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.
I loathe Trump as much as anyone, and expect nothing good from his presidency.
Nevertheless, I'd oppose this amendment.
First, I think that the people should have as wide a range of candidates to choose from as possible. If I were going to amend the presidential qualifications clause, I'd amend it to allow naturalized citizens who have been citizens for a specified period of time (20 years?) to run.
Second, I think this amendment would be a somewhat permanent solution to a temporary problem.
We cannot get a better democracy by requiring the government to stop us before we vote again.
There's a reason Trump is in office. Politicians (including some currently serving in Congress) have failed us.
There's no need for constitutional adjustments. We are just fine.
There are several reasons, and the Dems are going to have to accept some responsibility for what they did and revisit their strategy if they don't want to see the same results repeated in 2020.
The only essential requirements are an age requirement and that the President be a naturally born citizen. Anything else just cuts down on choices, and I don't see how that is good.
I get that some people don't like Trump, but a Constitutional amendment isn't going to remove him retroactively. Dems should stick with the Russians Under Trump's Bed narrative -- its at least more entertaining.
Last edited by CapnTrips; 04-05-2017 at 10:17 PM..
I agree. I was considering voting for Bernie and if it came down to him and Trump, I most likely would have voted for him. Both candidates had flaws but at least Bernie does not have the personal flaws that Trump has IMO.
He wouldn't have got anything done, but he had integrity. He would never have won in a million years though. Do you think all those Wall Street Democrats would have voted for Bernie? He would have won even less states than Hillary.
The problem was that Hillary's coronation prevented any other Democrat that may have won from entering the race at all. There were people who could have come forward and done better than Hillary or Bernie, but they sat out like good little Democrats. It was her turn, probably promised in '08 when she lost the primaries even though she got more votes. Obama chose to endorse her over his own Vice President in that 60 Minutes interview in 2012. They were going to have the first female president to follow the first black president. Demographics were going to assure her the win.
In the wake of Trump, I think we need to take a serious look at a new amendment to the Constitution. I am sure Democrats would support this and Republicans would as well under a normal administration (they would oppose it under Trump).
A) Any candidate running for President of the United States must have either held a public office or served in the military at some point in their life prior to running for President. That public office can be a national level, state level, or municipal level office, but any candidate should have served at some point in their past. Any branch of military service would also suffice.
B) Presidential cabinet appointees must have either held a public office, served in the military, or worked in the private sector in a position that is related to the cabinet position they are being appointed to.
I believe this will safeguard us from ever having another President as incompetent and "in over his head" as this one. What do you think?
You must be very young or naive (or both), to come up with this horrible idea.
Maybe we should disqualify candidates that use foundations as their personal slush funds, or candidates who sell 20% of our uranium for $145mil plus a $500,000 speaking fee for her husband.
You lost. Stop whining and pick a better candidate next time.
In the wake of Trump, I think we need to take a serious look at a new amendment to the Constitution. I am sure Democrats would support this and Republicans would as well under a normal administration (they would oppose it under Trump).
A) Any candidate running for President of the United States must have either held a public office or served in the military at some point in their life prior to running for President. That public office can be a national level, state level, or municipal level office, but any candidate should have served at some point in their past. Any branch of military service would also suffice.
B) Presidential cabinet appointees must have either held a public office, served in the military, or worked in the private sector in a position that is related to the cabinet position they are being appointed to.
I believe this will safeguard us from ever having another President as incompetent and "in over his head" as this one. What do you think?
I don't oppose the military part.
but define held public office.... for 1 day...or 20 yrs experience?? what level of public office?? a governorship... a former mayor... or just some schlub public lawyer??
Better idea, let's amend the constitution and have set term limits on Congress, 2 terms (12 years) for Senators, and 6 terms (12 years) for the House of Representatives. If you can't get anything done/accomplished in 12 years, it's time to move on and find a new profession, or go back to being lawyers, which it seems most of Congress was before getting into politics.
How about we shorten the number of years per term for those elected officials? This would prevent leftist nutcases like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from spending their entire lives in DC. I mean, how do people keep voting for that Reid idiot?
we don't need no more stinkin' career politicians. that's what got us into the mess that President Trump is trying to fix. And I would add that serving in Congress makes you permanently ineligible to serve as POTUS or Veep.
But this is the problem with Trump. He is a businessman used to dealing on his own terms. He hasn't accepted that he has to work with congress to get things done. Instead he threatens anyone who he deems disloyal. He needs to understand that they work for us, they don't work for him. And now we are in a huge mess with him.
But this is the problem with Trump. ... He hasn't accepted that he has to work with congress to get things done. Instead he threatens anyone who he deems disloyal. He needs to understand that they work for us, they don't work for him. And now we are in a huge mess with him.
Actually, that was Obama. Why do you think he was creating executive orders like it was free candy?
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.
