Thread: Will Bush go for a third term?

Isn't it forbidden by American laws to go for a third term?

Perhaps the boys at the Bohemian Grove will make an acception for him.

He's tried to change the constitution on other matters.

If Bush tried to go for a third term, there would be street riots in every American city and civil war would break out.

Changing the constitution also isn't necessarily seen as a bad thing. If our nation feels we need to elaborate on the constitution, we can make an amendment. It's perfectly legal.

I think what you, TATY, are referring to is the attempt to pass an amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying. It did not succeed, and the issue went back to the individual states.

It is easier to change the Russian constitution that the American, since it isn't, what, 300 years old?

If the constitution is going to be changed for any issue revolving around the presidential qualifications, it will be for the rule that you must be born in a America to run for president. The republicans have already talked about trying to change it so that Arnold can run at some point in the future. After Bush's term runs out, there aren't that many clear republican candidates.

Yeah, I've heard that one too. I wonder how seriously people think Arnold could win the presidency? Lat I heard, his numbers were dropping in Cali.

If he ran for a third term I would move to Canada.
I'm taking French next year, it'll all be coo.

Originally Posted by drew881

After Bush's term runs out, there aren't that many clear republican candidates.

They don't need any republicans they can use a Democrat. There is no difference!

Originally Posted by drew881

The republicans have already talked about trying to change it so that Arnold can run at some point in the future. .

Oh really? Well if he can run then I will be able to also. Yeah! President DDT. Hmm...it's got a nice ring to it.

Originally Posted by TriggerHappyJack

If he ran for a third term I would move to Canada.
I'm taking French next year, it'll all be coo.

It's only a small part of Canada that speaks French. Nobody speaks it at all in the west and that's the best part of Canada. But I have not been to Labrador. Besides Bush, Kerry, republican, democrat, the difference is only superficial.

Originally Posted by DDT

They don't need any republicans they can use a Democrat. There is no difference!

I do not agree. I think that is something people just like to say. Presidential candidates are historically closer to the moderate side of their parties, so they do tend to show some similarities. The parties they represent, however, are extremely diverse and in no way interchangeable.

American presidents are picked for them by the hooded rich dudes at Bohemian Grove. Democrats and republicans alike are members. Bush already knew that he was to be the republican nominee for his party before the vote was taken. This is evidenced by a memo he wrote to republicans in congress, before the nomination, telling them "to stop bickering with democrats over this gun bill because I don't want a fight with democrats over this as President" . Paraphrased.

It was origonally not in the constitution that you could only run for a max of 2 terms. It was only customary that after 2 terms you would step down, after Washington. Teddy Roseavelt ran for 2 terms, stepped down from office, and then 4 years later ran again. FDR was the only president to be elected 4 times. Now the 22nd amendment limits the presidential term to a maximum of two terms or 10 years, so if the president dies after two years in office and the vice president becomes president, that new president can run two more times.

TriggerHappyJack wrote:

If he ran for a third term I would move to Canada.
I'm taking French next year, it'll all be coo.

DDT wrote:

It's only a small part of Canada that speaks French. Nobody speaks it at all in the west and that's the best part of Canada.

ahhhhhh, quebec is not small, putain de bordel de merde en bo

It's only a small part of Canada that speaks French. Nobody speaks it at all in the west and that's the best part of Canada. But I have not been to Labrador. Besides Bush, Kerry, republican, democrat, the difference is only superficial.

But you have to speak both French and English to become a citizen.

greatest rule ever

[quote=possopo]

ahhhhhh, quebec is not small, putain de bordel de merde en bo

Originally Posted by TriggerHappyJack

It's only a small part of Canada that speaks French. Nobody speaks it at all in the west and that's the best part of Canada. But I have not been to Labrador. Besides Bush, Kerry, republican, democrat, the difference is only superficial.

But you have to speak both French and English to become a citizen.

Is that true? I never heard that but when I lived there, it was long ago.

From cic.gc.ca:

English and French are the official languages of Canada. You must know enough of either language to understand other people and for them to understand you. You need to be able to speak English or French well enough to communicate with people.

I think you are confusing this with the Quebec laws on signs posted in both French and English.

Those bilingal laws I believe are in effect in all provinces even in British Columbia where I lived, where I never met a French speaker. Well, if I did they never spoke French to me.