Well, the conspiracy theorists must be getting bored with their old material. I just heard, in all seriousness, this one: “Obama wants to change the Constitution so he can be President for more than two terms.”
If anyone has access to an English <-> Freaking Loon dictionary, please let me know how to tell these folks, “Get a grip!”
“Cite”?
I seem to remember hearing the same thing just about any time a president was elected to a second term. I for sure remember hearing it in 2004 when George Bush won his second term.
Zev Steinhardt
Heard, not read. I heard it in conversation.
I meant that could be a logical rebuttal. Where the hell does support for Obama’s desire for this come from. Make them cite their sources. Because if they’ll believe anything, regardless of credibility, then they’re unreachable anyway.
To be fair, there were terms like “unAmerican left” and “permanent Republican majority” being thrown around at the time.
Looking back I’m glad to say my concerns were unfounded, at least.
Thanks. You know, I’m half-afraid to actually hear where they get this idea from.
“Stupid angry people make up all sorts of stupid shit to fit their delusional narrative. You probably should stop repeating it unless you like sounding stupid.”
Awesome!
And “Unitary President,” and a few others. But I never heard anyone concerned for a constitutional amendment to permit Bush a third term.
I did hear concern for a wide-open constitutional convention, where the whole document might be drastically revised. The question has, apparently, never been settled whether a convention can be called, and limited to a single question.
Back in 1968 in the early stages of the election, amidst the unrest over the Vietnam war, President Johnson sete up an “important announcement.” We students were convinced he was going to declare that, because of the domestic violence, he was cancelling the elections.
Of course, what he actually announced was that he was not going to run.
True. My concern at the time was more that the administration would go “Whoopsie! Look at that, a Red Alert! Impending terrorist attack! For everyone’s safety we will be postponing the election until further notice.”
That’s the sort of thing Bush would have done, while amending the Constitution is certainly more the thing Obama would do, provided either is inclined to keep the Presidency. (Honestly, given the divisiveness these days I can’t imagine anyone being able to stomach more than 8 years of this shit.)
Heck, I’m rapidly becoming disappointed with the recurring bouts of four years of political trash.
No President of any political persuasion would be allowed to get away with this. Before they finished the speech (or within a couple of hours at maximum) there would be an announcement that “the President is a little tired and will be temporarily stepping aside while seeking medical treatement”. With or without his/her consent.
No fucking way the rest of the government goes along with anything of the sort.
EVER.
The third term nonsense may come from an email from Newt Gingrich’s newsletter, according to an article on Salon.com.
This email has been mentioned in other threads, too. It came out 10 days ago. I suppose it’s a measure of how much crazy the election results brought out. A newsletter associated with a former Speaker of the House and serious presidential candidate stated before the election that the President might seize an illegal third term and it got buried in the flood of other crazier crazy.
But Gingrich was the only major Republican to forecast the outcome of 2012 correctly. Maybe he’s really the smart one of the bunch.
Maybe from the same place where the *‘Obama is gonna turn U.S. Sovereignty over to the U.N.’ * crap comes from.
How long does it take to get a constitutional amendment through to a vote? Suppose he started the ball rolling tomorrow, how long till the states can vote on it?
It has to pass 3/4’s of the states. 38 out of 50. What are the odds???
So, in the 2014 midterms the Democrats are going to win 2/3 of the House, pick up 13 seats in the Senate (are there even that many up for grabs?), and sweep to power in 38 states?
That’s a bold prediction on Gingrich’s part.
Well, I’ve suggested it should be done, but I didn’t get that idea from the administration.
Either way, what’s the damn problem for these loons? The constitution was changed to limit the terms, what would be so nefarious about changing it again in the approved manner? My cat has more sense than these people.
Actually the prediction was by Porter Stansberry according to your quote. Newt actually predicted that Romney would win with 300 electoral votes: he was off by 94 EV.
Incidentally, incumbency is good for 2.9 percentage points according the the Fair model. Current data suggests that a generic Democrat should have gotten 49% of the popular vote this election: Obama secured 51.3%. The spread of 2.3% compares with a standard error of the equation of 2.5%. IIRC, Obama beat McCain by 1.5 percentage points. So the Republicans had a bad year, but not as bad as Dukkakis did against Bush I.