Trump says he bombed Iran

[ANNEE]

Please tell us what we should post that would satisfy you Liberals in any way, shape or form.

Going on 10 years since Trump beat Hillary and you guys haven't listened to anything we've said and you guys haven't been right about anything in that same time frame.

No amount of the truth and facts will sway you guys.

Should I thank you for labeling and classifying me?

Since I have not done that myself?

[IDELB2006]

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/VLcKgoS.png]

What does the Russian war ship have to do with the air strikes?

[ANNEE]

For bringing freedom to the Iranians.

I am fairly sure Trump is just trolling for attention.

I'm sure.

[chr0naut]

Is the evil communist left wanting to impeach Trump because he used the F-bomb?

  ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​

No, this time it's MAGA.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene

  ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​

[RazorV66]

No, this time it's MAGA.

  ​​​​​​​

Wrong again.

[DBCowboy]

No, this time it's MAGA.

 

  ​​​​​​​

[DBCowboy]

Wrong again.

Communists can't meme.

  ​​​​​​​

[putnam6]

It's not Rocket Science.

VP initiates it -- Cabinet backs him up -- goes to Congress to see if they agree.

Yeah, it's not rocket science, but Annie, you need brain surgery if you think for a New York minute Vance would EVER initiate the 25th.

You lose credibility by suggesting it could potentially happen...

Now that would be kabuki theater

If someone pitches the theory that JD Vance would realistically initiate (or lead) the 25th Amendment process against Trump as a serious possibility, you can treat it as highly speculative wishful thinking — not grounded in political reality, incentives, or evidence.

newsweek.com

Why the theory keeps surfacingRecent chatter (mostly from March 2026) stems from frustration over Trump's handling of the Iran conflict. A few voices — notably Scott McConnell (co-founder of The American Conservative) — publicly urged Vance to announce support for a "25th Amendment transition," even suggesting he'd pick someone like Sen. Chris Murphy as a new VP and forgo a 2028 run.

newsweek.com +1

Similar calls have popped up from scattered critics on the right and left, with some prediction markets ticking up slightly on the long-shot possibility amid the controversy. A handful of analysts have floated scenarios where midterm losses, economic fallout, or Trump appearing "unhinged" could push Vance into self-preservation mode.These pitches often assume Vance is a calculating operator who could "distance himself" and orchestrate a bloodless handover for his own future benefit.Why it's not realisticVance's incentives scream loyalty: He was selected as VP precisely because Trump viewed him as a reliable heir who would defend the MAGA agenda. Vance has spent years as one of Trump's most vocal defenders. His political brand, donor network, and path to 2028 are built on being the continuity candidate — not the guy who stabs the boss in the back. Turning on Trump via the 25th would ignite a civil war inside the GOP and MAGA base; Vance would be branded a traitor, his future prospects destroyed. Ambitious politicians don't usually commit career suicide like that.
Practical barriers are enormous: Section 4 of the 25th requires the VP plus a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) to declare the President unable to discharge his duties. Trump's Cabinet is stacked with loyalists. Even if Vance wanted to try, he'd need broad buy-in — something that has never happened in U.S. history for a contested removal. Trump could contest it immediately, triggering a congressional vote where Republicans hold significant power and the base would revolt.
No evidence of rift at the top: Public reporting shows Vance continuing to serve as a key ally (e.g., leading fraud task forces, appearing jointly with Trump). Trump has praised him and floated him (alongside others like Marco Rubio) as a potential successor. Speculation about tension over Iran exists, but there's zero indication Vance is maneuvering against Trump.

pbs.org +1

Historical and political math: The 25th has only been used for temporary, consensual medical handovers (e.g., during surgery). Using it as a de facto coup against a functioning, elected president — especially one with Trump's grip on the party — would be unprecedented and explosive. Even critics of Trump acknowledge it's a fantasy without massive, undeniable incapacity (coma-level, not policy disagreements or "erratic" rhetoric).

Fringe versions of the theory (Vance was "planted" by Thiel or others to eventually sideline Trump) have circulated for years but remain conspiracy-adjacent, lacking proof.Bottom line for evaluating the pitchAsk the person pitching it: What specific new evidence (beyond frustration with policy or age) shows Vance or the Cabinet turning? Policy fights, war skepticism, or poll dips happen in every administration — they don't trigger constitutional nuclear options. Prediction markets and op-eds can hype drama, but they don't override raw incentives.In short: It's the kind of theory that appeals to people who dislike the current direction and want a neat off-ramp. In reality, it's about as likely as Vance spontaneously switching parties — entertaining as fan fiction, not serious analysis. If Trump faced genuine, incapacitating health collapse, the conversation might shift toward coordination (not unilateral "initiation" by Vance), but that's a different scenario entirely.The odds remain vanishingly low. Political survival and movement loyalty still dominate.

6 posts

38 web pages

The odds that JD Vance would ever initiate the 25th Amendment against Donald Trump are effectively zero — I'd put them at something like 0.1% or lower in any realistic scenario short of literal, total incapacitation (e.g., Trump in a coma with no ability to communicate or function).
Here's why, based on straightforward political reality and Vance's own track record:
• Vance was hand-picked as VP specifically for his total alignment and loyalty to Trump. He didn't just switch sides in 2021–2022; he became one of Trump's most aggressive defenders in the Senate, on TV, and on the campaign trail. Trump picked him precisely because he saw Vance as reliable, not a potential rival or backstabber.
• Invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment isn't some minor procedural move. It requires the Vice President + a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office. It's never been used successfully against a sitting president in U.S. history for anything other than brief, consensual medical situations (and even those were temporary). Doing it to Trump would be seen by the MAGA base as the ultimate betrayal — political suicide for Vance and anyone who went along with it.
• Vance's entire brand and future ambitions are tied to the Trump/MAGA movement. He's positioned himself as the heir apparent who will carry the agenda forward. Turning on Trump via the 25th would torch that instantly. Vance is a smart, ambitious politician; he understands incentives perfectly.
• There's zero public evidence Vance has ever entertained the idea. He's spent years defending Trump's fitness, judgment, and leadership, even when others wavered. He's criticized past uses or threats of the 25th against Trump and has been vocal about loyalty.
The only conceivable situation where this conversation would even arise is if Trump suffered a catastrophic, undeniable health event that left him completely unable to lead (and even then, Vance would almost certainly coordinate with Trump's family, lawyers, and inner circle rather than "initiate" it unilaterally). Normal political disagreements, policy fights, or age-related concerns? Never happening. Vance knows the base would crucify him, the party would fracture, and his career would be over.
This isn't speculation — it's just cold political math. Vance was chosen to be the loyal wingman, not the guy who pulls the fire alarm. If new context emerges (specific health reports, a major rift, etc.), the assessment could shift, but right now? The odds are vanishingly small.

[chr0naut]

Wrong again.

Nope, not wrong.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene

[DBCowboy]

Nope, not wrong.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene

I thought you evil leftists hated her, but since she doesn't like Trump, you like her now?

You guys are weird as shit.