this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
610 points (99.2% liked)

politics

22705 readers
3490 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 115 points 6 days ago (18 children)

So Obama can run against him then?

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 34 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

Well, trump wouldn't be elected into position - that is explicitly prohibited. So no running for him or Obama.

The "loophole" is that he's trying to line up a coordinated effort to elect other GOP members. After elected they'll nominate trump into the line of succession as Secretary of State or another unelected position. Once the pawns are in place, the line of succession simply has to step down until it falls to him. Third term without breaking the "elected twice to office" condition.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (5 children)

This "loophole" wouldn't work. There are plenty of people in the line of succession that are ineligible to be President either due to being too young or being foreign-born. First, if it gets to the point where one of them would even become President, we have much bigger problems to worry about. Second, those people that would be ineligible would simply be skipped over for the next person in line who's actually eligible.

Sure, they could use the same backwards logic and hand-waving of Constitutional amendments that they've been using all along, but at that point they might as well just make an exception for the 22nd amendment and call it a day. If they're just planning to hand-wave away the rules anyway, why go through all those extra steps when just saying that the 22nd amendment is unenforceable would be quicker, easier, and accomplish the same thing?

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 6 days ago

I've seen this loophole and it ends up with Jack Bauer being president.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)