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.
Yes she did serve in the Oval Office, her prostitution was First Lady. This is not different then what Putin does ruling the country by switching titles. We had the Clintons already, I am not saying they were horrible. Before Bill was president and Hilary was the first lady and now Bill is the first lady and Hillary is president. It's the same thing.
Either you are joking about all this, or you have a clear deficit in understanding what an "election" means. Or, you mean by 'she served in the oval office', that she served coffee? Probably not, there is staff that does that, and since they served in the oval office, they must not be eligible to run for president according to your 'logic'.
What another country does politically is not germane to your discussion of US politics, either, so that is an inappropriate comparison.
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.
Bush I's term ended in 1993. 1993+25=2018. In 2018, Jr will be 73.
Mr. Bill's term ended in 2001. 2001+25=2026. In 2026, Hillary will be 80.
That would be a sufficient interval for me. I understand dynasty concerns, but I also think it is highly foolish to limit the field of potential candidates for 60 years.
it is highly foolish to limit the field of potential candidates for 60 years.
Well we agree on that, but disagree, by several decades, on how to achieve it: in my view the purpose of the multi-generation ban is to widen the field by many-fold, not limit it which is what is actually happening.
By the way, I like the fact that we have a fractious House, it seems the so-called republicans in at least three and the so-called democrats in maybe two. It's almost like having de facto a multi-party system which can have its usefulness in terms of actual policy outcomes.
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.
Bush I's term ended in 1993. 1993+25=2018. In 2018, Jr will be 73.
Mr. Bill's term ended in 2001. 2001+25=2026. In 2026, Hillary will be 80.
That would be a sufficient interval for me. I understand dynasty concerns, but I also think it is highly foolish to limit the field of potential candidates for 60 years.
So a citizen that had no control of the family he was born into should have rights taken away from them because of what family members before them did in the past?
And Franklin Roosevelt, the last New Yorker president by the way, was not such a terrible president either.
But that's not the point, and, after the experience, We the People, who didn't miss the point, passed a Constitutional amendment anyway.
But We the People will probably miss the point this time around because We the People by now have become that dumb.
The point being....
We term-limited a single person holding office in excess of eight years.
Just because FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were related didn't mean they were the same person, with the same policies.
There were clearly differences ideologically between Bush I and Bush II.
This idea that because someone is related to a previous President, that we shouldn't evaluate that person's credentials and proposals on their own merit is ridiculous.
We term-limited a single person holding office in excess of eight years.
Just because FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were related didn't mean they were the same person, with the same policies.
There were clearly differences ideologically between Bush I and Bush II.
This idea that because someone is related to a previous President, that we shouldn't evaluate that person's credentials and proposals on their own merit is ridiculous.
Agreed
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.
here ya go
