this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
191 points (97.0% liked)

News

37008 readers
1834 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow President Trump to serve a third term in the White House so that the country “can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.”

Ogles proposed an amendment on Thursday that says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

Like other U.S. presidents, Trump is barred from running for a third White House term by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

“President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years,” Ogles said in a Thursday statement. “He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal.”

Trump floated the prospect of running for a third term in a joke to House GOP lawmakers during a meeting in Washington before the conference had internal leadership elections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They won't. There hasn't been a popular armed resistance group since the Black Panthers, and they weren't popular either. It's more likely the rest of the world will have to team up with Russia and China to fight the Western Axis powers.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, it depends on how conflicted his own supporters would be. I have to assume there are a good number of 2A defenders who would take issue with this. Certainly a good chunk of them subsist on the koolaid at this point, but each extreme decision like this is the line for at least some of his base.

If Obama had done the same thing, Jan 6th would have happened much earlier.

[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have family in the UK who support Trump and thought Jan 6th was staged by antifa. There is little that can make them conflict their brainwashing, they just keep pushing that line further and further which inevitably leads to justifying atrocities as they do it.

If Obama had done the same thing, Jan 6th would have happened much earlier.

Wdym?

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If Obama had tried to take a third term, trumpers (tea partyers at the time) would have literally rioted.

[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, indeed.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't see that going well for anyone.

The only way forward I see is shutting off trade which is doubtful due to the strength of the American dollar. Or a general strike by citizens which is also unlikely due to the price of food and housing.

The US would be in a defensive war in what you describe. And since the US Nuclear program is properly funded and the warheads are inspected and maintained on a very rigid schedule I have little doubt there will be a positive outcome for that.

There is no violent solution to this. There's 300 years of entrenched efforts against it. It would be a decline like the Ottomans, where vassal states migrate away and begin forming their own external economic ties.

[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

If thats the story of the future you believe, then that's what you'll get. I prefer to believe in an option that'll solve it sooner, nukes be damned, I dare them to nuke the world they so depend on for power. If only we could start telling ourselves a better, more realistic story of humanity instead of a pessimistic one. Not saying it's gonna be pretty, but neither is 300 years of technofascism. You want reality to become that movie 'Equilibrium'? That's how you get reality to become that movie 'Equilibrium.' And if there aren't any Grammaton Clerics to save you now there won't be then.