Hillary Clinton muses about 2020 'rematch' against Trump: 'I can beat him again'

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

 

psss.. Uh Hillary if you had beat him the 1st time you would be President now... That woman is sniffing glue 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-2020-trump-rematch

[Dashinka 23,234]

Smartest woman in America?   Puhleaseeeeee!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

She beat him.  She's more popular.  Just ask the libs, they'll tell you!  (They'll also tell you the electoral college is on it's way out)

[theresaL 408]

If the Dems have total control after the 2020 election, then yes, I believe the Electoral College is on it's way out. They don't have full control now and look what they're doing to the rule of law. Think the Constitution stands any chance of surviving unscathed??

[Crazy Cat 39,206]

9 minutes ago, theresaL said:

If the Dems have total control after the 2020 election, then yes, I believe the Electoral College is on it's way out. They don't have full control now and look what they're doing to the rule of law. Think the Constitution stands any chance of surviving unscathed??

It would not be easy.  It will not happen in the foreseeable future.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/705627996/abolishing-the-electoral-college-would-be-more-complicated-than-it-may-seem

 

"Fully overhauling the way the president is selected would take a Constitutional amendment, which would require the votes of two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states."

[theresaL 408]

I'm not so sure. I never thought we would see the current state of affairs either and yet . . . we have it.

[Dashinka 23,234]

27 minutes ago, theresaL said:

If the Dems have total control after the 2020 election, then yes, I believe the Electoral College is on it's way out. They don't have full control now and look what they're doing to the rule of law. Think the Constitution stands any chance of surviving unscathed??

Luckily, our founding fathers made changing the Constitution difficult as @missilemanpointed out.  If any party actually got that powerful, it could end up in a gigantic mess.  If it was the Dems, I could see them doing away with the 1st through the 7th right off the bat as well as the 22nd of course.

[Neonred 3,446]

Hillary Clinton could beat President Trump "again" if she decides to run for president in 2020, the former secretary of state said Tuesday in an interview.

 

 

Is this an indication of another crazy event to come in this election?

[theresaL 408]

@missilemanand @Bill & Katya I don't disagree with you about it being difficult, but the founding fathers also made the impeachment process difficult too, if the law is followed that is, and yet the Dems have still made 3-ring circus out of it. I hope for our Republic's sake that you are correct and I'm just being overly pessimistic.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

51 minutes ago, theresaL said:

I'm not so sure. I never thought we would see the current state of affairs either and yet . . . we have it.

You just said a mouthful right there.  I have had to shake my head in disbelief more in the past three years than in the previous thirty.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[luckytxn 2,263]

8 hours ago, theresaL said:

@missilemanand @Bill & Katya I don't disagree with you about it being difficult, but the founding fathers also made the impeachment process difficult too, if the law is followed that is, and yet the Dems have still made 3-ring circus out of it. I hope for our Republic's sake that you are correct and I'm just being overly pessimistic.

Impeachment is not that difficult it is the removing a POTUS by the senate that is hard. Clinton was impeached.

[luckytxn 2,263]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Luckily, our founding fathers made changing the Constitution difficult as @missilemanpointed out.  If any party actually got that powerful, it could end up in a gigantic mess.  If it was the Dems, I could see them doing away with the 1st through the 7th right off the bat as well as the 22nd of course.

You are not going to get the states to agree to give up their power they have from the electoral college. Get rid of that and only the most populous states willbe electing the POTUS. Every candidate can ignore Iowa finally along with many smaller states. The midwest can be ignored. I doubt all them states would allow that.

[Dashinka 23,234]

5 hours ago, luckytxn said:

You are not going to get the states to agree to give up their power they have from the electoral college. Get rid of that and only the most populous states willbe electing the POTUS. Every candidate can ignore Iowa finally along with many smaller states. The midwest can be ignored. I doubt all them states would allow that.

I agree.  The same logic could be used by the Left and in fact has regarding the Senate, why should every state get two.  It really shows the mob mentality of the Left where they want to the majority to rule.  I think back before the civil rights, the South had a somewhat mob/majority rule mentality as well.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree.  The same logic could be used by the Left and in fact has regarding the Senate, why should every state get two.  It really shows the mob mentality of the Left where they want to the majority to rule.  I think back before the civil rights, the South had a somewhat mob/majority rule mentality as well.

Well, look who was trying to be in charge back then.  And who was primarily behind the KKK and slavery support.  They have changed their stance since then, but it's still about control and keeping certain groups under control.