Maybe, maybe not. That platform got the president elected in 2016 and probably will again. The Democratic Party is as fractured as the Republican party and ha done a great job of pushing many moderates into a state of "who gives a shit anymore". So I guess we will see how huge a mistake it is.I feel like voting for change isn't the solution. We should vote for policy.
The Republicans have the same policy document they had in 2016, which was a HUGE mistake. An entire party stated that their priorities are the same as 4 years ago.
I think that any party that thinks that staying the same is winning proposition is going to lose at some point. The republicans are seeing that already with young voters completely turned off by most of their policy positions.Maybe, maybe not. That platform got the president elected in 2016 and probably will again. The Democratic Party is as fractured as the Republican party and ha done a great job of pushing many moderates into a state of "who gives a shit anymore". So I guess we will see how huge a mistake it is.
When Hink is right, I have to agree with him and this is one of those cases. Unfortunately, there are no real Statesmen (or Stateswomen) left in DC politics as the two political fractions have become so powerful, people are forced to run with a predetermined agenda or they become ostracized and have zero influence or power to really accomplish much of anything.Statesmen. We need John McCain and Joe Lieberman being friends beyond their political differences. We need conversations that deal in specific policy and solutions not personal attacks.
Every villain ever. Now get off my lawn.
The problem with politics is that a person like Hink should be running things. You know, a normal person with real world views. I know I'm casting a lot of ideal characteristics on Hink, but you get the idea. The problem is when someone like Hink runs both parties squash it because he doesn't follow their ideology and actually thinks for himself. I know Hink and thinking in the same sentence, stop laughing at Hink. It's just hard to get true independent people into office. Down with the two party system and up with the proletariat, I mean Hink.
Now come on, Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz is really just misunderstood. He just wanted to create an inator that would help him get a little recognition. Isn't that what we all really want anyways? Sure, he pushes the EVIL tag but in the end, he is just trying to find his place in the Tri-State Area.
Actually ... you can look this up just as easily as I can. HRC was the most qualified person to ever run for the office.I think that any party that thinks that staying the same is winning proposition is going to lose at some point. The republicans are seeing that already with young voters completely turned off by most of their policy positions.
Trump won because Clinton was terrible, not because people believed in Trump per se. I think moderates voted for Trump because he was selling some idea that maybe he wouldn't keep the status quo. He also got a lot of voters by saying really terrible things that those voters are happy he brought to light...immigration, etc.
I understand the concept, but the reality was she was a flawed and really poor candidate for a lot of reasons. I believe she was thrust on the Democrats because it was her turn, not because she was the most likely to win.Actually ... you can look this up just as easily as I can. HRC was the most "qualified" person to ever run for the office.
I have not voted for an "R" in a presidential election since 2000 and GWB. I had 0 enthusiasm for HRC. The primary was telling on swing states as folks voted for Trump now voted for a "D", probably because it was 1) clinton and 2) a woman.I understand the concept, but the reality was she was a flawed and really poor candidate for a lot of reasons. I believe she was thrust on the Democrats because it was her turn, not because she was the most likely to win.
I don't know that you are wrong, but as a middle-of-the-road voter, I certainly think 2016 is different from 2020.Oh, Trump's getting re-elected. Yes there's an awful lot of noise that would tell you otherwise but the reality is that's still a small number of people in the grand scheme of things. There are tons of people who find him utterly distasteful but they will hold their nose and vote for him. I don't think enough of the posters here understand how turned off a lot of "middle of the road" voters are with the far-left thought police and policies that are being put forth.
You mean this 2016 election where a billionaire egomaniac reality show host ended the career of a political dynasty despite every indication that he had ZERO chance and many questioned if it was a publicity stunt...I don't know that you are wrong, but as a middle-of-the-road voter, I certainly think 2016 is different from 2020.
Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York has the worst record on death and China Virus. 11,000 people alone died in Nursing Homes because of his incompetence!
NOTHING TO SEE HERE BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T BE TWEETING ABOUT THIS STUFF
That has ALWAYS been the case, however, going back to the beginning of the republic. Newspaper reporters/publishers were always ready and willing to convict anybody questioned or arrested for any crime, and the more sensational and lurid, the better.FWIW, he didn't cross the state lines with the gun, it was borrowed from someone he knew in Wisconsin. Technically, it never crossed any state borders. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for him to carry that type of gun under the age of 18. I think the self defense argument is fairly weak.
Your post just further hammers down the point that mainstream media (print, tv, social) is the bane of society. We are innocent until proven guilty, with the exception being unless the media has determined that you're guilty.
