Trump third term

[jacks]

Well as long as we are speculating...

Trump could divorce Melania, marry Elon Musk; (thus gaining Canadian citizenship) and become Prime Minister of Canada.

 

[Desk trauma]

Well as long as we are speculating...

Trump could divorce Melania, marry Elon Musk; (thus gaining Canadian citizenship) and become Prime Minister of Canada.

Must you?

 

[Richard T]

Layoffs just announced 25k at Amazon and the same or more at UPS. More companies to follow. I think the economy will be doing so poorly that Trump would not even get the nomination or if he did he would lose in a free and fair election.
Remember the multiplier effect in econ? Those who are laid off reduce their spending. The tariffs too will reduce spending. reducing the working illegals will reduce spending. The world economy too is slowing reducing their spending. Government receipts will decline as well, The wealth effect from the high priced stock market will vanish. Once this gets rolling it will be hard to finance a stimulus.
Course, this could be wrong, but it is sure premature to speculate when the trials are likely just beginning.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Layoffs just announced 25k at Amazon and the same or more at UPS. More companies to follow. I think the economy will be doing so poorly that Trump would not even get the nomination or if he did he would lose in a free and fair election.
Remember the multiplier effect in econ? Those who are laid off reduce their spending. The tariffs too will reduce spending. reducing the working illegals will reduce spending. The world economy too is slowing reducing their spending. Government receipts will decline as well, The wealth effect from the high priced stock market will vanish. Once this gets rolling it will be hard to finance a stimulus.
Course, this could be wrong, but it is sure premature to speculate when the trials are likely just beginning.

The Amazon layoffs are targeting corporate employees only, and it's because theyre being replaced by generative AI, not because of lack of sales, or the economy.

You can't blame Trump for technological advances.

 

[RileyG]

-

​

Mr President Trump is going to need at least 8 more years to finish the addition he is adding to the White house.

That is if he lives to 87. He's not young. Time isn't on his side.

But no. I highly, highly doubt there will ever be a third term. That's against our constitution.

 

[RileyG]

It'll be amazing if he lives out this term.

I've been wondering that, too. I have no idea how healthy he is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Neither. That scenario is why we have the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To be clear, I support the peaceful transition of power. My reply addresses what might happen if people are forced to choose between monarchy and communism in the United States. The US military takes an oath to defend the constitution, and the citizens have a right to bear arms.

Just in terms of playing the odds... (not Trump-specific)

I'd take my chances on a Monarchy over Communism.

There have been benevolent Monarchies in the past and present. Whereas Communism (without exception) has always failed miserably ending in people waiting bread lines within a surveillance state where "the guards face inward" so to speak.

I'd take my chances on a "you could get Liechtenstein or you could get Morocco" over an option where you're for sure to get 80's East Germany or Romania, 10 times out of 10, if I was forced to choose one or the other.

 

[Bradskii]

Well as long as we are speculating...

Trump could divorce Melania, marry Elon Musk; (thus gaining Canadian citizenship) and become Prime Minister of Canada.

And then join the US. Sounds like a plan!

 

[Richard T]

The Amazon layoffs are targeting corporate employees only, and it's because theyre being replaced by generative AI, not because of lack of sales, or the economy.

You can't blame Trump for technological advances.

Yes, and that is even worse than layoffs because of low demand. The reason being is that those folks are unlikely to ever get called back. While Amazon and lots of tech investment is good at the macro level, it is not going to a large segment of the economy and the productivity gains are going to the few at the top and their investors. Sure some have small piece of Amazon stock, but nothing like those at the top. I do not begrudge them, but I that is the reality of all Ai.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

12th amendment prohibits that.

Does it?

I'm not saying I'd think it was a good thing... 2 terms is plenty for a president.

I just pointed out in a previous post that it's never actually been "tested" in court. And the make-up of the supreme court is such that it could tilt his way on that.


There's also the "speaker of the house" pathway.

