I’m not familiar with the National Review but my spider-sense starts tingling when they declare that Hillary isn’t fighting for “all children” by being pro-choice.
Besides, the fault lies not in your stars, but in yourselves, so don’t lay this one on God.
What kind of correlation has there been in the past between a candidate’s pre-presidential achievements/accomplishments and how effective they were as POTUS?
I’m kind of curious why Trump’s achievements aren’t being used for comparison. Since he has no public service in his background at all, I suppose you’d have to compare his financial success against other real-estate developers in the New York area through the 1980s and 90s. Since he didn’t win an Emmy, should we consider the presidential potential of the people that did that year? How does “President Jerry Bruckheimer” grab you?
Before you accept the National Review’s take, you should check out this article by a columnist at HuffPost, to get a viewpoint from the other side of the media spectrum:
… is a good politician and has many accomplishments to her name, despite what the right-wing noise machine has been whining about for the past couple decades. The fact you honestly think a former Senator and Secretary of State has no accomplishments to her name is evidence of the massive, inexorable decay the right wing has undergone in this country, and how far the GOP has to go in order to be taken seriously again.
Your false equivalence is idiotic. There’s no other term for it. Happily, nobody here buys it except the people who are irrationally biased against Clinton to begin with, as you obviously are.
*Oh great, great slumbering nation
Awake! Set yourself free
Oh! Smell the comforting bacon, taste the bromide tea
And give a little chirrup as I ladle on the syrup
Promises are cheap
Let me bear your crosses, make me boss of bosses
Then you go back to sleep (Ha ha ha)
No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in*