You are 100% correct, but with today's technology the volume and speed of information far exceeds what was possible at any other time in history. Some, such as Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, use this with their Federalist Papers, Ben Franklin did this with multiple publications, but all of those took time to write and publish. Today, anyone can make any comment and thanks to the internet it is almost instant distribution.That has ALWAYS been the case, however, going back to the beginning of the republic. Newspaper reporters/publishers were always ready and willing to convict anybody questioned or arrested for any crime, and the more sensational and lurid, the better.
It has ALWAYS been the case that "the media" has been politically biased, too, even when "the media" consisted of weekly newspapers except for dailies in the biggest cities. It's the problem with having a "free press" -- "the media" is free to interpret news through the lens of its particular political perspective. Thomas Jefferson was continually attacked for keeping a black mistress and Abraham Lincoln was repeatedly portrayed as an ape. In 1898 newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, was instrumental in pushing the US toward war with Spain with his "yellow journalism". OTOH, lynchings of Blacks were rarely reported except in Black newspapers.
I think that too many people misinterpret the supposedly "fair news" reporting during the Cold War Era as being "apolitical" but in fact it was every bit as political except in a different way. National news outlets in the 1950s-1980s simply didn't print/broadcast news that was critical of the US government officials or actions, most notably with US foreign military actions such as in SE Asia, because they were afraid of being called "communist sympathizers".
For most of the 20th century, the POTUS was held above media scrutiny except on the very narrow grounds of his public policies. Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke after he returned from Versailles, and his wife and trusted members of the his administration essentially ran the country for the rest of his term. The press was complicit in keeping FDR's paralysis largely unseen by the American public, but more seriously, keeping the knowledge of his deteriorating health out of the news in the 1944 election. At the height of the Cold War, newspapers and radio/tv never printed/broadcast anything about JFK's womanizing, including bringing prostitutes who could have possibly been Soviet agents in the White House.
Loads of links; there are many more. The Hillary haters started early. Keep in mind how this works.I understand the concept, but the reality was she was a flawed and really poor candidate for a lot of reasons. I believe she was thrust on the Democrats because it was her turn, not because she was the most likely to win.
Hillary had more baggage than any candidate prior, so her qualifications went both ways. She was also extremely unpopular on both the democratic and republican side which is also very hard to overcome. She was really bad at dealing with Bernie and the more "socialist" side of the democratic party. She talked over people, particularly those in the midwest states... Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin...and told people what to feel or disregarded a lot of the concerns of those states as not rational.
Bernie was the better candidate if we are only going on qualifications. But the fact that it was Bernie v. Clinton tells you a lot about the stable the D's had.
My point was that the Democrats picked a flawed candidate, because it was her turn, assuming that they could beat Trump just because. I don't know any moderates who liked Hillary. Most of those people I know voted for Trump in the midwest. Which is exactly why she lost.
Interestingly enough, it could be why Joe could win. Because he seems to, at least on the face, understand and listen to midwesterners. That will be key to whether he wins or not. Not if he can jump the furthest to the left, like it seems Trump wants you to believe.
Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps.
Aside from the quote from Mattis, there isn't a single named source anywhere in that article. That's not a defense of the individual that is the main subject of this article, that's more a commentary of the state of "journalism" these days.Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic.www.theatlantic.com
Trump knows how to piss off Marines -
There are four sources, all unnamed due to career and life reasons.Aside from the quote from Mattis, there isn't a single named source anywhere in that article. That's not a defense of the individual that is the main subject of this article, that's more a commentary of the state of "journalism" these days.
Fixed that for you.There are four sources, all unnamed due to poor "journalism".
This is a pattern, which clearly is more likely that he actually said it than not.Does anyone doubt - even for just a second - that Trump said these awful things? I guess what troubles me more is that these sources didn't immediately come forward openly and honestly to tell Americans what a piece of excrement occupies the most powerful office in the country.
The AP, NYT, Washington Post, and some other outlet have corroborated the incident as reported by the Atlantic using the same and their sources. Trump and his administration have shown a past pattern of lying and he has made other public comments disparaging servicemembers.Fixed that for you.
FWIW, the AP followed up the lazily written Atlantic article with a piece, that while it also doesn't name sources, is much better written as far as explaining the sources. And, there is no comparison here to Watergate.
DELRAY BEACH, FLa. (AP) — A new report details multiple instances of President Donald Trump making disparaging remarks about members of the U.S. military who have been captured or killed,...apnews.com