One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Hilary Clinton Is Officially Running
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Apr 13, 2015 07:49:51   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
BAROCO wrote:
So far the only thing I see different between Obama and Hllary is .... HILLARY WEARS A SKIRT!!!


Sometimes~~~She wears a lot of those "pant suit" too........ :lol:

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 07:58:44   #
Anonymous Loc: Hamtucket jersey city
 
lindajoy wrote:
Sometimes~~~She wears a lot of those "pant suit" too........ :lol:


Oh god avert your eyes! :shock:

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 08:47:34   #
okie don
 
Obama 2016
Valarie for VP
( Thought I'd add a touch of sick humor.) - lol's

Reply
 
 
Apr 13, 2015 10:14:43   #
saloopo Loc: Colorado
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Hey saloopo how ya been? lots of people wonder about Hillary. Just heard some one say what if she picks Bill to be Vice President. I would worry about that. That happens and we will really be fighting over it.. Never thought of it till I saw it posted today. Wow- don't know what to think


Hey Tom, hope all is well with you. I understand your concerns and amazed by the powers that are continually successful in elevating family dynasties to power.

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 10:17:24   #
saloopo Loc: Colorado
 
Nickolai wrote:
That's according to Faux Snoose , wing nut websites. and right wing hate radio shows. But there are millions of us that don't swill on that shit


did you get that information from MSNBC?

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 10:58:25   #
The Guy Loc: WA
 
lindajoy wrote:
Here's a little food for thought~ rather than good ole Billy, being First gentlemen maybe Hillerhell will make him her VP choice~~

The waters are quite muddy on this issue, and having so much trust and faith in the Clintons it wouldn't surprise me if she did pick Billy as her VP~~~I mean its already being said that getting Hill is like getting Bill back too........Rightttttttttttttttttttt??????


Here's a good discussion of the issue, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html

The prospective presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton has given rise to plenty of speculation about the notion of Bill Clinton as the nation's first gentleman. But what about another role? How about, say, vice president?
Politically, of course, the idea is a non-starter for all sorts of reasons. But that doesn't stop the parlor games, especially on the Internet. The issue came up last week during a chat on washingtonpost.com: What if Hillary picked Bill as her running mate? A Post reporter rashly dismissed the idea as unconstitutional. But that only proved the dangers of unedited journalism. The answer, it turns out, is not so simple.
A subsequent sampling of opinion from professors of constitutional law, former White House lawyers and even a couple of federal judges reveals a simmering disagreement on whether a president who has already served two terms can be vice president. Some agree with the conclusion that the presidential term limit embedded in the Constitution bars someone such as Clinton from returning to the White House even in the No. 2 slot. Others, though, call that a misreading of the literal language of the law.

As the former president might say, it all depends on the meaning of the word "elected." Under Article II of the Constitution, a person is "eligible to the Office of President" as long as he or she is a natural-born U.S. citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The 12th Amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President."
Okay, so that means if you're not eligible to be president, you're not eligible to be vice president. Makes sense. What would be the point of electing a vice president who can't succeed the president in case of death, incapacity or vacancy?
But then Congress and the states added the 22nd Amendment in 1951 to prevent anyone from following the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms. That's where things get dicey. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," the 22nd Amendment says.
On its face, that seems to suggest that Clinton could be vice president because he is only barred from being elected president a third time, not from serving as president. That's the argument of Scott E. Gant, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington, and Bruce G. Peabody, an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey. The two wrote a law review article in 1999 called "The Twice and Future President" and reprised the argument this summer in the Christian Science Monitor.
"In preventing individuals from being elected to the presidency more than twice, the amendment does not preclude a former president from again assuming the presidency by means other than election, including succession from the vice presidency," they wrote. "If this view is correct, then Clinton is not 'constitutionally ineligible to the office of president,' and is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president."
Others share that opinion. Three former White House lawyers consulted by The Washington Post (two who served President Bush and one who served Clinton) agreed that the amendment would not bar Clinton from the vice presidency. A federal judge, who noted that he has "no views on the matter," said the plain language of the amendment would seem to allow Clinton to "become president through succession."
Kathleen M. Sullivan, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, said the 22nd Amendment, "as I read it, does not preclude a Clinton-Clinton ticket." She added: "Bill, if elected VP, could become president in the event that President Hillary became incapacitated; he just could not run for reelection from that successor post."
Still, that view is not universal. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment."
Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, also pointed to original intent in addressing the issue in his book this year, "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism." The amendment, he wrote, "represents a considered judgment by the American People, after Franklin Roosevelt's lengthy stay in the White House, which deserves continuing respect" and "should not be eroded" by a narrow interpretation allowing someone to manipulate his way to a third term.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who was a clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor when she was on the Supreme Court, focused on the broader meaning of the language in the amendment in reaching the same conclusion. "My tentative answer is that 'eligible' roughly means 'elected,' " he wrote on his Web site, the Volokh Conspiracy, this summer, meaning that if Clinton cannot be elected president, he is no longer eligible at all.
One constitutional lawyer not heard from on the issue is William Jefferson Clinton, Yale Law class of 1973. But he has offered thoughts on the 22nd Amendment. Before leaving office and again in 2003, he suggested amending the amendment to let a two-term president leave office and then run again: "Since people are living much longer . . . the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime."
Here's a little food for thought~ rather than good... (show quote)



