So it begins. The elephant in the 2028 presidential election room – politicalbetting.com
So it begins. The elephant in the 2028 presidential election room – politicalbetting.com
I just introduced a resolution to amend the 22nd Amendment to allow President Trump to seek a third term. Read the details.?https://t.co/OTacpt3ggE
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Interesting to speculate on how that could be done.
One possibility that springs to mind is they could rule that the 22nd Amendment only applies to consecutive terms, but that the ruling doesn't apply to any President not in office at the time it was made.
Whether that would actually make a difference might depend on whether the Democrats controlled enough states to hold a majority in the electoral college and thus ignore such a daft ruling, and the Senate (a much a harder ask) to certify a result the Supreme Court tried to invalidate.
But I'm at the stage where I'd put nothing past Trump. The one thing that might stop him trying is old age.
Could be an exciting finish. Or a short, dull one...
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, 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 twice.’’.
https://ogles.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ogles.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/PIH-OGLES_006 (Constitutional Amendment).pdf
Anti-Obama (and Clinton & Bush) clause in bold.
The GOP establishment will also want Vance not Trump again next time, much like the Tory establishment switched to Rishi after Boris had been re elected. Whether any Republican wins again in 2028 though likely depends on the impact of Trump's tariffs and the state of the economy
https://youtu.be/q3qfXpoScxw?si=59QYKPiwyFspXf3B
Although it's a nifty piece of footwork in the drafting, that's an irrelevance because it isn't going to happen. First, it takes to long to ratify such amendments (although the record is just under four years for the 22nd Amendment itself, ironically, the one being discussed here, that would still be too long for Trump) and secondly because the idea that 38 states would ratify such an amendment is even madder than Marjorie Taylor Greene.
But as TSE notes, the corruption of the current Supreme Court is an issue and as a result somewhere it might be debated. I do agree with Hyufd that the current court wouldn't entertain it, but Roberts and Sotomayer are both old. If they die or retire a Trump patsy added to either the Four Horsemen or any other patsies chosen to replace the Four Horsemen might vote it through.
That's what I was speculating on.
But the biggest of the Trump open doors is on sex and gender. His executive order on the subject was tightly written and clearly focused. He has not (yet) waded into the rights and wrongs of childhood gender transition, but he has expressed very clearly a desire to see trans women out of female sport and out of female prisons. Both are, according to opinion polls, popular policies. Do the Democrats want to fight to keep biological males in prisons with women?....
...The problem — whisper it — is that for many Americans, including a fair swathe of Democratic party voters, their party has become the extremists.
Polls taken during Trump’s first week suggest some enthusiasm for the new world. A CBS poll finds nearly a quarter of Kamala Harris voters declaring themselves optimistic about the next four years. To this cross-party group, Trump is not making America great again. He is making it normal again.
https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/beyond-the-bluster-trump-may-be-making-america-normal-again-z767wm96g
Trump is a mere novice.
FPT Sorry but that is not true.
Natural England has said that they were consulted by HS2 on whether the bat tunnel made them legally compliant. They confirmed it did.
https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2024/11/08/natural-england-role-in-high-speed-2/
Not running into bats was not essential because of 'protestors', you just made that up. It was essential due to the Habitats and Species regulations and legislation which are transpositions of EU directives.
Natural England's rather mealy mouthed admission is at odds with their advice to prospective planners here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-how-to-review-planning-applications
might affect a site of special scientific interest (SSSI)
needs an environmental impact assessment
needs an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations
Natural England may:
object to a planning application if it’s likely to harm a protected species on a SSSI
give you advice about a protected species affected by a planning proposal or on a specific issue that is not covered by this guidance
You should get advice from a qualified ecologist to help you reach a decision if you need it.
You can find one using either the:
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environment Management (CIEEM) directory
Environmental Data Services directory
There are separate guides for:
developers to prepare a planning proposal to avoid harm or disturbance to protected species
the effect of nationally significant infrastructure projects on protected species
habitats and species of principal importance in England (Section 41 list)
The National Planning Policy Framework explains how you should apply government planning policies to a planning proposal. It sets out the mitigation hierarchy of avoiding adverse effects, mitigating for impacts if this is not possible and, as a last resort, compensating for impacts. Further guidance is set out in the natural environment planning practice guidance.
Edit: It is also deeply implausible that Natural England were only consulted on the bats when the bat tunnel was a fully formed and costed plan. Why would HS2 have come up with such a scheme without working with Natural England or aligned agencies? They haven't disclosed when they were forst consulted, just given the convenient impression that they gave the tunnel the OK when it was practically a done deal.
I think Team Trump are very canny in applying future proofing rules that exclusively apply to someone called Trump.
