That's optimistic.

We put a business executive in charge of the federal government. There's no such thing as term limits or checks-and-balances in the mind of a business executive, just taking a good horse out of the race and inefficiencies. On the first count, if Trump's still in relatively good health, I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit on the Presidency.

They're already working on a constitutional amendment to allow a third term[0] and right wing lawyers have suggested that there are legal strategies Trump could try employing to stay in power. That along with Trump himself "jokingly" saying that we won't need to vote again if he's elected does not inspire confidence.

0: https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...

He isn't. Even absent any impact that catching covid may have had on his body, he's visibly obese. More detailed reports on his health are hard to come by thanks to (a) that being private, and (b) the extremely noisy people who either want to demonise or deify him, but it's not unreasonable to think he's got a 25% chance of old age catching up with him fatally by the end of this term.

But if the term limits get scrapped, I wouldn't be surprised to see a return of Bush or Obama as alternatives. Or Bill Clinton. Bill, George, and Donald were all born in 1946.

(1946 was also the same year the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council started meeting. Coincidence, or the secret world government? Coincidence, obviously).

We're also at the technological pace now where even just the previous Presidential election seems ancient in terms of tech. Was anybody following along Biden Admin changes in GitHub back in 2021?

This is a ridiculous statement that boils down to "this thing occasionally does stuff I disagree with, therefore it is completely corrupt."

But ooh yeah, 3 out of 9 are clean, so there's a chance? Let's just ignore the 6 incompetent apparatchiks and "simple majority rule" shall we?

Don't be so obtuse, we know you're not that stupid.

My point was more that if "liberal" == "clean" and "conservative" == "incompetent apparatchiks" then you're (the royal you) a shill whose opinion should be disregarded out of hand. Just the same as if "conservative" == "patriotic" and "liberal" == "gay ISIS terrorist"

I remember a time where there could be political discussions here where people were passionate, and disagreed, and yeah you'd have one or two assholes in the bunch who would get flagged and maybe even banned, but by and large it was enjoyable. Is it that this particular thread includes GitHub links so everyone loses their damned minds?

Sure, typical whatever-you-are tactic of changing the topic when being attacked. Plus some "Won't somebody think of the site's rules?!".

If I consider all the ones who voted for Presidential immunity corrupt does that make me a shill? It's a decision with no constitutional basis (the constitution grants no presidential immunity, but does grant other immunities, implying if it was intended it'd be in there) and ahistorical (we can find plenty of examples of presidents assuming they or their predecessor could be prosecuted).

That still leaves us in the same place a Supreme Court where the majority is beholden to the current President, not the constitution.

"The judicial branch is bought and paid for" is a ridiculous shill thing to say because 1) it assumes that smart, well-educated, successful people only believe a thing because of corruption. 2) it obviates the need to address any of the other side's claims on their merits, because they're just corrupt so who cares. 3) it sets up your side as the victors-by-default, because the other corrupt and you hate everything the other side does so by definition you're Good. It used to be a common refrain of the right when most judges and justices and most courts were left-of-center. But now that federal circuit courts are evenly split between R-appointed and D-appointed justices, and SCOTUS has more Republican appointees than Democratic, the judiciary is farcical.

"This is a hallowed, storied institution just so long as it does things I like, and a corrupt oligarchy when it doesn't" is the very definition of shill.

You're very optimistic that there are going to be elections in 4 years time. You have a king and a court with unfettered access to power now.

If this is the case, incepting everyone with the idea in advance subconsciously lowers resistance right now, when nothing can be done, because this is all hypothetical.

And if it isn't the case, you can't be taken seriously.

Simply respond to the moment, in the moment. That is already enough.

Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election. If anything, liberals should be focusing on how to avoid JD Vance simply winning in 2028.

This _is_ a democratic attempt to salvage the federal government and our democracy from a failing oligarchy of “experts”, lest these problems continue to go unaddressed and we actually do lose our democratic process with some much more aggressive successor (from the left or right)

So, relecting a person who has already shown a tendency to want to bend and break rules to stay in office, and is willing to simply ignore laws that aren't convenient is a problem. When that person starts installing sycophants into positions that actually control the military, financial and other fundamental levers of governing it becomes that persons choice, not the people or other democratically elected leaders whether to step down, or for that matter do anything else. The people who founded the USA understood that the president was just a step away from being a king and tried their best to counteract that. But, those people are a hundred and seventy years dead and the country has survived because the people elected to those positions were willing to adhere to the norms of governing, even if they didn't believe in the results.

