Could Obama be first 3-term president since FDR?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by CrashTest

I guess it's possible that at least 16 Republican Governors would vote to repeal and let Bozo serve another term but it's unlikely.

Hold up. Repealing it is not the same as Obama winning again.

Consider. At present, most people agree that there is very little real, substantive difference in the two parties, yes? In keeping with that reality, our presidential elections have become exercises in hair splitting where there is, of course, no real, substantial difference in the candidates. Big government types win the primaries. Both parties talk to their bases, say all kinds of things they don't mean and then walk all those things back in the general with the goal of winning the election on the narrowest, least risky grounds possible.

What if the GOP actually had to nominate someone who was actually different to win? Would they risk another McCain or Romney to try and beat Obama next time? Or, would they send out a Gary Johnson, someone with real, substantive differences, and go from there?

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Hold up. Repealing it is not the same as Obama winning again.

Consider. At present, most people agree that there is very little real, substantive difference in the two parties, yes? In keeping with that reality, our presidential elections have become exercises in hair splitting where there is, of course, no real, substantial difference in the candidates. Big government types win the primaries. Both parties talk to their bases, say all kinds of things they don't mean and then walk all those things back in the general with the goal of winning the election on the narrowest, least risky grounds possible.

What if the GOP actually had to nominate someone who was actually different to win? Would they risk another McCain or Romney to try and beat Obama next time? Or, would they send out a Gary Johnson, someone with real, substantive differences, and go from there?

They will send out whomever they are told to send out.. and the American People are not doing the sending.

The real power in any election comes from those that count the votes.
Might be a good place for the American people to start paying attention.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

They will send out whomever they are told to send out.. and the American People are not doing the sending.

The real power in any election comes from those that count the votes.
Might be a good place for the American people to start paying attention.

This is fascinating. Every nutty thing the left used to say under Bush that everyone would laugh about, the conspiracy theories, the abject inability for those people to understand why they lost for ANY other reason than cheating, has come full circle.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

This is fascinating. Every nutty thing the left used to say under Bush that everyone would laugh about, the conspiracy theories, the abject inability for those people to understand why they lost for ANY other reason than cheating, has come full circle.

I think you misunderstand what Im saying. This has nothing to do with one side cheating more than the other.

As Americans, we are given two choices (from "our" representitives) to pick between. We might,,, we most likely are not really excited about either one. But our representitives pick two that suit their needs.
Supposedly we get to pick one of the two poor choices, and this leads us with an election between two people that we would never have picked in the first place.
then there is the vote. Sealed, private.. I can imagine that the vote can go either way and we really would have no clue if it was really the actual count.

Of course to make it look real they could throw in some recounts that are fought over for months on end,, but that is another story.

the fact is, we dont actually get to choose who we as citizens might want, we are told, these are your choices, pick one.

and just for your information, If one of the third party candidates can even come close to exciting me, Im thinking that I will throw a vote away and vote for him.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

I think you misunderstand what Im saying. This has nothing to do with one side cheating more than the other.

As Americans, we are given two choices (from "our" representitives) to pick between. We might,,, we most likely are not really excited about either one. But our representitives pick two that suit their needs. That is your mindset and it is terribly wrong. You have any number of choices. The ONLY reason the parties run this nation is because of that mindset that says 'we only have those choices' as though jumping off a slightly lower bridge is 'better'. The ONLY thing that will stop the GOP from running poor candidates is people like you choosing otherwise. Good lord.

Supposedly we get to pick one of the two poor choices, and this leads us with an election between two people that we would never have picked in the first place.
then there is the vote. Sealed, private.. I can imagine that the vote can go either way and we really would have no clue if it was really the actual count.

Of course to make it look real they could throw in some recounts that are fought over for months on end,, but that is another story.

the fact is, we dont actually get to choose who we as citizens might want, we are told, these are your choices, pick one. I would have no problem with that if we had choices I thought were working well for the nation. It happens I don't. So, I'm one for trying to stop doing what ain't working.

and just for your information, If one of the third party candidates can even come close to exciting me, Im thinking that I will throw a vote away and vote for him.

Just for your information, that is the only way things get better in our system; when people start making better choices.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Misfit

http://rt.com/usa/news/president-ame...ll-repeal-541/

A United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.

Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.

The "bill" would not repeal the 22nd. There is a long difficult process that must take place in order to amend the Constitution or repeal an existing ammendment.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Just for your information, that is the only way things get better in our system; when people start making better choices.

however, if you making a better choice means giving an election to the worst choice, what have we gained or learned.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Misfit

http://rt.com/usa/news/president-ame...ll-repeal-541/

A United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.

Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.

I don't think you can just repeal an amendment, you have to pass another amendment to cancel it (21st was passed to cancel 18th)

[Vince]

Originally Posted by GURPS

Steny has introduced legislation for 12 some yrs to over turn the 2 term limit



pull your head out and look around, you might learn something ....

Wish he'd introduce a bill to limit Congress to a two term duration.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by CrashTest

According to the National Archives website, a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by 3/4 of the States (38 of 50 States).

Let’s not quibble over numbers, since they matter little with a president that can makes things happen through executive fiat.