5 ms·

Trump says he is not joking about third presidential term

100 points by pmags 2y ago

pmags 2y ago
Worried yet?
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  Wrong question. The question should be: Is the Democratic Party worried yet? They sure don't seem to be, e.g. "CNN Poll: Democratic Party’s favorability drops to a record low" (https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/i...). If the leadership is not making any changes to win the voters back (which, as far as anyone can tell, they aren't) then it really doesn't matter how many politics submissions you make or snarky posts you make. The Democratic Party leadership is working hard to continue to lose and they seem to be on track to be succeed at it. Go hassle them instead of continuing to break the HN guidelines.
  - cf100clunk 2y ago
    I took the parent question more generally as applying to everyone everywhere and not parochially through the lens of U.S. partisan politics, which is important but only a facet of what is an extremely worrisome global-scale phenomenon.
Trasmatta 2y ago
He's been saying this since his first term. I'm shocked at the number of people that still to this day don't believe that he's going to try it (including a large number of posters on HN). If he's still alive and even semi cogent in 2028, he's going to run for another term, whether or not the constitution allows it. He will do everything he possibly can to remain in power for as long as he's alive.
- xenospn 2y ago
  He’s gotten away with literally everything he’s done so far. I don’t see why he wouldn’t get away with this as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    He's gotten away with literally everything (except Jean Carroll), because he is willing to spend unlimited amounts of money on lawyers for unlimited amounts of time. For this, that won't be good enough. Unlimited amounts of lawyers aren't going to change the constitution; they aren't going to make the Supreme Court ignore the constitution; they aren't going to prevent a literal shooting civil war if he ignores the constitution. He's gotten into deep enough water that his normal method isn't going to bail him out.
    - Tadpole9181 2y ago
      Except Jean Carroll? I feel like she'd disagree, being raped and him still being free and what-not. Also, he has literally said he will ignore the courts. His administration already has with the deportations now. He has said that he will invade other countries. He has taken over power of the purse and nobody has stopped it. And he has congress, like Mike Johnson, saying they should dissolve the federal courts. He wields all enforcement arms of the government - what are they gonna do? Write another stern letter as his gestapo send them to El Salvador?
      - senordevnyc 2y ago
        He says all kinds of shit, most of it doesn't happen the way he says.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      As much as I detest the current Court, I don't think they are completely in Trump's thrall. At least, not as long as John Roberts is alive. If he dies or retires, all bets are off. I think he is completely prepared to work around them. The Republican party nominates him, he appears on the ballot in ~28 states, wins the election, and the Congress approves it. Roberts may not show up to administer the oath, but he's not going to make a statement against it. When he appoints new members, they'll be approved by Congress, and the court will accept them as valid because what else are they gonna do. Somebody will surely sue -- but dollars to donuts they'll claim whoever it is won't have standing.
explain 2y ago
> "There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know," he said. He declined to elaborate on any specific methods. There are, though. No need to act naive. I support President Trump, but I don't support a third term and he wouldn't be able to pull it off (on the basis that a third term is not a good precedent). The 22nd Amendment clearly states you can't be elected more than twice, not that you can't serve as President more than twice. The earlier draft of the amendment was that you cannot serve as President more than twice. The "elected" language was intentional.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  You support Trump, but aren't aware of the fact that he openly doesn't care about the constitution, and will do everything he can to circumvent it?
- kccoder 2y ago
  > I support President Trump Why? I'm genuinely curious.
  - gryfft 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cf100clunk 2y ago
      That's quite an admission. Would you say your feelings are objective?
      - gryfft 2y ago
        Observation, not admission. The fact remains that you can't argue with feelings.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Well, let's see. He could change the constitution. That requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. That's not happening. Or he's going to ignore the constitution. That seems much more likely. It also seems almost certain to trigger a civil war. Currently, Trump is the president. He's even my president. I don't like him much, I think he's making very foolish decisions, but he's my president. But he's not my king. And if he tries to stay in power in violation of the constitution, he won't be my president, either, because it's the constitution that makes him president. If he's outside that, then he's not the president.
- sitkack 2y ago
  I don't know how wise it is to spitball how to accomplish this in public without at the same time preventing those CVEs.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
    - mizzao 2y ago
      It's interesting times when one finds oneself an unlikely supporter of the second amendment.
      - red-iron-pine 2y ago
        unlikely? the only reason you have OSHA, an 8 hour workday, and bans on 8 year olds working 7-days straight is because of labor riots that turned into running gun battles. the right wing nutjobs weren't wrong about defending your rights by force if necessary. it's just that their "rights" included KKK ideology, and poor licensing rules for firearms that made it easy to shoot up elementary schools.
