Elizabeth Warren would be pretty dope.
I don't think a Woman is going to win the election though- in fact I think it's likely that we'll get some ******* tough as nails Republican (note that I'm referring to a Republican that is an *******, not stating that Republicans are [always] assholes).
I think "Obama was impotent" is going to be a historical description for the current Administration. I don't think he's been a bad President, but I do think that his push for bi-partisanship and compromising on everything has left a sour impression in a lot of peoples' mouths, and he's perceived as not really getting much of the stuff he wanted done achieved.
The backlash of that I think, is that people are going to want a rough, tough go get'em figure who they'll perceive as being aggressive enough to break all these political deadlocks we've had over the past 8 years and who will tell Congress to go **** itself. Someone who's tough enough to gedderdone.
And being tough and aggressive isn't a female stereotype.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
The UN isn't a government, though.And when were we ordered to do something by the UN?
Do you know how many orders are issued a day. Its impossible to track them all. Its obviously a huge concern for Congress.
Here is a clip from cspan from Penetta challenging Congressional oversight of right to bypass congress through UN control.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I strongly doubt we will see another president. The constitution is basically dead at this point.
What do you think will happen to not have an election in 2016 and a new president in 2017?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Elizabeth Warren
I'd love that, but don't see it happening. I'm guess Hillary Clinton. Or maybe Chris Christie.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Do you know how many orders are issued a day. Its impossible to track them all. Its obviously a huge concern for Congress.Here is a clip from cspan from Penetta challenging Congressional oversight of right to bypass congress through UN control.
"Let me just for the record be clear again Senator, just so there's no misunderstanding. When it comes to the national defense of this Country, the President of the United States has the authority under the constitution to act to defend this country, and we will. If it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in Libya, or Bosnia or for that matter Afghanistan we want to do it either by permissions of NATO, or the international community."
The senator is not stating that the President won't go to war unless he receives NATO's blessing first. The senator is stating that if we're going to go through the trouble of forming a coalition with other nations, an act that requires cooperation with those other nations, in order to perform a task, we should be willing to cooperate with the other nations within our coalition.
Don't form a team under the pretenses of working together, then tell the other members to **** off when they vote for an action that you disagree with. Why are you even bothering to be in a team at that point?
"We are not dependent on a Nato resolution or a UN resolution to execute consistent on the security of the United States."
The point isn't the rebuttal of what he said to worm his way out of digging his way in, its the fact that it came up at all. They really don't care about senate or congressional oversite. And unless they are brought before the senate arms committee they do as they please.
Originally posted by Doc Holiday
He could. It's been done before, but he will be the liberal scape goat on to the next most
No.
Constitutional amendment 22; "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..."