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.
Marked!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
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.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?
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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:
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..
Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
I'm fairly convinced that if GWB could run again, Americans would find a way to elect him.