True, but both agree that America was definitely not so great before Trump was elected.
I thought the election of Obama was an event of cosmic proportions. Does the apparent agreement that America was not great under Obama mean that “our lord and savior” President Obama (to use Jamia Foxx’s words) took office for nothing?
What happened to the thrill running up Chris Matthew’s leg at Obama’s inauguration?
I hope Cuomo sticks with this. The MAGA message doesn’t sqaure well with the conservative outrage at his comments. I really want to see Coumo and Trump get face to face, where they can’t run away from each other and debate this.
Looks like he’s too spineless to be president. At some point, some politician has got to realize that if half the population is below average intelligence, then there’s a half that’s smart enough to digest something bigger than a soundbyte.
Disappointing that Cuomo can’t take a little bit of heat and press his opponents on the contradiction. What a chump.
If you believe Cuomo’s first statement, then America was never great even when it elected President Obama.
If you believe Cuomo’s second statement that “America has always been great”, then logically that means that America was also great during the days of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow supported by the Democratic Party.
I believe his first statement. There’s plenty to improve on next time around. Hopefully we can get a clean start with no recession and maybe only one war at a time in 2020.
To be honest. With a few major exceptions, I don’t think Obama was that bad or did that much bad. I wouldn’t consider America “un-great” under him.
Most of that I credit to the Republicans not giving him what he wanted. And even though I despise Trumps personal life. I fully support what he wants to do policy wise.
DACA and Obamacare need removed, and immigration fixed. Other than that Obama really didn’t do a whole lot.
I honestly think the best government is a divided government. Give me a Republican President, an Democrat senate, and close to 50/50 in the house and I think it would be about perfect. The R president countered by D senate will keep the Supreme Court constitutional but fairly middle of the road, while a divided house will keep all but the most supported legislation in check.