- tim333 2y ago
  The most practical might be to run as Vance Trump rather than Trump Vance. Like the Putin Medvedev thing.
yongjik 2y ago
Everything Trump promised but did not do yet is obviously a joke, and if Democrats can't take a joke, it's their problem, or worse, something something Trump Derangement Syndrome. Everything Trump promised (or did not promise) and did is totally fine, constitutional, and legal, and Democrats are a problem for not understanding it's basically the same thing as (some Clinton era policy which is clearly not related at all). The moment Trump runs for his third term, every Trump supporter will find reasons why this is OK. To them, having an argument is like schoolyard bullying: consistency is for losers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
archagon 2y ago
Here's how they plan to do it: https://www.thirdtermproject.com/third-term https://www.thirdtermproject.com/third-term > Constitutional Amendment: The U.S. Constitution can be amended by an act of Congress. Republicans must publicly get behind the third-term project. > Running as Vice President: President Trump can run as Vice President with a space filler as President in 2028. Perhaps Donald Trump Jr. could run on a Trump/Trump ticket before gracefully resigning on Jan. 21, 2028 after securing victory. This plan while unorthodox would show that MAGA cannot be stopped by any procedural rule. > Supreme Court Ruling: The 22nd Amendment bans anyone from serving two terms in office, but it is not completely clear if that refers to two presidential terms under any circumstances or two consecutive presidential terms. There are legal challenges in the works to clear up the ambiguity regarding the 22nd Amendment. The conservative rule-of-law justices on the Supreme Court would be able to settle this once and for all, making it clear that the 22nd Amendment would allow Trump a third term as it would only be his second consecutive term.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > The U.S. Constitution can be amended by an act of Congress No, it can't. If 2/3 of the House & Senate agree, they can propose an amendment to send to the states. It then takes 3/4 of states ratifying it to actually amend the Constitution. > Running as Vice President: President Trump can run as Vice President with a space filler as President in 2028. The 12th Amendment likely bars that, because of the 22nd. If you're not eligible to to be President, you aren't eligible to be Vice President either. > but it is not completely clear if that refers to two presidential terms under any circumstances or two consecutive presidential term This is just plain nonsense. They might as well argue that it doesn't make it clear whether two is a number or not. This whole thing is silly. Let's not forget that amending this would mean Obama would be eligible to run again.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > Let's not forget that amending this would mean Obama would be eligible to run again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Attempts_at_repeal_or_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the... Representative Andy Ogles put forward a proposal that would have kept Obama from running again, but allow Trump a third term. It would be a funny joke in a TV show, it's sad that someone wasted actual time on it though.
thiht 2y ago
But apparently you’re crazy if you say the US is now a dictatorship and you won’t get a fair election in 4 years.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  No, the US is not currently a dictatorship. The US currently has a president who tries to be a dictator, but that's not the same thing. And it has a congress that doesn't bother to check the president, but that's still not a dictatorship. And, as someone who lives in the US, the difference really matters. The difference between this and a real dictatorship is the courts. If we lose that, we're in trouble.
  - vinni2 2y ago
    It’s getting there.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/mike-johnson-congress-courts-trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/mike-johnson... ("Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as Trump faces judicial pressure")
  - adastra22 2y ago
    If checks and balances are not being enforced, I failed to see the distinction you’re trying to make.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Um, the courts are part of the checks and balances...
      - croes 2y ago
        And what can the courts do if Trump ignores them? They already ignored a judges's order https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judg...
TooSmugToFail 2y ago
The grotesque irony of this situation is that the Democrats aren’t even able to put up a fight for democracy.
- jmye 2y ago
  What specific things do you want them to do? Excited to hear about magical “protests” and “speeches” again.
  - foldr 2y ago
    I know it’s not really how the US political system works, but the Democrats desperately need a single “leader of the opposition” figurehead. For some reason they seem to think that they have all the time in the world to choose their next candidate, even after the Harris debacle.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    > What specific things do you want them to do? change from relying solely on the First Amendment.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      They are relying on more than the First Amendment. They're relying on the 4th, 5th, and 14th as well. And, in extremis, the 22nd. If you're suggesting that they rely on the Second... well, that's a lot to ask. I'm not saying you're wrong, if indeed all those amendments do fail, especially that last. But I think most people would rather the save the "fourth box" for last.
