this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
465 points (99.2% liked)

politics

20370 readers
3179 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hyphlosion@lemm.ee 14 points 2 hours ago

The Constitution barred him from running again after he incited a riot on the capitol. Yet here we are.

Forgive me if my faith in the Constitution is waning a bit.

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

The Republican Third Term Project is pushing this hard. They're at CPAC drumming up support. I think the language is only specific to Trump though, so no other past president would be able to run again. It's something like a president that has not served 2 consecutive terms.

Also, Trump doesn't care about the constitution and neither do just about every GOP in office. They may say publicly that he can't do it or whatever, but if it comes down to it, they would vote for it.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 26 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I have to say, it would be extremely funny if they changed the constitution and then Trump lost to Obama

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

The Dems should call his bluff and propose a constitutional amendment allowing three terms, perhaps under the condition that sitting presidents must win an open primary to be eligible for a second or third nomination.

FDR had three terms, plus a few months of a fourth term.

IMHO, the bigger issue is not having three terms, but the fact that sitting presidents can get the nomination without winning a primary. This practice removes an important opportunity to replace them.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago

No its so much more fucked than that. It's literally god emperor language.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-third-term-constitutional-amendment-andy-ogles-2025020

The wording of Ogles' amendment proposal suggests that previous consecutive two-term presidents, such as Barack Obama or George W. Bush, would not be allowed to run for a third term.

[–] cranium@infosec.pub 8 points 10 hours ago

Obama - Return of the Jedi

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 38 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah well, the Constitution says a lot of things. However, it’s fairly clear a large segment of the American population doesn’t care what the Constitution says as long as it’s their team in power.

[–] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly, they’re going to say the courts are just against him, or something, and then kick off.

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

And I would say:

Yes, the courts are against him on that because it’s fucking clear that our founders never wanted a king or authoritarian in charge and two terms is more than enough and already set.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 34 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Criminals aren't allowed to run for president either. Here we are.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 hours ago

Of course criminals are allowed to run for president

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 hours ago

wrong, it's only individual states that prohibit felons from voting or running for office.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 17 points 15 hours ago

According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee are both eligible for the office of the United States of America (if they were still alive at least).

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 20 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Barred? By whom? Really, when will the states wake up and figure out there is no "adult" in the wings that will enforce norms.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The constitution is like the laws of physics; god will enforce it. If not god then perhaps ligma.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

American exceptionalism is so stupid strong that I can actually see people thinking that.

[–] Pondis@lemmy.world 199 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (15 children)

To be fair he wasn't supposed to run for a second term as a convicted felon, but he managed that.

I'd like to say I'd be surprised if he could win another election as his popularity plummets, but the US voters have proven themselves to be stupid and/or lazy.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 124 points 1 day ago (17 children)

Being a convicted felon does not disqualify you from running for president, or from being elected to the office.

Fomenting insurrection does, but that got waved away "because reasons".

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Because Merrick Garland is a bitch. Also more stuff.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 50 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nah, Colorado was handling it appropriately, then SCOTUS stepped in and told a state that they're not allowed to administer elections in their state.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 24 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

Any time Trump jokes, it's the camel's nose under the tent.

[–] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago

Yeah, I don’t think he’s capable of an actual joke. I’m a big fan of this analysis…. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/writer-perfectly-breaks-down-why-brits-dont-like-donald-trump-388956/

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 35 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Of course he'll run and of course he'll win and og course he'll just ignore the laws about it and of course nobody is going to stop him

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 17 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

I can't see him still being alive by then. He's going to have a stroke or coronary before then.

[–] MisterCurtis@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Or some other mysterious 3rd option

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 14 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

It is unlikely that the constitution will be amended. Democrats still (and will always) hold roughly 50% of seats in the Congress. So any proposal to amendment will not pass. However, there is a possibility of coup if Trump does not want to step down.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

My guy, 2 years from now, there will be a redder wave from a kangaroo election, and they will amend the Constitution and end whatever is left of democracy. CISA is gutted, and will be replaced with lackeys that will confirm the fake election. We're cooked.

[–] NotLemming@lemm.ee 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You mean another coup? Another in addition to the first coup, in which several people were killed and sh*t smeared on the walls of the capitol, when people had to hide for their lives and in which some of the protectors were complicit?

The one after which the ringleader went completely unpunished and then got back into power and released the people who'd actually done it on his behalf?

I know this is crazytown now, but we don't want to forget about that first coup.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

There are still federal and state judges blocking many of Trump's executive decisions, and half of population willing to resist. The checks and balance is still working as intended even if politicians and the other half of people itself had been compromised. I still wouldn't call democracy itself completely dead yet.

[–] NotLemming@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

Its more like knocked out and twitching, hopefully it's not just those movements the body makes when it doesn't realise it's dead yet.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

They just illegally fired, and replaced the joint chiefs. What makes you think they aren't going to arrest and replace all the democratic representatives and senators?

We're already past The Reichstag Fire

He will be trying to make The Fediverse illegal in the US within the next 6 months.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 39 points 23 hours ago

It says elected. He has no intention of having another election.

[–] spireghost@lemmy.zip 3 points 14 hours ago

Why do news stations make these stupid short clips with music and pictures? Just show the clip

load more comments
view more: next ›