ActualCornHusker
New member
And why, when he is currently serving as President of the United States, and with her actually serving in NO public office does she come up at all? We spend far too much time fielding questions about how bad and corrupt she would have possibly been and not enough on the scourge and actual, ongoing corruption that currently sits in the Oval.
(BRB I think this is what you're saying, I just needed to type it out)
Actually it was in response to the idea that the Dem party is "on the right side of history" (which is laughable to say the least). The point being, a Clinton white house would have been exponentially worse than we have currently. At best, we'd likely be in a recession right now. At worst (more likely) not only would we be in recession, she likely would have taken us to war with Russia, and maybe North Korea as well, and the level of corruption would have been 10x what you think it is now, but you'd hear less about it because she'd keep it under wraps, and she's got the media in her hip pocket.
So in summary, no, Dems are not on the right side of history... both parties lose in that regard