Support for:
Creating an Iron Dome over the US: 48%
Declaring a national energy emergency to expedite drilling: 36%
Revoking diversity/anti-discrimination rules for federal contractors: 35%
Pardoning Jan 6 Insurrectionists: 33%
YouGov / Jan 24, 2025 / n=1168
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1883246835684507931
Of course, at least 48% of Americans don't understand what Iron Dome is.
What baffles me is why they didn’t just move the track a few hundred yards away? Probably incompetence from HS2 management.
I don’t see the courts (or congress/the states) overturning this personally. GOP 2028 will be either Vance or Rubio of things go well, or someone else entirely if they do not.
I don't see, with the Dems holding essentially half the House and 45%+ of the Senate, plus many states, how any of these criteria pass.
If Trump delivers for LA people or will completely change the narrative across the US because so many of the affected work in media, I think he's realised this and sees it as a vert easy win for the MAGA agenda.
If so, that explains everything.
1. 30, 28, 15, 30.
2. 21, 21, 9, 22.
3. 6
4. 2
5. 3
6. 3
7. 129
8. 2.4%
9. 121bn
10. 1.5%
11. 3.6%
12. 1.3%
13. 102
14. Australia 4 England 1.
Thanks for organising, Ben.
Agreed on LA. I’ve had people tell me it’s a fruitless task trying to take any fire prevention measures in LA, it’s too big a city and it’s all global warmings fault. Then you show them the Great Green Wall in China for scale comparison and go a bit quiet. Seems like a lot of misadministration has been going on to me.
What isn't on is changing the rules on the fly because it's convenient for the current leader.
The tell is “no bat can die” as a requirement. No vaguely sane regulation, anywhere on the planet, specifies zero risk. Because zero risk is impossible to achieve.
Even the Bat Tunnel doesn’t eliminate risk to bats. One could easily fly in at the end.
All such regulations talk about 1 in 1xxx,xxx… etc.
For human life we do this. We (through government) even put a price on human life to help calculate the value of mitigations for death and injury. See Nice, QALYs etc
*one of those people who likes {giggle} maths. Because numbers are silly to Real People.
He couldn't legally fire a bunch of people on Friday night. He did it anyway
FDR broke an unwritten convention of a limit of two terms. He did not break a law, still less revoke a constitutional ammendment.
I have enough worries about Trump without inventing additional ones.
HS2’s boss laid the blame for massive phase 1 budget overruns on the previous Government’s decision to let cost-plus contracts for main civil works.
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2023/11/17/new-hs2-boss-blasts-cost-plus-jobs-for-6bn-of-overspend/
Carter lived to 100. Is Trump planning to do the same and to be President the entire time?
https://x.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1883446963842265123?s=61
Meanwhile labour figures are starting to brief against fanatic Ed Miliband.
https://x.com/mailonline/status/1883206341746995667?s=61
Assume he wins they will then just plough on with the certification etc etc. Vance is veep. So he certifies.
Whose gonna stop it?
Outsourcing to Asia and in the US case, Central and South America allowed us tiny inflation figures for a few decades. Now we realised that this uber-capitalism failed us, not least because we no longer have the purchasing power jobs we needed to buy our Chinese tat.
But instead of holding their hands up and taking responsibility for an economic decision that led to economic decline in the West the successors of those decision makers are designing narratives suggesting that it was all the fault of hyper-liberals (most of whom 30 years ago we would have described as centre-right Conservatives) the sexually liberated and immigrants. Blaming people of a different colour, religion or sexual orientation is an easy sell.
The USA is rapidly turning towards being an authoritarian dictatorship, and perhaps even one with imperial pretensions. One where the rights of the 'other' - drawn as widely as to include women - get reduced in favour of the rights of a small minority.
And shits will be cheering them on.
I’m a (crude) Hegelian: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Trumpism is in the synthesis stage (ordinary Yanks want a strong America, cheap gas & a return to common sense etc) but I expect it will convert to thesis at some point and an antithesis will form. If it doesn’t we’re all fcuked.
“It’s Rachel from Accounts. She was meant to be an economist at the Bank of England, but it was actually a call centre.”
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2025/01/it-feels-like-were-going-backwards-my-focus-groups-on-six-months-of-starmer/
Some said it existed - others planned to run for 3 terms.
It just didn’t happen until FDR.
It's a massive step to not have elections- very few autocracies have gone that far. Much simpler and more ego-boosting to have them and just make sure they give the correct answer.
You can agree or disagree with laws. You can try to change them (e.g. if Rep. Ogles' amendment gets through then fair enough - it definitely won't, but there is nothing wrong with seeking to change the law). It's ignoring them that would indeed be quite fascist-y.
