⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.
This maybe slightly off topic. But i find it funny a youtube channel perdicted this in humor
Donald Trump vs Joe Biden. Epic Rap Battles Of History
0:12-0:14
Personally speaking though, it has alot to do with who is running a 3rd term, i dont really mind if donald trump tries. But i dont think it will happen. Id be surprised if he makes it through 2027.
Yes, we need a President who would be 86 at the end of his third term.
If they did change the 22nd amendment so a third run was legal, Obama would run and kick Trump's fat ass so hard he would never find it. You remember Obama, he's that ex-President with the Nobel Peace Prize.
At Trump's current rate of cognitive decline, by 2028 he won't even know they are having an election anyway.
Trump should get a 3rd term. One term was stolen from him, remember?
Obama would do better than Trump if given a third term. He is younger and smarter.
I doubt he could succeed in legally changing the 22nd amendment,
If he did, I doubt he would win election a third time.
If he tried for a third term without legally changing the 22nd amendment,
I doubt he would succeed in such.
If he managed such, I don't think it would last longer than a month before government removed him for his illegal actions.
If somehow he managed to prevent government and/or the military from removing him, despite his illegal action.
I think it's likely many American citizens would assassinate him within a year.
There would always be the ever present, assassination option.
True, but I think some actions are more likely to inspire assassination attempts than other actions.
Actions or edicts?
Either one, as the words seem close enough in meaning.
Hmmmm.
Standing behind a lectern talking absolute garbage is an action.
Issuing a paranoiac directive without prior social scrutiny is an edict.
But yes, both could inspire loathing.
Then I shall say edict, rather than action.
But it would need to be a heck of an outrageous edict to inspire mass assassins.
. . Though it's possible I overestimate America's aversion to tyrants.
Certainly many people currently 'call him a tyrant. . . But they use that word more 'colorfully than as true definition.
Trump is not currently a dictator,
If he unlawfully obtained a third term he would be.
People are bothered currently about the federal governments use of Texas state troops in another state against the wishes of the state governor.
Can't say I think I care for it either.
But I always say I think state rights, loyalty, and identity greatly faded after the American Civil War.
Though arguably there are other influences, such as ease of travel and communication.
'Might be precedent of sorts for Trump,
I'm haven't thought about it deeply and am not highly educated on the subject.
"When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
I'm not sure Trump has sufficient justification to use the Texas National Guard in Chicago.
Still, in my view, he's not a dictator, yet.
No, but wannabee dictator for sure, seemingly inspired by Russian, Chinese and North Korean ideology.
Though Trump seeming also want's to be all things to all people....Just a crazy mixed up SOAB really.
And hopefully you underestimate Americas aversion to tyrants.
Though sadly if we look at the 1930's/40's German model, it's apparent that the gullible masses can be inspired by a charismatic tyrant.
So, hopefully the American people are not so gullible...And I personally think that Trump isn't particularly effective at generating charisma.
A lot of people in America think Trump is too soft and should crush the rebellious states decisively, like Lincoln did. People who hated Lincoln called Lincoln a tyrant for doing that back in his day because Hitler wasn't born yet, and ironically, Lincoln is still the most popular president in American history, so there is that. It's possible Trump is a wannabe Lincoln, but he only has 3 more years to get there. I remember seeing a t-shirt an American tourist wore up here saying, "Well-behaved women seldom make history."
In today's age, I suppose it goes for American men as well...
And hopefully you underestimate Americas aversion to tyrants.
It's the opposite for America if you look at Lincoln. Americans are definitely not like Canada or the UK!
Why would politically opposite States be rebellious?
I wish I knew why. The states seemed to get along fine with their federal government, but that all changed about 20 years ago. I guess they think it just got too big after 9/11.
I've recently heard from Trump's doctors that he has a heart 14 years younger than him.
I think he will try a 3rd and even a 4th term. Hahaha.
Members of Congress and Senate are worried Trump might outlive members of the two houses.
I don't see the issue with this; Canada has no term limits and left wingers don't care. But Trump is different because either they have a party to stick too or the status quo to stick too
The purpose of term limits to serve as a check against dictatorship. One of the things that keeps our president’s from breaking down our institutions and consolidating power for themselves is the fact that they would only have a limited time to do so and in the event they achieved total power they wouldn’t be able to hide it by pretending they just won their 5th straight election with 90% of the vote.
