this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
138 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19916 readers
3225 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 points 51 minutes ago (1 children)

Of course. For Trump, presidency goes to the highest bidder. Musk just outbid Vance, that's all.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 27 minutes ago

I actually don't think Trump will endorse Musk either but I could be wrong .

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

That's because Trump doesn't view himself leaving office in 2028. He's president for life now.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago

Welp, you heard the news JD. There's only one way for you to become president...so get to work. I mean as long as you say its an official act you can do the deed yourself and aparently its totally legal.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Things have changed a lot since '14.

Like "on the one hand it's a hassle having your husband be president"

"... Buton the other hand... I want my daughters to have rights..."

[–] Lootboblin@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

So far his only smart words as a president.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 89 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Perhaps because he doesn't seem to think there will be a need for a 2028 presidential race. Did he not say "you won't need to vote anymore" to his supporters after the 2024 election?

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 58 points 13 hours ago

yes. yes he did. that either means he's establishing himself as dicktator for life, or he's gonna fuck up the country so much there won't be a government to elect in 2028. his actions thus far, it's hard to tell which way he's aiming that malformed 'shroom of his.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 71 points 13 hours ago

Trump views Trump as his successor.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 41 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Trump cannot fathom a world where he's not the center. So to him, the 2028 election doesn't exist. It doesn't dawn on him that the republican party will NEVER stand in the way of the 2 term limit, for one important reason. If they ever lose, they may never win again. Imagine if Obama had been allowed to run for a 3rd term. We'd be on his 6th term right now.

So republicans don't want to risk that.

It's like being 4th and 9. You punt. Unless you're close enough for a field goal. But you don't run a play and risk losing everything.

[–] kobra@lemm.ee 32 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

republicans have thus far been willing to risk literally the entire constitution/democratic process, but term limits for president would be the line they don't cross?

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

Because its the one that has consequences.

If they kill democracy, or kill the constitution, that just means THEY'RE in charge.

But if they go against term limits, there is no more inevitable back and forth. There could be a time where the democrats gain power, and without term limits, never give it up.

Whereas this way, they continue to make slow progress thats never interupted. They don't want to risk that.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 19 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

If the SC allows for a 3rd term as an option, it'll be Trump v Obama 2028.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 hours ago

To quote (Barack) Obama when he was asked in '14 or '15 about hypothetically running for reelection again if it somehow became legal, "Michelle would kill [him]"

She's done with the whole political pageantry bullshit, if her absences from hollow political theatre events like the Trump inauguration are any indication.

Good for her, I say.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Unfortunately, the legislative policy that's being floated in the House is that a president can seek a third term only if their first two terms were non-consecutive. (Source)

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Ah yes. The "I'm too scared to run against Obama" clause

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

He knows Obama has bigger crowd sizes.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No chance of passing thankfully.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Absolutely! Thankfully. Just tipping their hand with regards to the ridiculous bullshit they'll try use to prevent a Trump vs Obama situation.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 20 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

that's gotta sting, eh, vd?

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Alternatively: heterosectional

[–] libertyforever@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Way too early to anoint a successor.

[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

He's the oldest president in our history and eats McDonald's frequently...