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  Arguably, the Democrats put up way too much of a fight about democracy in the 2024 election, when surveys consistently showed that what voters cared most about wasn't safeguarding democracy, but the economy and immigration. You can argue that voters should care more, and prattle on about it, but that's how you lose an election and democracy.
hypeatei 2y ago
This was obvious to any serious person. The common "centrist" (shy Republican) take was that Dems were just being hyperbolic again. It was never surprising that Republicans would try to ratfuck 2028 to keep Trump in power and that his base would accept it considering what happened in 2021 at the Capitol.
breadwinner 2y ago
From the interview: > “There are methods which you could do it,” the president said when asked whether there are strategies on the table to allow him to seek another term. Welker mentioned a possible plan in which Vice President JD Vance would run in 2028 and then “pass the baton” to Trump. “Well, that’s one. But there are others too,” the president said, before refusing to elaborate. The other method of course, is to not have an election at all! Why risk losing? Anyone who thinks there is going to be a presidential election in 2028 hasn't been paying attention. There is no way Trump is going to that risk. He doesn't have to. All checks and balances have been suppressed already.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Welker mentioned a possible plan in which Vice President JD Vance would run in 2028 and then “pass the baton” to Trump Curious how they’d do this. The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” [1]. Simplest would be to elect two randos, have the House choose Trump as Speaker [2], then have the randos resign [3]. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-congress-requirements-qualifications-kevin-mccarthy-ouster-donald-trump/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-con... [3] https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
  - stubish 2y ago
    Or declaring martial law via the insurrection act if you follow the argument at https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/insurrection-act-president-trump-20201819.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/insurr... . Should become apparent around April 20th if protests turn out to help Trump, providing an excuse.
    - breadwinner 2y ago
      What is special about April 20?
dns_snek 2y ago
At which point do people decide to finally use the rights given to them by the 2nd amendment? It's really a shame seeing how many school kids had to die for this supposedly necessary right - decades of pretending that it was a necessary cost to protect the US against tyranny.
- water-data-dude 2y ago
  People have mistaken the symbol for the thing symbolized. The second amendment, in SPIRIT, is about protecting our ability to dissent and protest our government if it becomes tyrannical. If the people who are loudest about upholding the LETTER of the second amendment were actually serious about it then they’d also be advocating for strong cryptography and due process, and opposed to mass surveillance.
- jzackpete 2y ago
  how many people do you know who actually believe in the 2nd amendment and don't support trump? do you even live in the US?
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    I don't know anyone since I don't live in the US, but statistics[1] show that gun ownership among democrats is at 20% compared to 45% among republicans. It's substantially lower but still in the same order of magnitude. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  the only group that is serious about the 2nd are usually the ones in favor of Trump, unfortunately. the anti-MAGA-action crowd still has not given up on the 1st Amendment, to the chagrin of the world and 2/3 of the US population. far too many think that retweets or FB posts constitute action
- jfengel 2y ago
  Your popgun isn't going to do anything except get you killed. The Second Amendment was intended to support fending off foreign invaders -- that whole "well regulated militia" thing. There wasn't a standing army at the time. As soon as we got one, the "second amendment" became moot. The army is going to be extremely reluctant to fire on Americans. But if you come at them with a gun, they'll do it. You don't have even a billionth of their firepower.
nprateem 2y ago
The HN flagathon continues. Fewer things could be more relevant to entrepreneurship than the rule of law but everything uncomfortable still gets flagged. Wish I could bury my head in the sand as easily.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  To be fair, although important, these comment threads do not gratify intellectual curiosity. If anything, it just depresses me (and yet I keep going to /active to find them).
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    Don't they? I've heard people talking about a third term since October all over the web but this HN thread is the first where I've seen actual ideas floated about how he could do it. The reason I come to /active to find these threads rather than just reading the AP report is because I respect my co-commentors here a great deal and know that they're the type of people to try to verbalise the technical issues at play. In short because this is the only place where these discussions can satisfy my intellectual curiosity rather than just blindly feeding into/denying there's any need for hysteria.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      > Don't they? I've heard people talking about a third term since October all over the web but this HN thread is the first where I've seen actual ideas floated about how he could do it. Don't get me wrong, I've learned a bunch from these threads too, but there is a lot of anger, frustration and hatred in these threads, so I can definitely see why people tend to flag them (even though I don't do so myself).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Jzush 2y ago
eh, even if he did chances are pretty good most states won't put him on the ballot. He can bluster all he wants but no amount of bullcrap will allow for a 3rd term.

