One big difference is that Hitler was 44 when he took power. Trump not only turns 79 this year, but is more interested in the perks than the job. And may be in the early stages of dementia.
Trump’s definitely ‘there’ enough that the vision of whoever’s actually running things (Russell Vought? Stephen Miller?) has to be pretty compatible with Trump’s general views. But there are definitely people running things, because Trump wouldn’t know enough to do the things to Federal agencies that he’s doing.
MAGA is on crazy fast-forward compared to how long it took institutions to fall in other nations. A reminder again: Trump’s only been in for two full months.
And, as I’ve said in other threads, what he’s already “achieved” I would consider worse than merely him getting on the ballot in 2028. Whether or not they eventually get overturned.
Did you see the press conference where Trump faltered a moment and said “people of crime” rather than the word ‘criminals’? That’s a dementia symptom front and center there. It’s as if he had said ‘hand clock’ instead of ‘wristwatch’.
No person shall be chosen or serve as President of the United States for any term, or be eligible to hold the office of President …if such person shall have heretofore served as President during any part of each of any two separate terms.
the proposal was modified by the House Judiciary Committee to this:
Any person who has served as President of the United States during all, or portions, of any two terms, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold the office of President.’
Under that language, Trump would be ineligible to serve. They didn’t say “elected.”
The Senate version also turned on service rather than election:
A person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, on three hundred and sixty-five calendar days or more in each of two terms shall not be eligible to hold the office of President, or to act as President, for any part of another term
The “elected” language came from Senator Magnuson.
Although Magnuson acknowledged that his proposal did not account for the possibility that someone might serve or act as President without being elected, he discounted these contingencies as beyond the immediate focus of the 80th Congress and its concern with limiting the number of times a person could be elected.
You can read all about it at the link below. (written long before Trump disgraced the office) But, it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court would rule that Congress considered language that would have prohibited an additional term by “non electoral” means, and rejected it.
I’d argue that in this analogy Trump is the Von Papen/Von Schleicher figure; the guy that thinks he’s in charge until he finds out that somebody else is giving the orders and he’s just the figurehead.
Look at people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao. They all worked their way up through the ranks and build a network of supporters in the organization as they did so. When they took power they had an existing organization that worked for them and followed their orders. They could use that organization to take over a government.
Now look at Trump. He wanted to start at the top. All he brought in with him was a handful of people. The Republican party was around long before Trump and it doesn’t belong to Trump the way the Nazi party belonged to Hitler.
I disagree. Trump is demonstrating that the people who built the Republican party into what it is are not in charge and haven’t been in charge for some time. The cynical manipulators who brought in the fanatics were effortlessly sidelined by those fanatics when Trump showed up and the fanatics liked him more, and can’t do anything about it because those fanatics are too numerous and occupy too many important positions in the party. Trump is the cult leader, not the figurehead.
This seems pretty dispositive to me (is that the right word?). They specifically changed it to “elected”, from “served”, so it’s clear that they were not worried about someone serving additional terms through other means.
Any Republicans that publicly oppose Trump and his third term idea will be targeted and, if they don’t change their ways, replaced.
Rince and repeat until desired outcome is achieved.
I read only the Conclusion, but it alone is chilling. Here’s the spoiler:
Presumably, political and popular expectations would discourage the reassumption of Office, even temporarily, by an already twice-elected President. Yet, as with the “two-term tradition” that preceded the Twenty-Second Amendment, existing expectations and perceived customs do not always constrain future political behavior; whatever reluctance there is to sanctioning a reassumption of the presidency may someday be tested and ultimately overcome.
I’ve long opined about Trump: I generally avoid making predictions (I’m lousy at it), but I like to try to understand the game being played.
John Eastman and his cabal of JDs horriblis had the knowledge, experience, time, remit, and expertise to come up with the Alternate Slate of Electors scheme.
What do you think the 2.0 version of Trump’s amoral legal team can make of this issue?
And as I keep saying: why should anybody have any measure of confidence that Trump won’t try again, particularly considering that – upon leaving office – Trump could still face the criminal charges that his re-election stayed.
That, alone, is a pretty powerful motivator.
Also, I’ve toured Alcatraz. I strongly suspect that the long-term ‘guests’ of that august establishment viewed it through very different eyes, and for a much longer time, than I did.
Trying to find patterns is an odd way of determining if Trump owns the Republican party versus just looking at the words and actions of people in the party.
Who in the party has been critical of Trump? I’ve heard one or two disagreements on this or that policy, but it’s rare, and always needs to be sandwiched between at least two statements of praise for dear leader.
I agree that the media shouldn’t have asked. It always starts out the same. The media asks a question that they never would have asked any other president. Trump gives the most trolling response he can think of. His supporters laugh at the trolling response. His opponents panic that it is the most serious thing he has ever said and talk about it endlessly. The endless conversation about the topic causes the idea to grow in his mind, when it never would have been more than a passing thought if he had never been asked. The more attention the topic gets the more serious the idea becomes.
Why should the Republican party criticize Trump? Right now, he’s working for them.
But keep in mind it’s the Republican party which is choosing the people who go into jobs. Donald Trump doesn’t even know the names of these people. So when it comes to a crunch, these people work for the Republican party not Donald Trump.
Thank you. I was thinking last night that I need to find some place on the internet for more intelligent discussion and I had never forgotten about this place from when I first joined after graduating college. I’m just glad I refused to ever stop using my old email address so I could still log in!
It’s precisely arguments like this (I assume there are probably others) that the Pubs will use to further the TTT. (Trump third term). In fact, they could nominate Vance and some other toady as Pres & VP candidates, campaigning on the promise that they will resign after January 20, 2029, to set into motion the steps that have been outlined in this thread. No laws need to be broken.
(That presumes, of course, that the GOP will control both houses after the 2028 election.)
As one article pointed out, even if Trump couldn’t be president for a 3rd term, he could exert so much behind-the-scenes influence that he becomes a de facto president. It’s not hard to imagine Vance being elected president while Trump is the REAL president and whose word is law. Just like how Putin was the real man in charge when toady Medvedev was officially president.
