Tennessee Republican proposes amendment to allow Trump to serve third term
Tennessee Republican proposes amendment to allow Trump to serve third term
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow President Trump to serve a third term in the White House so that the country “can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.”
Ogles proposed an amendment on Thursday that says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Like other U.S. presidents, Trump is barred from running for a third White House term by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
“President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years,” Ogles said in a Thursday statement. “He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal.”
Trump floated the prospect of running for a third term in a joke to House GOP lawmakers during a meeting in Washington before the conference had internal leadership elections.
Well, that took exactly no time at all.
Ikr? I was painting a worst case scenario to my spouse yesterday and added "and don't think it would be over in 4 years - the whole point is to stop democracy, so I guarantee in a year or two there will be a bullshit excuse and bam! More years of Trump as a "wartime president" or some other shit"
Not even a fucking week...
This one probably won't even be brought up for a vote. The administration is too new and hasn't fully taken power throughout the federal government. But then they'll introduce it again later, and it will get some votes that everyone will think is just the extreme cultist representatives. Then they'll do it again, and some "mainstream" (if that can even really be applied to current Republicans) will vote on it. But that's "just performative". We know they're just doing it because their base wants it and it won't pass so it's ok, no need to get worked up about it. Then after waves of right wing propaganda justifying it as "not that bad an idea" and the leadership counts their votes, they'll introduce it again and it will pass.
We spent years and years dismissing the attacks on abortion and pretending the people making them were just performing. Then the court killed Roe and now there's a lot of very serious efforts to enact all those things.
I'm not convinced they'd drum up the votes to pass this. However I've seen crazier shit happen in the US.
The moment this passes is the moment there needs to be some national signal. A general srike. Mass protests and a worker slow down. Immediate lasting demonstrations in congress. Increased and immediate damage to the profits of the tech oligarchs that have supported Trump. Something.
This isn't Germany in WW2. The US is the hegemony. Only US citizens can stop this in an organized effort.
I think a general strike could be the absolute most effective form of nonviolent resistance. Unfortunately, I have no idea how a nationwide general strike could possibly be organized. How do you get a couple hundred million American workers to even agree to do it, let alone actually do it? I know some people would respond that you don't need all workers, just enough of them, but, while even just 10% of workers striking could have a huge impact, people aren't going to direct the anger they feel about the resulting disruptions at the top, they'll direct it toward those workers.
people aren't going to direct the anger they feel about the resulting disruptions at the top, they'll direct it toward those workers.
People already direct the anger they feel towards democrats and minorities, so this isn't that big of a deal, IMO.
The bigger challenge will be getting people who barely have any money as it is to actively participate in not making money. It just isn't gonna happen. People are too broke to focus on anything else yet. Frankly, people aren't desperate enough.
I mean I'd likely instantly be fired and lose my house, healthcare, car, so would my wife and so would all my colleagues and their families (right to work state).
I know from the end of year state of company address the company has enough funds to last 4 months without any income whatsoever, an easy time period to replace us all with scabs, especially if they have no payroll to worry about.
When facing literal homelessness that would take maybe decades to recover from, I'd have to think very carefully about whether I'm willing to make that sacrifice on behalf of the health of a political system of a country where I'm not a citizen.
I'm definitely participating in this
They won't. There hasn't been a popular armed resistance group since the Black Panthers, and they weren't popular either. It's more likely the rest of the world will have to team up with Russia and China to fight the Western Axis powers.
I don't see that going well for anyone.
The only way forward I see is shutting off trade which is doubtful due to the strength of the American dollar. Or a general strike by citizens which is also unlikely due to the price of food and housing.
The US would be in a defensive war in what you describe. And since the US Nuclear program is properly funded and the warheads are inspected and maintained on a very rigid schedule I have little doubt there will be a positive outcome for that.
There is no violent solution to this. There's 300 years of entrenched efforts against it. It would be a decline like the Ottomans, where vassal states migrate away and begin forming their own external economic ties.
Well, it depends on how conflicted his own supporters would be. I have to assume there are a good number of 2A defenders who would take issue with this. Certainly a good chunk of them subsist on the koolaid at this point, but each extreme decision like this is the line for at least some of his base.
If Obama had done the same thing, Jan 6th would have happened much earlier.
Hey cool, Obama can run against Trump to really rile up all the bases.
/s
Strangely enough the asshole thought of that. You can only be elected twice consecutively. This rule was written specifically for Trump.
This is a goddamn cult.
"nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms"
The exact wording that disqualifies Obama
even if something like this doesn’t pass, who would stop trump if he tried to run for a third term? i thought that there was already good reason to disqualify him on the grounds of treason this past election, and nobody stopped him. it seems to me like the government will be much more openly corrupt in 4 years. so i’m not hopeful about there being anyone to enforce these sorts of laws by then.
I can't help but agree.
Don't the military swear loyalty to the constitution, and then superior officers, including the C-in-C?
So unless the constitution was legally changed, drumpf can't be C-in-C for a third term?
Didn't even wait a week.
Anyone with a brain knew this was coming. So that rules out the majority of Americans.
Can we get the revolution started now?
This is pandering if the democrats don't filibuster this then it only shows government was never for the people