She is willing to stand up to countries like Russia and China. I hope (but am not fully convinced) that she will aid the ASEAN countries against China in the South China Sea disputes, that she will firmly support NATO and the US-Japan treaty, that she will enact more sales of defensive weaponry to US allies (with the exception of Saudi Arabia) and that programs such as the F-35, B-21, Virginia-class, etc., won’t see disruption under her administration.
Nonsense. The abject stupidity of the GOP field makes her policy seem like it has descended from on high.
Indeed, it would be stupid, if that is what she was doing. But she isn’t.
She’s also not advocating that.
Nonsense. She’s savvy enough to have the correct policy positions on net-neutrality for instance.
No, they’re not.
Higher taxes incentivise companies to re-invest the money (to get into a lower bracket), rather than send the money into the offshore accounts of a few investors.
As opposed to Trump supporters? :dubious:
Yes they are. Off shoring and illegal immigration with under the table pay doesn’t occur for no reason. Those are direct consequences of counterproductive policy. The rust belt is called that for a reason.
And this isn’t about Trump’s supporters. There are 20 or so threads making fun of them already.
Exactly. Which is why we need a more progressive system; to counter the disastrous policies that we’ve been living with since Reagan.
And yet it’s OK for you to say that liberals are ‘too stupid to know better’? :dubious:
I keep hearing this and I don’t buy it. 8 years total as an elected official + 4 years as Sec of State. And that’s it for political experience.
This isn’t it (or at least isn’t all of it) – liberals favor amnesty because we think most undocumented immigrants are great and hard-working people who would be wonderful American citizens, and it would be cruel (and foolish for the country) to send such decent people away.
She wasn’t the most qualified ever back then – she hadn’t been SoS yet. And the “young senator” she lost to was a once-in-a-generation political talent comparable to Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan (in terms of skill at winning political campaigns).
IMO, she would have been competitive against any of the Republican candidates. In this polarized era of politics, virtually every politician in office with a national profile will have poor favorability and approval ratings. Only immense talents like Obama will occasionally be able to drift over 50% approval nationwide while still in office.
Impossible to prove, of course.
Yes. Let’s provide more incentives to off shore. Let’s provide more incentives for a cash based service economy.
They are. Not all of them. But a critical mass of needed voters are pretty damn stupid. That’s why counterproductive economic policy can get passed. The electorate is dumb. Just because they instinctively vote (D) doesn’t automatically give them +40 IQ points.
Look at the two candidates and try telling me in all honesty that the American electorate is bright.
Then point me at the previous thread. Remember we’re excluding Trump here.
She has the Clinton Foundation (started by Bill, of course), but has she ever named an airline after herself? A cycling race? Property? Golf courses? Casinos? No? Until she has, she has accomplished nothing! Do you hear? Nothing!
You don’t need the previous threads, you’ve already been told the answer to your questions here.
Obama had less experience.
I think Reagan and Bush Jr. had less experience. In fact, perhaps the only contemporary president to rival Hillary in qualifications and experience would be George H.W. Bush.
No, raise the taxes, and apply them to offshore accounts, and disallow fake foreign statuses for corporations, so as to provide more incentive for companies to re-invest their profits and invigorating the economy. Since conservatives seem to want to return to the '50s, why not return to the '50s tax structure?
In any case, I don’t have the time, and this is the wrong forum to get into a pissing contest.
They are here illegally. What’s the point of borders and the concept of nation-states if the nature of the nation is not protected. And what’s the idea of saying “undocumented immigrants?” Newspeak is sad.
Now I am for a liberal (not in a political sense) quota for legal immigration. I think the nation does benefit from siphoning the brightest and most ambitious from other nations. That said it does seem a bit unfair to other nations to attract their most talented. But that’s not really our problem is it?
I’ll give you that. But she’s still not the most qualified ever. More qualified than Trump, granted. But that’s not a high hurdle.
I agree. She’d have been competitive. But the fact that Trump is competitive with her is very strong evidence that tribal loyalty is very strong. This election has got me aggravated. 
And it’s not even this election as much as what this election proves about the electorate. 4 or 8 or 12 years from now a much more sophisticated Trump could take advantage of the same reptile instincts. The left has been using class envy for a long time to claw at power so appeals to reptilian nature aren’t new. But simple minded nationalistic populism that leads to nutty ideas like cancelling free trade and not honoring financial obligations shouldn’t have found a home on the Republican side.
Donald tells us she’s been fighting ISIS her entire adult life. That’s an achievement.
He also tells us that she has 30 years experience governing. That’s right from her opponent’s mouth.
Sounds easy enough. I’m surprised nations don’t do just that. And in the 50s we didn’t have real foreign competition because the rest of the world was recovering from WWII or had NEVER had the industry the USA had during the 40s. There was no alternative.
I would say having a close relationship with a long term governor, and long term president, founding Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, an appointment by president Carter to the Legal Services Corporation, being appointed to the chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee in Arkansas, being named chair of the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, starting the Arkansas’s Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, working as the chair of the New World Foundation, the first chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, serving on the boards of Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services and Children’s Defense Fund, various corporate boards, counts as some political experience.
Here is the wiki page I copied all these names from if you want to learn more: Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia
Not to mention never having run a beauty contest. As we have seen, that right there is a freakin’ minefield.
Well, there is the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas. It’s a good thing she has had Bill to grease the way for her.
What’s the idea of saying “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants”? Oldspeak is sad. 
Just preferences, obviously.
As for borders, I think most liberals want controlled borders with reasonable quotas – but then what about all the people already here? This liberal thinks that trying to get rid of them is unrealistic and would be cruel and inhumane, and since they’re mostly great people who want to be Americans, we should make them Americans.
Fair enough – maybe it’s hyperbole. I think she’s plenty qualified enough.
I think a “more sophisticated Trump” would have failed – only a birther nut could have roused those birther nut voters. The other issues might have gotten some traction, but it was the extreme anti-Obama stuff, the extreme anti-immigrant stuff, and (yes) the racist rhetoric that pushed Trump to the top of the Republican heap, in my opinion.