Bill Clinton would have no chance at nominee in today’s Democratic Party

He would have a chance. Him and Trump are pretty similar.

Moderate liberals deep down, who think women are objects.

 

It would be difficult for a guy with the same sexual morals of Trump to get the Democratic nomination today, but the other stuff is literally shit you could find Joe Biden and Obama saying in speeches too lol. Biden loved to talk about how many cops he was going to hire. No Democrat has given speeches I can remember about increasing Federal employment or the scope of government in my life time. It would be nice if they did. I would like the Democratic party that exists in the minds of Republicans. Would be a lot cooler.

 

So because Biden supported limited loan forgiveness after a huge economic crisis and period of high inflation, this is now dogma, anything other than free college is heretical now. I dont remember Kamala saying that, but ok, sounds great to me, these Democrats sound cool, unlike the real ones. Your thread is as half-baked as your "bar fights make you understand terrorism" position.

 

“But there’s a key difference with what’s happening under Trump: A bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly approved Clinton’s program following months of review.

Congress paved the way for buyouts. In March 1994, Clinton signed H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. The legislation passed by wide, bipartisan margins: 391-17 in the Houseand 99-1 in the Senate.

The legislation authorized buyouts of up to $25,000 for selected groups of employees in the executive and judicial branches except employees of the Defense Department, Central Intelligence Agency or the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office). The law set an April 1, 1995, deadline.”


How US worker buyouts under Clinton differs from Trump

 

Let me guess, you’re claiming that no Democrat today would, for example. call for more police? Is that it?

 

Off topic but Reagan would have no chance in today's GOP either.

 

The federal workforce then was basically double what it is now. There's really no argument that both parties have not been doing the "death by a thousand cuts" to the government all my life. Not intent with Democratic buy-in on killing the federal government slowly and legally, the Republicans seem to want sole ownership of taking a hatchet and chopping whole limbs off lawlessly now.

 

There can only be one celebrity with dementia at the top at a time

 

Bureaucracies by design can only grow. They don't get smaller.

 

Well in terms of federal employment that isnt true. The 'scope' of government and US law may be greater, but more of its functions have been privatized and outsourced. I dont think many people consider a Raytheon employee or private prison guard as a government bureaucrat, and I doubt those employees do either.

 

Their personal treatment of women is the only thing they have in common.

 

On this issue alone Reagan would a pariah in today's Republican Party.

Or on this issue.
Remarks on Signing the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
"This Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 signals to the world that America does not fear free trade because the American people can produce and compete on a par with anybody in the world. The big winners today are dynamic new American industries, like telecommunications and high technology, American importers and manufacturers, and the American people themselves. Each of you has my heartfelt thanks and, more important, the gratitude of the Nation."
Or this issue, too (NATO and the role of the US as leader of the Free World)
Address to the Citizens of Western Europe
"The Atlantic alliance is the core of America's foreign policy and of America's own security. Preservation of a peaceful, free, and democratic Europe is essential to the preservation of a peaceful, free, and democratic United States. If our fellow democracies are not secure, we cannot be secure. If you are threatened, we're threatened. If you're not at peace, we cannot be at peace. An attack on you is an attack on us. This is not simply a matter of treaty language, important as treaty language is. It is an enduring reality -- as enduring as the reality that a threat to the security of the State of Maine or New York or California is a threat to the security of all 50 American States. Simply put: An attack on Munich is the same as an attack on Chicago."

 

Has the National Park Service shrunk in your lifetime? State DMV? Other than some restructuring or breaking one Government agency into two, they always get bigger. If it's privatized, then it's up to the company to either grow or fail.

 

I would say almost certainly in terms of raw employment. People I know at the VA are doing the work of like 2-3 people right now. Federal hiring is never a demand-driven thing. We probably have more veterans needing care or people driving than ever, but more and more they've either offloaded it to private entities, automated (i.e. outsourced work to the user) or just increase the workload.

 

Although I don't have numbers I'm pretty sure that the Virginia DMV has shrunk. The agency has closed a number of its offices and actively encourages the residents of VA to perform functions such as the renewal of drivers licenses or automobile registration online rather than at DMV offices or even by mail.

 

Neither of us can be wrong since this is a hypothetical and just fodder for the cannon.

I disagree with your assessment. Clinton, if magically transported into today’s political environment, very likely he would have been much more attuned to the needs of the nation and his thirst for power and drive. All politicians go where the votes take them.

 

Reagan's biggest regret was the 1986 Amnesty bill that was very bad news for California.

 

Has our population gone down in your lifetime? Smdh. National Parks are a treasure. Wonder what admission will be to see Musk’s Musk Oxen.