DEMOCRATS WTF are you waiting for?

[Tankyl-Toker]

I’ve tried to comprehend this, but it still doesn’t make any sense.

From a political perspective, the fact that they’re even floating the idea that he might run again for President in 2028 — and that there’s already a plan in motion — should terrify anyone, regardless of their political party. Legally speaking, isn’t that basically admitting, I’m planning to commit a crime? Because if such an action is unconstitutional, then it’s against the law. And if you know you’re breaking the law, shouldn’t there be consequences? Shouldn’t someone be held accountable?

We’re not talking about something minor like a parking ticket or a missed rent payment. We’re talking about the Constitution — the foundation of our democracy — the document that defines and guarantees how this country functions. It clearly states that no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. That rule is not just a tradition or a suggestion; it’s the law of the land.

So why can people openly discuss violating it — even planning it — without accountability? Isn’t that an open admission of intent to break the highest law of our nation?

Now, to be fair, I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to talk about it. Even our Constitution protects free speech. A person has the right to say almost anything — even something as extreme as planning to overthrow the Constitution. You can’t go to jail for saying it, because that’s protected under the First Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg standard, advocacy is protected unless it is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Separate from that, speech only becomes criminal if it turns into an actual conspiracy — meaning an agreement plus an overt act — to commit an offense.

Still, what such statements imply is incredibly serious. We’re talking about the Constitution of the United States — the foundation on which our entire experiment with freedom has existed since the nation began. It wasn’t perfect, but it was designed to evolve and be refined over time.

Let’s say, hypothetically, they want to do it the legal way. There is a lawful process to change the Constitution: through an amendment. That would require two-thirds of both Houses of Congress (or two-thirds of state legislatures calling a convention) and ratification by three-fourths of the States. So yes, it’s possible — but it’s also intentionally difficult, because amending the Constitution reshapes the nation itself. And if such a change ever happened, it wouldn’t just apply to one man; it would apply to every future president, regardless of party.

That’s where things get complicated. Because if the argument becomes we’re doing it legally, then it’s no longer about one individual’s ambition — it’s about rewriting the rules that define our democracy.

I may not know every legal detail, but shouldn’t someone like Steve Bannon be summoned before Congress and asked what exactly he’s doing? What is this “plan”? Why is this kind of talk being ignored? This isn’t a fringe conversation on the internet — it’s being said publicly, even on national television. Congress has the authority to investigate matters related to legislation and oversight, including issuing subpoenas, a power affirmed by the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) and later cases.

Someone, somewhere, must have the responsibility to step in and say, No, you can’t do that. Not because of politics or personal opinion, but because the Constitution itself says so. That’s supposed to be final — the law of the land.

If people are already planning to commit a constitutional violation — and saying it out loud — why is nobody stopping them? Especially given what this movement represents and what it’s trying to achieve.

And that’s just one of many examples I could give. But I figure this is a good place to start the conversation.

Wake up democrats, wake tfu!