or he should have been able to keep from getting knocked out himself. The way to keep from being cheated in sports or politics is to have the margins so wide that the cheating doesn't matter. Trump blew one helluva lead. Yes he had to fight against the media, but he didn't do himself any favors either. Why the hell did he give Bob Woodward that interview? Explain that one to me. Because that's indefensible.

[TheTexan]

Except we don't have proof that Trump won 21-10 or whatever it is you're trying to say. The "kracken" never surfaced. Even Tucker Carlson called Trump's lawyers out on that BS. Were there problems and irregularities? Yes. I'll agree with @TheTexan on that point. Could Trump have actually won? Certainly. I haven't seen the proof of that. Gore most likely won Florida in 2000 and which meant he most likely won the presidency. But that was never proven.

But since you want to go sports analogies, consider this. I have watched Mike Tyson go through the "slow count" of his lost to Buster Douglas. It's pretty clear that Tyson was robbed. And? He should have knocked Douglas out in the first round. Or he should have been able to keep from getting knocked out himself. The way to keep from being cheated in sports or politics is to have the margins so wide that the cheating doesn't matter. Trump blew one helluva lead. Yes he had to fight against the media, but he didn't do himself any favors either. Why the hell did he give Bob Woodward that interview? Explain that one to me. Because that's indefensible.

If you want to make the argument that is all is fair in war & voting, and thus Trump lost, I would agree.

But by any other measure, the outcome of the 2020 election is entirely illegitimate. By a sports analogy it shouldn't even matter what the score was. One side was cheating massively, the ref's were in on it, and whatever "victor" they declared should have no meaning.

[jmdrake]

If you want to make the argument that is all is fair in war & voting, and thus Trump lost, I would agree.

But by any other measure, the outcome of the 2020 election is entirely illegitimate. By a sports analogy it shouldn't even matter what the score was. One side was cheating massively, the ref's were in on it, and whatever "victor" they declared should have no meaning.

If you can put forward the evidence and make the case go for it. (And by you I mean Trump's lawyers). Sydney Powell wouldn't even go on Tucker Carson with her "kracken" and she got mad that he made the demand. There is one 2020 election lawsuit going forward that might have legs but Trump is not a party to it. That said, do you think Trump bears any responsibility for the results? Do you think the Bob Woodward interview had no effect on the election?

[TheTexan]

If you can put forward the evidence and make the case go for it. (And by you I mean Trump's lawyers).

Make the case to who?

Justice will not be found in their courts.

Sydney Powell wouldn't even go on Tucker Carson with her "kracken" and she got mad that he made the demand. There is one 2020 election lawsuit going forward that might have legs but Trump is not a party to it.

I never gave any credibility to Sydney Powell's unsubstantiated kracken bull$#@! FYI. It was never about that for me. The Left loves to use her though to throw all right wingers in the same "crazy conspiracy theorists" bucket.

do you think Trump bears any responsibility for the results?

I think Trump could have chosen a better attorney. Giuliani did a $#@! job.

Do you think the Bob Woodward interview had no effect on the election?

Likely very little impact given that I followed the election fairly closely and I have no idea what you're referring to.

[Pauls' Revere]

If you want to make the argument that is all is fair in war & voting, and thus Trump lost, I would agree.

But by any other measure, the outcome of the 2020 election is entirely illegitimate. By a sports analogy it shouldn't even matter what the score was. One side was cheating massively, the ref's were in on it, and whatever "victor" they declared should have no meaning.

[RJB]

Looks like it's being floated.

If Trump won a House seat in 2022 and Republicans take over the house, they can nominate him as speaker.

Now you got a few different options to retake the White House:

The vote audits show clear evidence he won the election, and some how Trump gets back into office.

Trump impeaches Biden and Harris, and takes over through succession.

Trump does as much damage to the deep state as possible as speaker of the House for 2 years, then re-runs for President in 2024.

I think Trump would have been better than Biden. It looks like Trump may have lost due to cheating, but I have been around the block a few times. I hate to say this, but Biden will finish his term as president unless he dies of dementia.

[69360]

He lives in a blue district. He would lose the house race.

[Anti Globalist]

This sounds like a what if scenario fantasy concocted by desperate conspiracy theorists because they can't cope with the fact that Biden will be president for 4 years (or at least until he dies in office) and Trump will never be president again. The audits aren't going to prove anything. Democrats spent the past 4 years plotting to steal the election. They knew 4 years in ADVANCE that the audits were going to happen. They would have covered their tracks accordingly. Democrats wouldn't be acting in such a brazen matter if they genuinely thought they were going to get caught with their pants down. People need to stop with this nonsense and move on.

[TheTexan]

What would be really awesome is if Trump was speaker of the house AND President of the US. AND Senate majority leader

Maybe this was his plan all along

[RJB]

What would be really awesome is if Trump was speaker of the house AND President of the US. AND Senate majority leader

Maybe this was his plan all along

50,000 Marines have been waiting at Langley for the last 6 years to enact this. They have just been waiting for the word. I hope it's soon, because many of them probably are about to finish up their enlistment.

[Sonny Tufts]

What would be really awesome is if Trump was speaker of the house AND President of the US. AND Senate majority leader

Maybe this was his plan all along

Wouldn't be a bit surprised, since such a plan would violate the Constitution (not that Trump gives a flip about the Constitution).

no person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his Continuation in Office. Article I, Section 6, Clause 2.

[TheTexan]

Wouldn't be a bit surprised, since such a plan would violate the Constitution (not that Trump gives a flip about the Constitution).

Given a choice between the Constitution, and Trump as Supreme Ruler,

the choice should be obvious

[Sonny Tufts]

Given a choice between the Constitution, and Trump as Supreme Ruler,

the choice should be obvious

It should be, but too many Trump lemmings are deaf, dumb, and blind to the obvious. They would apparently prefer that one individual have supreme power over their lives, and they don't seem to care that the cult of personality they willingly belong to is straight out of the playbook of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Of course, the obvious point (which is far too difficult for Trump lemmings to grasp) is that the comparison is not to the policies of Hitler, et al.; it is to the fanatical devotion to one person that ignores the teaching that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It should be, but too many Trump lemmings are deaf, dumb, and blind to the obvious. They would apparently prefer that one individual have supreme power over their lives, and they don't seem to care that the cult of personality they willingly belong to is straight out of the playbook of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Of course, the obvious point....

The obvious point is you're a cultural marxist who is paid to post this crap here.

[kahless]

It should be, but too many Trump lemmings are deaf, dumb, and blind to the obvious. They would apparently prefer that one individual have supreme power over their lives, and they don't seem to care that the cult of personality they willingly belong to is straight out of the playbook of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Of course, the obvious point (which is far too difficult for Trump lemmings to grasp) is that the comparison is not to the policies of Hitler, et al.; it is to the fanatical devotion to one person that ignores the teaching that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

^This. To add I believe we have a section of the populace that was social engineered by the elites news media to think this way.

[kahless]

The obvious point is you're a cultural marxist who is paid to post this crap here.

Not sure was I missed in his posts about his beliefs however he is technically correct. Actions speak louder than words.

[TheTexan]

The obvious point is you're a cultural marxist who is paid to post this crap here.

+rep

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Not sure was I missed in his posts about his beliefs...

Sonny Tufts believes RPF should be shut down. That's his main purpose here.