Obama maximum 2 terms...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

You're funny

Going by your posting history, I thought you were a fan of wild unrealistic predictions?

What have you been looking at? Most of my predictions come true.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

You're funny

Going by your posting history, I thought you were a fan of wild unrealistic predictions?

What have you been looking at? Most of my predictions come true.

ORLY? Your drive for $5 claim started what, 3 years ago? And we still havent hit it.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
The OP is a good example of the people who are so eager to drink the kool-aid and fawn over Obama. He hasn't even been elected yet or done anything and they want to make him president for life. Hah.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

If he wins we'll have a Repub in the White House in 4 years, certify that.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

If he wins we'll have a Repub in the White House in 4 years, certify that.

There's definitely a few people here that are certifiable.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,558
7,006
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: tweaker2
sure, let the people decide for themselves at the ballot box wether or not a sitting prez deserves a third term or not.

by the end of a second term in office, as in bush's case, it becomes glaringly obvious if a sitting president deserves a third term or not.

however, imho, removing this restriction will benefit the dems a whole lot more than the repubs.

It was obvious after one term that he was incapable as president, but here we are.

a point that i totally agree with, and i'll go further than that by stating it was obvious that he was a bad choice even before he got elected from the way he allowed his first pres. campaign to be run, which ended up being the exact same way he ran his administration: secretive, deceptive and dirty. bush's luck came from the fact that bill clinton's foibles and al gore's personality allowed bush to be the strong contender that he was at the time.

that being said, in my original post, i composed my thoughts specifically addressing the issue of allowing a third term in office, thus my reference to bush's second term.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Pull Obama's **** out of your throat, you need oxygen to think.

Seriously, You assume he wins, ok I can live with that... but whens the last 16 year party reign? You assume he does well and isn't engulfed by events around him. Just crazy.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
The issue is that, lets say Obama gets elected and after Obama another freak republican gets elected and does same damage as GWB?
Actually the Republicans probably would best be served by Obama winning so the Americans will forget what a mess they made out of the country under Bush.
Which is why I wouldn't mind seeing McCain being the president for 1 term. People would remember who created this mess and republicans would not be able to make a comeback for along time, or would have to be more moderate like they were in the 50's & 60's.



 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

You're funny

Going by your posting history, I thought you were a fan of wild unrealistic predictions?

What have you been looking at? Most of my predictions come true.

I like this one:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
If done right taking out that nut in Iran can be a win-win unlike the GOP plan for Iraq.

Simply leave enough forces securing the oil in Iraq and move the rest of the forces to Iran.

Problem solved and now have Iran's oil. :D

 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

Easy solution: Just get his wife to run.

I'm sure this has already been said
 

MS13

Junior Member
Apr 15, 2006
16
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
The OP is a good example of the people who are so eager to drink the kool-aid and fawn over Obama. He hasn't even been elected yet or done anything and they want to make him president for life. Hah.

People like OP have their own fantasy about Obama without much reality.

The less about Obama they know, the better their fantasy is. And fantasy rarely matches reality.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Which is why I wouldn't mind seeing McCain being the president for 1 term. People would remember who created this mess and republicans would not be able to make a comeback for along time, or would have to be more moderate like they were in the 50's & 60's.

The Bush/McSame policies have aleady squandered too many American lives and too many trillions of dollars to indulge in four more years for that kind of science project that would only be doomed to more of the same failures. :thumbsdown:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,479
6,106
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Pull Obama's **** out of your throat, you need oxygen to think.

Seriously, You assume he wins, ok I can live with that... but whens the last 16 year party reign? You assume he does well and isn't engulfed by events around him. Just crazy.

Clearly you are the one who's focused on his dick.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,558
7,006
136
Originally posted by: MS13
Originally posted by: M0RPH
The OP is a good example of the people who are so eager to drink the kool-aid and fawn over Obama. He hasn't even been elected yet or done anything and they want to make him president for life. Hah.

People like OP have their own fantasy about Obama without much reality.

