Not happening. The Twenty-second Amendment was an anti-communist reaction by the terrified bourgeoise and their political puppets to officially curtail the power of the presidency after the realization that if such a powerful office fell into the hands of anyone with even a hint of social democratic tendency - or worse - their dominance upon the political sphere could easily be unraveled by the stroke of a pen.

Of course one can posit "what if the president and their administration really didn't care about 'rules and norms' and simply wielded power as they truly saw fit", that I would say, is where the MegaCoolZone would really kick off.

[–] Gosplan14_the_Third@hexbear.net 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Shitpost aside, probably.

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago

Shitpost dabbling, the real bipartisan ticket would be Obama/Bush to show true political unity against the unruly masses

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 21 points 3 days ago

I don't think they have to worry about that anytime soon. The media apparatus they use to suppress leftist politicians has gotten really damn powerful.

I do think the chances of it happening are pretty low though. Even despite his ego, I don't think Trump is going to want to have a 3rd term. And I don't think those in power want him to either.

[–] HelluvaBottomCarter@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wonder how sustainable it is when the person in the position only acts in self-interest. The paradox there is that the chair is not the actual position of power past a certain extent. It's also a burden because its existence relies on service to the class, not one participant of the class. So being self-interested gets you there with the promises of opportunities to enrich yourself but you get stuck because it necessitates enriching others as well. Someone like Trump can't do that. Therefore it's not a stable arrangement. He can end terms but he won't last long anyways.

You really need an Obama to make no term limits work. Someone who plays for the team and navigate that fine line between the class and their own vanity.

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago

I'd think that not even an Obama could continuously be elected because the presidency is the living embodiment of the State. It is the very face of the rotting shell of bourgeois sham democracy. When the constant internal contradictions inherent to it's very existence inevitably arise and through the decay, pillaging and outright destruction of their lives rouse the masses into gaining political consciousness, their collective ire focuses upon the arbitrator of the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. But because the Capitalist class is entrenched itself within the State and in turn puppeteers it, the capitalists in their pursuit for monopoly on the wealth of the world turn upon itself and fractures itself into factions who's only common interest in keeping the working class out of power and themselves in. Thus these factions, with the rules they've drawn up for themselves to make their theatrical game fair for themselves and unfair to us, perform to the irate masses to rally support to their faction with the promise of salving the contradictions that've roused them in anger in exchange for their support in ousting their opposition that sits in the majority.

An obama type may last longer, but they would not be immune to the backlash that occurs under their rule when crisis' occur. I don't even think a true social democrat on the level of FDR at his peak of power could make no term limits work even if his political base was secure and filled with succdems, socialists, and communists and he ensured that he had a pool of good successor candidates to ensure the transfer of power between living people goes smoothly through the years. The prime contradiction of the irreconcilable antagonism between the classes and the role of the bourgeois state in arbitrating it will inevitably see the roll back of concessions gained and further exploitation of the working class.