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.
Wish-list item: After the Bush-Clinton experience, We the People should pass a Constitutional amendment barring members of the same family from holding the office of president for at least a hundred year interval.
Certainly parents, children, siblings, spouses, even divorcees, grand-children, possibly close in-laws and close cousins.
I remember being abroad when I heard Bush Jr had won the nomination for president, I simply could not believe it, thinking his only qualification is being the former president's son. And the actual policy results were in many ways disastrous.
Since then, outside of the passage of ACA, the actual policy results have been mainly status quo - and even ACA is mainly the gifting to insurance companies of captive customers locked into relatively complicated high deductible policies, which was laughable to me when I realized it, having already had such a policy for years. Too bad about Kathleen Sebelius, by the way.
Most likely, if Mrs. Bill Clinton becomes president, the actual policy outcomes will also mainly be continuance of the status quo.
Personally I'll be okay, but this family dynasty thing is really not healthy for a Constitutional representative republic.
So even if the best we can do is maintain the status quo and slog along, can't we at least have a bit more diverse rotation of power?
I realize that the democrat bench is thin, but this is totally uninspiring: they could have done better if forced to.
Good Luck!
Democrats don't have any-one to run other then Hillary. Ultimately we have a choice to re-elect Clinton v re-electing Bush.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 28 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,564,108 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
this is a ridiculous post, of course she is eligible to run for president, since she was never elected to the office of president in the first place. same with vice presidents, there is no limit on how many times one can run for vice president, only on the office of president.
and there is another side benefit to the 22nd amendment, and that is that no one that has held the office of president for two terms or ten years, can ever run for vice president, speaker of the house, or be appointed to a cabinet post, since these are all people in the line of succession for president should something bad happen to the president.
That isnt true, they would simply be ineligible to succeed to the presidency the same as any member of the cabinet who isnt a natural born citizen.
Eight years ago a large majority of Americans assumed that Hillary Clinton would receive the Democratic nomination. If she had then run agaist McCain she probably would have been elected. However, a virtually unknown senator started receiving massive donations and garnered the support of what we might call the ruling elite. He received the nomination and was elected president.
When George Bush the elder ran for reelection in 1992 most people assumed that he would easily win. Powerful Democrats with thoughts of the future didn't wish to be the Democratic candidate that year so a little known governor won the nomination. However, as a result of an unexpectedly strong third party candidate who took far more votes from Bush than from Clinton there was a Democratic victory that was unexpected just a few months before.
Will something just as unforeseen happen next year? Who knows? However, I believe that Hillary worshippers (I think that that's a more precise term than supporters) are being rather presumptuous. It's well to remember that Democrats, not Republicans, defeated her eight years ago.
I would never vote for a hundred-year interval. But 25? Sure.
Maybe my math is wrong, but it seems that 2017 - 1992 = 25. You can figure out for yourself what I am referring to.
Twenty-five years is a mere breath in the life of a family and a century a mere pittance in the history of a nation. Twenty years is usually considered a generation.
If we ban parents and children, then at least 60 years, if grandchildren then at least 80-100.
I am not too sure how successful Argentina has been with alternating spouse presidents. Guatemala just had a chance to consider it, but they voted in a comedian instead. Now there is a good chance that we will be facing a similar choice in a few months.
The article states that 2 term limit was enacted in 1950th.
Family members, But she already served in the Oval Office by being the First Lady. She already held that Office !
This is scary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotkarl
Legally yes. Morally? That's up for debate.
Nobody cares about your morals. The issue of same-sex marriage has been settled--the homophobes lost.
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.
