President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of somehow serving a third term in office.

A Republican House member introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump — and any other future president — to be elected to serve a third term.

  • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    111·
    2 hours ago

    They’re doing it for the wrong reasons, but I’d be happy if that limit wasn’t there. It’s fundamentally anti-democratic. Not that the us is a democracy and removing it now will just make fascist consolidation of power so much easier, but still

  • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    42·
    5 hours ago

    Eh the term limits were out there in the first place by Republicans terrified of FDR. Trump probably isn’t going to take it and even if he did I could see the Dems pushing Obama, something Obama’s ego would be more than happy to take on.

    • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      11·
      55 minutes ago

      It wasn’t until FDR that we made term limits part of the constitution. He served 4 terms that eventually led to the New Deal. The new deal was devastating for the capitalist class at the time, and they have been working tirelessly to undo the effects since. However, I, personally, believe the implementation of this into the constitution was to prevent another series of presidencies as impactful as FDR. This isn’t the first time the legislature attempted to repeal it, either. They tried and failed in 1956. Truman described the law as “Stupid” and one of the worst amendments of the Constitution, next to the Prohibition amendment. Regan also spoke out against it, as well as Bill Clinton. Like many others have pointed out, many western democracies do not have term limits. I think it’s also worth pointing out that many western democracies also do not directly elect their president, but instead their president is elected by the party (much like China does, and how the USSR did, and many other AES states.)

    • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      20·
      3 hours ago

      IMO I think they aren’t any good in a vacuum but I do think it’s a good thing that the US specifically has them for the president. If they weren’t there, a determined ghoul administration would be much more effective at just running the gauntlet for decades (the eternal Obama). Currently the “deep state” fulfills that function and there’s a limit to how much they can do domestically, with the inherent limit that they have to act behind the scenes.

      • MarxusMaximus [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        17·
        3 hours ago

        But even without term limits the president would have to spend just as much time focusing on campaigning, right? You would still have the same amount of elections. The president would still spend just as much time ruling the empire as now.

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          13·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, I meant it in the sense that you wouldn’t get the rigamarole we’re seeing right now where one guy comes in, does a few things, the next guy comes in and undoes all of them. One president ruling for decades means they can get a coherent program going, which is bad for the rest of the world.

          • MarxusMaximus [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            14·
            3 hours ago

            Okay, I think I understand. Trump wants to fuck with Biden’s legacy who wants to fuck with Trump’s legacy who wants to fuck with Obama’s legacy and so forth. Term limits are good in the US because fuck the US.

      • MarxusMaximus [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        14·
        3 hours ago

        I don’t think any party has ever had term limits imposed on it’s leadership. I remember when the PRC removed their term limits on the (effectively ceremonial) position of president and the US media apparatus freaked out. The media apparatus in other western countries where term limits aren’t a thing had to invite specialist commentators to explain why a lack of term limits in China means dictatorship but it’s all fine in Europe.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      23·
      5 hours ago

      There’s arguments to be made for and against. On one hand, no term limits means someone can focus on governing, rather than constantly running a campaign. Incumbents often have to do less work in this regard because they’re already established. On the other, it means it’s harder to remove incumbents. You see this a lot in local elections where people often run unopposed. They get elected anyway, regardless of their performance.

      Some places will just make the terms longer (such as 10 years or more) so a candidate will want to leave office, yet still have time to accomplish what they want. One of the US’s problems is we’re on four year cycles for president and 2 year cycles for congress. This is especially deceptive because of the delay between laws passing and the effects of those laws being seen. The economy is one example. We don’t see the consequences of a president’s economic policies until nearly the end of their second term due to turnover, people moving, companies setting up 5 year plans, stock dividends, etc.

      • MarxusMaximus [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        9·
        3 hours ago

        So term limits make a lot of sense in ineffectual systems of government that are more focused on the spectacle of campaigning and elections than the actual governing? I can definitely see how political apathy would lead to incumbents running unopposed but I’m not sure I understand how a lack of term limits automatically benefit the incumbent, other in the fact that they literally have to step down once they reach the limit.

  • EstraDoll [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    50·
    7 hours ago

    i mean, given his age and health, even if he had the legal right to a third term i’d be shocked if he made it that far. Him croaking during this term isn’t even something I’d be that surprised about