this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
425 points (99.1% liked)

politics

20370 readers
3262 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Despite the 22nd Amendment barring a third term (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”), Trump continues to suggest he could run again, raising the idea at a Black History Month event and with Republican governors.

Legal experts say the Constitution is clear that he cannot run, though some supporters, including Rep. Andy Ogles and Steve Bannon, are pushing for a constitutional amendment or a 2028 campaign.

Meanwhile, Trump has expanded executive authority in his second term, drawing criticism for undermining congressional checks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I mean the reason why someone shouldn't be barred for office based on a conviction is obvious

[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

And if you, and potentially multiple family members, don't pass a background check... you still qualify!

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, it should be fine to stop someone from running a country if they are a felon, but that requires sane, rational adults.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

No. It should never be fine. People make mistakes. People fix those mistakes. But more importantly, you never want it possible for a political arrest to disbar a person from office.

[–] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Problem is he wasn't just arrested. Convicted by a jury, incited an insurrection on live TV, retained classified documents and hid them from the FBI, and attempted a coup with the fake electors scheme...it's a massive leap beyond just being "arrested".

He's literally guilty of blatant treason. That should obviously be disqualifying. Brazil, which might be considered a "third world country" by many Americans, handled their similar situation infinitely better.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Sure. Pardons are a thing. And again I said sane, rational adults. I'm not saying that there ARE sane rational adults, I'm saying in an idyllic world

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Political convictions are also a thing. Just convict your opponent and you're good.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

Hence, the sane rational adults, and the idyllic world bit

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

A sane, rational adult would understand any system that relies on them being sane and rational is a poorly made system

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

People don't fucking read

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Eugene V Debs is the best example for why that's not the case.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago

All of that looks like the lack of rational adults to me