Ah, so I see we've entered the "normalizing the end of presidental term limits" part of the downward spiral. Maybe I need to accelerate my plans to get the fuck out of here.
We're already past the point where there is no meaningful notion of "normal" that actually impacts what happens in government. Normalizing things doesn't matter that much if people care so little that they elect someone who's done what Trump did his first time.
I mean he's selling the hats and I've seen some talking heads on the news say they'll look at ways for him to do it. The two term limit is a kinda recent precedent all things considered, so...
Are there any bookies for that? Seems like an easy way to get rich betting against that happening. If not, then I would instead wager the "market sentiment" is that Trump isn't actually serious about a 2028 bid or that he won't actually be able to overcome 22A.
boomers have already agreed multiple times this century that businesses are not allowed to go bankrupt in fear that their retirement portfolios may not be juiced to the gills. So instead we bail everyone out on the taxpayers dime and leave the debt for some poor schmuck in the future to figure out.
It (was) also settled precedent that he can't stop spending money required to be spent by Congress (settled during Nixon's term), but the supremes decided it's different now. Same for firing heads of supposed independent federal departments, which was supposed to prevent presidential manipulation.
And the s.c. created presidential immunity out of nothing. For now the president has unchecked power, the conservative dream of a unitary executive.
This will all end when a Democrat is in power again. This is not a sarcastic exaggeration, one way they teed this up was shadow docket decisions like the Kavanaugh rule (ice can arrest/kidnap you based on appearance), it's not a precedent as shadow docket so they can reverse it any time.
In the normative sense of "another atrocity like this cannot occur", then yes.
However your comment instead sounds like you are dismissing it as a non-concern... in which case I suggest you wake the heck up. We've had months now of seeing President and his cabinet actively and willfully breaking federal and Constitutional law, with the entire Republican legislature complicit.
It wouldn't even the first time states tried to remove him from their ballots either. [0]
> which cuts down on the risk of a trump 2028 run
Ah, so I see we've entered the "normalizing the end of presidental term limits" part of the downward spiral. Maybe I need to accelerate my plans to get the fuck out of here.
We're already past the point where there is no meaningful notion of "normal" that actually impacts what happens in government. Normalizing things doesn't matter that much if people care so little that they elect someone who's done what Trump did his first time.
I mean he's selling the hats and I've seen some talking heads on the news say they'll look at ways for him to do it. The two term limit is a kinda recent precedent all things considered, so...
I'm not sure I'd consider the 22nd amendment "kinda recent precedent."
1 reply →
I'm not sure how recent 1947 is? Kids would say it's 100 years ago, although the math obviously doesn't quite check out, we're getting there.
Although I'd say precedent goes back to George Washington refusing a 3rd term.
Are there any bookies for that? Seems like an easy way to get rich betting against that happening. If not, then I would instead wager the "market sentiment" is that Trump isn't actually serious about a 2028 bid or that he won't actually be able to overcome 22A.
3 replies →
[flagged]
In any other decade, I'd scoff at the idea that widespread economic problems would be a net-benefit in averting something worse for the country.
... I miss those years.
boomers have already agreed multiple times this century that businesses are not allowed to go bankrupt in fear that their retirement portfolios may not be juiced to the gills. So instead we bail everyone out on the taxpayers dime and leave the debt for some poor schmuck in the future to figure out.
Trump cannot run again.
It (was) also settled precedent that he can't stop spending money required to be spent by Congress (settled during Nixon's term), but the supremes decided it's different now. Same for firing heads of supposed independent federal departments, which was supposed to prevent presidential manipulation.
And the s.c. created presidential immunity out of nothing. For now the president has unchecked power, the conservative dream of a unitary executive.
This will all end when a Democrat is in power again. This is not a sarcastic exaggeration, one way they teed this up was shadow docket decisions like the Kavanaugh rule (ice can arrest/kidnap you based on appearance), it's not a precedent as shadow docket so they can reverse it any time.
Yet.
Trump can do whatever nobody will stop him from doing. Who's going to stop him from running again?
He can if SCOTUS says he can
In the normative sense of "another atrocity like this cannot occur", then yes.
However your comment instead sounds like you are dismissing it as a non-concern... in which case I suggest you wake the heck up. We've had months now of seeing President and his cabinet actively and willfully breaking federal and Constitutional law, with the entire Republican legislature complicit.
It wouldn't even the first time states tried to remove him from their ballots either. [0]
[0] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-state...