You will have to excuse all of us skeptics. We have been conditioned by decades of promises like this and cannot see how this one will end up any different.
You will have to excuse all of us skeptics. We have been conditioned by decades of promises like this and cannot see how this one will end up any different.
I actually think democrats have plans on all of these issues that he says they do not. However, Trump has done a better job of making sure people know where he stands. The republicans have a built in advantage of their leader residing in the white house so everyone will assume his message as the party message. Democrats do not have one person that speaks for them and many of their top people disagree on key issues anyway. Take the difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as an example. They differ greatly on many key issues but both have a following in the Democratic party. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination needs to be a strong figure that can unite the party or else voters may still be asking what they stand for in 2020.Mark Penn is managing director of the Stagwell Group. He was chief strategist on Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Mark Penn: Democrats don't understand this surprising secret of Trump's success
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mar...tand-this-surprising-secret-of-trumps-success
I am not familiar with this dude, but doesn't seem to be a Repub apologist. Maybe more of a moderate take? Maybe still upset because HRC didn't get elected. But are his points valid?
Excerpts:
-The president has torn up every political playbook. His political survival after two years in office is a modern-day miracle, and his polling numbers are even running ahead of where Presidents Obama and Clinton were at this point.
-Take his idea for ending birthright citizenship. Can’t say I support it. I don’t. But it’s not an insult, a racial epithet, or an off-color joke. It’s an idea that focuses on how an open-borders policy reverberates. And it’s even an idea that former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada once passionately supported.
-If you think about it, you probably know President Trump’s positions on almost every major issue. And obviously, he has doubled down on immigration as the make-or-break issue for him and his party.
-What exactly does Barack Obama stand for? Bernie Sanders at least has free college as an idea you can remember, albeit vagueWhat about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.?
Other than investigations and impeachment, what are the Democrats running on? They have made an issue of health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions. Trump has said he too would cover them. The Democratic idea is not a health-care plan, but an attack.
Nor do Democrats have an economic plan many people can remember. Nor a plan on immigration. Nor a plan to deal with jobs migrating to China and Mexico.
Good points. I agree. Do you see anyone on the horizon who can do that? I remember the first time I heard Obama speak, I think it was a State of the Union Rebuttal, not sure, but I remember thinking that this guy could get a lot of people just by his ability to captivate with speech...I actually think democrats have plans on all of these issues that he says they do not. However, Trump has done a better job of making sure people know where he stands. The republicans have a built in advantage of their leader residing in the white house so everyone will assume his message as the party message. Democrats do not have one person that speaks for them and many of their top people disagree on key issues anyway. Take the difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as an example. They differ greatly on many key issues but both have a following in the Democratic party. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination needs to be a strong figure that can unite the party or else voters may still be asking what they stand for in 2020.
If I remember correctly no one thought Obama had any chance prior to the primaries. He was not even that well known just a year before. I imagine that will be the type to unite the Democratic party because none of the "major names" in the party can do it. Warren, Pelosi, Biden, etc. None of them can do it imo. So it will have to be someone the nation does not even recognize yet.Good points. I agree. Do you see anyone on the horizon who can do that? I remember the first time I heard Obama speak, I think it was a State of the Union Rebuttal, not sure, but I remember thinking that this guy could get a lot of people just by his ability to captivate with speech...
I still think the ??/Warren ticket would be ideal. Dems have a deep bench if they're willing to look beyond the well-known names, and surely they can find someone with the charisma of Gillum who could be ready for 2020.If I remember correctly no one thought Obama had any chance prior to the primaries. He was not even that well known just a year before. I imagine that will be the type to unite the Democratic party because none of the "major names" in the party can do it. Warren, Pelosi, Biden, etc. None of them can do it imo. So it will have to be someone the nation does not even recognize yet.
i think that abrams will be a factor in years to come past 2020I still think the ??/Warren ticket would be ideal. Dems have a deep bench if they're willing to look beyond the well-known names, and surely they can find someone with the charisma of Gillum who could be ready for 2020.
You mean whiter than whitebread Lie-a-Warhatha [emoji23][emoji1303][emoji1303][emoji1303][emoji108][emoji108][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]I still think the ??/Warren ticket would be ideal. Dems have a deep bench if they're willing to look beyond the well-known names, and surely they can find someone with the charisma of Gillum who could be ready for 2020.
There is the core of the problem - falling in love with those who give great speeches (and yes, Trumpers love his speeches because he speaks their language- idiotese).If I remember correctly no one thought Obama had any chance prior to the primaries. He was not even that well known just a year before. I imagine that will be the type to unite the Democratic party because none of the "major names" in the party can do it. Warren, Pelosi, Biden, etc. None of them can do it imo. So it will have to be someone the nation does not even recognize yet.
Don't think I've ever seen a better explanation as to where Democratics stand on the issues than this. Great advertisement.The new campaign ad definitely checks all the boxes...:biggrin2:
New York State Senate Passes Expansive Abortion BillOn Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, delighted that the New York legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act which would allow mothers to kill (pardon me, abort) their babies up until birth, celebrated this legalized murder by ordering that the spire at One World Trade Center, the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany all be lit in pink on Tuesday night.
Once signed by Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who has long pushed for expansive abortion-rights legislation, the bill will expand the state’s already liberal abortion regime to allow late-term abortions when “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. The RHA will also decriminalize abortion, moving it from the state’s criminal code to the public-health code.
good, i hope this spreads around the country.
Well the next time you and yours start crying about "children locked in cages" or "children shot up in classrooms" just pretend like it was womb...good, i hope this spreads around the country.
nah. thanks for the suggestion though.Well the next time you and yours start crying about "children locked in cages" or "children shot up in classrooms" just pretend like it was womb...
Well the next time you and yours start crying about "children locked in cages" or "children shot up in classrooms" just pretend like it was womb...
Nothing was taken out of context if you read both articles. The bolded part of your response was defined in the Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”For some much-needed context, NY's criminal code hadn't been updated since the 1970. While abortion was legal, it remained a felony for practitioners to perform an abortion after 24 weeks for any reason other than the life of the mother being in jeopardy. After this law, practitioners can perform an abortion after 24 weeks if the health of the mother is at stake OR the fetus is not viable. That's all.
Yeah but some writer's opinions on right wing sites say that it allows women to get abortions on demand right up until birth.For some much-needed context, NY's criminal code hadn't been updated since the 1970. While abortion was legal, it remained a felony for practitioners to perform an abortion after 24 weeks for any reason other than the life of the mother being in jeopardy. After this law, practitioners can perform an abortion after 24 weeks if the health of the mother is at stake OR the fetus is not viable. That's all.