Americans Would Rather Have Bill Clinton Back

The 12th Amendment says anyone constitutionally ineligible to be president can not be vice president.

 

everything was awesome until the dems took control of Congress in 2007.

​

 

the 12th is about the ability to serve, the 22nd only deals with being electable.

 

I'm pretty sure only conservatives care about that now. Most mainstream Americans would likely vote for Clinton over Obama or Romney

 

Sure, democrats pushed the Iraq war (based on a lie about links to al queda and weopons of mass destruction) and the 01 and 03 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy right? Both ballooned the debt.... Go back and check who was mainly responsible for this

 

not lies, bad info left over from the previous administration...who was?

 

So today's Republicans would be willing to RETROACTIVELY raise taxes?
Decline to involve us in more wars?
Cut the military?
Heavily invest in infrastructure?

I'm a bit skeptical since the Republicans' cure for everything seems to be "cut taxes and deregulate".

 

I would have voted for Hillary last time if she had made it and I have been a republican since 63 when Goldwater ran against LBJ. Lets hear it for Hillary

 

And.... less taxes and less regulation is a bad thing?

I'm a little confused as to why you would even be a democrat.

 

Best shot of 2012.

 

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"
When and if it ever gets to the courts I believe they will rule that a president that has been elected for two terms is "constitutionally ineligible" to be elected to the office of vice-president. We'll both have to wait until then for our definitive answer.

 

I'm not missing a lying, whore-mongering POS President. I'm missing a politician who will work with a Congress that knows how to help the private sector create jobs.

Like I've said in the past, if the media had done their job in 2008, the economy would be booming, unemployment would be around 5% and there would be no doubt that President Clinton would be guaranteed her second term.

 

Americans are so quick to want Clinton back simply because we've had eight years of Bush and four years of Obama. Now we look back and think, "Ohhhh the 90s, they were so much better!"

Don't forget, Clinton is responsible for repealing a lot of Wall Street Reform, namely the Glass-Steagall Act.
And he was the second President impeached, along with Andy Johnson.

Clinton wasn't as great a President as we remember him. He largely put the pieces in place for the 2008 recession. Not Bush, not Obama, but Bill Clinton.

 

I doubt it. I think the Supreme Court would rule against his eligibility. The 22nd Amendment states that a person is allowed two terms as President except the case of a VP who serves out his Presidents term for less than half of it.

The last line of the 12th Amendment states:

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I think the two amendments would preclude a Clinton VP.

 

America longs for the jobs and the economy that was present while he was President.

NONE have a snow balls chance in Toledo of repeating under an Obama administration.

REPUBLICANS RULED CONGRESS..

I Remember Gas was a bit cheaper also.

How do you spell
SUCCESS?

Romney/ Ryan 2012
A booming economy once again proves Democrats SUCK.

 

I saw it during his first trip to Europe during his 2008 campaign, watching the Obamas "live it up" like they just left the 'hood for uptown for the first time in their lives. I knew that if he won, that they would be more concerned with "movin' on up" like The Jeffersons than they would with the concerns of the United States. While millions of people are unemployed or underemployed, the Obamas are busy planning their next big vacation trip overseas, holding or attending lavish $40K per plate dinners, dragging big White House motorcades down the block to get some kale from the grocery store for Moochelle's dinner, etc. I mean, people talk about George W. Bush's many vacations, but he at least went back to Camp David most of the time, not off to friggin' Europe or getting whores for his Secret Service guys in Colombia or whatever.

Like you said, Clinton was a wet noodle all right, but he still made time for his job and forced himself to work with Congress, instead of constantly working against Congress like Obama has done. I don't miss Clinton, I miss Bush; Bush's wars were a direct result of Clinton's failed overseas policies and failure to deal with Bin Laden when he had the chance. Because of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ups of those two, now we have Coffee Boy to deal with.

 

Lets go back a hundred years and ask the people who lived in a time like that...

Maybe you should ask the coal miners that fought a private corporate army at Blair mountain for the right to not be treated like slaves.

Maybe you should ask the people who died of cholera because the meatpacking industry didn't inspect their meat.

Maybe you should ask the people who thought Rockefeller and his brood were going to run the oil business for eternity and become feudal lords, living upon the sweating backs of millions of Americans.

Maybe you should ask the people who worked 12 hours a day for what would amount to a couple dollars an hour now to feed a family of 5 living in a disease infested, crime ridden, overpopulated part of Boston/Chicago/NYC. All without any job security, benefits, SS, or safety standards to protect them.

I could go on.

 

But what is the point of having unions now, here in the age of the class-action lawsuit? Unions are obsolete. The lawyer is the new king now. Touch me and I'll sue.

 

Actually, no , he can't. He'd have to be able to BE PRESIDENT, to be VP, and he cannot do that.

Otherwise , he would have RAN WITH HILLARY...claiming cradit , as he does anyway, for the budget(s), fiscal discipline, and WELFARE REFORM, that the GOP Congress forced down his sqwauking throat, that he now pretends were "HIS IDEAS".

Leftninnies just rewrite history as they prefer it to have been, and rely on the unending IGNORANCE of new crops of easily duped youngsters to keep their bullcrap alive. Just look at some of the asninely ridiculous "takes" on late 20th century US history from the 12-25 Y/O crowd here....case(s) in point.

They only know what they have been SPOONFED, and haven't a CLUE as to the ACTUAL EVENTS they claim "expertise" in regard to....

 

Exactly. Everything th eearly unions sought is now CODIFIED in law. Now they are nothing more than crooked Dem. fund raising arms...

 

ITT.

Republicans blame all the bad stuff on clinton, and all the good stuff on the republican congress.

 

A common man suing a corporation worth several hundred billion dollars and winning? LOL fat chance. Its happened. But its incredibly rare. Corporations can keep lawsuits in the courts for years. They have near unlimited funds to do so, and armies of lawyers to do it with. They can ware down even the strongest men.

The lawyer is a tool used by both sides, but corporations are able to use them much more offensively. The are simply the new form of intimidation because corps can't get away with hiring "private detectives" to blow peoples heads off and set their houses on fire anymore (for now).

 

I will admit unions can be pretty much a carbon copy of what they are supposed to fight against now.
But what happens if you get rid of them? Then the corps get free reign as far an campaign donations go, and laws can most definitely be repealed. I am sure the coal companies would just love to have some pocket lawmakers take "another look" at the clean air and water act...

The lakes around my home are still so mercury saturated the fish are poisonous to eat. All because of the coal companies not giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people or the environment back in the 40's-70's. You think they give a (*)(*)(*)(*) now? Nope.

 

I said class-action lawsuit. One man winning a lawsuit against a big corporation is a long shot. But a massive group of people assembling into one large union under a single class-action lawsuit represented by a team of top-notch lawyers is a force to be reckoned with. Instead of union dues, the lawyers simply get their cut for their time and effort. Now, explain the difference to me.