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

Carseller4,

I think the idea was to show how unpopular Bush is now.
The idea being he was-past tence-popular enough to get elected 4 a second term (irregulaties aside).
I read that his approval rating was like 30% or so.

Anyway, the poll is useless. Putting him up against a nameless, faceless opponent outside of the spectre of a political campaign means nothing.

Put him up against John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry in a real fight, and I bet most people would still vote for Bush.

Got a source for that, mrmonsoon?
Cause according to this Rasmussen poll, which is updated on a near-daily basis and is quite objective/neutral, Bush's approval rating is 46%.

Wednesday November 30, 2005--Forty-six percent (46%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans Disapprove of the President's performance.

President Bush Job Approval






seekerof

Originally posted by Zaphod58
After Roosevelt, IIRC, served like four terms it was decided to limit the number of terms a President could stay in office.

But it was too late to affect Harry. Give 'em hell, Harry!

Thanks for the lessons in how the US constitution is amended.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
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.

No, there's nothing in the bill that would prevent it, but there's something in the 22nd amendment which would prevent him from serving a 3rd consecutive term, as I said in my previous post. (must I bold everything to get people to read it?)

The time constraint you speak of is the kicker. That time period is SEVEN YEARS. He only has 2 years left. Now, if this had passed within his first year, we'd be looking at our next president...



22nd Amendment
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.

Seeker

It was something I heard on the news-I think cnn, but not absolutly positive.
I won't argrue the actual percent with you, it was not the point.
The point was that he is not as popular now as he was durning his second election run.

HowlrunnerIV-

Kinda Park is, well....DAMN!!!!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, there's nothing in the bill that would prevent it, but there's something in the 22nd amendment which would prevent him from serving a 3rd consecutive term, as I said in my previous post. (must I bold everything to get people to read it?)

The time constraint you speak of is the kicker. That time period is SEVEN YEARS. He only has 2 years left. Now, if this had passed within his first year, we'd be looking at our next president...

All the seven year time constraint means is that the proposed amendment would expire seven years after passage if it didn't get ratified by enough states, so it wouldn't sit around forever in limbo like the 27th Amendment did. If Congress passed the bill, the amendment would take immediate effect upon ratification of at least 3/4 of the states. If this happened within the next 2 years, Bush could indeed serve a 3rd consecutive term.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
All the seven year time constraint means is that the proposed amendment would expire seven years after passage if it didn't get ratified by enough states, so it wouldn't sit around forever in limbo like the 27th Amendment did. If Congress passed the bill, the amendment would take immediate effect upon ratification of at least 3/4 of the states. If this happened within the next 2 years, Bush could indeed serve a 3rd consecutive term.

All righty. I guess I'm ... ... ... wrong...

I did think there was something about the repeal of an Amendment not being applied to a sitting government, but I can't find anything on it...

So, mark your calendars, DJ's right and I'm wrong! Oh man that hurt!

Uh... Can I take that back? That part where I said I was wrong?

Text of Hoyer's Introduction of the bill

Thanks to PrisonPlanet for the heads up on this. However, according to Hoyer's introduction of the legislation it would not effect the current President's tenure.
...
* Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.

I knew there was a reason, and I still don't know exactly what it is, but the Sponsor of the bill says it wouldn't apply to Georgie and I believe him...

I'm right again! (kind of)

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
HowlrunnerIV-

Linda Park is, well....DAMN!!!!

Isn't she just! Talks about perfect synchronicity, Wally West is my favourite superhero and his wife's a Korean named...Linda Park.

My, my, my!

First of all, CNN's statement was a hypothetical.

Second of all, were he to remain in power, he would be a dictator in plain and simple language.

IF and i say this tongue in cheek, there were to be elections again and he was running, Do i need to finish this sentence? I will. By the time he is thru with this whatever it is that he is running, he wouldnt have a prayer. Not a prayer.
Not a prayer.

My 2 cents.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I knew there was a reason, and I still don't know exactly what it is, but the Sponsor of the bill says it wouldn't apply to Georgie and I believe him...

I don't think he's read his own bill I honestly can't see any reason why Bush wouldn't be able to run again if this was passed and ratified, whether consecutive or not.

I think I'll e-mail Hoyer's office and ask them if the quote is genuine and how exactly Bush would be prevented from running again if this passed.

a little bit of interesting information i came across today.

it was a table of the average IQ of each state and who they voted for.

only 2 states that had an IQ less then 100 voted for Kerry
Maybe one state with an IQ above 100 voted for bush.

meaning the majority of the country has an IQ of less then 100.

lol

and benevolent heretic was talking of bringing intellect to this thread.

lol
lol

Originally posted by tiddly54
it was a table of the average IQ of each state and who they voted for.

That was a debunked hoax, no such data exists.

I don't know how this thread got around to poll results, but I just found this on the Rasmussen site that Seekerof linked to. Pretty interesting I think.

Source
Just 25% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

November 14, 2005--Just 25% of Americans say the U.S. is generally heading in the right direction these days. A Rasmussen Reports poll found that 66% believe that the nation has gotten off on the wrong track.

On Election Day last year, 43% of Likely Voters believed the country was heading in the right direction. At that time, 53% said it was on the wrong track. The impact of these shifting attitudes can be seen in Election 2006 polling we conducted over the past week in Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Washington.

Views of Democrats have shifted little since Election Day--just 10% now say the country is heading in the right direction. It was 14% on Election Day.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans said the country was heading in the right direction on Election Day. That has fallen to 44%. In fact, a plurality of Republicans (48%) now say that the country has gotten off on the wrong track.

Among those not affiliated with either major party, 17% now say the country is heading in the right direction. That's down from 38% on Election Day.

44% or Republicans?

Seekerof, what are you doing?

chrisevans3d.com...

ahahahaha

hears the proof my good friend


ADMIN Edit to remove CHILDISH language...



[edit on 12-2-2005 by Springer]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[The author's intentions for this thread are to bash CNN. I was just trying to bring some intellect to the worthless thing.

And I thank you! You always bring civility and intelligent conversation. It's very appreciated.

Originally posted by tiddly54
chrisevans3d.com...

ahahahaha

I guess you missed the link to the debunking on the same page:

www.isteve.com...

And please don't use that kind of personal attack language.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by asala]

Originally posted by tiddly54
hears the proof

And here's the proof that debunks your 'proof'
www.snopes.com...

And circumventing the censors is a no-no.

Snopes is your friend.

Thank you deluded.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]