The less about Obama they know, the better their fantasy is. And fantasy rarely matches reality.

now that's something hillary has been having a major thong wedgie over for months now, and something that has been a chronic condition afflicting bush and cheney from the get-go.;)

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,107
5,641
126
Well, don't count your chickens before they hatch. Remember how Bush was to usher in an era of a "Conservative" revolution and the subsequent destruction of "Liberalism" in its' awesome wake?

I agree that Obama seems the best candidate by far, but he could turn out to be a rather poor President. Electing a new Leader is always somewhat of a gamble and what may seem to be a great Leader may not turn out to be so.

Although not quite the same situation, I was quite excited when Paul Martin(Canadian Politics: Liberal Party)ran for Prime Minister here. This guy single handidly eliminated decades of Deficits and there have been (IIRC) 10 years of consecutive Budget Surplusses since. He did this after 8(ish) years of Conservative Party rule which preached Deficit Elimination, but failed to do so once Special Interest Groups began to protest proposed Funding Cuts. Martin said quite simply regarding Budget Cuts that he would stick to them, "Come Hell or high water" and that's exactly what he did. So a decade(approx) later he runs to become Prime Minister and I'm all "He's perfect for the job based on hiis record". Unfortunately for me, I was in the Minority of that opinion. After a short stint as a Minority Prime Minister(severely handicapped), scandals involving some of his Party Members did his Government in and that was the end of him being PM.

Moral of the story: You just never know what will happen.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Pull Obama's **** out of your throat, you need oxygen to think.

Seriously, You assume he wins, ok I can live with that... but whens the last 16 year party reign? You assume he does well and isn't engulfed by events around him. Just crazy.

Clearly you are the one who's focused on his dick.

Your fill in the blank thus your imagination Moonie:)
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

FYI, prior to George HW Bush in 1988, the last sitting vice president to mount a successful presidential run was Martin van Buren in 1836. Given that history, it is very unlikely that a sitting vice president will be guaranteed the presidency.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

FYI, prior to George HW Bush in 1988, the last sitting vice president to mount a successful presidential run was Martin van Buren in 1836. Given that history, it is very unlikely that a sitting vice president will be guaranteed the presidency.

Well technically yes, but several VPs after him who assumed the presidency were reelected. Not their fault their bosses died, were killed, or resigned ;)
 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

There are very good reasons for the limit. Imagine a 2000 Florida-style recount battle after EVERY election, over everything from mechanical errors to bribery and corruption. Or worse, imagine its January 2009 and the Bush administration is beginning its third term...would you not wonder if the election had been rigged? Or worse, despair so much over the potential disasters Bush could push us into over the next 4-8 years that you're willing to start a riot?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

FYI, prior to George HW Bush in 1988, the last sitting vice president to mount a successful presidential run was Martin van Buren in 1836. Given that history, it is very unlikely that a sitting vice president will be guaranteed the presidency.

Well technically yes, but several VPs after him who assumed the presidency were reelected. Not their fault their bosses died, were killed, or resigned ;)

True, but in the event of Obama's death, jpeyton's claim of 16 years would seem a bit arbitrary, unless Obama died in the last year of his second term and his veep was eligible to be reelected twice... And now we're really grasping, because that scenario has never occurred in American history.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Which is why I wouldn't mind seeing McCain being the president for 1 term. People would remember who created this mess and republicans would not be able to make a comeback for along time, or would have to be more moderate like they were in the 50's & 60's.

The Bush/McSame policies have aleady squandered too many American lives and too many trillions of dollars to indulge in four more years for that kind of science project that would only be doomed to more of the same failures. :thumbsdown:

We already have one idiot posting numbers that he doesn't respect, don't need any later coming copycats.

Besides, there were more casualties during the training phases for Overlord than on the day itself, so when you have a clue about US casualties then join the discussion.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

Lay-off the Kool-Aid please...
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
I think all politicians should be limited to 4 years in office, period. We don't need two term presidents and we don't need career politicians. Give them a chance to get in, make their mark and then get the fuck out.
 

sprok

Member
Mar 10, 2008
101
0
0
Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

I'm fairly convinced that if GWB could run again, Americans would find a way to elect him.

This is sad, funny, and true.