100 points by pmags 2y ago

pmags 2y ago

Worried yet?

ThrowawayR2 2y ago
Wrong question. The question should be: Is the Democratic Party worried yet? They sure don't seem to be, e.g. "CNN Poll: Democratic Party’s favorability drops to a record low" (https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/i...). If the leadership is not making any changes to win the voters back (which, as far as anyone can tell, they aren't) then it really doesn't matter how many politics submissions you make or snarky posts you make. The Democratic Party leadership is working hard to continue to lose and they seem to be on track to be succeed at it. Go hassle them instead of continuing to break the HN guidelines.
- cf100clunk 2y ago
  I took the parent question more generally as applying to everyone everywhere and not parochially through the lens of U.S. partisan politics, which is important but only a facet of what is an extremely worrisome global-scale phenomenon.

Trasmatta 2y ago

He's been saying this since his first term. I'm shocked at the number of people that still to this day don't believe that he's going to try it (including a large number of posters on HN). If he's still alive and even semi cogent in 2028, he's going to run for another term, whether or not the constitution allows it. He will do everything he possibly can to remain in power for as long as he's alive.

xenospn 2y ago
He’s gotten away with literally everything he’s done so far. I don’t see why he wouldn’t get away with this as well.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  He's gotten away with literally everything (except Jean Carroll), because he is willing to spend unlimited amounts of money on lawyers for unlimited amounts of time. For this, that won't be good enough. Unlimited amounts of lawyers aren't going to change the constitution; they aren't going to make the Supreme Court ignore the constitution; they aren't going to prevent a literal shooting civil war if he ignores the constitution. He's gotten into deep enough water that his normal method isn't going to bail him out.
  - Tadpole9181 2y ago
    Except Jean Carroll? I feel like she'd disagree, being raped and him still being free and what-not. Also, he has literally said he will ignore the courts. His administration already has with the deportations now. He has said that he will invade other countries. He has taken over power of the purse and nobody has stopped it. And he has congress, like Mike Johnson, saying they should dissolve the federal courts. He wields all enforcement arms of the government - what are they gonna do? Write another stern letter as his gestapo send them to El Salvador?
    - senordevnyc 2y ago
      He says all kinds of shit, most of it doesn't happen the way he says.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    As much as I detest the current Court, I don't think they are completely in Trump's thrall. At least, not as long as John Roberts is alive. If he dies or retires, all bets are off. I think he is completely prepared to work around them. The Republican party nominates him, he appears on the ballot in ~28 states, wins the election, and the Congress approves it. Roberts may not show up to administer the oath, but he's not going to make a statement against it. When he appoints new members, they'll be approved by Congress, and the court will accept them as valid because what else are they gonna do. Somebody will surely sue -- but dollars to donuts they'll claim whoever it is won't have standing.

explain 2y ago

> "There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know," he said. He declined to elaborate on any specific methods. There are, though. No need to act naive. I support President Trump, but I don't support a third term and he wouldn't be able to pull it off (on the basis that a third term is not a good precedent). The 22nd Amendment clearly states you can't be elected more than twice, not that you can't serve as President more than twice. The earlier draft of the amendment was that you cannot serve as President more than twice. The "elected" language was intentional.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Trasmatta 2y ago
You support Trump, but aren't aware of the fact that he openly doesn't care about the constitution, and will do everything he can to circumvent it?
kccoder 2y ago
> I support President Trump Why? I'm genuinely curious.
- gryfft 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cf100clunk 2y ago
    That's quite an admission. Would you say your feelings are objective?
    - gryfft 2y ago
      Observation, not admission. The fact remains that you can't argue with feelings.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Well, let's see. He could change the constitution. That requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. That's not happening. Or he's going to ignore the constitution. That seems much more likely. It also seems almost certain to trigger a civil war. Currently, Trump is the president. He's even my president. I don't like him much, I think he's making very foolish decisions, but he's my president. But he's not my king. And if he tries to stay in power in violation of the constitution, he won't be my president, either, because it's the constitution that makes him president. If he's outside that, then he's not the president.

sitkack 2y ago
I don't know how wise it is to spitball how to accomplish this in public without at the same time preventing those CVEs.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
  - mizzao 2y ago
    It's interesting times when one finds oneself an unlikely supporter of the second amendment.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      unlikely? the only reason you have OSHA, an 8 hour workday, and bans on 8 year olds working 7-days straight is because of labor riots that turned into running gun battles. the right wing nutjobs weren't wrong about defending your rights by force if necessary. it's just that their "rights" included KKK ideology, and poor licensing rules for firearms that made it easy to shoot up elementary schools.
tim333 2y ago
The most practical might be to run as Vance Trump rather than Trump Vance. Like the Putin Medvedev thing.

