There's virtue in not having a nominee every cycle that's exactly like the previous one.
Not even remotely.
Not a problem for the Dems. They have nominated diversely.
The only accusations are from the guilty until proven innocent crowd.
Not when it comes to Dems. See Benghazi for instance.
Older than Rubio or Jindal. Poorer than the average politician.
Nah, when I'm right I'm right.
Yeah, no. Not how facts work.
They haven't nominated anyone as young as Rubio.
Might want to double check your facts on McCain there.
And if personal wealth wasn't in play, family wealth was.
Or any other facts that invalidate their dogma.
The next time the pubs nominate anyone but a rich, old white guy will be the first time.
Sounds a lot like:
We pubs are against terrorists
Dems are against us
Therefore, Dems are pro-terrorist
Basically what we have here is cons saying "we know Hillary committed crimes and the missing emails prove them" but it's all based on nothing but...
On Newsmax, no doubt.
If she broke the law, she'll be prosecuted, right? Like Bush was for losing years worth of WH emails?
All used private email servers
Walker--80k job to donor's kid
Jeb--helped steal 2000 election
Perry--Put Texas up for sale to donors like Scott
Snoozers. Prove to me that any of this matters to you by refusing to vote for Jeb, Walker or Perry who have all done their email this way.
Walker, Perry, Jeb--all unethical
She's no better or worse than anyone else who is narcissistic enough to run for prez.