Trump wants two-term limit repealed

[PartySick 174,307]

43 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

So if the rule only dates from 1947, then I suppose it would strengthen Trump’s legal case (as a relict of the Cold War) then if it had been set in stone from the very beginning.

I mean, I wouldn't call it a relic. It's one of the founding principles of America. We weren't founded just to be a democracy, we were meant to be a literal antithesis to the monarchy we split from. A huge part of that is term limits which is why we're not only NOT considering suspending presidential term limits but we want to impose limits on congressional seats too.

When one person sits in a place of power too long, complacency, corruption, and entitlement creep in. Especially if someone like Trump is in office.

[malazam 15,710]

Dictator ****.

Here in Uruguay there's no reelection.

[whore 11,447]

[redacted]

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,998]

1 hour ago, Maleficent said:

It was passed in 1947. Yes my country, and most of the EU also does not have term limits. Which makes sense tbh, if someone is doing a good enough job for people to continue voting for them, I don't see how thats a "dictatorship" 

Trump can try to run for a 3rd term, but its up to the public if he will serve a 3rd term. 

Funny how American touts itself as the "most democratic democracy" bc of term limits, yet still relies on an electoral college...smh 

America isn't a democracy though, it's a Republic.

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I see 1 benefit of the limit and that is that power tends to corrupt over time so a term limit can help put a brake on that to some degree or another

 

But I think there's more downsides than up sides for sure tho. If someone is doing a great job they can't continue and ud think if a country is a legitimate democracy than anyone that does that poorly shouldn't get re-elected over and over again

That might be true if America didn't have the electoral college. Republicans have already benefitted off it twice this century. It'll be fun to see them change their minds real quick if a Democrat ever lost the popular vote but won the presidency. 

1 hour ago, ModernXTC said:

ya know, this country voted for George W. Bush TWICE, which was the administration that did the most damage to this country in modern times... A lot of those same, stupid fvcking Americans are going to do the same for Trump. People are so lost these days, they crave this 'false' sense of security by having someone or something to believe in, like this full-time bullshitter Trump, who is such a con-artist. They choose to believe his trash ass lies, even when the facts are out in the open. 

I'd say Reagan did the most damage. 

36 minutes ago, Spyro said:

Not to complete defend him, but the president term limit is 10 years.  That's why presidents stop at two terms.  Maybe he's suggesting a third re-election and stop at year 2?  Again, not to defend him but that's the only explanation his supporters could defend this

Trump can't be elected again. At all. There's ambiguity on whether he could be VP and then ascend in other ways though...

[Economy 53,097]

5 minutes ago, justhislife said:

 

That might be true if America didn't have the electoral college. Republicans have already benefitted off it twice this century. It'll be fun to see them change their minds real quick if a Democrat ever lost the popular vote but won the presidency. 

To be fair that's not a phenomenon unique to the US and in many if not most Countries something simmilar happens in their governemnt systems it's just not called the "electoral college" but something simmilar happens

 

Here in Canada winning the popular vote does not automatically equal winning the elections either because it's based on seats by Province and by region

 

A party and Prime Minister could win by fluke by winning a lot of seats by a thin margin while another party wins fewer seats but by wider margin and as a result have more popular votes but still loose the election

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,998]

10 minutes ago, Economy said:

To be fair that's not a phenomenon unique to the US and in many if not most Countries something simmilar happens in their governemnt systems it's just not called the "electoral college" but something simmilar happens

 

Here in Canada winning the popular vote does not automatically equal winning the elections either because it's based on seats by Province and by region

 

A party and Prime Minister could win by fluke by winning a lot of seats by a thin margin while another party wins fewer seats but by wider margin and as a result have more popular votes but still loose the election

I actually appreciate this information because I didn't know that was a thing with Canada as well. I believe Germany is kind of similar, but I believe smaller parties create coalitions that seem to be effective. And I think the U.K. as well. It's not the best when there's only 2 parties though, and I do wanna say that just because other countries do this, doesn't mean it's okay. 

[LaLuna 12,732]

Damn, he really is a wannabe dictator isn't he 

[Economy 53,097]

2 minutes ago, justhislife said:

I actually appreciate this information because I didn't know that was a thing with Canada as well. I believe Germany is kind of similar, but I believe smaller parties create coalitions that seem to be effective. And I think the U.K. as well. It's not the best when there's only 2 parties though, and I do wanna say that just because other countries do this, doesn't mean it's okay. 

Where are u from?

