Alternatively, Trump creates enough of a Republican super-majority in 2020 to push for a Constitutional amendment, which gets rid of the post-FDR Constitutional amendment limiting Presidents to 2 terms.
The Dems had a 4-term President, so why can't we have a 3-term one (assuming Trump is up for the task)?
Yeah, a Constitutional Amendment is a bit of a stretch even for Trump, given how wide the party divide is.
According to Ballotpedia, Republicans have 21 trifectas now, with 4 more "likely"/"possible"/"tossup" trifectas possible. If they hold onto all of their current trifectas AND gain all of the red/"tossup" new trifectas predicted this cycle, they would still need to earn 13 new trifectas in 2022 to have a Constitutional Supermajority. https://ballotpedia.org/Trifecta_vulnerability_in_the_2020_elections
Either way, an easier option than "challenging the 22nd amendment for a VP run" would be "just have Mike Pence run as Prez while one of his kids (most likely DJT Jr., since he's the oldest) runs as Pence's VP, so that Pence gets his time to shine and Trump's kids get some more on-the-job experience."
They say it only says “elected” and imply what if he’s not elected technically, but literally several non elected qualifiers immediately follow the elected restriction...
“elected to the office of the president, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President”
22nd amendment only restricts a person from being elected to the Office of the President more than 2 times, it does not affect their eligibility for being/acting as President or Vice President. Therefore, it also doesn't affect their eligibility for being elected to the Office of the Vice President.
There are still many ways to be president without being elected constitutionally.
GOP nominates placeholder A and B for POTUS and VP. President A resigns after election. New President B nominates Trump to be VP and resigns. Senate and House confirm new VP (Trump) without election. President B Resigns. Trump becomes President again.
Trump runs for Congress. Elected as Speaker of the House. Current President & VP resign, he's President again.
Contingent election. Senate gets to pick VP. Elects Trump as VP (not POTUS). House elects placeholder POTUS who then resigns. Trump is President again.
These scenarios don't involve elections to the Office of the President directly.
I think the wording ambiguity (election vs eligibility) is pretty obvious and only the SCOTUS can decide on whether a former President can run as VP or not.
FDR was a bigger root cause of all the awful bullshit that made the swamp what it is: His horrific economic policies made the US economy take much longer to recover from the 1929 stock market crash, he caused a SECOND market crash in 1936 (with the economy only recovering in the 1940s because WW2 forced FDR to STOP MESSING WITH OUR ECONOMY, instead wasting massive amounts of military resources by trying to control all aspects of the military by a central committee rather than delegating to the actual experts), he added on MASSIVELY to the income tax levels FOR DECADES AFTER HIS TERM ENDED (they were around 5% or less of our GDP before FDR came in, and ever since the 1940s, it has been an average of 15-20%), he created many of the Alphabet Agencies that we know and hate today, he started the "Social Security" scam, and so much more.
If anything, we were only able to push so quickly for the anti-FDR Constitutional Amendment precisely BECAUSE Truman was less of a dictator than FDR, and thus wasn't able to single-handedly keep a tight leash on the media like FDR had done.
Finally: Yes, Trump's kids running in the future would be better for our Representative Republic than Trump himself running for another term, but it should not be considered a "dynasty", as that has some negative connotations (see: the violent revolutions that ended the power of most monarchies around the world, the incompetent dynasty of the Bush family, the four families that have maintained a constant control over California for decades, etc.). None of Trump's kids are guaranteed any political endorsements or any votes, they would have to run with solid campaigns/policies, and they'd have to show just as much competence in political debate as Trump has shown in these past 4 years.
I never said that Truman was a saint, but it would be insane to say that Truman is somehow worse than both FDR, the 4-term bastard who created the Great Depression through his bureaucratic strangleholds on the US economy, and Woodrow Wilson, the man whose dream of a "globalist organization monitoring all countries around the world" directly led to a slower US intervention in World War 1 (indirectly heightening tensions between its combatants enough to make World War 2 almost inevitable just from the economy-shattering reparations demands).
2, As I said in the COMMENT YOU FAILED TO READ, FDR's incompetence PROLONGED WORLD WAR 2 by WASTING MILITARY RESOURCES/LIVES. It was only because of America's sheer production power (once FDR's economic shackles from the 1930s were removed) that even FDR's constant string of failed projects slowly resulted in our overwhelming victory.
I'm against the amendment appeal because that can bite us in the ass - have another dictator for 12+ years down the line. Especially after all the talk about limitting Congressmen terms. I'm only for President Trump getting his time back due to the allotted scandals.
If another President in the future goes through the same ordeals as Trump did, by all means, give them an extension as well. But I doubt that and I believe Trump's case to be unique historically, for now.
The same as any socialist: he wanted to force the American people/society/economy to conform to his whims, while hiding his own weaknesses. That's why he made every effort to hide his polio-ruined legs and, even in the 1944 election campaign, pretend that he was healthy. Ironically, his efforts to appear healthy to the American people ended up giving him the pneumonia infection that would soon claim his life, when he took long rides in an open-air convertible car during a cold snap (segmented by stops in heated garages to try to warm himself back up).
Alternatively, Trump creates enough of a Republican super-majority in 2020 to push for a Constitutional amendment, which gets rid of the post-FDR Constitutional amendment limiting Presidents to 2 terms.
The Dems had a 4-term President, so why can't we have a 3-term one (assuming Trump is up for the task)?
You aren't getting 38 states with Republican trifectas anytime soon though.
I'd like to see Trump run as VP and challenge the 22nd amendment wording.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/
Yeah, a Constitutional Amendment is a bit of a stretch even for Trump, given how wide the party divide is.
