Samecies, thats just super wrong approach.

Interesting.

Well it's true, and it's the same problem I have with a Michele Obama candidacy. There aren't a lot of Republican (First Lady) equivalents to those two women, but I'd be equally against, ridiculous as this sounds, a Laura Bush candidacy.

I don't even like it when the children of former presidents try to become president.

I don't like the idea of dynastic families. And I completely disagree -> this is a super right approach.

Prove to me that Hilary wouldn't be taking orders from Bill? or that Bill wouldn't, at a minimum, have an undue influence on the Oval Office. They are a single family unit, how do you separate them - especially in the modern era where the wife/husband could themselves be major political figures.

It absurd... What does the law specifically says?

nothing on this (nor should it). Hilary/Michelle were not elected to office. Neither held the office of the president or anything close to it. They have zero power.

Americans will decide if they want to vote in legacies or not. It's a democracy.

America DID decide, I’m just letting you know part of why. And I’m pushing back on the idea that decision had to do with sexism.

What does the law literally say?

nothing on this, nor should it. Whoever you're married to doesn't affect your personal freedoms, ability to serve, etc.

Hey Cucho, here's a quick clip from that Lady Dynamite show I'm loving.... I wish i could find that doctor clip cuz that's been the funniest moment on the show so far, for me. But this was pretty good and a good taste to what the show is like. This is Maria and her really crappy agent....

“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 the President more than once.”

The intent was to stop one individual from being in the White House indefinitely. Electing the wife of a former president or vice-versa is definitely going around the intent of the amendment, even though not specifically specified.

And no, I would absolutely not have been on board with, for example, Barack’s term being followed by Michelle’s term, for a total of 16 years (and I'm a huge fan of both of them). Putting a few year gap in between doesn’t change my opinion on the matter.

In fact, I'll take it a small step further, I would vote against the wife or husband of a former President under almost any circumstance, other than the alternative being Donal Trump. I didn't vote for Hillary, and I'd have voted against her if he hadn't been her opponent. Instead, in that specific instance, I abstained, and I still don't regret it.

I'm annoyed that they tested it to see if they could get away with the husband to wife switch, and I'm glad (even with the consequences considered) that it failed.

There are 100 million women in the US who could run for President, I'm eliminating less than 10 of them, lol.

I think DJ should step down as President

I honestly don't even understand your push backs BB and Cucho.

I get that there are no term limits in Canada, so maybe BB is missing the point because Parliamentary governments are different, but in Chile there are.

Cucho, this would be like Boric being followed by Irina Karamanos, then being followed by Boric, and then again by Irina Karamanos. Yes, I think this would be technically legal, but of course that's not the intent of the law. The point is NOT to have Boric be able to be functionally reelected immediately after his first term ends.

Leave it to the Chilean and Canadian to fight for individual freedoms of Americans

"Individual freedoms of Americans" lol. Yes, I'm very concerned about the individual freedoms of the wives of former Presidents. That is a very important demographic that must be protected by any means necessary. They are probably the smallest, and therefore most important, minority of all.



_________________

Speaking of which, they DO have the right (so all good boys, no need to white knight for Hillary or Michelle), I just hope it NEVER actually happens that way.

So you also don’t think GWB should have been allowed to be Prez or that’s ok cuz he doesn’t have influence on his dad because he didn’t live in the White House or sleep with him?

I’m guessing that your answer will be that you don’t like or approve of legacy situations but you’re ok with him being allowed to run and win

I am not a fan, but a son or daughter is a lot better than a husband or wife.

You correctly identified my answer, but you missed one part: as a general rule I would vote against that person, but it's not a hard rule, so there could be exceptions.

Example: I'd be FAR more in favor of a Chelsea Clinton candidacy than a Hillary Clinton candidacy. But, I'd prefer none of the above.

I'd really only even consider Chelsea if she were exceptional enough that it wouldn't have mattered if her name were Smith instead of Clinton.

I’d only consider Chelsea if she was pretty


So to get ahead of your next question, yes absolutely yes to Ivanka 2028

Given your taste in women, I'd assume you thought she's pretty.

Lol that’s more than fair

I had the hots for one of the Bush girls

This is me, resting my case...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The husband as president and wife as VP was a plot line on House of Cards.....

Harris hitting Wisconsin FIRST is both funny and smart


I saw that she was championing reproductive rights but what can she really do about it?