• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Modest Proposal: Barack Obama Should Be Hillary Clinton's Running Mate

Obama as Hillary's running mate


  • Total voters
    33
Except that we don't know what the e-mails contained. Do we need to see the blow by blow of her grandkid's diapers? Some have conjectured that it contained evidence of something, but at this point it's jist conjecture. It would have been very hard to pin anything on Nixon if the tapes had been erased because there would be no evidence or wrongdoing. Which is where we are with Hillary - political adversaries conjecture that there was evidence destroyed, but there's no evidence.

That said, I wouldn't put it past her. There's also no office to remove her from, so it comes down to if the GOP can make the accusation stick. Outside of the true believers, that'll be almost impossible.

Hillary would have been much wiser to have preserved the emails. The content of all the non government related emails never would have had to be released to the public, however a bipartisan committee could have gone through them and verified that none of them were government related. If she had nothing to hide, she would have been off the hook. Instead she obstructed justice by making 30,000 emails disappear. I am quite sure that if Hillary were a conservative republicans, you would be screaming from the mountain tops for her prosecution.
 
I'm not the one saying that a President should be impeached because I disagree with him.

Nor is anyone else on the thread. Obama has clearly committed impeachable acts while in office. He is fair game....just as Nixon was.
 
You're still missing what I see as the critical distinction. The Twenty-Second Amendment does not say that one who has already served two terms as President is ineligible for the office; but only ineligible to be elected to that office. That does not preclude assuming the office through succession.

Perhaps we need a constitutional lawyer to clear this one up for both of us, however in my opinion the 12th amendment makes the case and the 22nd amendment does not toss it out.
 
You're still missing what I see as the critical distinction. The Twenty-Second Amendment does not say that one who has already served two terms as President is ineligible for the office; but only ineligible to be elected to that office. That does not preclude assuming the office through succession.



If so, do you actually see them doing this?

If so, then how come Hillary didn't run in 08 with Bill as her running mate? There is no law saying she has to wait for the nomination to pick him and it would have been a career ender for Obama.

There may be a technical way, but the clear intent and historical precedent has been when finished two terms, you're done, retired and out of the debate.

And what would be the reaction? I would be amazed if even the "stupid" American voter would buy into it
 
Except that we don't know what the e-mails contained. Do we need to see the blow by blow of her grandkid's diapers? Some have conjectured that it contained evidence of something, but at this point it's jist conjecture. It would have been very hard to pin anything on Nixon if the tapes had been erased because there would be no evidence or wrongdoing. Which is where we are with Hillary - political adversaries conjecture that there was evidence destroyed, but there's no evidence.

That said, I wouldn't put it past her. There's also no office to remove her from, so it comes down to if the GOP can make the accusation stick. Outside of the true believers, that'll be almost impossible.

That's fair, but in Nixon's time, the President may have been impeached for obstruction of justice, simply for destroying the tapes once they became known. Today - wouldn't happen.
 
That's fair, but in Nixon's time, the President may have been impeached for obstruction of justice, simply for destroying the tapes once they became known. Today - wouldn't happen.

The only reason Nixon was not impeached was a back room brokered deal which allowed him to resign. The price was a pardon of crimes for which he was not yet accused.

Impeachment is off the table after Clinton turned it into a partisan circus and a matter of a blow job and not the integrity of the office. Even with the brokered deal, Nixon had more respect for the office. And clearly, Americans like liars
 
The only reason Nixon was not impeached was a back room brokered deal which allowed him to resign. The price was a pardon of crimes for which he was not yet accused.

Impeachment is off the table after Clinton turned it into a partisan circus and a matter of a blow job and not the integrity of the office. Even with the brokered deal, Nixon had more respect for the office. And clearly, Americans like liars

Impeachment does not mean removal from office. Removal from office is a whole different trial. So, no. Nixon was free to resign, he didn't need permission. His resignation stopped the impeachment (guilt) proceedings simply because there was no public will to proceed. He was never found guilty of a thing and Ford's pardon was a blanket one.
 
Impeachment does not mean removal from office. Removal from office is a whole different trial. So, no. Nixon was free to resign, he didn't need permission. His resignation stopped the impeachment (guilt) proceedings simply because there was no public will to proceed. He was never found guilty of a thing and Ford's pardon was a blanket one.

