As planned, the stunlock proceeds
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
598 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19547 readers
3395 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think they want Obama running again..... He whooped their ass twice.
Yep. That's why it's worded so that he couldn't run again. Only allows non-consecutive two termers to run again.
It obviously won't get close to passing but it would be incredible for Democrats if it did. He has zero margin in the House, nothing major is passing into law except tax cuts. All his executive order policies are inflationary.
So either he's crashing the economy, taking the blame for continued inflation, or getting nothing of consequence done. And he'd be 83 and asking for four more years. He'd get crushed.
He will use Musk's money, again, to cheat, again, in my opinion.
We've played this game twice now. Let's not try a third game of fascism chicken
That said Obama vs trump would be a funny campaign. "My fellow Americans, look at this absolute buffoon. You want proof I'm a natural born citizen? I've been stuck here with him too."
This amendment’s wording wouldn’t allow Obama or Clinton to run again. Only Trump.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Of course he will wreck the rather healthy US economy and break the unemployment record again, which he currently holds from his 1st term.
Seems more like someone sucking up to Trump rather than something they realistically believe they could get passed
And we were all overreacting about Roe v Wade. "Precedent", "established law", "checks and balances". It could never happen, they said.
I really would like to see some of those checks and balances I've heard so much about. Must have gotten confused—it's cheques for the rich, on our dime, to make their balance keeps going up.
That's a really dangerous way of thinking. We can no longer normalize this stuff by going "it'll never actually happen." It CAN happen. Get your head out of the sand and stop minimizing the very real threat our democracy is facing.
What democracy? We've been living in a police state our entire lives. Talk about a dangerous way of thinking, ffs, how many hundreds of thousands of people were murdered under the Bush administration alone, and you act like that was just healthy democracy? Why were Bush and Obama on the same page about the erosion of our civil liberties and global imperialism? I swear, some of you are just miles from the correct explanation.
This one won't happen though. It doesn't have the votes. It would require a Constitutional amendment, and thus a LOT of Democrats on board.
You can't freak out about every possible thing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah there is less than zero percent chance this happens.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Right has outgrown their use for masks.
To amend the United States Constitution, a proposed amendment must be approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states. The process is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.
Congress: A two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate is required
Constitutional convention: Two-thirds of state legislatures must call for a convention
Ratification: Three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions must ratify the amendment
Each state legislature must vote on the amendment in an up-or-down vote
State legislatures cannot change the language of the amendment
This is DOA
Seriously. It's obviously abhorrent, but thankfully as of now there's zero chance of it passing. Save your energy for the many things that warrant shock and disgust.
From the article:
Ogles’ resolution is tailored specifically to permit Trump to serve a third term, but not to allow three out of the four living former presidents to serve third terms.
It's a Trump only privilege which, given the track record, could have been assumed, unfortunately.
What a frivolous waste of congressional speaking time. I thought these guys had real problems to solve? I thought Trump was gonna fix it all this time around? You're telling me not even 1 week into his new term and he's already thinking about how the job won't be done in time?
Conservatives are pathetic.
On the other hand, better they do nothing than actuality successfully fucking everything up.
The worry is that perhaps Trump is smarter than he appears, and all he's doing is showing his followers that he's still all about setting up a autocratic government which they'll get to be the muscle for, ready to do a violent takeover the moment elections stop working (just like last time, but this time better armed and better organised)
That's basically what I've been posting on Social Media anytime shit like this happens.
"How does this lower grocery prices?"
Ask whenever the Right or Center is listening, keep the message on "Trump is distracting you from what he isn't doing, but should."
Thank you for saying grocery instead of egg. So many people say eggs and it is going to age like milk when the bird flu recedes even though groceries will generally still be expensive otherwise.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Trump is not exactly a spring chicken. He is one mild medical event to being in the history book.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›