 

And I think it would be difficult to change it tbh tho. In fact the system we have in Canada would be even more complicated to change than the US 

 

In the US a President can win without his or her party having the house. In fact although rare a President can technically be an independent. So if the US wanted to they could make the President based on popular vote without having to change anything else about the Government and how it works

 

Here in Canada the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the party in power, there is no distinction ever. So we could never make the Prime Minister based on popular votes unless we somehow made the rest of the party system based on popular votes as well. That would be difficult cuz each seat represents their region. The only way to make it based on popular vote for seats is if we scrapped regional seats entirely in the houses and just assigned number of seats relative to popular vote regardless of region. That would require a complete revamp of the entire system

 

In the US they would need to do something simmilar to make the parties popular vote based but the President itself that would he relatively easy to change based on my understanding of the US system

[Lost N Conf 330]

2 hours ago, SissyFromSpace said:

OT: this is just a pile of more evidence that he is NOT equipped to become leader of this country. I cant anymore.

To think at one point I assumed he was so awful and couldn't get worse but I was wrong multiple times. 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,998]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

Where are u from?

 

And I think it would be difficult to change it tbh tho. In fact the system we have in Canada would be even more complicated to change than the US 

 

In the US a President can win without his or her party having the house. In fact although rare a President can technically be an independent. So if the US wanted to they could make the President based on popular vote without having to change anything else about the Government and how it works

 

Here in Canada the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the party in power, there is no distinction ever. So we could never make the Prime Minister based on popular votes unless we somehow made the rest of the party system based on popular votes as well. That would be difficult cuz each seat represents their region. The only way to make it based on popular vote for seats is if we scrapped regional seats entirely in the houses and just assigned number of seats relative to popular vote regardless of region. That would require a complete revamp of the entire system

 

In the US they would need to do something simmilar to make the parties popular vote based but the President itself that would he relatively easy to change based on my understanding of the US system

I've lived in both Germany and the U.S. for considerable time. 

I'm not sure if there's any correlation between which party has the house and which party then wins the presidency. But I do believe the house often flips the cycle after a president is elected. The only president to be elected as an independent is Washington. 

 

Interesting how things in Canada work. Getting rid of the Electoral College itself is a Constitutional matter. Though electorates are technically legally allowed to vote against their state in favor of the winner of the popular vote, I believe it can carry fines. Some states have allocated their electorates to be proportional to the state's popular vote. 

[Economy 53,097]

1 hour ago, justhislife said:

I've lived in both Germany and the U.S. for considerable time. 

I'm not sure if there's any correlation between which party has the house and which party then wins the presidency. But I do believe the house often flips the cycle after a president is elected. The only president to be elected as an independent is Washington. 

 

Interesting how things in Canada work. Getting rid of the Electoral College itself is a Constitutional matter. Though electorates are technically legally allowed to vote against their state in favor of the winner of the popular vote, I believe it can carry fines. Some states have allocated their electorates to be proportional to the state's popular vote. 

Yeah the constitution would have to be changed. What I meant was in terms of work or complexity, with the US system u can change the President to popular vote without having to change any of the rest if they don't want to

 

In Canada because the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the ruling party and cannot be independent to it, it wouldn't be possible to change Prime Minister election to popular without changing the whole seat election system with it as well.

 

In fact in Canada we do not vote for the Prime Minister at all what's so ever. What shows up in our ballot is each representative of each party for our region. Which ever party wins the most seats, again the party leader is automatically the Prime Minister. 

 

We also don't select our party leaders with primaries like the US. Each party selects who they think can best lead their party, we have no say in that matter

 

It may seem less democratic but there is a silverlining to it. It prevents total idiots from rising to power because a party would never select someone as dumb as Trump for example to represent them.

 

Btw our system is based on the British system since we are part of the common wealth. I don't know if in the last few hundred years some stuff has diverged or not but the UK system if not exactly the same is at least very simmilar to ours

[StrawberryBlond 15,677]

I've heard about how he strives to have his kids grow up to run for president too and if they get elected, it'll mean America will have years of Trump presidency being passed down after he's gone, essentially the closest thing to America having a royal family. His ego is firing on all cylinders.

[RAMROD 118,024]

I told y'all before he is going to want to replicate Xi's move when he erased election altogether and became an Emperor that will reign until his death and his succesor will follow.

Well, here we are.

Those politicians need to act and not making this happen.

[pink sushi 4,351]

As if Kim Jong Trump will live long enough to serve more than two terms  

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

10 hours ago, PartySick said:

I mean, I wouldn't call it a relic. It's one of the founding principles of America. We weren't founded just to be a democracy, we were meant to be a literal antithesis to the monarchy we split from. A huge part of that is term limits which is why we're not only NOT considering suspending presidential term limits but we want to impose limits on congressional seats too.

When one person sits in a place of power too long, complacency, corruption, and entitlement creep in. Especially if someone like Trump is in office.

I wasn’t sure whether it was a founding principle or just an emergency amendment from the Great Depression/Cold War era, but what you say makes sense about limiting the power of the president so that he cannot usurp the other functions of government.

But I also would’ve thought that the system was strong enough so that someone like Trump would not end up in office. I mean, does his election prove that the (current) system works or does he prove that it is broke?