Assuming he's elected again, do you truly think Donald Trump would run for a third term in 2028?

[President Johnson]

I could at least see him and Republicans making some ludicrous arguments before courts, arguing the 22nd Amendment was only supposed to apply for consecutive terms (even though the wording seems clear).

[MasterJedi]

He’s certainly try and Republicans will snap their spines trying to make it happen.

[Frodo]

Judging by what is happening to Biden, Trump won't be alive or lucid enough by then to make that decision.  

If anything, this whole experience we have had since 2016 is an argument against presidential democracy, and the fact we place so much weight on and give so much power to a single individual.  

[OSR stands with Israel]

Judging by what is happening to Biden, Trump won't be alive or lucid enough by then to make that decision.  

If anything, this whole experience we have had since 2016 is an argument against presidential democracy, and the fact we place so much weight on and give so much power to a single individual.  

The problem is we gave so much power to the executive branch post 9/11 that was supposed to be temporary but it ended up being permanent. Regardless of the outcome , there is pretty much no justification for the executive branch having those powers and Congress should have eliminated them years ago . Frankly 2015 was the best time it could have been done as you had all the ingredients in place to do it:

- You had a democratic president who opposed much of the Bush era increases in executive power

- you had a unified republican Congress who despised Obama

- Republicans really despised Hillary and conventional wisdom was she was favored to win it all in 2016(even if I never bought into that) so republicans had motivation to pass such a bill limiting the power of the presidency.

Progressives also never liked Hillary so they had motivation to go along with it as well


Sadly it never happened

[President Johnson]

Judging by what is happening to Biden, Trump won't be alive or lucid enough by then to make that decision.  

If anything, this whole experience we have had since 2016 is an argument against presidential democracy, and the fact we place so much weight on and give so much power to a single individual.  

The problem is we gave so much power to the executive branch post 9/11 that was supposed to be temporary but it ended up being permanent. Regardless of the outcome , there is pretty much no justification for the executive branch having those powers and Congress should have eliminated them years ago . Frankly 2015 was the best time it could have been done as you had all the ingredients in place to do it:

- You had a democratic president who opposed much of the Bush era increases in executive power

- you had a unified republican Congress who despised Obama

- Republicans really despised Hillary and conventional wisdom was she was favored to win it all in 2016(even if I never bought into that) so republicans had motivation to pass such a bill limiting the power of the presidency.

Progressives also never liked Hillary so they had motivation to go along with it as well


Sadly it never happened

You're pretty much right here. I would argue the presidential democracy isn't the problem. More that politics in a sense is broken because of hyperpartisanship and polarization. The American system of government is designed for compromise and some balance and struggles to function with these political realities.

Parliamentary systems though can also get messy, especially when you have an extremely splintered party system. Coalition governments with three, four or even more parties involved often struggle to deliver broader reforms, can be fragile and often take an insane amount of time to even be formed, causing more instablity. Just look at the Netherlands, Belgium or Israel. Or Bulgaria, which has been holding an election at least once a year and is essentially run by one caretaker cabinet after another for more than three years.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Judging by what is happening to Biden, Trump won't be alive or lucid enough by then to make that decision.  

If anything, this whole experience we have had since 2016 is an argument against presidential democracy, and the fact we place so much weight on and give so much power to a single individual.  

The problem is we gave so much power to the executive branch post 9/11 that was supposed to be temporary but it ended up being permanent. Regardless of the outcome , there is pretty much no justification for the executive branch having those powers and Congress should have eliminated them years ago . Frankly 2015 was the best time it could have been done as you had all the ingredients in place to do it:

- You had a democratic president who opposed much of the Bush era increases in executive power

- you had a unified republican Congress who despised Obama

- Republicans really despised Hillary and conventional wisdom was she was favored to win it all in 2016(even if I never bought into that) so republicans had motivation to pass such a bill limiting the power of the presidency.

