During a bombastic speech in Dallas, GOP frontrunner asks: ‘Are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?’

Donald Trump flirted with the idea of being president for three terms – a clear violation of the US constitution – during a bombastic speech for the National Rifle Association in which he vowed to reverse gun safety measures green-lighted during the Biden administration.

“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” The ex-president and GOP presidential frontrunner said to the organization’s annual convention in Dallas, prompting some in the crowd to yell “three!” Politico reported.

Trump has floated a third term in past comments, even mentioning a prolonged presidency while campaigning in 2020. He has also tried distancing himself from this idea, telling Time magazine in April: “I wouldn’t be in favor of it at all. I intend to serve four years and do a great job.”

  • theprogressivist
    98•1 month ago

    “If the Biden regime gets four more years, they are coming for your guns,” Trump railed.

    Really pulling out the “greatest hits” with this piece here. He’s got nothing else.

    • gregorumEnglish
      19•1 month ago

      That’s a GOP golden oldie. I’ve heard that same bs line since the early 90s at least.

      • @[email protected]
        2•1 month ago

        And it’s a great line for the gun lobby. In a lot of ways, the NRA and gun manufacturers would prefer a Biden victory because gun sales spike when Democratic presidents get elected, as gun-nuts are certain every time it happens that this is the time, for real, that they’re “coming for our guns.” In other words, people panic buy rifles because they think a federal ban is coming. But the reality is that Dems will never push through sweeping anti-gun legislation because there are so many pro-2FA democrats out there that doing so would be ludicrously difficult and monumentally unpopular.

      • @[email protected]English
        1•1 month ago

        This is partly just blowback from everyone agreeing to use different vocabulary for governments we like vs governments we don’t. We never should have tolerated the blatant propaganda of the US having an “administration” while our adversaries have “regimes”.

        There are lots of other examples of journalists using loaded vocabulary this way. Most of them escape me at the moment but I can think of a few, like “freedom fighters” vs “insurgents” or “terrorists”, and “police action” or “peacekeeping force” vs “occupation” or “invasion”.