The fact that you are calling this a liberal position demonstrates just how thoroughly Trump has warped the minds of those on the political right.
The fact that Canada doesn’t have this check is irrelevant to the conversation about what to do here in the US. I would argue not having this check is a bad thing, but that is an entirely different issue from having the check in place, then having a president take power who fits the mold a of wannabe dictator in every way, then trying to remove that check.
You don’t see the issue here because you don’t want to. It’s starting at you.
Term limits and guns.
It has nothing to do with standards, I’m pointing out why your red herring isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
The issue here isn’t about the abstract concept of third terms, it’s about the context in which Trump and his cult followers are trying to actuate it. Do you understand the difference?
Yes. Trump wants a 3rd term; something that Trudeau was easily able to obtain. Why hold Trump to a different standard?
I apologize if I’ve gone too fast, let me try and slow this down.
The difference between Trudeau wanting a third term and Trump wanting a third term has absolutely nothing to do with the abstract idea of whether third terms are good.
Stop. Read that sentence a few more times if you have to, then continue reading.
So what is the big difference? It’s the fact that the rules have already been written. You don’t come out at halftime after getting your ass kicked and claim the rules need to change so that only the second half counts. Trump’s job as President, the very thing he swore am oath to, is to protect and defend the constitution, not figure out ways to reimagine it despite the intentions of the amendment he seeks to violate being very clear.
Moreover, what makes this situation remarkable and totally different is that unlike Trudeau, Trump has demonstrated time and time and time again an utter disregard for democracy itself, so when he expresses a desire or even an openness to running for another term, knowing it’s flagrantly unconstitutional, that fits into a pattern of behavior that we have seen from him that is shared with notable fascists and dictators since the dawn of the 20th century.
Trumps playbook isn’t new, we have seen this before, and perhaps if you’d ever bothered to stay awake during history class you would know this.
The answer is in your mind, "Trump always bad no matter what! Trump always bad no matter what!". You just don't want to say that because it pisses off normies
You can save your projection. Your mind might really be this simple, that doesn’t mean this is how other people’s minds work. If you’d like to better understand what nuance is and how it works, you can start by reading what I’ve written instead of just glossing over it because you don’t think all those extra words carry any meaning. They do. Read them carefully and you’ll understand the full message. That’s how it works.
So you are status quo defending?
No, my political views are more nuanced than to think the term “status quo” has any meaning at all. It’s just a vapid term used as a catch-all to avoid thinking through what policies make sense vs which ones don’t and instead just pretending that anything we’ve always done must be bad, because we’ve always done it.
What I am doing is trying to explain to you what you should have learned in middle school - such as why we have checks against authoritarianism, and some of the ways you can tell when authoritarianism is creeping in to your democracy. Trying to knock down well established term limits so that one can remain in power indefinitely being one of the obvious examples.
The president’s job is to change rules in a way they see fit.
No, the president’s job is to protect and defend the constitution. That means, by definition, to keep them intact by preventing their abuse. Again, this isn’t “liberal ideology, this is the literal oath he swears as a precondition of accepting the job.
You can change the constitution.
No, the country can change the Constitution, either by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states, but any amendment still has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. In practice, that makes it impossible, so the proposal is basically dead on arrival.
So for the president to take this idea seriously he would have to be thinking of a way to bypass this constitutional check on his power, which is exactly how Trump works. And you love to defend it for reasons that are beyond me.
Jan 6 was done by MAGA supporters without firearms. It was a peaceful protest.
Oh wow ok, so you’re delusional.
We have the footage, we can see them beating their way past the Capitol police, beating them with flag poles, spraying them with bear mace, breaking through the windows, etc. and 140 Capitol police officers suffered serious injuries. But tell me more about how peaceful it was. I’m listening.
You think I’m a MAGA cultist?
You might as well be, you fail to grasp the most basic of constitutional concepts for which Trump is overtly defying and you buy his made up batshit crazy conspiracy nonsense hook line and sinker, like the idea that January 6th was peaceful. Telling me you would vote for Obama is meaningless, your tacit support is the very thing that allows him to keep doing what he is doing, so there’s no meaningful daylight.