In four years, you don't have to vote again

[ProDeo]

In four years, you don't have to vote again

Democracy or autocracy that's the question.

[Fenris]

Democracy or autocracy that's the question.

That's not the context. He's saying even if you don't normally vote, vote this time, because it's that important.

[ProDeo]

Democracy or autocracy that's the question.

That's not the context. He's saying even if you don't normally vote, vote this time, because it's that important.

I sincerely hope that for you.

[RabbiKnife]

I love propaganda

[Fenris]

I sincerely hope that for you.

Yes because in 4 short years he's going to end elections in the US. And he's so confident that he's going to be able to accomplish it that he's announcing it publicly.

[49ersALLS.F.]

Personal feelings that we might have about Donald Trump himself aside, what’s the issue? Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, there were no controls on the number of terms you could serve in an office. FDRs experience was massively and directly impacted by the now over Second World War, and while the constitution states lower age limits for office holders, there is no upper age limit. In fact, a judge is appointed for life, and might live to be 99 years old after having served for as many as 49 years on the bench after having been appointed as a 50 year old. Given the co equality of the three branches, as well as the fact that neither branch of the congressional legislature has term limits, what’s the big deal?

[Sojourner]

In four years, you don't have to vote again


Democracy or autocracy that's the question.

Trump made the statement while criticizing Democrats and their approach to voter ID laws. Based on what he later told Laura Ingraham, he was encouraging reluctant voters to turn out in 2024 in order to counteract the negative effect of bogus votes against him. The idea seems to be that once elected, he would work to ensure only registered voters could cast a ballot--and with the problem fixed, every single vote would not be as critical in future elections.

At any rate, it's unrealistic to imply Trump suggested that if, elected, he would circumvent the law regarding the two term limit on Presidents and install himself permanently--essentially making himself a king.

[49ersALLS.F.]

I understand your concern, but I was commenting on the timeliness of the law. Trump, who is a republican, might try to make himself king. Roosevelt, who was a democrat, served three terms and died of natural causes during his fourth term. The real resin for term limits, besides the separation of the three governmental powers, should be that while a judge is appointed, a president is elected. If presidents are too popular and keep getting elected until they die, that might reflect the democratic will of the people, but the idea is that there are terms which themselves have defined time spans, at least for elected officials. This isn’t true of judges, but rent that a judge is also secondarily elected, meaning that his appointment is by an elected official. Also, judges, who serve for life in their own branch, have different administrative duties and responsibilities. Also, judgeships are non partisan, so the fact that an executive president or state governor or town mayor should have to abide by term limits makes sense in that regard, since executives run for office on political platforms, while judges, who do not run for office, but are appointed by elected people who ran on party platforms, are only required to be law graduates.

But what does party affiliation have to do with it in your argument? Term limits came in with a democrat, and you’re saying that you think they might go out with a republican. Aside for how and why it’s a problem for you, what’s the party angle?