Best thing for the Country and the Dems would be to lose the Clinton corruption, he is brilliant and can drop the panties off a nun but crooked as a dogs hind leg

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 11:15:10   #
DamnYANKEE
 
Anonymous wrote:
Smart and beautiful :thumbup:


I don't know yet either . But One things for sure . It WONT be KILLERY , or any other LIBTURD COMMIEcrat

Reply
 
 
Apr 13, 2015 11:23:36   #
okie don
 
I don't know Yankee.

Increase they're food stamp ( (SNAP) allotment and update their cell phones. Money buys VOTES. Then there's these 'Electronic' vote counting machines. Hmmmmmm

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 11:23:59   #
okie don
 
Baaaaaaaaaaa

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 14:07:16   #
JOY IN TUCSON
 
This pos has more guts than anyone in this country office!!!!!
She should be held PERSONALLY responsible for the murder of those men in Benghazi. She is as guilty as if she pulled the trigger to kill them!
Her arrogance, even to suggest, she could be capable of running a country is absurd.
The only reason she took the SOS job is to further her 'donation' capabilities.
She is nothing but an old has-been who has aspired to being the 'first' of something. If anyone thinks they can trust her they are in need of an immediate lobotomy...
She is a re-cycle of bho which would mean 'more of the same' for the country. Possibly worse...she has had more time to perfect her dishonesty and deceit.
If this is the best the dems can come up with they are a sorry lot. Of course they will promote her, for their own perks and appointments. How sad that our country has stooped so low that the ilk of her even 'considering' running is ludicrous. Sorry for the rant, but I have to gag when I see her name hil-liar-y.

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 14:36:47   #
The Guy Loc: WA
 
okie don wrote:
I don't know Yankee.

Increase they're food stamp ( (SNAP) allotment and update their cell phones. Money buys VOTES. Then there's these 'Electronic' vote counting machines. Hmmmmmm


Truth be known the Dems are going to use as many of those illegal aliens as possible for votes, more vote corruption from the left. This is why Obummer imported 5 million more, once again treason

Reply
 
 
Apr 13, 2015 15:06:37   #
okie don
 
A"stacked deck" Guy

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 15:11:07   #
okie don
 
This is why we really need a third true political party for 'awe the people" rather than "screw the people" as we have now. It's so controlled if we wanted, audit the FED Ron or Rand Paul or Dr. Ben Carson in. Forget it as the MSM is totally controlled.

They have EVERYTHING SECURED to totally control everything!

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 16:53:05   #
Tradition Loc: Staten Island, N.Y.
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Yeah, right. It is always "hate", isn't it?

Not my fault Hillary is an incompetent b!tch. And, I don't hate her for that, but anyone who does her post graduate dissertation on Saul Alinsky gets no kudos from me (not to mention her track record of failure). She's a loser and always will be a loser.


____________________________________________________________

That's the Liberal definition, Blade Runner. It's not the truth - it's "hate."

So Hillary is running!! - Surprise, Surprise!! Well, here's a few things she needs to run from:

Her email scandal - which was and still is a serious threat to national security. Think about it!!! She was more concerned with KEEPING SECRETS FROM the citizens of the U.S. than she was about REVEALING SECRETS TO our enemies. Her released emails were submitted on paper (which cannot be searched), rather than via electronic records (which CAN be searched), and which was the method in which she gave and received them.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen Michael Flynn (Ret.) said that he believes the odds are “very high, likely” that Hillary Clinton’s emails were hacked by a country like China or Russia. "As a military officer, if I said I was doing something for convenience[‘s] sake to the soldiers that I was leading, and it was solely for my convenience instead of their welfare, I SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF DUTY!! I WOULD EXPECT TO BE FIRED!! It’s one of those things [where] if it doesn’t feel good, it probably isn’t. And this one doesn’t feel good to me” he stated. Asked what he thought the likelihood Hillary’s emails were hacked into by foreign countries like China or Russia, he said “very high, likely…they’re very good at it–China, Russia, Iran, potentially the North Koreans — and other countries who may be ‘our allies’ - because they can.” "I just know — how our adversaries work.”

