Lincoln was actively involved in politics for a full 26 years before he was elected President, including eight ten years in State Legislature and two years in the US House of Representatives.
By contrast Donald Trump spent a couple years spreading conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth certificate.
Please don’t even attempt to draw a comparison here.
As I say, it depends on how you define the word “popular”. I suggest you understand that she was despised by much of the country, and Trump’s election, bad as it was, had meaning. Sometimes people DO hold their noses and vote.
I suggest you provide me facts and figures to support the story you’ve invented to support your dislike of her.
The rednecks and deplorables sure consider Trump one of their own now!
“We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
-David Duke
He served ONE term in the Illinois legislature. That’s 2 years.
I’m not drawing a comparison. I’m pointing out that being a lifetime politician doesn’t make you a good leader.
If you don’t understand that she was unpopular with much of the country, there’s nothing I can say to convince you. Humbabella has already provided evidence.
They always have. All 25% of the country of them. But that’s not what won the election.
Weird, neither does an entire lifetime of being a shady, duplicitous conman with NO political or practical experience, whatsoever.
FWIW, I’m so over people who are still arguing about the ‘why’s’ & ‘how’s’ of the election; harping on the past won’t change the present.
Lincoln was elected to four consecutive two-year terms in the Nebraska General Assembly in 1834, 1836, 1838 and 1840. He served a two year term in the Illinois legislature and a two year term in the US House of Representatives.
That is exactly what you are doing.
I stated a fact, that’s all. What-aboutism doesn’t change my fact.
Humbella posted it. Why do I need to duplicate her post?
Then I’m comparing their years of public service. Yes, 2 is greater than 0. You’ve got me there.
But why are we arguing about this? Neither one of us likes Trump, or thinks he’s qualified. I’m just pointing out that not being a lifetime politician shouldn’t be a disqualifier.
Why do you keep suggesting that Lincoln only had two years of public service? Even if you discount all the years of political activism outside the time he actually spent in elected office it still adds up to 10 12 years.
No one said that it should. But Trump was the first major-party candidate to run with zero public service experience whatsoever, so comparing his lack of experience to Lincoln’s is inane.
It’s a subjective statement that’s lacking a qualifier such as “usually,” ‘often,’ “rarely” etc.
Therefore it’s your opinion, not necessarily a provable fact.
Blaming Hilary/the democrats/etc won’t change the present.
looks at thread
looks at title
looks back at thread
checks title again
PFFFFFFFFFFF
And it’s your opinion that being a lifetime politician DOES make one a good leader? Because either you think that, or you agree with me.
No, that’s not my opinion.
MY opinion is that there are no ‘guarantees’ of who will make a good leader, but the likelihood that a leader will fail is MUCH greater if she or he has no viable experience to draw on.
If you will recall, I recently stated that I have as much disdain for the Dems as I do the Repubs; that’s not the point of contention here.
My issue is with people who won’t stop looking backward instead of focusing on fixing the immense problems in front of us.
“Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
And, “Why not BOTH?”
Not my point. If they didn’t support him during the election, they sure do now!