When I was 78 I was in reasonable health but as I approached 80 my health broke down quite unexpectedly, but thanks to medical intervention my crisis was steadied though my ability to do tasks and my energy levels plummeted
We saw it with Biden, though I am fortunate not to have dementia , and if the rumours are true Trump lives on McDonalds and diet coke then his health will become a major issues during his term
Anyway, on a personal note our youngest reached his 50th birthday today
As I understand it the states have the ability to run general elections as they see fit. Some will likely see that Trump is a Bad Man. And find themselves removed from the process by the government. Remember that states rights only works when the state agrees with the centre (also cf Thatcher vs Livingstone) - if a groovy state decides that Trump can't be on the ballot, they won't be allowed to set the ballot. And imagine the fun should He be excluded in a state - they'd simply declare the state void and insert delegates for Trump.
The American system doesn't elect the president anyway, merely electors who are appointed by the state. A streamlined more modern process would be to simply have the state appoint electors - or should the state prove to be full of traitors have the local GOP do it. Far more democratic.
Seriously - who would stop him? The FBI? Run by Trump. State courts? Ignore them. Local police? ignore them. The Supreme Court? Owned by Trump.
"Natural England has not required HS2 Ltd to build the reported structure, or any other structure, nor advised on the design or costs. The need for the structure was identified by HS2 Ltd more than 10 years ago, following extensive surveying of bat populations by its own ecologists in the vicinity of Sheephouse Wood."
Which was very, very different from what the HS2 bod said.
The protestors matter because HS2 (and other large projects) really, really want to avoid the protestors, who cost f-loads of money and bad publicity. Therefore they go out of their way to stop any valid (or seemingly valid) concern that agencies or protestors may come up with.
As the NE statement says, they did not require HS2 to build the tunnel. It's perfectly possible that NE might have approved an approach that was lesser cost; but HS2 decided to gold-plate it. Perhaps NE would have declined any other approach, but it appears they were not consulted.
What should have happened, once the bats were identified in the area, was for HS2 and NE to work together to see the best way to mitigate the damage that might occur to the bats' habitat, with the taxpayer's interests weighed up as well.
Another approach - which I would like to see - is for a set part of any large project's budget - say, 5% - to be placed into an 'environment' budget. This money is then spent on mitigating the project's effects. But it is a limited amount that cannot expand, and it would be up to NE, EH and all other interested organisations to allocate and spend.
Would make for a fun NATO meeting. Article 5 triggered and all that.
Trouble is that there are others who pay more attention to the sanctions and their enforcement. No sanction- you can ignore the rule. No enforcement mechanism- you can ignore the rule. Token sanction that's enforced- it's just the cost of doing business.
Trump, and those around him, fall in the second category. Which is part of the reason that we're here.
That's what a constitution means.
That's been brewing for a long time. I fully expect some anti-constitutional shenanigans from Trump. Which will be waved through by the sheep in the SC. States who disagree can do what? The federal military swears an oath to the constitution - which is whatever the SC says it is. Lets assume we have a Deep Blue state - Vermont perhaps - who say "bugger this" and declare that they won't acquiesce.
How would that civil war play out? Vermont's National Guard vs the US? Or does Washington allow traitors to leave and simply economically reduce them to rubble?
I don't believe it to be a feature on 2025 and a half models. If I am wrong, Rochdale can correct the error.
Personally I think term limits can be a good idea, especially in rotten constituencies. But I doubt you’ll see a move from Congress to align the principle from the executive to legislature and judiciary.
Where term limits can be catastrophic is in technocratic roles like the MPC, where we’ve used up all the good economists and now have it stuffed with incompetents.
I find this whole thread amusing. Not sure why people still can’t understand that if you don’t like trump or his policies, just find an effective and relatable candidate that can beat him.
Or just sit back in MaL with no official role. He will be pretty old after this term tbh
To establish any kind of dictatorship, he'd need a monopoly of violence, and he lacks that. Blue States have National Guards, and armed police forces of their own, and a large part of the military detests Trump (not least for his view that soldiers are "suckers, losers."
See the laws and permits required to set up small shops.
Or the detailed building codes that make it illegal to build a house that’s fireproof.
This is because the fight between regulation and business is so ruthless. In the US, you let up for a millisecond and they will do *all* the shit.
It is virtually certain that if you relax the rules on disposal of material, that someone will bury the asbestos from the burnt houses under a children’s playground.
In the U.K. we pretend we are better. All material excavated from under houses is considered contaminated and has to be disposed of by proper companies. The proper companies all have subsidiaries selling gravel for aggregate. Some even “topsoil” for gardens.
The constitution is not black and white. The right to bear arms talks about militias. The SC has adjudged that to mean the right to carry an AR15 round Walmart for self defence.
None of the laws are clear and unambiguous enough to not be challenged legally. SO challenge the 22nd. Our boy can run can't he? SC says yes. Job done. You say "no he can't". But how would you challenge it? Take Trump to the SC? They already said yes.
Then you'd get what happened in the first American Civil War when military leaders picked sides.
There's no chicanery by which Trump can "game" his way through to indeterminate and unconstrained power given the US Constitution, the amount of arms in the country, and the fact the country is still split.