It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN thinks Bush can run again, another reason to watch Fox!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Bush would lose an election he can't run in if the election were held today?

Somebody needs to remind CNN that Bush cannot run again.

Who is stupider? CNN or the people that replied to this poll?

www.cnn.com...




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
It's called regret. Do you honestly not understand a hypothetical?


Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.


But, we all knew what such polls would say anyway, right?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Hypothetical or not. He can't run again.

Why not do a poll on a generic Republican vs a generic Democrat?

That would be more newsworthy. Instead of putting someone in a race they can't participate in.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Well, the poll should focus more on the issues and what people feel is the best solution. That would be cool, eh?

But, anyway, at the bottom of that poll review, you do have your generic Repub v. Demo jargon.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Bush would lose an election he can't run in if the election were held today?
Who is stupider? CNN or the people that replied to this poll?

Or the people who post it on a conspiricy site?

As was previously stated it is a hypothetical question put forward by a polling company. Do you really think that CNN think that Bush can run for another term? Yes, we should all watch Fox who don't make such basic errors.

This, like all other polls, is testing the political climate in the country. Like it or not politicians live or die by the polls and their success (or lack of) gives them an indication of how popular their policies and leadership is. If, for example, Bush had got 90% of the country behind him then he would have a very clear mandate for continuing with his current policies, and probably going even further with them. As it is the opposite is true.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Just wondering, but I'm pretty sure serving two terms of election has only been a tradition, not a law. If somebody can prove me wrong, please do, because I'm not too sure anyhow.

If Bush tries to serve another term, think about it, all he has to do is make sure he wins Republican party candidate, and he can let the the Democratic party candidate secretly a Republican too, and thats a conspiracy right off the bat.

I was p'oed at the 2004 election because I think that Kerry, even though is called Democratic, is still Republican, but obviously not as extreme as Bush.

I guess we'll have to see what happens!


If Bush wins again, I can tell you, it's Civil War all over again.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
On the website they say that Bush would lose if there was an fake election now.

WASN'T THE SAME FOR HIS LAST TERM?!?!?!?

But he still got elected again after his 1st term, how?

[edit on 30-11-2005 by E_Pluribus_Unum]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
E_Pluribus_Unum, you are correct. It doesn't matter who won the election. Kerry and Bush both has plans to support their ideals and remember, they are both Skull & Bones members. Ironic isn 't it?

[edit on 083030p://333 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Under the Constitution, the President serves a four-year term. Amendment XXII (which took effect in 1951 and was first applied to Dwight D. Eisenhower starting in 1953) limits the president to either two four-year terms or a maximum of ten years in office should he have succeeded to the Presidency previously and served two years at most completing his predecessor's term. Since then, three presidents have served two full terms: Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Incumbent President George W. Bush would become the fourth if he completes his current (and second) term in 2009. (Richard Nixon was elected to a second term but resigned before completing it.)
en.wikipedia.org...

After Roosevelt, IIRC, served like four terms it was decided to limit the number of terms a President could stay in office.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Under the Constitution, the President serves a four-year term. Amendment XXII (which took effect in 1951 and was first applied to Dwight D. Eisenhower starting in 1953) limits the president to either two four-year terms or a maximum of ten years in office should he have succeeded to the Presidency previously and served two years at most completing his predecessor's term. Since then, three presidents have served two full terms: Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Incumbent President George W. Bush would become the fourth if he completes his current (and second) term in 2009. (Richard Nixon was elected to a second term but resigned before completing it.)
en.wikipedia.org...

After Roosevelt, IIRC, served like four terms it was decided to limit the number of terms a President could stay in office.


DUH!, cant believe I forgot that Ammendment!


But, what if he passes an ammendment to overide this, kinda like the 21st overrid the 18th in prohibition?

Can you say "Riot"?



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
This is not a thread. Mods should figure a way to approve threads. Maybe that would be a better way to keep the thread/member ratio at a admirable balance.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Maybe stop watching both CNN and Fox (shudders) and U won't be subjected to this type of BS



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Oh,

I just wanted to mention the idea of him running again isnt all completely ridiculous, there is a slight possibility he can change how elections work by adding an ammendment to the US constitution saying he can run again.

Just one way to look at it.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
so the title of this thread is : CNN thinks Bush can run again, another reason to watch Fox!

And the link's title is : Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

I dunno where your from or anything but they get 2 terms. that's it, I don't care if your god himself. all you get is 2 terms.

Bush's runs out in 2008.

Why don't you ask who would vote for kerry if Bush's term was up this year? might get a better response than what you started.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Actually, there was a bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment H. J. RES. 24

New bill to Congress (repeal 22nd amendment)

The interesting thing is that the sponsers of the bill are mostly democrats.
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ]
Rep. Martin Sabo [D-MN]
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]

But here's why Bush couldn't serve a 3rd consecutive term:

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.



[edit on 30-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
BH,

After what the GOP did with BUSH. The Dem's are just trying to cash in on the fact that nobody will vote a rep. for pres for another twenty years. Athough good link, that doesn't validate the author's intentions for this thread.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
BH,

After what the GOP did with BUSH. The Dem's are just trying to cash in on the fact that nobody will vote a rep. for pres for another twenty years. Athough good link, that doesn't validate the author's intentions for this thread.


The author's intentions for this thread are to bash CNN. I was just trying to bring some intellect to the worthless thing.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
BH, I like your style. I dig your moves. (Sorry I just say Startky & Hutch)



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But here's why Bush couldn't serve a 3rd consecutive term:


Nothing in the bill would that prevent Bush from serving a 3rd term, as long as it was passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states in time for him to run again. Of course, practically it would never happen that quickly and probably will never be passed.

edit:

If they had wanted it done faster, they would have made it by Constitutional Convention instead of state legislatures, that would require all states to form conventions to vote on it instead of leaving it up to the legislatures to take it up at their pleasure. Only one Amendment was ever ratified by that method though, the repeal of the prohibition on alcohol.


[edit on 11/30/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Actually, there was a bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment H. J. RES. 24

New bill to Congress (repeal 22nd amendment)

The interesting thing is that the sponsers of the bill are mostly democrats.
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ]
Rep. Martin Sabo [D-MN]
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]

But here's why Bush couldn't serve a 3rd consecutive term:

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.



[edit on 30-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]


Like I was saying!

EXACTLY!


This is a possibility!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join