?? So now "gal" is a bad word? It's the female equivalent of "guy". just LOL at the idiocy of the pc movement!
That's ok Comrade... we know you and we know you would never reduce such an intelligent and accomplished Senator to a "gal." I guess to truly gain your respect she will need to "joke" about grabbing men by their d**ks. That would undoubtedly make her "presidential", eh? btw, complaining about the pc movement is a bit passe... shouldn't you be using more current phrases as snowflake? You are definitely aging yourself complaining about "PC" and calling women "gals."
lol I own you so bad...and I love it. Kamala dropped F-bombs at a public event. Not Presidential, sorry.
Good point about needing to balance a Harris ticket. Honestly, if Mark Zuckerberg wasn't from California as well, he'd make a great wildcard pick as VP. A billionaire who doesn't have to be convinced about the validity of climate change, or the importance of protecting our environment. An "outsider' who isn't in his mid-'70's. I think the pair would bring out the kind of turnout Democrats saw in 2008. Food for thought.
You "owned me so bad"? What, now trying to act juvenile to counter the aged appearance? Wow, don't know what reflects worse on you. Guess both. But back to the topic... Senator Harris is sad she won't be able to count on your support. But she had too many strikes against her (again, knowing your history). I suspect her dropping "F bombs" were pretty low on your list of prejudices, I mean, decision factors. btw, sure seems quiet with you avoiding all the Trump threads. Would have expected someone so confident in your support of Trump to not hide. Guess you need new safe zones.
Flustered, by you? I am simply looking forward to your next thread bragging about Trump's popularity. I have to admit, you sure jumped on board just when he was going to make history. Six months and already trying to figure out how pardons work. Great choice!
Meh. It was also their way of getting women voters and just push this big equality movement in contrast with the Christian Right and others who just weren't ready or didn't want this. I never really bought the idea that the GOP never cared about minorities, just that the GOP's policies never really benefited them.
That is entirely the point: CEO's are not expected to just alter their company's/organization's business structure under current laws. It takes a change in the trade environment - it's laws - in order for that to happen. See Bernie Sanders (i.e. "tear up NAFTA"). I think you have been entirely missing the point, but I hope the above brings some clarity.
"Paging: St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago." "Paging: St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago." "You are needed to this thread."
Sorry, the absence of laws does't make what a CEO does any less ethical, nor does it relieve them from the accusation of hypocrisy. Trump's trumpeting of "America First is either something he believes in or not... not just a catchy slogan to appeal to the right wing. In other words, me telling my daughter to not smoke cigarettes why I light one up is hypocritical, even though its legal.
Trump was not President of the United States while he was president of the Trump Organization. That does not negate the message nor negate his ability to change the law currently, while he is President of the United States. BTW, election of public office is not a requisite for quitting smoking.
Poll Democrats don't stand for anything, just against Trump https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...g-except-the-only-thing-that-matters-in-2018/
The article appears to be behind a paywall, so I didn't read it. Do a majority of people think either party stands for anything other than remaining or being voted into power? Hasn't this been the criticism of both parties since forever?
George Stephanopholos and Chuck Schumer talked about this on ABC This Week. The poll was 52-37℅. Schumer was in agreement democrats need to develop a message
I saw that headline. It doesn't even bother me. Being against Trump in the situation we have right now is enough for me. I recognize that they're going to have to do more message development to be competitive in coming elections. But much like how being anti-Obama got the Republican party a lot of miles, I think opposing Trump should be pretty profitable for Democrats as well.
Democrats have stopped engaging the myth of trickle down and government bad. A healthy, educated populace is good driver of growth.
