2016 Presidency: The Constitution has been amended and the natural-born citizen clause has been removed. The candidate you like was born in England and moved here when he was 5. Do you still vote for him or abstain in protest of the amendment?
I would have to know more about their parents
As long as they're a citizen, I don't give a flying fart where they're from
So many more variables to consider.
I would never support the ammendment or anyone who didn't qualify based on the original guidlines. If we can't churn out our president from within American society then what's the point. Blow it all up.
Your theoretical question needs work, I can't imagine anything that stupid
I'm not sure what else I could add considering the character limit. How would you ask it?
Ask the same exact question except replace England with another country (like China, Iraq, Russia, etc.) the results would be interesting
Yeah, I know. I was thinking Iran or Afghanistan but I was worried that I don't have enough conservative followers for the results to be meaningful.
In today's world, that amendment is preferable.
How so? We have qualified candidates. They just never make it through the primary. Even if he's from England he'll still have to conform to the 2 party system and likely be a horses ass.
I don't actually care about the natural born citizen part. But I do care that the president is a citizen.
I vote to choose the best candidate regardless of birthplace.
I would support that amendment so yes I'm voting.
I highly doubt he is lacking in experience because of his birthplace. I still vote for him.
Inspired by PuppyLvr.
Comments: Add Comment