Warning: Evidence Is Mounting, Obama's Third Term Is On The Horizon [Archive]

Abyssal Echo

March 8th, 2015, 10:46 PM

The one thing that gets us through the chaos caused by Barack Obama's Presidency is the countdown to its finish, knowing that this should be his last term in office. However evidence is quickly mounting that a third term is on the horizon. Each day and every scandal seems to indicate that the nightmare of a third term is a real threat.

While many are quick to say that even the Democrats would stand up against the possibility, would they ? Now that their 2016 front runner, Hillary Clinton, has been sidelined by what seems to be endless scandals, the Democrats are going to have to find someone who can take on a strong conservative candidate, as TPNN points out, no other real Democrats are stepping up to the plate.

http://madworldnews.com/obamas-third-term
Related story: http://tpnn.com/2015/03/07/is-obama-considering-a-third-term

DylanDanger

March 8th, 2015, 11:01 PM

this is a joke right?

SethfromMI

March 8th, 2015, 11:03 PM

to be honest, I think he will just make himself a dictator before he becomes a 3rd term president. or he will be "president" but run the country like a dictatorship. we are going in that direction anyways

thatcountrykid

March 8th, 2015, 11:53 PM

Third terms are illegal I beleive. Even then it's a code among presidents not to run for a third.

DylanDanger

March 9th, 2015, 12:01 AM

people act as if obama is satan. he is by far not the worst president we have had. he has done a lot of good. done a lot more than our last president. people keep trying to find faults in everything he does and blow it all out of proportion.

Abyssal Echo

March 9th, 2015, 12:53 AM

Third terms are illegal I beleive. Even then it's a code among presidents not to run for a third.

This was a tradition not a law started by George Washington. After FDR's 4 terms in office the 22nd Amendment was added to the constitution which limits the president to two terms.
If we are at war (I think Obama has asked Congress for war powers) under war powers Obama's term can be extended.

Vlerchan

March 9th, 2015, 01:01 AM

It would be in unconstitutional for Obama to run a third term is the understanding I have.

Clinton is also dominating in the latest polling (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/).

Abyssal Echo

March 9th, 2015, 01:30 AM

[QUOTE=Vlerchan;3082691]It would be in unconstitutional for Obama to run a third term is the understanding I have.

This is true under the 22nd amendment. unless we are at war then his term can be extended.

Clinton is also dominating in the latest polling (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/).

At the moment the poll shows her in the lead.
Hillary is in deep shit. turns out she has multiple emails instead of the one she reported. 6 billion is missing. Possible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood
see http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221976
related stories

Seahawks15

March 9th, 2015, 01:43 AM

By far,in my opinion:The two Bushes completely wrecked our economy therefore they are the worst presidents in America's history not Barack Obama and from my knowledge of politics,it is unconstitutional to run for a third term but it has been done before apparently.

Kahn

March 9th, 2015, 01:58 AM

Highly doubtful.

phuckphace

March 9th, 2015, 02:19 AM

Hillary will win in 2016.

this MadWorldNews site is a goldmine for keks. if I tried to make a parody in this style it would be too on-the-nose and obvious to be funny.

DylanDanger

March 9th, 2015, 02:22 AM

You are saying hillary clinton has connections to the muslim brother hood and using one of her emails to funnel money to the muslim brother hood? give me a break. if this is all true how come only articles u post are from random blogs an no actual news sites. if it was true fox news would be all over it and milking it for all it is worth. conspiracy and scare/shock posts on non credible blogs is not news.

Vlerchan

March 9th, 2015, 02:43 AM

At the moment the poll shows her in the lead.
Hillary is in deep shit. turns out she has multiple emails instead of the one she reported. 6 billion is missing. Possible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood
see http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/sh...d.php?t=221976
related stories
Clinton's multiple emails would have been taken into account in the most recent polls.
Clinton's missing 6 billion would have been taken into account in the most recent polls.
Claims about Clinton's associations with the MB would have been taken into account in the most recent opinion polls.

It's cost her some percentage points (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/8/inside-the-beltway-hillary-clintons-troubles-costi/) but it's not as bad as being made out. This attitude reminds me almost of the attitude going into 201[2] where in-face of all the actual data establishment conservatives were still convincing themselves their candidate stood a chance right up to the end. It's impossible to tell right now who stands a chance in 2016 for sure but it's more or less the same wishful thinking I'm seeing: all-in-all it's just another poor reflection of the sports-championship like qualities of US politics with the flag waving and fantastic speculation about their 'teams' chances:

"It's going to be Republicans year this season. I can feel it."

phuckphace

March 9th, 2015, 04:16 AM

It's cost her some percentage points but it's not as bad as being made out. This attitude reminds me almost of the attitude going into 201[2] where in-face of all the actual data establishment conservatives were still convincing themselves their candidate stood a chance right up to the end. It's impossible to tell right now who stands a chance in 2016 for sure but it's more or less the same wishful thinking I'm seeing: all-in-all it's just another poor reflection of the sports-championship like qualities of US politics with the flag waving and fantastic speculation about their 'teams' chances:

"It's going to be Republicans year this season. I can feel it."

:lol3: Republicans are as stupid as they are inept. watching them flail about helplessly while they hemorrhage popular support is pretty entertaining.

no sign that they'll have an epiphany and landslide comeback anytime soon.

fairmaiden

March 9th, 2015, 08:33 AM

I feel like everything you post is anti-obama, and all of your sources are from a politically-biased ''news'' website. I'd actually take some of this stuff seriously if it was from the BBC, or the Daily Mail etc.

lyhom

March 9th, 2015, 08:42 AM

http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s649/nrubloc/shittynewssite_zpsb0sgds5e.png

brb lolling forever

like is this the onion

Uranus

March 9th, 2015, 09:10 AM

Oh dear god please no

Vlerchan

March 9th, 2015, 09:22 AM

[...] Daily Mail [...]

WILL HOUSING CRISIS CAUSED BY COMMIE HOMOSEXUALIST-ABORTIONIST MARXIST IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE CHEATS FROM RACIST ANTI-BRITISH EU CAUSE TB RATE FROM VACCINES TO RISE?!

Please don't post from that site either.

Reuters would be the best for news IMO.

phuckphace

March 9th, 2015, 10:30 AM

WILL HOUSING CRISIS CAUSED BY COMMIE HOMOSEXUALIST-ABORTIONIST MARXIST IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE CHEATS FROM RACIST ANTI-BRITISH EU CAUSE TB RATE FROM VACCINES TO RISE?!

answer: yes

DylanDanger

March 9th, 2015, 11:18 AM

Yea there are a lot of good news sources for real news. im on the debate team at school and believe it or not the Christian Science Monitor is a really good place too for unbiased news.

Danny_boi 16

March 9th, 2015, 12:27 PM

Hilary Clinton is a real democrat with an impressive record. The question isn't whether or not democrats have a candidate to bet her. The question is, do the republican have a serious, viable, and non division candidate to bet her. The Republicans are on organized, and will lose the White House, and the Senate, and lose their super majority in the House. Legally, Mrs. Clinton, hasn't done anything wrong... ever. There is nothing the Republicans can do to bet her, unless she was somehow a member of ISIS. But she's not, and she will be the president in 2016 (If she runs, and she will).

SethfromMI

March 9th, 2015, 07:41 PM

Hyper

March 9th, 2015, 08:10 PM

maybe because those who are pulling the strings don't want the real news reported

People pulling strings having the whole of medie under their thumbs - can't use aliases for different emails

DylanDanger

March 9th, 2015, 08:12 PM

maybe because those who are pulling the strings don't want the real news reported

like i said conspiracy theories. and those don't make news. they are just that, theories. and if there is more to it, wouldn't more than just one random blog/website out of the millions on the web be reporting it too?

SethfromMI

March 9th, 2015, 08:16 PM

People pulling strings having the whole of medie under their thumbs - can't use aliases for different emails

like i said conspiracy theories. and those don't make news. they are just that, theories. and if there is more to it, wouldn't more than just one random blog/website out of the millions on the web be reporting it too?

there are more than just one reporting it. you bury your head in the sand. is it a theory? yea, for now. I mean, it was only a theory Hitler was going to try to take over all of Europe, until, guess what? he tried to take over all of Europe. didn't end up succeeding, but it goes to show just because something is a theory does not mean it cant become true

DylanDanger

March 9th, 2015, 08:40 PM

I haven't seen or heard of anywhere else reporting that obama is trying for a third term or that hilary gave 6 billion to the muslim brotherhood. it is all ridiculous speculation. and I'm not burying my head in the sand, i just prefer actual news than believing something from a tea party type website. I don't blindly believe the first thing i read from a biased bs website. i mean when was the last time the tea party was right about anything?

StoppingTime

March 9th, 2015, 09:14 PM

WILL HOUSING CRISIS CAUSED BY COMMIE HOMOSEXUALIST-ABORTIONIST MARXIST IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE CHEATS FROM RACIST ANTI-BRITISH EU CAUSE TB RATE FROM VACCINES TO RISE?!

yes.

And as others have mentioned, this is clearly unconstitutional and has essentially a zero percent chance of occurring, despite what the "real news" has to say.

Vlerchan

March 10th, 2015, 01:43 AM

I mean, it was only a theory Hitler was going to try to take over all of Europe, until, guess what?
It might have been reasonable to speculate at the time that Hitler was looking to control Europe based on his words and actions:

There's no reasonable basis to presume Obama's running for a third term (etc.). It's all just speculation designed to push him down in the polls.

phuckphace

March 10th, 2015, 05:00 AM

Hitler was a retard who would've crashed and burned regardless of anything the Allies did. to suggest that he was some brilliant strategist capable of taking over and holding Europe is just playing into the hands of the Allied war-mongers.

Germans themselves are pretty boss and can be quite deadly when provoked. but with an opiate addicted megalomaniac at the wheel they were fucked.

Typhlosion

March 10th, 2015, 05:44 AM

This thread :lol3:

Too late fellows, the Yankees have assumed command and are on their way to satanize/communize a state near you!

Really, a dem mentioning anything unconstitutional gives a huge ground for the reps. Obama wouldn't even do that.

mopper

March 10th, 2015, 06:40 AM

fairmaiden

March 10th, 2015, 09:55 AM

WILL HOUSING CRISIS CAUSED BY COMMIE HOMOSEXUALIST-ABORTIONIST MARXIST IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE CHEATS FROM RACIST ANTI-BRITISH EU CAUSE TB RATE FROM VACCINES TO RISE?!

Please don't post from that site either.

Reuters would be the best for news IMO.
Lmao, well I guess the Daily Mail is usually ridiculous; probably not the best example for me to use.

BUT; At least there's a tiny percentage of real stuff on the Daily Mail compared to the extremely politically-biased madworldnews.

OP: I think you have a lil crush on Hillary :') Is Obama your #mcm?

ImCoolBeans

March 10th, 2015, 10:10 AM

Mad World News is more of a blog site than a news site. No offense, but nearly every story you've posted from it was pretty out there, this one taking the cake. You really need to be careful where you get your news from. Any site that says they want to "fight back against the liberal media" is pretty unreliable in my book -- not only does that imply a bias, but it implies an agenda. That's not news. That's not me talking as a more liberal person, that's me talking as somebody who reads the news coming from both sides of the political spectrum, and if a liberal news site openly claimed in their "about us" that they wanted to trash and fight against the conservative media, I would feel the same way.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama myself, but I've got to say that conservatives are really starting to get petty and have lost their touch, perhaps with reality.

Also, the entire article is based off of speculation about what Obama and Biden may have meant by two comments, which do not have as much meaning behind them as that article is trying to convey. Those statements also being interpreted by Rush Limbaugh, an [-]drug abusing psychopath who abuses his political sway to stay out of trouble[/-] extremely biased radio show host who will do and say anything to make Obama look bad.

phuckphace

March 10th, 2015, 10:21 AM

from now on I'll only be posting articles from The Economist translated into Tumblrese

"TRIGGER WARNING: wow just wow, can you believe these shitlord statists?! they're raising t**es again UGH I don't fucking even"

DylanDanger

March 10th, 2015, 03:57 PM

1) Christian Science Monitor is bias.

2) 3rd terms are impossible.

3) If the president WERE to either try to pass a new amendment which would disregard the 22nd, the Supreme Court would deem it unconstitutional. Furthermore, the republican controlled senate AND house wouldn't pass a law like this, and they would simply impeach him if he somehow managed to do it. Surely many democrats would be angry with this along with the republicans and Obama would be gone easily.

I agree with number 2 and 3 but not number 1. out of all the media outlets in the US, i think the christian science monitor is one of the best. they don't put out one sided news, they just report it how it is. how do you see it as biased? biased in what way?

fairmaiden

March 10th, 2015, 11:06 PM