Progressives also never liked Hillary so they had motivation to go along with it as well


Sadly it never happened

You're pretty much right here. I would argue the presidential democracy isn't the problem. More that politics in a sense is broken because of hyperpartisanship and polarization. The American system of government is designed for compromise and some balance and struggles to function with these political realities.

Parliamentary systems though can also get messy, especially when you have an extremely splintered party system. Coalition governments with three, four or even more parties involved often struggle to deliver broader reforms, can be fragile and often take an insane amount of time to even be formed, causing more instablity. Just look at the Netherlands, Belgium or Israel. Or Bulgaria, which has been holding an election at least once a year and is essentially run by one caretaker cabinet after another for more than three years.

I think a lot of polarization is the consequence of the fact we have concentrated so much power in not only the federal government but in the presidency itself. The consequence of this is that you create a winner take all scenario which naturally leads to polarization as there are only two outcomes to elections : 1. you win it all 2. you lose it all .

As much as I like him as a person, the sad thing is Bush does deserve a lot of the blame for this. He went along with Cheney's view point of "Unitary Executive Authority" and then him and DeLay pushed through the Hastert Rule in the House too . The reason for that is Bush did not want any bills to pass through the Republican House and Senate that he already did no preapprove of as he did not want the embarrassment of having to veto bills they passed so they pushed through the "majority of majority" rule which meant the only bipartisan bills that can pass are the ones approved by leadership.

The problem with that is that it is gives credence to the theory that the establishment gets whatever they want regardless of the will of the individual representatives. It is no surprise then that they eventually decided to rebel in the ways they have since 2010 because they dont actually have power to pass stuff they want because leadership wont give floor votes on this.

[ShadowRocket]

No.  I actually do believe him in the debate where he said he'd rather be somewhere else.  He knows he can't run again anyway, and changing the Constitution to repeal the 22nd amendment isn't going to happen.

[On February 6, 1947, the House voted 285-121 to pass that amendment.  47 Democrats voted in favor of it.  So people could say it was all "bipartisan").

Today it would be viewed as just a partisan power grab to let an old, aging Donald Trump remain in office.  By 2028, people are going to want change - a fresh face - and someone younger than these two.  Politically, it would be disastrous to repeal the 22nd amendment for really one person.

FDR was able to get away with it in 1940 and 1944 because there was no such amendment, but that's a one-time thing.  It will very likely never be repeated.

I'm probably giving him too much credit, but I should think that he'd take some satisfaction that he was able to pull off a Grover Cleveland and make a comeback after losing in 2020.  He'd be able to play the line that he would've won again in 2028 had he been able to.

[Tekken_Guy]

He could definitely try, but I’ll be very surprised if he actually pulls it off. His cognitive ability could be as bad as Biden’s by then.

[Badger]

I could absolutely see Trump and the Republicans declaring he'll be the running mate of whatever stool pigeon flunky volunteers to run for so-called president, with them openly stating that Trump would run the show as vice president because hey aren't I such a great guy don't you want more than this and Republicans mindlessly going yes yes more dumpster fire. After all, the 22nd amendment doesn't apply to running mates. For that matter, the acting puppet president could resign two years and one day into their term and Trump would still be eligible to succeed to the presidency the remaining 2 years of the term. Remember, this is basically how LBJ was able to run for reelection in 1968 despite having served a full four-year term of his own plus the last 14 months of Kennedy's term.

[DrScholl]

He's already said that he's entitled to another term based on his first term being "interfered" with by Democrats.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No.

Don't be silly.

[It’s so Joever]

No.

Don't be silly.

Oh he will, AND you will support him.

[Tekken_Guy]

No.

Don't be silly.

Oh he will, AND you will support him.

I will not support him for a third term.

[HisGrace]

If a Dem beats his handpicked successor who will presumably get the nomination he'll 100% refuse to leave office and you'll get another J6 type event from his supporters, maybe worse this time. Short of a military coup he won't succeed, but I'd rather just elect anyone else and not go down that road at all. Not sure why anyone doubts this when the pattern of behavior is there.

