The majority of US presidents between 1900 and 2000 never spent time as senators, most in no foreign policy position what so ever. Most didn’t even serve time in an elected federal office. Even less exposure to foreign policy in a governor position than a house rep.
Why is it different here? Who would you suggest, who has been “in the senate” or some other role more exposed to foreign policy? The other potential candidates that have even close to her level of public support have even less foreign policy experience.
This is absurd, it is nonsense, any excuse to discredit the only candidate who has real public support, not just a bunch of corporate funded think pieces.
He ran on the Republican ticket. Republicans have no standards except “immigrants and LGBTQ+ and liberals bad”. Democrat nominees actually have to have serious resumes.
There have been young presidents before
She’s younger than any president, ever.
I think the young will come out and vote for her
Know how many times I’ve seen people say young people would turn out big and then they didn’t? Literally every time.
The vote for the dems is already split. The DNC wont abandon AIPAC’s genocide support-- and they dont have enough voters to win while a fairly massive block of the party progressives wont support genocide even with a gun to their head. Even a united democratic party barely has the votes to win these days, and the DNC is already playing chicken/hostage games with us again.
Same as last time. Until the centrists learn to have principles and stand up for their voters instead of for donors they will continue to lose what should be easy elections to idiots and criminals.
You’re getting downvotes, but you’re right. She’s not ready. A Senate seat first.
The reality is she will run as an independent, split the vote, Donnie Junior wins.
Bush, Clinton, bush, Regan, Ford, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, McKinley.
The majority of US presidents between 1900 and 2000 never spent time as senators, most in no foreign policy position what so ever. Most didn’t even serve time in an elected federal office. Even less exposure to foreign policy in a governor position than a house rep.
Why is it different here? Who would you suggest, who has been “in the senate” or some other role more exposed to foreign policy? The other potential candidates that have even close to her level of public support have even less foreign policy experience.
This is absurd, it is nonsense, any excuse to discredit the only candidate who has real public support, not just a bunch of corporate funded think pieces.
Trump didn’t have a senate seat first.
There have been young presidents before
I think the young will come out and vote for her
He ran on the Republican ticket. Republicans have no standards except “immigrants and LGBTQ+ and liberals bad”. Democrat nominees actually have to have serious resumes.
She’s younger than any president, ever.
Know how many times I’ve seen people say young people would turn out big and then they didn’t? Literally every time.
Ahh yes, the serious resumes have AIPAC money on them. Those serious resumes are an anathema to voters who have consistent standards.
deleted by creator
The vote for the dems is already split. The DNC wont abandon AIPAC’s genocide support-- and they dont have enough voters to win while a fairly massive block of the party progressives wont support genocide even with a gun to their head. Even a united democratic party barely has the votes to win these days, and the DNC is already playing chicken/hostage games with us again.
Same as last time. Until the centrists learn to have principles and stand up for their voters instead of for donors they will continue to lose what should be easy elections to idiots and criminals.