jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

It seems to me that there will be nothing to prevent Trump from running for a third term, or prevent him from taking office if he wins as long as he has enough co-conspirators in Congress. Some states tried to pull him off the ballots during *this*

election but the Supreme Court shot that down. They essentially said that states don't have the right to make a call on the 14th amendment. I don't agree with the ruling per se, but I agreed with the outcome mainly because intellectually I don't think
he quite satisfied my personal definition of "insurrectionist". I absolutely think he *wanted* an insurrection, but I'm not sure he himself personally engaged in it. It's a bit nebulous.But the 22nd amendment is crystal clear about being elected for a
third term. It's of course possible he'll cling to power in other, quasi-legal ways.Would the Supreme Court ruling about states from earlier this year apply to violations of the 22nd amendment as well? If the states can't do it and the legislative
branch won't, who *would* prevent him from running again? I say nobody.That said, the GOP has built themselves up around Trump so completely that once he's gone he will leave behind an immense power vacuum and there will probably be a decade of intense
power struggles on the GOP side. Let's hope Trump and cronies haven't gutted the nation's critical organs by then.Buckle up, we're in for a ride!



He's 78, he'll be 82 for his next term forget it.

It's too much of a hassle for him to do it in current situation.


Of course it's an idiotic amendment, having term limits for an emperor is absurd, it allows for deep state to emerge and it allows tyranny.

You need at least 10 years to really get a grasp of situation and start ruling and you're out after 8 years?

Lol

If the emperor is not in charge, then he's not the emperor. You have oligarchy that's running the country and that's of course million times worse. They're not personally accountable. Nobody keeps track of hundreds of senators or congressmen. It's
impossible.

I think given his age, and lack of time, Trump has given up on running again and will try to impose term limits on Congress as he said many times. He thinks it's the way to drain the swamp.


https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991028027785138177


I don't think that's great, or best solution, but just saying it out loud and pointing out to the fact that you had e.g. Joe Biden for cca 60 years there in top echelon of power with no term limits and then you ban emperor from rulling more than 8 years
is something that any serious person must detect as a problem.


It's what makes US presidents puppets as Putin said. Every time he talked to Clinton or Bush and they agreed on something, tomorrow they'd change their mind after talking to "their staff".

It's absurd.



Besides, no civilized country has term limits.

China, Russia, UK, India, Germany...



I still think he should fight to remove this stupid amendment, whether for himself or in general, it's a good cause and could be his great legacy.



Julius Caesar is well remembered and he even wasn't the first emperor.

But his name became a title for emperors, but in Latin and in Slavic (Car/Tsar) and German (Kaiser).


Trump doesn't have to stay in power to secure his legacy beyond this point.


Trump could create an alternative. He could create an office, e.g. future US leaders could be simply known as Trumps?

He could establish an office that's without term limits.

Stalin was never president of the USSR, he was merely general secretary of the party.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

Nah, even without the amendment the two term limit had a very strong historical precedent in the US. Look, it's part of the legend of George Washington which every child is taught in school here. I don't see many average Americans clamoring to remove

presidential term limits. Only the folks who it would directly benefit are calling for it.





When you combine his entire time as "leader", leader of the continental army (1775-1783) plus presidency (1789-1797) it's a lot more than mere 8 years, it's actually 16 years of top leadership for him.

Isn't it?

Secondly, he was politically defeated and didn't run for his third term as many opposed his policies.


"At the end of his second term, Washington retired for personal and political reasons, dismayed with personal attacks, and to ensure that a truly contested presidential election could be held. He did not feel bound to a two-term limit, but his retirement
set a significant precedent."


In some other scenarios , he easily could have done it so had he lived enough, that would have given him cca 20 years as the supreme leader.

But 16 is what he had. Still a lot more than 8.


So once his second presidential term ended George Washington "retired", riding into sunset. He was old, didn't try to run again.

So you see it's not all black and white.



The big and only major question is this.

*Was it meant to be that the supreme leader should go away after his couple of terms, regardless if its one, two or three, whilst swamp creatures are meant to be there for 60 years?*

Think about it.


You don't want Trump for 12 years in White House, but Biden 60 years in Congress is ok?


It creates horrible situation that deprives emperor of his real power. If the others can outlast him, then they're more powerful than he is, meaning he can't do shit.


And that's bad because you know how psychology works I guess. People feel responsibility when they're alone.

Emperor is the one who is alone, parliamentarians aren't.


If you're alone and you see a man lying on the street you'll help him, or ask what's going on.

If there are 100 people next to you, you'll probably ignore him.

That's the difference between the emperor and parliamentarians in terms of how much they care for their nation.




Secondly, think why USA "broke" that precedent with Roosevelt in times of great crisis, depression and WW2.

If having a real, legit emperor is necessary in crisis, isn't it logical that there should be one all the time?

Why should one be allowed to have best system only in crisis?


It's like eating healthy only when you get sick, not before?

But why?




--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)