this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
417 points (98.6% liked)

politics

22046 readers
3830 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
 

Summary

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon revealed that MAGA operatives are "working on" securing Donald Trump a third presidential term in 2028, despite constitutional term limits.

In an interview with Chris Cuomo, Bannon said, "We'll see what the definition of term limit is," suggesting they're exploring ways to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.

Recently released from prison after serving four months for contempt of Congress, Bannon placed second in a CPAC straw poll for 2028 GOP nominees behind JD Vance, while maintaining tensions with Trump adviser Elon Musk.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] segabased@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 minutes ago

Time to really get to know our communities and our people in the military. The only justice imaginable coming from this is a coup in one form or another to oust them. Anyone in the military that is actually on board with this needs to be purged by the rank and file.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago

Third term?
Again with the Russian model - why not be more imaginative and declare yourself some new made-up dictator name (& just be a dictator, no terms, no red & blue, only polished golden ass), like something Borat would come up with.

His supreme big handedness of the Lord, the shitter of golden diarrhea, he who licks no domestic butts, the holy eternal MAGAer, the trumpest with the mostest absolute dumptruck ass, senior car salesmen.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 17 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Trump will be 79 in 2 months, at 83 he himself wont be around to run in 2028, but MAGA would still be there and that's what we should be fighting. I mean sadly and similarly Bernie Sanders wouldnt be around to run in 2028, but his movement is what we should be carrying

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 hours ago

Maga operatives? Does he mean Gavin Newsom?

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 18 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

If Presidents can run for a third term, I want to watch Trump get destroyed by Obama, when he also runs for a third term.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I don't think they mean presidents (plural) could run for the third term.

There will also be a rule if one of the contestants is going for their third term it's an automatic win & no opposing runners can join the game.

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You don't think they're covering that contingency?

They rules they have formulated and want to pass as law are that the first two terms must not be consecutive. This would preclude Obama from having a third term.

[–] bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I remember reading they want to adjust it to "two consecutive terms". Which would invalidate Obama through their mental gymnastics

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

That's what I said above. First two terms can't be consecutive. Ridiculous.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 hours ago

Just like Biden used the SCOTUS immunity ruling to legally assassinate trump?

Democrats will not ever break precedent.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 8 points 7 hours ago

Anyone surprised at this is unqualified for political office.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago

Time to 2A up to protect yourselves America. Only a copper jacketed hollow point between freedom and tyranny.

FYI I know nothing about ammo other than what I hear in movies or TV.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 hours ago

A strategically deployed hamberder in the next 1000 days will ensure Trump is president for life.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 23 points 10 hours ago

Nope, that is a declaration of war

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 27 points 12 hours ago

Since we can't rely on the law, it'll need to be the people's veto.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 25 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Likely scenario:

They'll first try to get two thirds of both the senate and the congress, and to a constitution overhaul in the style of Hungary. If that fails, there's always the option for a martial-law, or just circumventing the whole of the constitution.

[–] VanillaFrosty@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Maybe make him speaker of the house then have a stand in prez and vp step down?

I know a vp has to have presidential eligibility to be elected, which Trump wouldn't have at the end of this term. But Im not aware of the same restriction on the speaker

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, 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 once.

That's the wording. It looks pretty iron clad, if you care at all about the rule of law.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That wording wouldn't prevent Trump from becoming Speaker of the House, and then becoming President for a third term through the line of succession.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Shit, yeah re reading it it's fucked. Unless there is something that the scotus ruled on as president that is not worded directly.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think it overly matters anyways, though; it's not like Republicans would go "Oh darn, foiled" if Trump couldn't be Speaker. Traitors gonna treason and coup, one way or another, and it's going to be boots-on-the-ground organizing that stops them, if anything stops them.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

100% correct, very unfortunately

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

The problem is that word "elected." It doesn't specifically exclude someone assuming the role of president through the line of succession.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

No, but the "acted as" should technically cover it. Again it's meaningless if laws no longer apply lol.

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's it. It's just a pretty idea with no bearing on reality if not enforced.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

The sad reality

[–] BrazenSigilos@ttrpg.network 2 points 5 hours ago

Why else would the orange be challenging the constitution? His current play of changing birthright citizenship is a practice range so he knows how to aim at his real targets.

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 23 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

To be honest, the most likely scenario in my mind is some form of war declaration or emergency, suspending elections has precedent during wartime.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago

A very handy use of the expansionalist dreams of GOP, but more likely is that Trump will just use the war on immigrants as an excuse to suspend elections.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Is there precedence for that in the US? I can't find an example of US elections being suspended during war time, even the 1964 election happened during a war period.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

It's not even that elections could be stopped it's that war powers notably direct media manipulation make it much much easier to win an election or rig it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 22 points 13 hours ago

Hey yo, while we're cutting jobs I heard the secret service costs the government billions and isn't even secret, we best tell Musk on X and use a thinky emoji to show how smart that observation is.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 87 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Bannon placed second in a CPAC strawpoll

My first thought: That'd be great, there's no way he'd win

My second thought: Democrats would find a way.

[–] oppy1984@lemm.ee 33 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Democrats, the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[–] Franklin@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 hours ago

i mean let's give Putin some credit too, his disinformation campaigns and bot farms have been a master class in manipulating public perception. that's to say nothing of the Twitter/X situation

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 12 points 12 hours ago

They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 39 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

My first thought: That’d be great, there’s no way he’d win

Remember, the overwhelming majority of the country thought the exact same thing about Trump in 2016.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zier@fedia.io 10 points 12 hours ago

He wants to be just like putin. He should be in jail!

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 67 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Read: They still don't have a replacement for Trump.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 56 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Of course they do, but the issue is that too much of Trump's control over their base is from his cult of personality (somehow), not the plan itself. They don't know how to replace that. Yet.

[–] takeda@lemm.ee 37 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Musk is hoping to be next. Yes, constitution doesn't allow it, but they don't intend to follow it anyway.

[–] bradv@lemmy.ca 56 points 17 hours ago

The constitution also doesn't allow an insurrectionist to be president, but here we are.

[–] MrGG@lemmy.ca 29 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That's why they're so interested in making Canada part of the US. His mom is Canadian. If Canada becomes part of the US he becomes a natural born US citizen and becomes eligible to run for president. And this is one of many reasons we cannot allow ourselves to become part of the US.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

They absolutely do not need Canada for this.

We are living in a post-truth world. The MAGA right do not care about the law, the facts, or even what is right.

They want power. By any means necessary.

FOX and OAN will run pieces about how Musk was born here in the states and was moved to South Africa to help run his emerald mines. They will draw up fake birth certificates, change birth records in hospitals to show he was born on an Army Base in Texas.

They'll even find the doctor that ushered his delivery.

And the Right will eat it up.

The sad thing is Trump has the means to make all of this possible. This is not figurative.

This is the nightmare scenario. And Musk will not let go of power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 48 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

They're putting a LOT of faith in those arteries holding up that long LMFAO

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›