No.

He will be cooked from politicis in 2028.

If his nonsense after the election last time, being a convicted felon, and his general buffoonery haven't "cooked" him by now what could possibly happen that would? 45% of the country is in a personality cult.

[GeorgiaModerate]

As others have said, he can’t get around the 22nd. But I can’t rule out that he might try, and that’s bad enough; there’s no other President since it passed who would entertain the idea for a second.

[Obama24]

People here really need to touch some grass. Life isn’t a Star Wars movie. Trump isn’t Palpatine.

[BlueSwan]

I think our best hope is that Trump simply dies or is too weak to attempt any of this.

What I do find very naive are the many takes that "he can't" because of the Supreme court or the constitution. Donald Trump has shown a complete disregard for democratic norms. Once he realizes that the Supreme Court doesn't have any real power outside of democratic norms, who is to stop him? Whoever controls the armed forces has the real power and I wouldn't bet money on the US military rebelling against the commander in chief if he attempts to stay in power. Especially not THIS commander in chief who is adored by macho morons everywhere.

Democracy is based on norms and is a lot more frail than people pretend.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

If he loses, he will not run in 2028 - he’s too old, and people would move on from DJT at that point.

If he wins, no he is not going to circumvent the constitution and take a third term in 2028.

[It’s so Joever]

If he loses, he will not run in 2028 - he’s too old, and people would move on from DJT at that point.

If he wins in, no he is not going to circumvent the constitution and take a third term in 2028.

Yes he will, and you will support it. I am saying this to every Republican denier so I have receipts.

[Sir Mohamed]

I could absolutely see Trump and the Republicans declaring he'll be the running mate of whatever stool pigeon flunky volunteers to run for so-called president, with them openly stating that Trump would run the show as vice president because hey aren't I such a great guy don't you want more than this and Republicans mindlessly going yes yes more dumpster fire. After all, the 22nd amendment doesn't apply to running mates. For that matter, the acting puppet president could resign two years and one day into their term and Trump would still be eligible to succeed to the presidency the remaining 2 years of the term. Remember, this is basically how LBJ was able to run for reelection in 1968 despite having served a full four-year term of his own plus the last 14 months of Kennedy's term.

The newly elected prez could just resign on January 20 immediately and allow Trump to take over. Of course assuming SCOTUS confirms 2-termers can run for VP (which is likely in this case). Whether Trump ascends during the first or second half of the term doesn't matter as he couldn't run directly for prez again after winning 2016 and 2024.

That said, I doubt Trump will be able to run in 2028 for mental/physcial reasons. Actually we can be glad he only started running for office in his late 60s/early 70s. Imagine if he was just in his mid/late 50s or early 60s right now. His clownshow could go on for another 20 years then.

[Ferguson97]

2/3 in both the House and Senate separately and then 38 states would need to back a loosening of the 22nd. There would have to be some kind of seismic event for it to be remotely possible. Like an alien invasion or something lol.

The simplest way to subvert the 22nd Amendment would be to use the military to essentially stage a coup. Thankfully, the top brass of the military hate Trump

Can’t he just fire them?

[LabourJersey]

He would just have Don, Jr., Lara, Ivanka or some syncophant get the GOP nomination in 2028, and do what he can to get them elected.

That way he can still be kingmaker/the power behind the throne in 2029.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Now he definitely will. It's an "official act!"

[Tekken_Guy]

Now he definitely will. It's an "official act!"

Trying to run for a third term is one thing, succeeding is another.

[Convicted Felon Donald Trump]

If he loses, he will not run in 2028 - he’s too old, and people would move on from DJT at that point.

If he wins, no he is not going to circumvent the constitution and take a third term in 2028.

He is literally on record saying the Constitution should be terminated.