Arakhor, you did the same in an instant.
I'm fairly sure that's the point of a quotation, especially when used to highlight something.
Arakhor, you did the same in an instant.
From a pragmatic POV, selecting a non-white VP for Clinton would be very stupid. As a Democrat the black vote is guaranteed no matter what, and running against Trump she will win the latino vote by spectacular margins as well.
She needs an old white man. Well, actually she doesn't really need anything, as this election is totally in the bag, but an old white dude is the way to maximize her voting.
Isn't someone who's corrupt by definition also dishonest?
... by "dishonest", I meant saying things that she does not really mean or that are not true. So, slightly different sides of the same coin.
Without trying to be too cynical, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many prominent politicians who do not meet that definition.
Honestly, one of my bigger fears is that Clinton is going to reach out to Elizabeth Warren, and ruin Warren's brandname. I'd really like to see her in 2020 or 2024.
Without trying to be too cynical, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many prominent politicians who do not meet that definition.
Warren is 66 now and will be 67 by election time. If Clinton wins this election, Warren won't have a chance until the 2024 election, by which time she'll be 75. It's not impossible that she could still run then, but this was definitely her best chance. It's too bad - I would have preferred her over Sanders.Honestly, one of my bigger fears is that Clinton is going to reach out to Elizabeth Warren, and ruin Warren's brandname. I'd really like to see her in 2020 or 2024.