yongjik 2y ago

Everything Trump promised but did not do yet is obviously a joke, and if Democrats can't take a joke, it's their problem, or worse, something something Trump Derangement Syndrome. Everything Trump promised (or did not promise) and did is totally fine, constitutional, and legal, and Democrats are a problem for not understanding it's basically the same thing as (some Clinton era policy which is clearly not related at all). The moment Trump runs for his third term, every Trump supporter will find reasons why this is OK. To them, having an argument is like schoolyard bullying: consistency is for losers.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

archagon 2y ago

Here's how they plan to do it: https://www.thirdtermproject.com/third-term https://www.thirdtermproject.com/third-term > Constitutional Amendment: The U.S. Constitution can be amended by an act of Congress. Republicans must publicly get behind the third-term project. > Running as Vice President: President Trump can run as Vice President with a space filler as President in 2028. Perhaps Donald Trump Jr. could run on a Trump/Trump ticket before gracefully resigning on Jan. 21, 2028 after securing victory. This plan while unorthodox would show that MAGA cannot be stopped by any procedural rule. > Supreme Court Ruling: The 22nd Amendment bans anyone from serving two terms in office, but it is not completely clear if that refers to two presidential terms under any circumstances or two consecutive presidential terms. There are legal challenges in the works to clear up the ambiguity regarding the 22nd Amendment. The conservative rule-of-law justices on the Supreme Court would be able to settle this once and for all, making it clear that the 22nd Amendment would allow Trump a third term as it would only be his second consecutive term.

Aloisius 2y ago
> The U.S. Constitution can be amended by an act of Congress No, it can't. If 2/3 of the House & Senate agree, they can propose an amendment to send to the states. It then takes 3/4 of states ratifying it to actually amend the Constitution. > Running as Vice President: President Trump can run as Vice President with a space filler as President in 2028. The 12th Amendment likely bars that, because of the 22nd. If you're not eligible to to be President, you aren't eligible to be Vice President either. > but it is not completely clear if that refers to two presidential terms under any circumstances or two consecutive presidential term This is just plain nonsense. They might as well argue that it doesn't make it clear whether two is a number or not. This whole thing is silly. Let's not forget that amending this would mean Obama would be eligible to run again.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Let's not forget that amending this would mean Obama would be eligible to run again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Attempts_at_repeal_or_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the... Representative Andy Ogles put forward a proposal that would have kept Obama from running again, but allow Trump a third term. It would be a funny joke in a TV show, it's sad that someone wasted actual time on it though.

thiht 2y ago

But apparently you’re crazy if you say the US is now a dictatorship and you won’t get a fair election in 4 years.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
No, the US is not currently a dictatorship. The US currently has a president who tries to be a dictator, but that's not the same thing. And it has a congress that doesn't bother to check the president, but that's still not a dictatorship. And, as someone who lives in the US, the difference really matters. The difference between this and a real dictatorship is the courts. If we lose that, we're in trouble.
- vinni2 2y ago
  It’s getting there.
- perihelions 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/mike-johnson-congress-courts-trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/mike-johnson... ("Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as Trump faces judicial pressure")
- adastra22 2y ago
  If checks and balances are not being enforced, I failed to see the distinction you’re trying to make.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Um, the courts are part of the checks and balances...
    - croes 2y ago
      And what can the courts do if Trump ignores them? They already ignored a judges's order https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judg...

TooSmugToFail 2y ago

The grotesque irony of this situation is that the Democrats aren’t even able to put up a fight for democracy.

jmye 2y ago
What specific things do you want them to do? Excited to hear about magical “protests” and “speeches” again.
- foldr 2y ago
  I know it’s not really how the US political system works, but the Democrats desperately need a single “leader of the opposition” figurehead. For some reason they seem to think that they have all the time in the world to choose their next candidate, even after the Harris debacle.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  > What specific things do you want them to do? change from relying solely on the First Amendment.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    They are relying on more than the First Amendment. They're relying on the 4th, 5th, and 14th as well. And, in extremis, the 22nd. If you're suggesting that they rely on the Second... well, that's a lot to ask. I'm not saying you're wrong, if indeed all those amendments do fail, especially that last. But I think most people would rather the save the "fourth box" for last.
senordevnyc 2y ago
Arguably, the Democrats put up way too much of a fight about democracy in the 2024 election, when surveys consistently showed that what voters cared most about wasn't safeguarding democracy, but the economy and immigration. You can argue that voters should care more, and prattle on about it, but that's how you lose an election and democracy.

