question... hmmm
@reallifeSo what's your point? He could probably answer it, and thanks to radiometric dating, it's not actually all that much of a mystery.
Probably because the dems aren't the party controlled by the religious right..or trying to legislate peoples rights based on their own beliefs. Ya think?? @reallife
@reallife So what exactly are you trying to imply here? The Dems are controlled by the religious right? The Dems are trying to legislate people's lives based on their own beliefs?There is one party this applies to, and it isn't the Dems. The Dems aren't the ones who want to deny adult gay Americans the right to be civilly/legally married based on some misguided religiously based belief airbag reset that being gay is somehow bad.The Dems aren't the ones who have had members repeatedly double down on denying evolution based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the Dems who have lobbied for the Bible's creation myth to be taught in school science classes as a scientific autel maxidiag theory.So, out with it. What are you trying to say?
So, in other words, nothing has changed. They can trot out all the Marco Rubios they want. It won't matter.
Note to the GOP. If Clinton runs in 2016 whoever you run against her is the next GOP looser. Second note to the GOP. Running token minority candidates with the same policies as the old white guy candidates won't isn't going to work.....ever.
Hasn't it occurred to anyone yet that we have another election to think about - the one that's going to happen in 2014? The one in which the Democrats are going to be playing a very difficult game of defense? I think that's where the political eyes of the punditry need to be focused. There could be one major shock coming for the Democrats if they allow themselves to get complacent.
@RugeirnDrienborough Boehner thinks that because the republicans maintained their majority in the house (by a lesser margin)only because of redistricting in republican controlled states that he has the upper hand.
没有评论:
发表评论