According to Ballotpedia, Republicans have 21 trifectas now, with 4 more "likely"/"possible"/"tossup" trifectas possible. If they hold onto all of their current trifectas AND gain all of the red/"tossup" new trifectas predicted this cycle, they would still need to earn 13 new trifectas in 2022 to have a Constitutional Supermajority. https://ballotpedia.org/Trifecta_vulnerability_in_the_2020_elections
Either way, an easier option than "challenging the 22nd amendment for a VP run" would be "just have Mike Pence run as Prez while one of his kids (most likely DJT Jr., since he's the oldest) runs as Pence's VP, so that Pence gets his time to shine and Trump's kids get some more on-the-job experience."
"No your're a trifecta! I mean a towel!" -Towlie (from south park)
That Snopes article is stupid lol
They say it only says “elected” and imply what if he’s not elected technically, but literally several non elected qualifiers immediately follow the elected restriction...
“elected to the office of the president, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President”
22nd amendment only restricts a person from being elected to the Office of the President more than 2 times, it does not affect their eligibility for being/acting as President or Vice President. Therefore, it also doesn't affect their eligibility for being elected to the Office of the Vice President.
There are still many ways to be president without being elected constitutionally.
GOP nominates placeholder A and B for POTUS and VP. President A resigns after election. New President B nominates Trump to be VP and resigns. Senate and House confirm new VP (Trump) without election. President B Resigns. Trump becomes President again.
Trump runs for Congress. Elected as Speaker of the House. Current President & VP resign, he's President again.
Contingent election. Senate gets to pick VP. Elects Trump as VP (not POTUS). House elects placeholder POTUS who then resigns. Trump is President again.
These scenarios don't involve elections to the Office of the President directly.
I think the wording ambiguity (election vs eligibility) is pretty obvious and only the SCOTUS can decide on whether a former President can run as VP or not.
FDR was a bigger root cause of all the awful bullshit that made the swamp what it is: His horrific economic policies made the US economy take much longer to recover from the 1929 stock market crash, he caused a SECOND market crash in 1936 (with the economy only recovering in the 1940s because WW2 forced FDR to STOP MESSING WITH OUR ECONOMY, instead wasting massive amounts of military resources by trying to control all aspects of the military by a central committee rather than delegating to the actual experts), he added on MASSIVELY to the income tax levels FOR DECADES AFTER HIS TERM ENDED (they were around 5% or less of our GDP before FDR came in, and ever since the 1940s, it has been an average of 15-20%), he created many of the Alphabet Agencies that we know and hate today, he started the "Social Security" scam, and so much more.
If anything, we were only able to push so quickly for the anti-FDR Constitutional Amendment precisely BECAUSE Truman was less of a dictator than FDR, and thus wasn't able to single-handedly keep a tight leash on the media like FDR had done.
Finally: Yes, Trump's kids running in the future would be better for our Representative Republic than Trump himself running for another term, but it should not be considered a "dynasty", as that has some negative connotations (see: the violent revolutions that ended the power of most monarchies around the world, the incompetent dynasty of the Bush family, the four families that have maintained a constant control over California for decades, etc.). None of Trump's kids are guaranteed any political endorsements or any votes, they would have to run with solid campaigns/policies, and they'd have to show just as much competence in political debate as Trump has shown in these past 4 years.
I never said that Truman was a saint, but it would be insane to say that Truman is somehow worse than both FDR, the 4-term bastard who created the Great Depression through his bureaucratic strangleholds on the US economy, and Woodrow Wilson, the man whose dream of a "globalist organization monitoring all countries around the world" directly led to a slower US intervention in World War 1 (indirectly heightening tensions between its combatants enough to make World War 2 almost inevitable just from the economy-shattering reparations demands).
1, Truman got us involved in the 1948 Berlin Airlift and KOREA, which we WON. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman You're thinking of FDR's deranged successor 2 decades later, Lyndon "Bastard" Johnson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
2, As I said in the COMMENT YOU FAILED TO READ, FDR's incompetence PROLONGED WORLD WAR 2 by WASTING MILITARY RESOURCES/LIVES. It was only because of America's sheer production power (once FDR's economic shackles from the 1930s were removed) that even FDR's constant string of failed projects slowly resulted in our overwhelming victory.
Ironically Reagan campaigned for Truman, sharing the stage with him in 1948
I'm against the amendment appeal because that can bite us in the ass - have another dictator for 12+ years down the line. Especially after all the talk about limitting Congressmen terms. I'm only for President Trump getting his time back due to the allotted scandals.
If another President in the future goes through the same ordeals as Trump did, by all means, give them an extension as well. But I doubt that and I believe Trump's case to be unique historically, for now.
Who was that?
FDR
I wasn't aware of this until recently, maybe I jumped dimensions.
FDR. He entered the White House in 1932, and didn't leave until he died in April 1945, less than 4 months into his 4th term.
What was his reason for wanting a third and fourth term?
The same as any socialist: he wanted to force the American people/society/economy to conform to his whims, while hiding his own weaknesses. That's why he made every effort to hide his polio-ruined legs and, even in the 1944 election campaign, pretend that he was healthy. Ironically, his efforts to appear healthy to the American people ended up giving him the pneumonia infection that would soon claim his life, when he took long rides in an open-air convertible car during a cold snap (segmented by stops in heated garages to try to warm himself back up).
No. 8 years is enough. Otherwise we would have had Obama for 3 terms.
Doubt it. Obama said Hillary would carry on his legacy. And she lost bigly.