Where the **** did I even get into that?

FFS read the **** then post
 
Where the **** did I even get into that?

FFS read the **** then post

How about reading what YOU post. I quoted it above my response. Here you go, I quoted you again below.

Nixon was in little to no danger of being removed from office. Heck, he may not even have been found guilty. There was no backroom deal and he wasn't "allowed to resign". He chose to resign to preserve the dignity of the office.

Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post

The only reason Nixon was not impeached was a back room brokered deal which allowed him to resign. The price was a pardon of crimes for which he was not yet accused.
 
Hillary would have been much wiser to have preserved the emails. The content of all the non government related emails never would have had to be released to the public, however a bipartisan committee could have gone through them and verified that none of them were government related. If she had nothing to hide, she would have been off the hook. Instead she obstructed justice by making 30,000 emails disappear. I am quite sure that if Hillary were a conservative republicans, you would be screaming from the mountain tops for her prosecution.

If she were a Republican, you'd be rushing to deflect with all your might.

It would have been smarter to preserve them. But there's nothing saying that they were of any substance except for conjecture by the right.
 
I think releasing five of the bloodiest Taliban terrorists imaginable in a trade for a US deserter certainly qualifies as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The other issues I mentioned are just constitutional issues. I do agree that the white house coming up with the cover story of "It was the video" also amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

You've got to be kidding me. Those are impeachable? After Reagan sold weapons to our enemy, I'd call that giving them aid, wouldn't you?
 
You've got to be kidding me. Those are impeachable? After Reagan sold weapons to our enemy, I'd call that giving them aid, wouldn't you?

The definition of "impeachable" has shifted to "anything a Democrat does."
 
How about reading what YOU post. I quoted it above my response. Here you go, I quoted you again below.

Nixon was in little to no danger of being removed from office. Heck, he may not even have been found guilty. There was no backroom deal and he wasn't "allowed to resign". He chose to resign to preserve the dignity of the office.

Nonsense. Nixon was caught dead to rights and he knew it. He was toast.
 
Nonsense. Nixon was caught dead to rights and he knew it. He was toast.

Clinton was also caught dead to rights yet he wasn't removed from office either
 
No he couldn't. Theoretically, all he could do is finish her term.

That said, it's a bad idea and it won't happen.
If it is interpreted that he could succeed Clinton after her demise, he could only do so if there was less than 2 years left in her term. To wit, "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 the President more than once. "

If she there was more than two years left in her term, Obama would be ineligible since he's already been elected twice.
 
A Modest Proposal: Barack Obama Should Be Hillary Clinton's Running Mate


Whew, now that would send some people off the deep end, now wouldn't it.
Thoughts are?

You're assuming that a man like Obama who is consumed by pride would accept the lowly job of VP. Good luck with that
 
I don't think Obama could carry the ticket. I think if the midterms meant anything it's that many in America do not approve of the way Obama has been running the country with the Dems, as it is right now most polls have him at a lower approval rating. That can change between now and the election but as it stands today (legal or not) I'm unsure of it would help Hillary to run with Obama as her running mate.
 
Where's the "Oh HELL no!!" option?
 
I do not suspect this proposal will get that far, but at the same time we can be for sure that Clinton will get matched with the right minority vote VP candidate.

I still think this election will come down to the economy and foreign affairs.

But, I suspect more damage can be done to Republicans baiting them into having to run on social conservatism also. If the Clinton camp can engineer ways to force Republicans to talk about Marriage Equality, Abortion, Women's Pay Equality, etc. that could be more assurance of a win.

Somewhat back to the same point for Republicans, I think the only hope they have is holding Congress.

Probably so, then it is Clinton's to lose.

I think the economy sucks, stagnating along while being propped up by massive deficits, non-QE QE and ZIRP...with skewed government data (like the U-3 and CPI) to make everything look prettier. But most Americans (including most at the Fed/Congress, unfortunately) are macroeconomic ignoramuses, so they think the economy is fine.

So as long as Clinton goes along generally with how the present admin. has handled the economy and foreign policy AND so long as she has the Fed in her back pocket (the latter obviously wants a Dem POTUS so will help the economy any way it can until at least November)...AND assuming she doesn't blow it otherwise, she is probably going to be the next POTUS.


Btw, I am neither dem nor rep.
 
Back
Top Bottom