Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
4. That is the question. Another DU poster shed some light.
Wed May 4, 2016, 05:55 AM
May 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027802691

... if a liberal is going to sit in the oval office, let us not take part in putting them there with our names on their support roster. Let us not let a man for 4 years get up on that bully pulpit and create a mistrust of conservatism that destroys the meager gains we've managed.

... Hillary would be more likely to face gridlock on liberal policies than Mr. Trump would.

The party is already destroyed simply by his nomination. #NeverTrump intends to at least salvage conservatism.

If you substitute 'Clinton' for 'Trump' and exchange 'liberal' and 'conservative', it would look like this:

... if a conservative is going to sit in the oval office, let us not take part in putting them there with our names on their support roster. Let us not let a woman for 4 years get up on that bully pulpit and create a mistrust of liberalism that destroys the meager gains we've managed.

... Donald would be more likely to face gridlock on conservative policies than Ms. Clinton would.

The party is already destroyed simply by his nomination. #NeverClinton intends to at least salvage liberalism.

It's hard to imagine anyone facing more 'gridlock' than Obama has or another Democrat will but that has an oddly familiar ring to it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who will the bigger enthu...»Reply #4