Sawfish <
sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 1/24/25 3:18 PM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> What to make of this, hey?https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-third-term-amendment-constitution-ogles.html For those outside of the US, there is a huge and long
process, usually, to amend the constitution, so a simple resolution is not much, in terms of it happening. But it *is* a first step, which is not precedented so far as I know. As some other poster wrote,"Buckle up!"> > > > Americans are funny with their
illogical ways of thinking. Not in everything of course, but some things scream bizzare.> > > To name a few...> > > 1. Puritanistic tendencies in largely hypersexualized society. E.g. national outrage when Janet Jackson shows her tits but at the same
time, no major outrage when kids get mutilated and their sex organs removed? Weird.> > > 2. Building weak, cheap houses in hurricane areas? Confusing.> > > 3. Historically, believing in supremacy and uniqueness of white people, but at the same time
bringing in blacks from Africa to live next to them? Funny.> > > 4. Apologizing more to descendants of blacks than to the descendants of natives? That's truly incomprehensible.> > Even if black slaves had bad lives in their time, it's arguable whether
they were totally worse off by being brought to America or not. In Africa they could be eaten by animals or by other Africans. Nobody ate them in America. So perhaps sometimes or mostly, being slave was better that being in Africa. Family separations and
whipping are kinda bad, but being eaten by members of rival tribe or lion is kinda worse? It all depends on context.> > But even if we concede that in general they were worse off being slaves (very debatable), it's a totally different story with their
offsprings who are much better off nowadays being in first world country than they would have been in Africa. They're mostly better off.> > Those who truly suffered are no longer alive. So why do you apologize to their descendants who are actually better
off and apologising to the native redskins.> > Following your constitutional gibberish, blacks were given legal rights in 1863 or whatever and natives in 1924 or so?> > It's beyond absurd. Native Americans deserve respect, if anyone deserves it on ethnic
basis there. Blacks certainly do not deserve it. They're invaders on red man's land.> > > TT or Pelle can continue, they're fanboys of USA culture.> > > > 4. And now let's go on topic, all of this was intro to build my case to say they have this unclear
and illogical fear of "strong leaders", while at the same time they're being ruled by most efficient oligarchy on the planet.> > It's not a "problem" when George H.W. Bush installs his son George W. Bush as a president, and another son is later governor
and a presidential candidate.> > Don't you see it's North Korea style with Kim Jong-un and his dad and grandad?> > > Likewise, Bill Clinton's wife plays prominent role in another president's administration and narrowly losess presidential election by a
miracle, and numerous other father son examples from history, Kennedys, Adams, Harrison, etx but it's a "concern" if there were to be a leader who'd stay in power beyond those 8 years?> > Biden 50 years in Senate and 4 as president is ok, despite being
senile, but Trump 12 years as president would do what exactly?> > Wreck the country?> Enrich him?> > It would not happen in 8 years, but if he were given another 4, then it would?> > It's just bizarre fear or whatever.> > > > Besides, history teaches us.>
Rome was a kingdom. They had kings. Rex.> They moved to become a republic. Oligarchy ruled.> They grew, expanded and it required centralisation. Focus. They occasionally elected leaders with supreme powers (dictators) who would dictate and solve stuff.
Ceasar was the first one to be declared dictator for life. Envious scum and deep state killed him.> > His adopted son Augustus later on amassed all powers and titles, one of them being imperator. So we know him as emperor but in reality it was just
one of the titles, think of it as GS titles. You have AO, FO, Wim, USO...once you have it all, you're THE man.> > Augustus acquired it all, leader of the military, supreme priest etc.> > Yet it was still a republic, they merely got their Dux, Duce,
leader. It was never hereditary monarchy officially, even though sons often inherited.> > > > Bottom line, growth of the country, growth of bureaucracy and absolute expansion demanded to have strong central authority to solve things.> > USA was no
exception adhering to same natural laws in their critical times.> > George Washington amassing huge power in revolution.> > Lincoln amassing power and redefining union to his liking (to my recollection it was ambiguous project whether it should be strong
union or not, right to secede or not etc).> > And finally ww2, Roosevelt through ww2 acquiring 4 terms (before him, there was no limit, it was merely a tradition to serve 2 terms).> > > So the fact there is a push to have a strong leader means there is a
need to get things done?> > > Besides it's how the world works.> > > Russia, Putin is there since 2000, with 2004-2008 not being the top guy.> > China, Xi since 2012.> > India, Modi since 2014.> > > > > Rest assured, Putin's wife or brother, same as Xi's
or Modi's probably won't succeed them.> > > Yet in America Michele Obama was touted as a saviour and some predict Ivanka or Barron...> > >
https://www.thedailybeast.com/as-dems-cast-the-search-light-looking-for-biden-alternatives-michelle-obama-trounces-
trump-in-reuters-poll> > >
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/michelle-obama-president-2028-why-b2643964.html> > > > > > > > So you're weird in many ways, yes.> > > > Yes, much does not make sense, but I'm completely convinced
that in whatever system is practiced, a written set of rules that can be changed by clearly identified procedures is essential to civil stability.I've got less an argument against the type of system changing, and/or the rules changing, so long as these
changes are initiated within the current rules--which allow for profound changes, but done using a clear process.Be certain: if you side-step the rules, it's basically revolution--all bets are off, and this is a worst case situation for all but those who
have nothing to lose. This is something any rational person who has a concrete stake in a given system does not want, and that's me, all right. It's me and virtually every other person I've ever known here in the US, for my entire life. No one I know
would benefit from such a disturbance.So let me make it clear, skript. It's OK if, using the amendment process , presidents can have an unlimited term in office, or even if the term is for life--just so long as it comes thru the established process
without revolution, coup d'etat or other destabilizing civil event.WRT to this specific declaration that a constitutional amendment should allow Trump to serve more than two terms, if it goes thru the system, fine by me.
I get it.
You're not one of those, "Trump= Hitler" types.
However your concern for the process and processes...
Reminds me of that meme...quite boomerish.
"I don't care how many aliens enter, as long as they enter LEGALLY".
Funny. The emphasis here is on satisfying the rules, safeguarding the process etc.
But from an anti/pro migration point of view, the legal aspects are irrelevant. The number is relevant.
One group wants fewer aliens, or preferably none, while other group wants more or preferably flood the country with aliens. And both want it at all costs.
The contested point is the number of aliens, not their "status".
So if one side is more cunning and in charge, let's say globalists, they can allow for some crackdown on illegal migrations to throw a bone to their opponents while amping up the legal migrations against which opponents can't do anything since they abide
by those rules?
It's what jdeluise hopes to do to people he talks to, he wants people to tie their own hands.
Yes I know the processes and legality matter, it's a battleground for civil warfare, and you can expect to have reasonable society if members are constrained by set of rules, but that's not the purpose for itself if you get me?
So I kinda think that those who would vociferously reject the idea of Trump as a leader with no fixed term end, and those who would support it, are actually those who argue over issue that matters.
Those who win just rubber stamp it.
E.g. look at Trump and January 6 hoax?
If it had been a real coup, how in hell was he allowed to run again?
And if it wasn't, it means other party commited serious crime sort of.
The battle to determine the roots was allegedly or supposedly in the senate or wherever, during that second impeachment?
That would be the explanation in legal sense or at least in political sense, right?
But imo the actual battle was in Trump continuing to hold rallies, looming large and projecting a force.
--
----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)