So, I don't think anyone with any critical reasoning skills who has paid even the slightest attention over the past 12+ years believes that to be true of Trump or many of the people he is surrounding himself with this time. The McMasters who say "no you can't do that its illegal" are gone and daily any remaining resistance is being removed. Frankly at this point even if Trump steps down after 4 years. The Senators who have allowed it to progress this far have repeatedly abdicated their fundamental duty and are unfit for office (and that is putting it mildly).

If you can cut off funding to congressionally appropriate USAID programs, its just a likely you can cut off funding to the military unit that won't kiss the ring.

Since WW2 we have had a growing unelected federal bureaucracy (staffed by college graduates more and more left-leaning), that is controlled by congress as you mentioned. Congress is run by seniority, most are re-elected every year and are elected along party lines without much thought. And most legislation is written by lobbyists and activists. People are apathetic about congress, there is not much democracy there. People care much more about the presidential election.

I think if you look at the actions of our federal government over past decades you will see it has not been very good for the health of the American people. I think any action by a president to take back some power from Congress to upend that order is a good thing. Throughout our history certain presidents have completely changed the federal government during their terms in office, and afterwards the title goes back to more complacent presidents. Over time systems decay and you may need to start with something new.

Is this a true statement or not?

As it stands, the only durable policy win of his term so far was achieved on a bipartisan basis and mostly passed before he even took office: the Laken Riley Act. Why isn't the opposition party acting as opposition?

> If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.

The U.S. is already not a functioning democracy (see 2016 and 2020), and removing the current administration from power (illegally?) will not change that.

This constant cycle of ineffective freakouts that America's liberal bloc find themselves in every 4 years is a large part of the reason why Trump won to begin with.

he won because many groups of people were promised exactly what they wanted to hear. majority of america is very dumb. to the point it seems intentional. they reject any attempt to be informed about this subject. people routinely having abortions voted trump. people on SSI voted for trump. unemployed people voted for trump. disabled veterans voted for trump. literal nazis trump -- and i'm not saying HE is one, i'm saying that his campaign made sure they see him as one, and it absolutely worked ... over and over again against many of these groups whom are just frothing for fellow haters

i get really upset trying to figure out how to resolve this. but i can't even talk to the couple of relatives i have who are in this cult. if they detect you aren't praising the leader, things get hostile fast.

But people have the sense -- in some cases rightfully and in some not -- that their lives aren't going great. So they look to someone to offer an opportunity for change. And they're willing -- really primed, by all of American society -- to throw under the bus whatever boogeyman is necessary as dictated by the Fox News monster of the week™

This attitude is another reason he won.

He was elected President, not king. The laws being broken applied to all previous election winners.

It may turn out to be ironic that you describe Trump and our Monarch (or any other) within the same breath.

Please recall (or look up) what happened to Charles I of England.

Once you find the quote, go onto politco (a not exactly pro-trump site) fact-checking service to get the full context.

Here from his own mouth https://youtube.com/shorts/DpVsZZtEpS8?feature=shared

And a proposed amendment to go with it, excluding Obama of course https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...

It has practically zero support and has an actual zero chance of being ratified.

Histerioinics and history are not associated with the same word.

Grow up.

So did Hitler.

He didn't "realize" anything. All of the show we're seeing was planned posturing and "deal-making by leverage". We shouldn't be accepting even talking about the US annexing Greenland FFS - but here we are, with credible proposals for installing new US military presence on Greenland being discussed. That's alarming.

> 4 years.

Bold of you to assume there will be elections in four years, that these elections will be anywhere close to fair, or that the people who voted for the 47th won't just vote for him (or his successor, assuming the 47th goes six-feet-under) again.

The parties in power failed to unwind any of this so instead they got an unhinged strongman who promised to do it with a sledgehammer. Trump is a symptom rather than a cause.

... and will do just the opposite of what he promised and they were hoping for. Recent news about how scientific grants are being retroactively reviewed for any signs of "woke" language - if that isn't a vast expansion of governmental authoritarian powers, I seriously don't know what is.

Genuine question: why? Expansionism may be out of style, but I don't see how it's inherently evil.

Any society IMHO has the right to self-determination and self-sovereignty, as long as they adhere to at least the minimum standards of civilized societies aka UDHR - and the governments of those that don't even pay lip service to it should be fair game for everyone else to depose, we've seen the horrors of Syria, the new Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the genocides of Russia (against Ukrainians), Myanmar and China (Uyghurs and Tibetans) or the kleptocracy that was Gaza under Hamas, enough is enough and someone has to at least enforce the basic laws of humanity.

In the end, the people of Greenland should be the ones that have the say about what happens to their country, not the Americans, and for all I care the question if Denmark should have authority over Greenland should be seriously reconsidered as well given the atrocities of the last decades - among others, kidnapping children and forcibly sterilizing women [1].

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/greenland-denmark-relations-scandals/a...