Thin Skinned President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Miss-Delectable said:
Hypothetically, if they were to run for White House. Will Bill Clinton be allowed to become Vice-President considering he was a President before?

Either way, it'd be cool to see them run for Govt.
Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone knows..... lol.
 
Don't think Bill could be Prez again...he can't keep his pants zipped up!...As for Hilary...oh well..."stand by my man"
 
Miss-Delectable said:
Hypothetically, if they were to run for White House. Will Bill Clinton be allowed to become Vice-President considering he was a President before?

Either way, it'd be cool to see them run for Govt.
Click to expand...

Bill technically can't serve as Prez again, max is 2 terms. But there are no limits imposed on vice presidency. So Hilary would have to be President and Bill VP.

I think there likely to be some repercussions should it happen. Some might not like the fact of two related people running the nation. I could see it working, however. :hmm:
 
It would be horrible.....but tons better than what we have now
 
Fox news is the most biased news and that's why I have low opinions of Fox news.
 
Could former President Bill Clinton be vice president?
If Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination for president, could she have Bill Clinton as her running mate?
A: Probably not, but it's an untested constitutional conundrum.
The original Constitution had no requirements for the office of vice president. However, the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, said that, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

So that would mean that a vice president would have to meet the requirements to be president laid out in Article II of the Constitution. Principally, the person would have to be born in the United States, be at least 35 years of age and have been a resident of this country for the preceding 14 years. So far, so good. Maybe a former president, like Bill Clinton, could serve as vice president.

However, the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, said:

22nd Amendment: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

So this sets up the conundrum. The 22nd Amendment says that Clinton can clearly not "be elected" to the presidency. And the 12th Amendment says that no one can become vice president if they are "ineligible to the office of the presidency."

Clinton has been elected to the presidency twice. So he can no longer be "elected" to the presidency, according to the language of the 22nd Amendment. Does that mean he is "constitutionally ineligible" to serve as president, to use the language of the 12th Amendment? If so, he could not serve as vice president. But finding out would certainly make for an interesting Supreme Court case.

An even more intriguing question might be whether Bill Clinton would want the office, or whether Hillary Clinton would want him there. Plus, having both the presidential and vice presidential candidates from the same state could affect the votes the pair could garner in the Electoral College.

The 12th Amendment says, "The electors shall ... vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." That means that Bill and Hillary could not both get the 31 electoral votes of New York state, unless one of them moved. The electors would have to vote for only one of them, potentially sending the presidential race to the House of Representatives or the vice presidential one to the Senate in a very close election. However, one of them could always declare residency in their old state, Arkansas, like Dick Cheney did in 2000, when he switched his residency from Texas, also George W. Bush's home state, to Wyoming, where Cheney previously had lived.
 
netrox said:
Fox news is the most biased news and that's why I have low opinions of Fox news.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on how you define bias.......Reporting? That's up to interpretation. Everyone has to choose the news source they feel is giving them the most accurate picture.

But..... When judging by the voting records of the anchors Fox News is actually the least biased. Several anchors including Sheppard Smith,Jane Skinner and Greta supported Obama in 2008. I think you would be hard pressed to name 3 anchors from CNN or MSNBC who supported McCain.

Back to interpretation.....When Scott Brown was elected Fox News chose to Air both Brown's victory speech and his opponents concession speech in their entirety. However CNN and MSNBC chose only to air the first few minutes of Scoot Brown's speech. To me that shows a bias on the part of CNN and MSNBC.

I chose to get my news from a variety of sources, I read Newsweek and Time.....WSJ and local paper plus watch Fox,Fox Biz,Bloomberg,CNBC and CNN. Sometimes I even catch the news on BBC.....Each have their slants but you can usually find the truth between all of them. I did leave out MSNBC......That channel is lost and their product is pretty much garbage.
 
TXgolfer said:
Guess it depends on how you define bias.......Reporting? That's up to interpretation. Everyone has to choose the news source they feel is giving them the most accurate picture.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Everyone has the option to read or view several sources and draw their own conclusion from several sources. Fox News is totally biased. So is CNN. So is pretty much every source of news in the U.S. When each source has its own bias, the only chance at a more balanced opinion is looking at several sources.
 
TXgolfer said:
Guess it depends on how you define bias.......Reporting? That's up to interpretation. Everyone has to choose the news source they feel is giving them the most accurate picture.

But..... When judging by the voting records of the anchors Fox News is actually the least biased. Several anchors including Sheppard Smith,Jane Skinner and Greta supported Obama in 2008. I think you would be hard pressed to name 3 anchors from CNN or MSNBC who supported McCain.

Back to interpretation.....When Scott Brown was elected Fox News chose to Air both Brown's victory speech and his opponents concession speech in their entirety. However CNN and MSNBC chose only to air the first few minutes of Scoot Brown's speech. To me that shows a bias on the part of CNN and MSNBC.

I chose to get my news from a variety of sources, I read Newsweek and Time.....WSJ and local paper plus watch Fox,Fox Biz,Bloomberg,CNBC and CNN. Sometimes I even catch the news on BBC.....Each have their slants but you can usually find the truth between all of them. I did leave out MSNBC......That channel is lost and their product is pretty much garbage.
Click to expand...

MSNBC is partly owned by MS so time for you to get Mac. :aw:
 
Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him? He was trusted.
 
Vote for Vanilla Ice in 2012, a real problem solver!

633726277522598027-Problemsolving.jpg
 
CJB said:
Not necessarily. Everyone has the option to read or view several sources and draw their own conclusion from several sources. Fox News is totally biased. So is CNN. So is pretty much every source of news in the U.S. When each source has its own bias, the only chance at a more balanced opinion is looking at several sources.
Click to expand...

Umm....that is what I said

TXgolfer said:
Guess it depends on how you define bias.......Reporting? That's up to interpretation. Everyone has to choose the news source they feel is giving them the most accurate picture.

But..... When judging by the voting records of the anchors Fox News is actually the least biased. Several anchors including Sheppard Smith,Jane Skinner and Greta supported Obama in 2008. I think you would be hard pressed to name 3 anchors from CNN or MSNBC who supported McCain.

Back to interpretation.....When Scott Brown was elected Fox News chose to Air both Brown's victory speech and his opponents concession speech in their entirety. However CNN and MSNBC chose only to air the first few minutes of Scoot Brown's speech. To me that shows a bias on the part of CNN and MSNBC.

I chose to get my news from a variety of sources, I read Newsweek and Time.....WSJ and local paper plus watch Fox,Fox Biz,Bloomberg,CNBC and CNN. Sometimes I even catch the news on BBC.....Each have their slants but you can usually find the truth between all of them. I did leave out MSNBC......That channel is lost and their product is pretty much garbage.
Click to expand...
 
TXgolfer said:
Umm....that is what I said
Click to expand...

TXgolfer said:
Everyone has to choose the news source they feel is giving them the most accurate picture.
Click to expand...

With our selection of news sources in the U.S., anyone gathering information from one single news source will have far from unbiased information since each source is so biased. I'm glad you choose more than one source and hope that's the case for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top