So what your saying is there are checks and balances in place to ensure he can not run three terms?

Could they change the rules like Democrats did for judges were it only takes a majority? The nuclear option I do believe it was referred to

Am I speaking in some sort of unknown language? Term limits for the presidency are in the constitution. I just explained the procedure for amending the constitution. Congress can't amend the constitution on its own, no matter how big a majority either party holds in Congress. Barring a dramatic change in American politics, there is no way that the legislatures of 3/4 of the states would vote to abolish presidential term limits.

Eliminating the filibuster in the Senate does not require a constitutional amendment. Eliminating the filibuster requires only that a simple majority of senators vote to override the standing rule in the Senate.

So that is a no Thanks

While the Canadian claims to be a fan of our Constitution, it doesn't appear he has ever read it.

Sadly I do not know all the ins nor outs of your full constitution. I sorry if asking a question about it offends you.

I am a big fan of the Freedoms it covers

Sorry, but you are in thread where the original poster seems to think a city council vote changes a state or federal constitution, asking because someone claims changing a Senate rule is the "nuclear option" if it is just as simple to change the US Constitution.

Roccoco's explanation was on point, although I believe my state requires a supermajority of votes of the people via our state constitution. We haven't had any attempt to change it since the 1970s attempt to pass the Era amendment.

I find it surprising that you don't know the amendment process as you have been claiming you are a fan of the constitution, not
Trump, for the last few months.

Liz Cheney book is number 1 on amazon, probably number one a lot of places.

Amazing post

Did you high five your bros after you clicked submit?

Liz Cheney is what she is, the last bastion of the Bush/Reagan neocons. Being a Cheney, she's even a little more of a warmonger.

Being an isolationist, that scares the **** out of me. Having the Democrats take over the military-industrial complex, as they have done under Biden in a headlong retreat from the Trump party, is terrifying. Cheney would be way better at it.

Trump is more terrifying, though. He has proved that he is willing to go to war with our own constitution and bill of rights. His argument is: only I can fix it. Congress is ineffectual, and I alone can be the voice of the people.

We might be able to beat Russia and China, but we can't beat ourselves.

Snarky -ass people like the OP of this post think it's all fun and games, and think it's more important to one-up what they consider dumb people on the internet than for democracy to win the war against authoritarianism. They call the Democrats communists because they want more regulations, without thinking about the result we would have if something like Jan 6 had worked.

From Wikipedia: "Bloomberg joined Rudy Giuliani, John Lindsay, and Fiorello La Guardia as re-elected Republican mayors in the mostly Democratic city."

Bloomberg was a Democrat until he ran for mayor in NYC. I was there. He ran as a Republican the first two elections and I think as an Independent the third one.

Just because someone is unable to do something the first time they try doesn't mean they won't do it the second time they try. Donald Trump failed to remain in office because he didn't have people in power to keep him in. I have no idea whether or not he would succeed after he is elected a second time. It is entirely possible he would try as Bloomberg did when he was in office in his second term in NYC. Bloomberg succeeded because he was politically able to. It isn't clear that Trump would be allowed to run for a third term and if that was the case I would guess he would leave office. But I could be wrong. He might declare a state of emergency and try to remain in office. Most dictators do stuff like that.