hypeatei 2y ago

This was obvious to any serious person. The common "centrist" (shy Republican) take was that Dems were just being hyperbolic again. It was never surprising that Republicans would try to ratfuck 2028 to keep Trump in power and that his base would accept it considering what happened in 2021 at the Capitol.

breadwinner 2y ago

From the interview: > “There are methods which you could do it,” the president said when asked whether there are strategies on the table to allow him to seek another term. Welker mentioned a possible plan in which Vice President JD Vance would run in 2028 and then “pass the baton” to Trump. “Well, that’s one. But there are others too,” the president said, before refusing to elaborate. The other method of course, is to not have an election at all! Why risk losing? Anyone who thinks there is going to be a presidential election in 2028 hasn't been paying attention. There is no way Trump is going to that risk. He doesn't have to. All checks and balances have been suppressed already.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Welker mentioned a possible plan in which Vice President JD Vance would run in 2028 and then “pass the baton” to Trump Curious how they’d do this. The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” [1]. Simplest would be to elect two randos, have the House choose Trump as Speaker [2], then have the randos resign [3]. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-congress-requirements-qualifications-kevin-mccarthy-ouster-donald-trump/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-con... [3] https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
- stubish 2y ago
  Or declaring martial law via the insurrection act if you follow the argument at https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/insurrection-act-president-trump-20201819.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/insurr... . Should become apparent around April 20th if protests turn out to help Trump, providing an excuse.
  - breadwinner 2y ago
    What is special about April 20?

dns_snek 2y ago

At which point do people decide to finally use the rights given to them by the 2nd amendment? It's really a shame seeing how many school kids had to die for this supposedly necessary right - decades of pretending that it was a necessary cost to protect the US against tyranny.

water-data-dude 2y ago
People have mistaken the symbol for the thing symbolized. The second amendment, in SPIRIT, is about protecting our ability to dissent and protest our government if it becomes tyrannical. If the people who are loudest about upholding the LETTER of the second amendment were actually serious about it then they’d also be advocating for strong cryptography and due process, and opposed to mass surveillance.
jzackpete 2y ago
how many people do you know who actually believe in the 2nd amendment and don't support trump? do you even live in the US?
- dns_snek 2y ago
  I don't know anyone since I don't live in the US, but statistics[1] show that gun ownership among democrats is at 20% compared to 45% among republicans. It's substantially lower but still in the same order of magnitude. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...
red-iron-pine 2y ago
the only group that is serious about the 2nd are usually the ones in favor of Trump, unfortunately. the anti-MAGA-action crowd still has not given up on the 1st Amendment, to the chagrin of the world and 2/3 of the US population. far too many think that retweets or FB posts constitute action
jfengel 2y ago
Your popgun isn't going to do anything except get you killed. The Second Amendment was intended to support fending off foreign invaders -- that whole "well regulated militia" thing. There wasn't a standing army at the time. As soon as we got one, the "second amendment" became moot. The army is going to be extremely reluctant to fire on Americans. But if you come at them with a gun, they'll do it. You don't have even a billionth of their firepower.

nprateem 2y ago

The HN flagathon continues. Fewer things could be more relevant to entrepreneurship than the rule of law but everything uncomfortable still gets flagged. Wish I could bury my head in the sand as easily.

disgruntledphd2 2y ago
To be fair, although important, these comment threads do not gratify intellectual curiosity. If anything, it just depresses me (and yet I keep going to /active to find them).
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Don't they? I've heard people talking about a third term since October all over the web but this HN thread is the first where I've seen actual ideas floated about how he could do it. The reason I come to /active to find these threads rather than just reading the AP report is because I respect my co-commentors here a great deal and know that they're the type of people to try to verbalise the technical issues at play. In short because this is the only place where these discussions can satisfy my intellectual curiosity rather than just blindly feeding into/denying there's any need for hysteria.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    > Don't they? I've heard people talking about a third term since October all over the web but this HN thread is the first where I've seen actual ideas floated about how he could do it. Don't get me wrong, I've learned a bunch from these threads too, but there is a lot of anger, frustration and hatred in these threads, so I can definitely see why people tend to flag them (even though I don't do so myself).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Jzush 2y ago

eh, even if he did chances are pretty good most states won't put him on the ballot. He can bluster all he wants but no amount of bullcrap will allow for a 3rd term.