• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Trump's Third Term

I very much doubt that Denmark - or any country - can declare the American ambassador persona non grata before this ambassador has said or done something that is strongly hostile to Denmark. Trump’s previous ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, didn’t get expelled for lying about, and undermine Denmark (she claimed that Danes were bicycling so much because they were too poor to own a car).
 
I very much doubt that Denmark - or any country - can declare the American ambassador persona non grata before this ambassador has said or done something that is strongly hostile to Denmark. Trump’s previous ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, didn’t get expelled for lying about, and undermine Denmark (she claimed that Danes were bicycling so much because they were too poor to own a car).
Actually they can.

On arrival, new ambassadors present their credentials to the local government, and these are accepted to allow the incoming ambassador to assume their new role. Traditionally, this is merely a short formality, a handshake, and an excuse for a dining event, etc.

But there is not a formal obligation on the host country to accept any such credentials. They can refuse. In which case the new ambassador becomes persona non grata, and can be expelled if required. An illegal immigrant if you like. ;)
 
Actually they can.

On arrival, new ambassadors present their credentials to the local government, and these are accepted to allow the incoming ambassador to assume their new role. Traditionally, this is merely a short formality, a handshake, and an excuse for a dining event, etc.

But there is not a formal obligation on the host country to accept any such credentials. They can refuse. In which case the new ambassador becomes persona non grata, and can be expelled if required. An illegal immigrant if you like. ;)
Yes, formally, but not in actual fact. This would cause an extreme crisis with one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
In the present situation, it would be similar to the situation Czechoslovakia would be in if they had refused Hitler’s ambassador in 1938.
 
Yes, formally, but not in actual fact. This would cause an extreme crisis with one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
In the present situation, it would be similar to the situation Czechoslovakia would be in if they had refused Hitler’s ambassador in 1938.
True, but still feasible. A more politic approach would be to never invite the incoming ambassador to present their credentials. Just keep the position open. Let them live in the embassy without ever recognising them.
 
Who in Trump's entourage is channeling the idea to him.
He doesn't need it channeled. He talks to Putin, directly, and off the record. Remember, he kicked note takers our of meetings with Putin and destroyed other notes that were made during the first meeting with Putin.
 
He could do the 'Wallace' trick, have his son run for president with his pledge that old daddy will be his primary advisor.
 
Yes, formally, but not in actual fact. This would cause an extreme crisis with one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
In the present situation, it would be similar to the situation Czechoslovakia would be in if they had refused Hitler’s ambassador in 1938.
That 'power' is pretty much only in the 'minds' of some of the US population- multiple successive failures with GOP leadership (GW managed to squander a LOT of goodwill towards the US, trump 1 lost most of what remained, and with incoming trump 2- the US has literally NO 'soft power' left- and it can't use it's 'hard' power (despite trumps wanting to annex multiple countries- it will never happen...) any attempt will put the US at war with pretty much EVERYONE...

Any attempt would bring the entire world (bar Russia, North Korea and the like) against it- total isolation, embargoes and the rest would follow, and the US economy (already very borderline) would collapse...

All you need to do is look at the responses to trumps 'pronouncements'... no-one is worried about 'debating' about them, everyone is too busy pissing themselves laughing at the crap he is babbling...

The US has lost all credibility...
 
That 'power' is pretty much only in the 'minds' of some of the US population- multiple successive failures with GOP leadership (GW managed to squander a LOT of goodwill towards the US, trump 1 lost most of what remained, and with incoming trump 2- the US has literally NO 'soft power' left- and it can't use it's 'hard' power (despite trumps wanting to annex multiple countries- it will never happen...) any attempt will put the US at war with pretty much EVERYONE...

Any attempt would bring the entire world (bar Russia, North Korea and the like) against it- total isolation, embargoes and the rest would follow, and the US economy (already very borderline) would collapse...

All you need to do is look at the responses to trumps 'pronouncements'... no-one is worried about 'debating' about them, everyone is too busy pissing themselves laughing at the crap he is babbling...

The US has lost all credibility...
Any failings will be marketed internally as "all the Democrats fault for not allowing us to run rampant". And it will be lapped up...until enough Americans rebel and take back what is rightfully theirs. I suggest some drunken dress-ups pushing a few tea-chests into Boston Harbour should do the trick.

It's going to be a mess...

ImageResizer.ashx
 
Going forward, I think we can call every US right wing capitalist Populist a Trump.
He might himself might not get a third term, but someone like him will get back into the White House.
 
That 'power' is pretty much only in the 'minds' of some of the US population- multiple successive failures with GOP leadership (GW managed to squander a LOT of goodwill towards the US, trump 1 lost most of what remained, and with incoming trump 2- the US has literally NO 'soft power' left- and it can't use it's 'hard' power (despite trumps wanting to annex multiple countries- it will never happen...) any attempt will put the US at war with pretty much EVERYONE...

Any attempt would bring the entire world (bar Russia, North Korea and the like) against it- total isolation, embargoes and the rest would follow, and the US economy (already very borderline) would collapse...

