It's the wording of the 22nd amendment that makes this a possible outcome (emphasis added):

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

It could have said "no person shall serve as president for more than two terms" or similar wording, but it does not. I agree with you that conservative justices are likely to use this interpretation.

10%.

• Chance he runs for vice president and wins, with the presidential candidate resigning promptly: 5%
• Chance he cancels or significantly delays election: 3%
• Chance he successfully refuses to leave office after election using force: 2%

Here are all the ways that doesn't happen:

• Chance he dies of natural causes: 70% - it's about one in three per year for a man in his early 80s, which would give us 1-0.66^4 = 81% for four years, but he has access to the best possible medical care
• Chance he runs for vice president and wins, with the presidential candidate promising to resign promptly, and is betrayed: 10%
• Chance he attempts to cancel or delay the election and fails: 10%
• Chance he refuses to leave office after election and is removed: 10%

These things have a less than 1% chance:

• Constitutional amendment
• Supreme court allows him to run for a third term in violation of the unambiguous text of the constitution

I can, but it would still be effective for public announcements because Mastodon does not typically require a login to view on the web, and it provides am RSS feed. Walled garden platforms that won't show posts to anonymous web visitors are not acceptable for public announcements.

exactly what the fuck did you think Donald Trump was going to do with a room full of national security secrets

Something very crooked, for which he should be in prison.

Most things that are crooked and harmful to the country are not treason, and many things that might be treason are difficult to prove as treason due to the unique constraints on prosecuting that crime. We have other criminal charges for those acts, and Trump was, in fact charged with felonies for them. The prosecution was started too late, for which I do blame the Biden administration and specifically Garland.

the President would be essentially immune from prosecution

What is it you think a special prosecutor does?

The man stole countless boxes of national security secrets, stuffed them in a golf club bathroom, and his son-in-law magically got $2 billion out of nowhere. The man held meetings in the white house with foreign representatives, behind closed doors, without allowing US translators or note-takers in the room.

The first of those things is very much illegal, and the special prosecutor who was appointed too late did indict him for it. On a different timeline with a different judge, it likely would have resulted in a conviction and a lengthy prison term.

The other two are very suspicious. It's very likely there were crimes surrounding those events, but they are not, themselves crimes. They certainly aren't treason against the United States, which

shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Now it's possible some of those foreign representatives could be considered "enemies", and possible he gave them secret information, which would qualify as "aid and comfort". The next thing the constitution requires is

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

And sure, if that burden is met, he should be charged. Otherwise, charges that are actually likely to hold up in court are more appropriate.

I didn't really have a high school bully, but I did have an elementary school bully. I knew he would end up in prison when we were both five years old.

He did, for manslaughter, at 19.

This isn’t on the American public.

It's on the substantial fraction that voted for the asshole.

Everybody saw January 6. Everybody heard the call to Raffensperger. At least, everybody who's paying the least bit of attention did, and I say this as a person who does not spend much time following political news.

I especially blame people who voted for him because of prices. I don't expect an advanced understanding of supply chains, but do people think the USA has a command economy? The president does not set prices, or have much ability to influence them.

The day that Garland got sworn in, there should have been a warrant issued for Trump’s arrest on treason charges.

That would have been foolish both legally and politically.

Garland should have appointed a special prosecutor immediately rather than delaying for a year and a half. Direct involvement of the administration would have raised questions of political bias and revenge with both the courts and the public. A prosecution for treason, which is defined very narrowly would raise similar questions.

The charges against him for January 6 would have likely derailed his campaign and could have led to a lengthy prison sentence had they been filed 18 months earlier. He is not a young man; chances are strong it would have been effectively a life term.

If you're getting ads for an adblocker, it might be time to get an adblocker (but not that one).

That may be viable for some combinations of finances and lifestyle, but credit scores are used in interactions that don't involve borrowing money. I'm inclined to believer they shouldn't be, but I don't make the rules.

A failure to set an excise tax on a product or service that offsets its externalities is not a subsidy. A lower tax rate than a competing product is arguably a subsidy.

I'm not aware of any modern societies that make a credible attempt to adjust the price of all or most goods and services to include their externalities. That sounds like a good idea in theory, but very difficult to implement in practice.

The commodity price for gasoline right now looks to be about 2 USD per gallon. Retail gasoline in the USA is at least a dollar more due to taxes and markup.

Subsidies may play a role as well, but the taxes in some countries are extreme by American standards. My take on it is that a fuel tax is effectively neutral if it brings in enough revenue to pay for the road system.