As just a bit of draconian fiction:

JD Vance picks some rando to be his running mate in 2028...
Trump runs for house rep in whatever district Mar-a-lago is in...
Gets elected, and then through the normal "Maga-worship" pressure points we've all seen, they push him through to speaker of the house
Vance and his lackey both say "we resign" the day after Trump gets the gavel as speaker

He becomes president again under those circumstances, correct? (as that wouldn't be getting "elected" as president or vice president"


And sorry if this sounds a bit nitpicky, but people who live under parliamentary systems fretting over the prospect of someone having "the big chair" for more than 8 years does have just a tinge of irony to it.

John Howard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You guys just had someone not all that long ago who was PM for 11 years, correct?

Canada had Trudeau in there for almost as long...


...but I would say the even bigger point of irony is the fact that the people domestically are fretting about a president serving more than 2 terms based on the 22nd amendment, which was passed by republicans and conservative southern democrats (Dixiecrats) at the time, as a direct response to the 4th election of the guy they revere, FDR. Who, he himself, was "breaking tradition" by not adhering to the informal "two term precedent" established by George Washington.

Or another way to put it, the people who've spent the last few decades suggesting that the constitution is dated and antiquated, are "shocked and chagrined" at the prospect of someone finding ways to challenge "norms".


Something I heard in a recent interview with Nina Turner (she's a former politician from Cleveland...I've actually met her a few times)...very progressive. -- yes, I listen to content from all parts of the spectrum.

It was to the effect of "Say what you want about Trump, but he has no qualms with testing the limits of the powers of the office he was elected to, and unapologetically using as much of it as he can, I wish some more people on our side would do that, we could've fixed healthcare by now if we did that"

That tells me 2 things:
1) Progressives don't have an issue with testing the limits of power, only an issue with who's wielding it
2) They'd do the exact same thing if given the opportunity (sans barriers)

 

[ralliann]

Isn’t Donald Trump constantly being referred to as a King on this forum? I can't imagine how calling Mamdani a communist is different than that.

yep. Exactly !!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even if the proposed amendment gets through Congress, there's no way enough states possibly get onside in time enough to allow him to run again. It's a moot point.

Not for that reason. Amendments XXI and XXIII were ratified in just 9 months, Amendment XXVI was sent by Congress to the states on March 23, 1971. Five states ratified within 2 hours, 2 more the next day. Ratification was final on June 8, 1971.

If there was a will to modify the Constitution to give Trump another term, it could happen quickly. There isn't.

 

[Postvieww]

Trump news at a glance: president floats a third term as Democrats vow ‘no way in hell’

President has not definitively ruled out seeking to extend time in office. Key US politics stories from Monday 27 October at a glance

www.theguardian.com

“I would love to do it: I have my best numbers ever,” the 79-year-old told reporters on Air Force One during a trip to Asia. Pressed on whether he was not ruling out a third term, he said, “Am I not ruling it out? I mean, you’ll have to tell me.”

Apart from him lying yet again about his numbers (they are in the toilet), how about we get a consensus on this?

I do recall more than one Christian prophet saying he would have two terms . That came to pass even though many thought after 2020 it would not . If I were you I wouldn’t worry much about a third term. That idea is just more liberal nonsense like claiming he is a king.

 

[Bradskii]

If I were you I wouldn’t worry much about a third term. That idea is just more liberal nonsense like claiming he is a king.

Maybe the term 'testing the water' is one that you haven't come across before.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yes, and that is even worse than layoffs because of low demand. The reason being is that those folks are unlikely to ever get called back. While Amazon and lots of tech investment is good at the macro level, it is not going to a large segment of the economy and the productivity gains are going to the few at the top and their investors. Sure some have small piece of Amazon stock, but nothing like those at the top. I do not begrudge them, but I that is the reality of all Ai.

I hate to repeat this, as it's kind of depressing, but I've always believed that we're quickly accelerating in the direction of socialism, with no way to change course.