All you need to do is look at the responses to trumps 'pronouncements'... no-one is worried about 'debating' about them, everyone is too busy pissing themselves laughing at the crap he is babbling...

The US has lost all credibility...

Nevertheless, most of our dirigeants will kiss the orange horror' ass and more or less align themselves with USA policies, because not doing so would be bad for business, and some of his ideas about immigrants are popular with voters …

For example, business and political leaders in Switzerland have clearly stated that should Trump visit the Davos forum, Musk would "of course" be welcome … I'm pretty certain that most of the French business leaders are constantly advising Pres Macron to be nice to them too.
 
Nevertheless, most of our dirigeants will kiss the orange horror' ass and more or less align themselves with USA policies, because not doing so would be bad for business, and some of his ideas about immigrants are popular with voters …

For example, business and political leaders in Switzerland have clearly stated that should Trump visit the Davos forum, Musk would "of course" be welcome … I'm pretty certain that most of the French business leaders are constantly advising Pres Macron to be nice to them too.
That just is further evidence in support of the theory that most business leaders are so thick they wouldn't get entry level jobs in the companies they run.
 
Nevertheless, most of our dirigeants will kiss the orange horror' ass and more or less align themselves with USA policies, because not doing so would be bad for business, and some of his ideas about immigrants are popular with voters …

For example, business and political leaders in Switzerland have clearly stated that should Trump visit the Davos forum, Musk would "of course" be welcome … I'm pretty certain that most of the French business leaders are constantly advising Pres Macron to be nice to them too.
Just out of curiosity how should European leaders handle Trump?
I don;t think just pretending he does not exist is feasible; just what would you do?
 
Just out of curiosity how should European leaders handle Trump?
I don;t think just pretending he does not exist is feasible; just what would you do?
Pretend he is a normal leader, and treat him like that?
In Denmark there is a tradition of treating US presidents as our liege lords: rolling out the biggest red carpet imaginable, huge crowds gathering to get a glimpse of the emperor, etc.

Obviously, Trump should be treated in the same manner, and I don’t think he’ll mind :)
Actually, Trump is not very popular here, so the huge crowds might be gathering more for his notoriety, but then, I don’t think Trump would sense the difference.
 
Europe abides.

The best strategy is to hunker down and let the US and China destroy each other in a (trade) war.
 
Look over there! It's a shiny distraction!
Ogles also faces a potential House Ethics Committee investigation for his campaign finances, as one House Democrat who sits on the committee that considers constitutional amendments noted.
  • "I don't think he wants to talk about the campaign finance fraud that he is accused of and would like us instead to focus on what a committed Trump sycophant he is," said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a Judiciary Committee member.
  • "Truly pathetic. Voters from Tennessee deserve much better."
 
Because a Consitutional amendment requires two thirds of both houses to pass, and then has to be ratireid by 2/3 of the states. Just is not going to happen.
Unless SCOTUS finds a new way to interpret the (22nd ?) amendment - rather like they did with the 2nd.

They may find that the amendment really meant no more than two consecutive terms.....
 
Unless SCOTUS finds a new way to interpret the (22nd ?) amendment - rather like they did with the 2nd.

They may find that the amendment really meant no more than two consecutive terms.....
So one term in, one term with a bookmark flunky in, then the next term in, then the bookmark. Repeat until death.
 
So one term in, one term with a bookmark flunky in, then the next term in, then the bookmark. Repeat until death.
Sounds about right.......

Or maybe even two on, one off but it cannot be applied retrospectively for George W Bush, Bill Clinton or Obama
 
Last edited:

Nothing I'm seeing on the past couple of pages of the thread has anything to do with the possibility of a third term for Trump.
There's this.

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow a President to be elected for up to but no more than three terms. The language of the proposed amendment reads as follows:



‘‘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.’’



"President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years. He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal. To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs," said Congressman Ogles.



“It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration. President Trump has shown time and time again that his loyalty lies with the American people and our great nation above all else. He is dedicated to restoring the republic and saving our country, and we, as legislators and as states, must do everything in our power to support him.
Maga weirdos sure know how to gaslight.
 
And as ever - who is going to enforce a decision against Trump?

A good question.

Even if SCOTUS turns insane and lets trump run (or not), the same thing might happen that happened after the Worcester v. Georgia decision. The southern states said screw you SCOTUS, and thus began one of the saddest stories in US history: the Trail of Tears:

State governments joined in this effort to drive Native Americans out of the South. Several states passed laws limiting Native American sovereignty and rights and encroaching on their territory.
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court objected to these practices and affirmed that native nations were sovereign nations “in which the laws of Georgia [and other states] can have no force.”
Even so, the maltreatment continued. As President Andrew Jackson noted in 1832, if no one intended to enforce the Supreme Court’s rulings (which he certainly did not), then the decisions would “[fall]…still born.” Southern states were determined to take ownership of Indian lands and would go to great lengths to secure this territory.


-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom