Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personal feelings towards Obama aside, I feel it is wrong for the parliament of one country to be chanting "four more years" to an outgoing US President whose time in office is limited to a maximum of 8 years by US law. It's perfectly fine to applaud and even cheer a visiting nation leader's speech. But to chant something like this is wrong. Now, if the parliament wishes to change the laws for Canada to allow Barak Obama to hold the highest office in Canada and he wins the election then that's different.
I dunno. If it was possible for Obama to run for another four years, it might be said to be undiplomatic. I believe Canadian Prime Ministers have traditionally avoided cheering for a particular leader in foreign elections. That would be undiplomatic. But knowing Obama was out of the running anyway, it appears more to me as though they were expressing a liking for his speech, plus there's just that little fact that Canadians have generally always liked him and we didn't really fall out of liking for him because we didn't have to. He wasn't our leader. And then there is just that little matter of his predecessor whose memory has not yet faded and then we like Obama even more.
Location: MA/ME (the way life should not be / the way it should be)
1,266 posts, read 1,388,337 times
Reputation: 735
As an american, i personally feel the 8 years is good, although i feel after a 4 year haitus they should be able to re-run for president. If they were truley the greatest president ever, and they re-won it, then they should be allowed. As well, what if our choices suck and no-one else comes up, im sure ole man washington would much rather we have a president stay in the whitehouse longer than him, if it means avoiding complete imbolciles. In history we have normally not allowed people to run past 2 terms (with exceptions), as normally anyone going longer was looked at under a very strong viewing glass. Also if they have a haitus, they cant force the military to rig an election, as they do not have the power. The only risk would be using contacts to do so (and many people are richer than most presidents. With 400k a year they could not bribe enough people, but im sure trumps got enough).
Personal feelings towards Obama aside, I feel it is wrong for the parliament of one country to be chanting "four more years" to an outgoing US President whose time in office is limited to a maximum of 8 years by US law. It's perfectly fine to applaud and even cheer a visiting nation leader's speech. But to chant something like this is wrong. Now, if the parliament wishes to change the laws for Canada to allow Barak Obama to hold the highest office in Canada and he wins the election then that's different.
I would suggest that Canadian parliamentarians were not necessarily chanting "four more years for Obama." Rather, they were chanting for "four more years for the Democratic Party, which understands Canada in the North American context, which Trump doesn't."
That's only a guess, of course, but I think it has some validity.
Canadians, especially our parliamentarians, are not ignorant of the US and its political system: they know the US Constitution, and its amendments. They know the checks and balances, and the term limits; and if they don't, they have US constitutional scholars to advise them. Heck, I am one such: I myself have studied the US Constitution, and written papers involving it.
Still, as the US and Canada are so very closely intertwined, economically, socially, and historically; it makes sense that the Powers-That-Be know about each other legally and constitutionally. I have no doubt that when the US President visits Canada, and especially has to make a speech in Parliament, he is advised by American scholars who have studied Canadian constitutional matters and other legal issues. Similarly, I am sure that Canadian parliamentarians who chanted "Four More Years" know that Mr. Obama is constitutionally-prohibited from serving another term. In my opinion, they were chanting for "Four More Years of the Democratic Party."
And if they were too stupid to know why they were chanting, and what they were chanting for, send them to me. I'll advise them as to the 22nd Amendment.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 06-30-2016 at 01:50 AM..
Yep. I'm sure you have better candidate suggestions, or even better, run for POTUS yourself.
I have always been a supporter of Bernie Sanders.
Unfortunately America is likely to end up with Hilary Clinton, which is worse than Obama. Well, it is their country to ruin.
I have always been a supporter of Bernie Sanders.
Unfortunately America is likely to end up with Hilary Clinton, which is worse than Obama. Well, it is their country to ruin.
Bernie's great, but some of his proposals are more emotional appeal than real substance. I watched an NBC interview with him on foreign policy, and how he plans to deal with NAFTA and the ongoing trade negotiations with Asia and Europe, and his response was surprisingly short and shallow, even by Trump's low standards (repeatedly saying protecting American workers, raising minimum wage, etc. etc.). I also think that both the GOP and certain democrats have been attempting to portray Hillary as someone from a privileged background with big money corporate backers intent on stepping on the "little guys" - true, except which presidential candidate DOESN'T come from a relative privilege (upper middle class to upper class family, Harvard/Yale/Princeton education), and which presidential candidate DOESN'T need big corporate donors to sustain their campaigns (where else are you going to find $1 billion dollars?). Hillary can be born into royalty for all I care, as long as she has sound policy, experience, and stature to lead the world's largest economy. And as far as I know, Bernie simply lacks those qualities at the moment.
A far more likely outcome would be Hillary picking Elizabeth Warren on the VP ticket - Warren's got years of experience in education and healthcare reform, and has always been an extremely vocal activist on the left which should appeal to the Bernie supporters.
And I highly doubt Hillary will "ruin" America - America's current system has far too many checks and balances on presidential power to allow any one individual to "ruin" the country as a whole.
Yeah because Hillary or Trump will certainly be much better.......
Neither is better, unfortunately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
