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.
Donald may be less of a war monger. I'll give you that. He pretends to avoid wars while Hillary makes up pretend stuff to get us involved.
It it helps you sleep at night to operate off of such a false premise, then go right ahead, but at some point in your life, you will have to have a mental reckoning with yourself.
As far as I know, Clinton was no more of a "hawk" than anyone else, with the exception of random "doves" who claim we shouldnt do anything.
Those people are so deep in the minority that none of them could ever come close to the Presidency. Even Sanders when questioned on the issue said he would use force.
Why not? Hillary won in 2016 and knows Donald Trump knows she did. The demographics are in her favor in 2020, but Putin is in Donald Trump's favor in 2020.
Hillary won? Hummmm
That sure looks like Trump that is running the country.
It it helps you sleep at night to operate off of such a false premise, then go right ahead, but at some point in your life, you will have to have a mental reckoning with yourself.
As far as I know, Clinton was no more of a "hawk" than anyone else, with the exception of random "doves" who claim we shouldnt do anything.
Those people are so deep in the minority that none of them could ever come close to the Presidency. Even Sanders when questioned on the issue said he would use force.
So again, your arguments dont make sense.
There hasn't been a war she hasn't either supported or helped push us into it. I will sleep fine at night.
And no, I haven't lost that argument, there has been a push to eliminate the EC for decades now, and eventually fairness will prevail. One person, one vote will mean something, even if people in smaller states lose their small state privilege of controlling elections.
Dude...reality check time. You lost the argument. It was all the talk a year and a half ago, it's disappeared into nothingness. No matter that the system works and you want to fix something that is not broken - in that presidents elected seem to switch off between DEM and GOP every other election - but it part of our constitution. It will mean a two thirds vote in each house, if by some miracle it passes there it will then need a ratification in 38 states to change the constitution.
A quick google search says there were 4 or 5 other candidates, One being the Governor of New York, another being the Senator from Tennessee, Stevenson simply beat them at the convention.
He surely did. And there were 5 other candidates. But were they actual contenders? Or were they the "Jim Webbs", "Lincoln Chaffees" and Martin O'Malleys?"
Back in 1956, only 18 states held primaries. The other 32 states, the state parties selected the candidates. It wasn't like the people said "Yeah, let's give this guy another shot!" This seemed to be mostly a closed door political elitist nomination.
This is mostly academic. I do find it intriguing yet unsurprising that we haven't had repeat nominations since then (aside from Nixon). In the case of Hillary, as much as a dislike the primary process and their superdelegates, in theory the party could help quash any attempt at her running by refusing support. She could of course still run and she could win, superdelegates be-damned. I think it really depends on whether she wants to do it and how much she "owns" the DNC still.
I'd rather she didn't. Been there, done that. She had her shot. She lost (fair or not fair). We all need to move on.
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.