If the 22nd Amendment Is Repealed, Which Two-Term President Would Be the Best Candidate to Challenge Trump.
Poll - Total Votes: 12
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama
You can only vote on one answer.
36-40, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
Obama. Especially if they go with the "three non consecutive" rule, Obama would be fit lol
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Elessar
If the 22nd Amendment is simply repealed, there would be no limits.
Obama. Especially if they go with the "three non consecutive" rule, Obama would be fit lol
If the 22nd Amendment is simply repealed, there would be no limits.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Elessar
Because the question was "If the 22nd Amendment Is Repealed..."
You're adding stuff. That's a separate issue. Possible, but separate.
What makes you assume they'll repeal it without introducing some bullsh*t to practically make it repealed for Republicans but de facto still in force for Democrats?
Because the question was "If the 22nd Amendment Is Repealed..."
You're adding stuff. That's a separate issue. Possible, but separate.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@beckyromero Fine, but I think it's a legit argument that if they'll get rid of that they'll immediately create a way to be the only beneficiary of that.
It's like if we were discussing the demolition of a dam and I said "yeah but all that water will flood the village under the dam" and you replied "yeah, but we're only discussing the demolition of the dam, you're adding stuff". Technically you're right, but I think it's absolutely legit discussing the two things together as one.
It's like if we were discussing the demolition of a dam and I said "yeah but all that water will flood the village under the dam" and you replied "yeah, but we're only discussing the demolition of the dam, you're adding stuff". Technically you're right, but I think it's absolutely legit discussing the two things together as one.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Elessar
Well, of course the Trumpets would try something else. They have already introduced legislation (that would spefically bar the three I named who served consecutive terms). But that would be a different question entirely. Otherwise, all the various options muddle up the question.
Fine, but I think it's a legit argument that if they'll get rid of that they'll immediately create a way to be the only beneficiary of that.
Well, of course the Trumpets would try something else. They have already introduced legislation (that would spefically bar the three I named who served consecutive terms). But that would be a different question entirely. Otherwise, all the various options muddle up the question.