By Hillary Clinton's logic, another Clinton Presidency would be in violation of the 22nd amendment.

[calteacherguy]

“There is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for — that’s the job of our next president.” - Hillary Clinton

"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."
-22nd Amendment

Hillary Clinton is implying she has had "on-the-job training" for the Presidency. Clearly, she is implying this "on-the-job training took place during her husband's terms as President. This a new argument in American politics. Never before has a citizen running for President made the claim that they have had "on-the-job training" for the Presidency, much less that it should be a requirement for the next President to have had such on-the-job training.

The implication is that Hillary Clinton assumed roles that are normally reserved for the President during her husband's term, for how else could she get such Presidential training? If this is the case, there were times where (by her logic) she was serving in the role of President. If this is true (again, by her logic) then she cannot serve another term, having already served two terms as co-President with her husband. Such an act would be in clear violation of the 22nd amendment.

Of course, this is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton was not co-President, as she implies when she says "There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for," nor should such a thing be a requirement for are next President. Did FDR have such prior on-the-job "training?" Did Lincoln? Did Jefferson?

No President ever has had what she is claiming.

What we cannot afford is politicians fabricating lies to the American people about what we "cannot afford." We we cannot afford is believing that such on-the-job training for the Presidency is real, necessary, or even desirable.

It never has been.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. ....

:eyes:

[ilovesunshine]

2. And, the fun never stops!

I wish I had found this forum earlier.

Y'all are so funny!

[cuke]

3. They're so cute when they're young

naive and inexperienced

[calteacherguy]

4. I'm 41. nt

[maddiejoan]

5. they asked your age

not your IQ

:snare drum:

[calteacherguy]

6. I.Q. is 122. nt

[maddiejoan]

delete

dupe

[maddiejoan]

7. gee

most people with an IQ of 122 also have a sense of humor.

[calteacherguy]

8. .

:rofl:

[emilyg]

12. 41 eh - then you should know better.

[calteacherguy]

13. Know better than what?

She's arguing something no other Presidential candidate has ever argued...that we can't afford to nominate someone who has not been "trained" in a kind of practice Presidency. We elected Bill, not her.

[flvegan]

9. Hillary Clinton logic is an oxymoron.

Let it go.

[hedgehog]

10. You have to understand, Senator Clinton was behind every good

thing that ever came out of the White House and totally in the dark whenever something bad happened.

[muryan]

11. has there ever been a politcian

who hasnt attempted the very same?

[ClarkUSA]

15. LOL!

But of course! Anyone who doesn't accept that is a Hillary hater. :eyes:

[Basileus Basileon]

14. She did have on-the-job training.

She was strongly involved in the policies and operations of the Clinton White House, and in doing so gained experience she believes is valuable. That does not mean that she was elected President. If the President delegates a duty or job to you, that does not mean that you become President.

I agree the Obama=inexperienced=dangerous argument is completely bogus. The solution is not to claim that Clinton does not have executive experience, or to make ridiculous pseudolegal arguments.