Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Trump certainly excelled at that. He got 3,000,000 more Sec. Clinton supporters to show up than those who showed up for him.
She wouldn't have gotten any more of her agenda done than Trump did before this tax bill. Republicans control both houses and would block her and she would block them.It is said that Clinton could have won if she hadn't taken the trip to Arizona in the last few days. A campaign trip to MN, WI, MI and PA (especially non-city areas) might have won her the election, but no more senate seats.
========================
I've been a Democrat for over 50 years. I don't think that we would be better off now had Clinton been elected.
So, I'll listen. How would we be better off? Surely, no legislation would have been passed. I suppose that we'd still have the youth paying the Obamacare penalty.
Did Trump ever call Clinton supporters deplorable?
Why do people think this is the case? In neither Christianity nor Judaism does THIS nation state of Israel have to be THE ONE OF PROPHECY. In theory, it could be wiped out for another two thousand years and nothing changes.
She won Minnesota narrowly. So I suppose a Minnesota visit would have been to influence the Wisconsin portion of the Twin Cities media market. Maybe it would have tipped Wisconsin. I don't know.
Very interesting is that Minnesota is considered the safest of states for Democratic Party presidential candidates. But in this last election the third party vote was significant. Evan McMullen, formerly quite Republican and frankly mostly attracting disaffected Republicans, got more votes than Hillary beat Trump by. Which is to say that if the Republicans ran anybody else but Trump they may actually have won Minnesota instead of Hillary. That would have been politically earth shattering.
In Alabama, Moore lost by less than the third party and write-in totals. Meaning not so much that the other guy won but Moore lost. In the Minnesota case, where Hillary should have won by a landslide if she was someone else, she almost blew it there too.
And yet after, what, 50 Benghazi hearings and investigations, nada..
Because Trump supporters would have voted for her had she not said that?
For a while we didn't have Republicans either, instead we had Independent-Republicans. But now we have Republicans again. I think it was a marketing ploy that didn't work very well.I had forgotten that Clinton eked out a close win in Humphrey country. However, yes the Minneapolis TV market hits most of WI. IMHO, a later focus on MN, WI, MI and the ALA portion of PA (between Philly and Pittsburgh) might very well have made the difference.
It is interesting that the 3rd party candidate did well in MN. MN is the ultimate 3rd party state. The is no Democratic Party. What we call the Democratic Party is actually the DFL formed by joining the Democratic, Farmer and Labor parties by Humphrey and his friends.
You got that right. And I'm in political exile, having been pushed out of the 'D' camp some years ago over abortion and now too creeped out to stay in the 'R' camp.Trump has indeed turned the political world upside down.
Moderates could work together if there were any. Not sure but I think they went extinct.In addition, Democratic and Republican moderates can now work together in the Senate on various pieces of legislation.
What I find most distasteful is the war on Trump. Elections have consequences. At least Obama said they did. Now the Democrats want to destroy Trump as if elections were intended to be overturned by revolution.
You got that right. And I'm in political exile, having been pushed out of the 'D' camp some years ago over abortion and now too creeped out to stay in the 'R' camp.
Moderates could work together if there were any. Not sure but I think they went extinct.
well, sort ofYou got that right. And I'm in political exile, having been pushed out of the 'D' camp some years ago over abortion and now too creeped out to stay in the 'R' camp.
Moderates could work together if there were any. Not sure but I think they went extinct.
Has it really gotten so bad that abortion is being used as a litmus test for democrats? I know when I was on the pro-life side there used to be a bunch of us on the democrat side.
The Democratic Party is strongly pro-choice, but this position isn't a general litmus test.
What Pro-Life Democrats Want from the DNC
I would note that there was a time when such issues were not federal issues, especially for libertarians. I would point out that the Republican Party has the same "problem". Is pro-life a litmus test?
=====
Perhaps politicians should work together on goals instead of pounding at each other with slogans and banners. Perhaps, we might have a goal of reducing the number of abortions, year by year.
Sometimes government by stalemate is not so bad. Really, sometimes nothing can be better than something bad. But then we get things like immigration law reform that is 20 years tardy, and things get worse because it isn't 1987 any more.Elections do indeed have consequences. Republicans can pass court appointees (if they can find any), but that's about it in the Senate, without Democratic help.
It WAS a litmus test for going any higher as a delegate than the precinct caucus. We were actively hampered from participation in the DFL in Minneapolis in the mid 1980's. We were not wanted. There was a particular 'orthodoxy' where one just had to be pro-choice if one was to have any sort of party decisionmaking role, at least in Minneapolis. So I switched parties. I found the Republicans at the time to be much more accepting of diversity than the Democrats. At least in the 1990's and 2000's.The Democratic Party is strongly pro-choice, but this position isn't a general litmus test.
We'd be better off in that we'd have a moderately alert career politician
It's not a good thing. Didn't mean to suggest it was. But it's better than what we have.Are we sure that's a good thing?
hmmm...16+ years out of 17 years, 2 wars? We've been at war pretty much all this century. I wouldn't actually call that "nothing".(snip)
Just my point. Other than Iraq, nothing.
If I were discussing 5,000 years of history, perhaps not. Of course we aren't discussing 5,000 years of history we were talking about modern history. Which would be (in my mind any way) this century. As for sounding sharp...well that's never been something I worry too much about on internet forums, most discussions don't evolve into "big picture discussions" until one side realizes they're losing the discussion going on in the "small picture" and they try and move the goal post to suddenly make it about "the big picture".In 5000 years of recorded history, do you think 20 years is a long time? I mean, it's within most people's memory. If you do, I suppose your entitled to that opinion, but don't think it's going to make you sound sharp in any discussion of history.
I didn't vote for President Clinton either time he ran and if he had been the one running against President Trump in the last election I wouldn't have voted for him then either. So, no, I don't think his administration has any relevance to Sec. Clinton running last year.You think that the Bill Clinton's presidency was too long ago to be relevant - but you supported his wife for president last year?
...ok, thanks Putin...now quit killing journalists. How was that? I know, I know, it's more criticism then President Trump has ever given about the Russian President, but then again, I'm never ran for President of the US and don't owe President Putin as much as President Trump does....and as far as your comment about Democrats cleaning up the mess - it was in fact Putin who cleaned up the mess, just as he cleaned up the mess in Chechnya. You want to talk about "spanking their little bottoms when they act up" - is that how you thank him?
Because it's a Deep State and DNC lie that they gave no credence to before the election and only started crying about it afterwards in a treasonous attempt to subvert the newly elected president.
If you think they had no substance, you obviously haven't look at any of the scandals yourself, instead relying on what the media tells you instead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?