Hillary's public outrage at the abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls by Boko Haram, an Islamist Nigerian rebel group, "conveniently" ignored the role she had in preventing the group from being designated as a terrorist organization. The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard AGAINST placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations FOR TWO YEARS!

Charles Woods, the father of NAVY SEAL, Tyrone Woods, who was slaughtered at Benghazi, considered the most incredible comment made to him at Andrews Air Force Base on the day of the somber ceremony when his son's flag-draped casket was flown home, was the one made by Hillary. According to Woods, after offering her condolences on the loss of his son, she told him that the U.S. government would “make sure that the person WHO MADE THE FILM IS ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED.” IMAGINE THAT? She promised prosecution and incarceration of a resident of the U.S for exercising his right to free expression!! Why HIM, instead of the degenerates who actually were responsible for his son's death? Hillary and Obama both knew, just via the information they received about the weapons the terrorists used, that it was certainly no "spontaneous protest."

Four Months Later, SOS Hillary testified for more than five hours before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She ACKNOWLEDGED A "SYSTEMIC BREAKDOWN" as cited by an Acountability Review Board. (A BRILLIANT ACCOMPLISHMENT!)

April 23, 2013 - House Republican leaders release a 46-page interim progress report about the terror attack in Benghazi, in which they claim former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally signed off on CUTS IN SECURITY at the compound, which they say would CONTRADICT her congressional testimony. (LIAR!!)

During the promotion of her book she poignantly explained that she was "dead broke," (while she and Chelsea walked around in designer clothes and jewelry) and that she went from the White House to the Poor House. Amazingly, however, her campaign, with the support of outside "super PACS" is looking to raise $2.5 BILLION (yeah, that's with a B) as the democrats hitch their hopes to the enthusiasm of American citizens voting for the first woman president.

We should also consider that Hillary accepted a plethora of gifts FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES for "The Clinton Foundation, – in violation not only of the Constitution, but also of an Obama Administration ethics agreement. So who are these foreign entities donating to The Clinton Foundation?? Here's a list for you: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Algeria. Now we know these countries are not exactly proponents of her "It's Not Nice To Abuse Women" campaign. So, if she had even an iota of integrity, she wouldn't have accepted a penny of their contributions!! But, more to the point, why would THEY contribute? Could it be possible that they are trying to buy good will from the then, Secretary of State, and possible future POTUS?

Guess the obvious stench of mendacity coming from these revelations, and knowing the announcement of her candidacy was at hand, was the catalyst for her resignation from the Foundation: "I have resigned from the Board of Directors effective today,” she wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO. “As I step down from that position, I know that I am leaving the Foundation in great hands. I am equally as excited that CHELSEA will continue to lead the Foundation’s mission with BILL, building upon our family’s commitment to help all people live their best life story.”

Hillary had joined the board of the $2-BILLION (yeah, another B) Foundation soon after stepping down as Secretary of State in February 2013.

Mrs. Clinton’s declaration on Sunday laid out the central theme of her candidacy: improving the economic fortunes of the middle class, with an emphasis on increasing wages and reducing income inequality. She says she wants to be our "CHAMPION." Of course, she does. She wants to help the middle class. Just how many times did Obama make that promise - before, and during, his presidency? Gotta pander to those middle class folk - after all, the poor can't pay taxes and the rich hire the people who know how to avoid them!!

So here she is - a person of deception and dereliction. Is this who we need to be the Commander-in-Chief of our exceptional country?? What has she done which we can point to with pride? Why should we vote for her? Because she's a woman?!! It is an absolute farce that this woman is even in contention for the Presidency.

Reply
Apr 13, 2015 17:31:42   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
saloopo wrote:
Hey Tom, hope all is well with you. I understand your concerns and amazed by the powers that are continually successful in elevating family dynasties to power.
We could use a regular person from a regular family. I want a leader who gets down in the trenches with us.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.