 

[Bradskii]

Does it?

It do.

That tells me 2 things:

One, people prefer to uphold the constitution. And two, some people don't actually know their constitution (see above).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

One, people prefer to uphold the constitution. And two, some people don't actually know their constitution (see above).

No lol, let's not pretend to be naive, people prefer to uphold the specific parts of the constitution that limit the powers of their opponents, and the ones that let them do whatever they want.

Let's not pretend any of it comes from a deep reverence for founding documents.

As I said before, I'm not a fan of any president serving more than 2 terms... in fact, you could propose a 1-term limit, and make a case with me and win me over.


I was referring to the fact that the intersection of the 12th and 22nd amendment has never been challenged in the judicial branch.

 

[Bradskii]

...people prefer to uphold the specific parts of the constitution that limit the powers of their opponents, and the ones that let them do whatever they want.

At the moment, the current technical term for such a person is 'president'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does it?

It does.

I'm not saying I'd think it was a good thing... 2 terms is plenty for a president.

I'm glad you approve, Rob.

I just pointed out in a previous post that it's never actually been "tested" in court. And the make-up of the supreme court is such that it could tilt his way on that.

Their non-commitment to the law is remarkable.

There's also the "speaker of the house" pathway.

As just a bit of draconian fiction:

JD Vance picks some rando to be his running mate in 2028...
Trump runs for house rep in whatever district Mar-a-lago is in...
Gets elected, and then through the normal "Maga-worship" pressure points we've all seen, they push him through to speaker of the house
Vance and his lackey both say "we resign" the day after Trump gets the gavel as speaker

He becomes president again under those circumstances, correct? (as that wouldn't be getting "elected" as president or vice president"

Nope. Only those eligible to be President or VP can serve as Acting President or ascend to President

Presidential Succession Act 1947 - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. ​

(a) is the Speaker becoming (Acting) President, (b) is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate becoming (Acting) President, (d) is when a member of the Cabinet becomes (Acting) President. Cabinet members must also be confirmed by the Senate to be eligible (no "acting Secretaries").

And sorry if this sounds a bit nitpicky, but people who live under parliamentary systems fretting over the prospect of someone having "the big chair" for more than 8 years does have just a tinge of irony to it.

John Howard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You guys just had someone not all that long ago who was PM for 11 years, correct?

Canada had Trudeau in there for almost as long...

How is that relevant? This is about US law. We all know different countries have different rules. Mexico has 1 6-year term for their presidents which is also irrelevant.

...but I would say the even bigger point of irony is the fact that the people domestically are fretting about a president serving more than 2 terms based on the 22nd amendment, which was passed by republicans and conservative southern democrats (Dixiecrats) at the time, as a direct response to the 4th election of the guy they revere, FDR. Who, he himself, was "breaking tradition" by not adhering to the informal "two term precedent" established by George Washington.

And yet only two states rejected it (and five took no action as it was already ratified). It's kind of obvious that the people thought that 2 terms was enough. I concur with the people.

Or another way to put it, the people who've spent the last few decades suggesting that the constitution is dated and antiquated, are "shocked and chagrined" at the prospect of someone finding ways to challenge "norms".

Huh?

Something I heard in a recent interview with Nina Turner (she's a former politician from Cleveland...I've actually met her a few times)...very progressive. -- yes, I listen to content from all parts of the spectrum.

It was to the effect of "Say what you want about Trump, but he has no qualms with testing the limits of the powers of the office he was elected to, and unapologetically using as much of it as he can, I wish some more people on our side would do that, we could've fixed healthcare by now if we did that"

That tells me 2 things:
1) Progressives don't have an issue with testing the limits of power, only an issue with who's wielding it
2) They'd do the exact same thing if given the opportunity (sans barriers)

And this has what to do with what how?

 

[Postvieww]

Maybe the term 'testing the water' is one that you haven't come across before.

Trump may be trolling gullible liberals but he most definitely is not testing the waters.