Should President Trump be allowed a 3rd term?

[MacTheKnife]

Well....in extra-ordinary times we need extraordinary leaders like Trump or FDR during WW2 who was allowed 4 terms

The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-ga...mp-impeachment-politics-democrats/3827381002/

 

[The Breeze]

Yes

 

[Jitss617]

Stupid question

 

[task0778]

NO. 8 years and done, that's it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well....in extra-ordinary times we need extraordinary leaders like Trump or FDR during WW2 who was allowed 4 terms

The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”

ROTFLMFAO!

Nope.....there's no 'there' there. I would point out that 3 times in US history..does not support impeachment as 'increasingly common' unless you squint..a lot!

No..the 'do-over' argument won't fly.

 

[Sunni Man]

He should be made Emperor for life!! ...

 

[Harry Dresden]

he would not live that long.....the only reason you cant see the grey is because the color of his hair....

 

[bluzman61]

Well....in extra-ordinary times we need extraordinary leaders like Trump or FDR during WW2 who was allowed 4 terms

The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”

I'd have to say NO. With Donald Trump most likely not officially leaving the White House until January of 2025, that should be ample time to pretty much destroy the Democratic Party as it is now.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Stupid question

well, mattox is a constitutional scholar and works for the wall street journal.

 

[MacTheKnife]

NO. 8 years and done, that's it.

after the people finally see his greatness after his second term they may demand another.

 

[Lakhota]

Should President Trump be allowed a 3rd term?

In which prison?

 

[bluzman61]

Should President Trump be allowed a 3rd term?

In which prison?

Damn it, Chief, you hit the peace pipe again before posting, ya knucklehead!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well....in extra-ordinary times we need extraordinary leaders like Trump or FDR during WW2 who was allowed 4 terms

The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”

President could get a 3rd term only if the congress and senate vote to repeal the amendment restricting presidents to only 2 terms. Maybe after the Dems lose the house and more senate seats go republican, it just might happen....

 

[hjmick]

I'm not sure who has it the worst...

The idiots suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome or the idiots suffering from Trump Worship Syndrome...


Three terms... <smh>

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Well....in extra-ordinary times we need extraordinary leaders like Trump or FDR during WW2 who was allowed 4 terms

The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”

Well first off, no. The Constitution has final book on that.

Ill considered impeachment efforts?....Huh??. Impeachment was not pursued until October, 2019, three months after the Ukraine call and subsequent witholding of aid.
Democrats took over the House in January of 2019. Soooo....what are Trump and the Republican Party excuses for nothing getting done the previous two years with a majority in both House and Senate? No big, beautiful wall? (wait, did Mexico pay for that?), no healthcare at a fraction of the cost? Sure, he got two Supreme Court justices...but he needed Mitch's help pushing Garland over the finish line and he picked a complete scumbag in Kavanaugh....both of those nominees should have been layups for him. The Tax Gift....I mean..Tax Cut was McConnell's and Ryan's baby...but oh wait, Trump did manage to increase the deficit to record levels..so put that in the plus column.

Yeah, this is just horse manure. I'll tell you what the first two years of his Presidency were...endless golfing trips, pep rallies every other week, having to put out fires in his administration seemingly every week because he appointed a bunch of swamp dwellers (I only hire the best people), demonizing the press, picking fights with war heroes and Gold Star families, Muslim bans, boasting about his inauguration crowd size, cozying up to dictators and strongmen, and endless Twitter hissy fits. Then he goes and demands a pledge of loyalty from the FBI director he should have been building a monument for (for handing him the election), and gets himself a Special Counsel appointed not by a Democrat, but by Republicans.

That about covers it.

 

[Kondor3]

The Republican Party could not withstand a third term.

Hell, there's some considerable reason to believe that they could not withstand a second.

Every ten minutes, Republicans have to rally to Trump's defense over his latest gaffe or faux pas or scandalous behavior.

You'd think they'd get tired of it after a few years and be ready to back somebody who actually thinks before he talks and acts and tweets.

Republicans really do need a breather... some competent, likable front-man (or -woman) that's a bit more Low Maintenance than this one.

 

[Crepitus]

Well....in extra-ordinary times we need extraordinary leaders like Trump or FDR during WW2 who was allowed 4 terms

The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”

Do you support the Constitution?

 

[hjmick]

The Republican Party could not withstand a third term.

Hell, there's some considerable reason to believe that they could not withstand second.

It's going to take them years to recovery from one. Hell, I'm not sure they're even a party anymore, they certainly aren't the Republicans I signed onto when I was 18.

At this point, they should just change their name to TOP (Trump's Own Party) because they are no longer the GOP.

 

[Kondor3]

The Republican Party could not withstand a third term.

Hell, there's some considerable reason to believe that they could not withstand second.

It's going to take them years to recovery from one. Hell, I'm not sure they're even a party anymore, they certainly aren't the Republicans I signed onto when I was 18.

At this point, they should just change their name to TOP (Trump's Own Party) because they are no longer the GOP.

Another few years of this and a Republican won't be able to get elected Town Dogcatcher...

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The Republican Party could not withstand a third term.

Hell, there's some considerable reason to believe that they could not withstand a second.

Every ten minutes, Republicans have to rally to Trump's defense over his latest gaffe or faux pas or scandalous behavior.

You'd think they'd get tired of it after a few years and be ready to back somebody who actually thinks before he talks and acts and tweets.

Republicans really do need a breather... some competent, likable front-man (or -woman) that's a bit more Low Maintenance than this one.

This is what I've always wondered about Republicans support of Trump. If they are weary of dealing with his baggage, why wouldn't they just cut their losses and toss him under the bus? And then back a reasonable candidate. Then you take a look at Trump's popularity among registered Republicans (something like 92%) and you start to see why they have to go all in on Trump. To go against him is political suicide. All of the reasonable voices in the Republican Party have gone silent out of fear..or retired because they know the battle is lost.