Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Koch network plans to shell out $400 million this cycle to elect Republican candidates and promote conservative causes — 60 percent more than it spent during the 2016 presidential cycle.
Are the Pauls a Dynasty? The Romneys? The McConnells? Or do you realize that it would be dumb to attach that label to those Republicans, but hope no one notices it if you do it to a Democrat?
I didn't say anything about the number "two". That is a false standard that you created and can't defend.
i.e. Logical Fallacy.
That chart speaks for itself. The Clintons have controlled the Democrat party for over 25 years. The Clintons are a political dynasty and IMO, they are working on getting their daughter out there next.
I didn't say anything about the number "two". That is a false standard that you created and can't defend.
i.e. Logical Fallacy.
That chart speaks for itself. The Clintons are a political dynasty and IMO, they are working on getting their daughter out there next. Attacking me doesn't change this.
I used your same standard of two prominent politicians who are related and asked if you are calling them a dynasty. Judging by your avoidance of answering the question, we both know you realize that the "two" threshold is ridiculous to try to use to claim a dynasty.
And so you know, using an exception as evidence of something is a logical fallacy.
I used your same standard of two prominent politicians who are related and asked if you are calling them a dynasty. Judging by your avoidance of answering the question, we both know you realize that the "two" threshold is ridiculous to try to use to claim a dynasty.
I addressed your question. You created a logical fallacy as argument. Case closed.
But I fully support your right to believe there is nothing wrong with the stranglehold the Clintons have had over the Democrat party since 1992.
Let's look at the Democrat Party for the last quarter of a century
1992 - Bill Clinton President
1996 - Bill Clinton President
2000 - Hillary Clinton US Senator
2004 - Hillary Clinton US Senator
2008 - Hillary Clinton wins the Popular vote in the DNC Primary against Obama
2008 - Hillary Clinton Secretary of State
2012 - Clinton Foundation making plenty of promises & raking in the money from dictatorships, corporations, etc.
2016 - Hillary Clinton wins Rigged DNC Primary against Bernie Sanders
2016 - Hillary Clinton's stunning loss against Trump
2018 - Hillary & Bill Clinton - vast influence over the DNC and it's fundraising. There is no other person in the party who compares. No other person in the Democrat party commands the attention that these two still receive. For all essential purposes they ARE the Democrat Party.
Looks like a Political Dynasty to me.
This is a stretch. For starters- Clinton's Senate re-election should be listed as 2006. Hillary really did not win the popular vote in thee primary- the whole Michigan fiasco and the difference between caucuses and primaries makes those sketchy numbers.
And at this point the political influence on the Democratic party is weak at best. Obama out fundraised the Clintons every day of the week. Hillary's fundraising was so precarious she actually had to consistently take time during the general election to fundraise. Obama was able to raise vast sums from small donors and use his big donor events more efficiently. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren garner more devotion at this point. And in terms of influence, the left flank of the party has been unhappy with the Clintons for twenty years and the other portions of the party are worn out from their constant machinations and meddling.
Two politicians of the same generation does not constitute a dynasty. The Bushes had 3 generations in national politics (with a 4th already in Texas state office), the Romneys at 3 if you count a high RNC appointment, the Kennedys are up to 3.5, and the Pauls and Browns are at 2 generations. Bill and Hillary are pretty much on par with the Doles- only one step higher up the ladder.
I never really understood why the right wing is so disparate for the Clinton's to stick around forever. Almost all the left-wingers I know have let the Bushes go to pasture without similar attention.
Meet the Democratic stars of 2020: a Clinton and a Kennedy.
Yes, the party of the people — the poor, the disenfranchised, the overworked and underpaid, the allies of Black Lives Matter and #MeToo — has two of its most entitled dynastic figures front and center.
The best way to ensure a second term for Trump is to put a Kennedy or Clinton front and center. It's amazing that the (D)'s haven't insisted to Hillary that she go away.
They are still under the mistaken notion that all it takes to win is to raise the most money.
This is starting to look like a wave election where the Dims are going to get wiped out in 2018 to snatch defeat from the hands of victory.
I used your same standard of two prominent politicians who are related and asked if you are calling them a dynasty. Judging by your avoidance of answering the question, we both know you realize that the "two" threshold is ridiculous to try to use to claim a dynasty.
And so you know, using an exception as evidence of something is a logical fallacy.
Nobody here called the Clinton's a dynasty. They are simply noted as everything that is wrong with the party.
P.S. you didn't answer my earlier question so why do you expect others to answer yours?
This is a stretch. For starters- Clinton's Senate re-election should be listed as 2006. Hillary really did not win the popular vote in thee primary- the whole Michigan fiasco and the difference between caucuses and primaries makes those sketchy numbers.
And at this point the political influence on the Democratic party is weak at best. Obama out fundraised the Clintons every day of the week. Hillary's fundraising was so precarious she actually had to consistently take time during the general election to fundraise. Obama was able to raise vast sums from small donors and use his big donor events more efficiently. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren garner more devotion at this point. And in terms of influence, the left flank of the party has been unhappy with the Clintons for twenty years and the other portions of the party are worn out from their constant machinations and meddling.
Two politicians of the same generation does not constitute a dynasty. The Bushes had 3 generations in national politics (with a 4th already in Texas state office), the Romneys at 3 if you count a high RNC appointment, the Kennedys are up to 3.5, and the Pauls and Browns are at 2 generations. Bill and Hillary are pretty much on par with the Doles- only one step higher up the ladder.
I never really understood why the right wing is so disparate for the Clinton's to stick around forever. Almost all the left-wingers I know have let the Bushes go to pasture without similar attention.
Obama's main support came from Wall Street and it showed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought that was about Trump. Or maybe the Koch brothers who pay so much to try to keep Republicans in office?
