• enbyecho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    He can’t himself since it’s spelled out in the constitution in the 22nd amendment.

    So tl;dr it would need 3/4 of the states to repeal that. More detail than that, but that’s what it boils down to.

    • invalid_name@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      he can’t

      Why not? He couldn’t steal an election attemot a violent coup or bankrupt a casino either.

      Who’s gonna stop him?

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Who’s gonna stop him?

        1. All the states who are blue and/or prefer to not have a bumbling 82 year old wannabe dictator as president for a 3rd term.
        2. All the congress critters not living in MAGA-stan who value getting re-elected.
          • enbyecho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            56 minutes ago

            Yeah, they’ve all done a bang-up job over the last four years.

            That’s a bit like saying because you found a hair in your soup - which you found bland and overpriced - that you want a shit sandwich instead.

        • invalid_name@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago
          1. How? Why?

          2. Do you not remember last time? And why do you think losing an election will keep a loyalist out of power?

          • enbyecho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            1a. How: The law. Literally Trump “can’t” just say “I’m going to run again”. The constitution forbids it. Now I’m not saying that will stop all the states from putting him on the ballot, but it will stop many, and that’s enough to get any sane Republican screaming for an alternative. 1b. Why: The law. Republicans know perfectly well Trump is a shit-show, but they lacked the courage to say no to a 2nd term. A third term puts them into not-needing-a-spine-to-say-no territory. Many desperately want to get rid of him and that is their safe opportunity. 2. Of course I do. I also remember the attempted coup failed miserably. And anyway that is quite different from running in the primary.

    • ahal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I really hope that’s the case. But if there’s one thing I’ve learnt, it’s that Trump can seemingly do whatever the fuck he wants.

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I really hope that’s the case

        It is. It’s in the constitution and barring civil war and a military take over of the government that amendment is not going away.

        But if there’s one thing I’ve learnt, it’s that Trump can seemingly do whatever the fuck he wants.

        Actually he can’t. He most definitely can bloviate and spew whatever the fuck he wants, but when it comes to actually doing I think his track record is quite poor. For the most part he counts on toadies to fall in line and do his bidding, mainly so they can take the blame if it goes south. That he will be term limited is, IMO, the saving grace for those useful idiots - they know they can get rid of him and they only need to kiss his ass another 4 years.

    • candybrie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Oh that? That meant consecutive terms. Trump can totally be president again in 2028. Just ask SCOTUS.

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        You are speculating that SCOTUS will let some challenge slide. But it’s the constitution and SCOTUS doesn’t get to change what it says just because they are corrupt.

        “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”

        Seems pretty crystal clear.

        • invalid_name@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Laws are not magic spells, and all the people who enforce them are his creatures.

          Just because we use the same rules for our violently enforced traditions of hierarchy and the physical constants of reality does not mean they’re actually the same thing.

          • enbyecho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Laws are not magic spells, and all the people who enforce them are his creatures.

            Demonstrably not.

            Just because we use the same rules for our violently enforced traditions of hierarchy and the physical constants of reality does not mean they’re actually the same thing.

            You are either 14 and very profound or a newly-minted graduate student. 'Cause I have no idea what you are trying to say.

            • invalid_name@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              He cannot create something from nothing. He cannot act without an equal and opposite reaction. He cannot exceed the ideal speed of unimpeded light. He cannot be smaller than the Planck length. Try as he might; it simply cannot be done.

              A person has to actively to stop him from doing all the rape murder and genocide his shitty little chest void desires. Nobody has. Are you going to?

              I’m saying calling both these categories ‘laws’ is misleading.

              • enbyecho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                I’m saying calling both these categories ‘laws’ is misleading.

                Undergrad?

                • invalid_name@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Are you going to engage with my ideas, or try to discredit me by… Saying I’m getting an education?

                  I’m confused as to what your argument is here. My best guess is that what I said resonated with you enough to make you uncomfortable, and youre trying to discredit me so you dont have to think about it.

                  And I get that. I get trying to stay comfortable, I get trying to cling to what you have and what’s worked to keep it in the past, but we no longer have that luxury. Do not rely on the ‘law’ to protect you. Start looking at alternatives. I know its scary, I know its new, and I know it might require change, but its what we need to get through this. Maybe what you find will end up enriching you long term, if you survive. Change isn’t always bad.