Feedback isn’t necessary and would be a hijack. The mere fact that she has these well-developed policies is better than Trump’s inanity of the nanosecond.
Thank you for at least sort of responding to what I said. If you’d like to actually have a discussion, let me know and I’d be happy to talk further. I just don’t want to waste effort if you’re mostly going to reply with cryptic non-responses.
So the 91% marginal income tax rate for the top bracket in 1955 wasn’t a factor at all then?
It’s pretty amazing that despite all of Trump’s antics, craziness, ass-hattery, etc. Hillary might still lose to him. What does that say about her as a candidate? Say’s she wouldn’t be electable against any normal politician on the right.
#nevertrump #neverhillary
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, it says that the liars on the right gained a lot of traction peddling their lies to passionate Sanders supporters who want to believe Hillary is terrible because it made Sanders seem better in comparison.
Also, Trump beat 16 members of the GOP. He was the strongest candidate they have.
This is the year of the least qualified candidates in our history.
Trump may have won the nomination, but he is hardly the strongest candidate from the right. It’s part of what is wrong with our party system, on both sides.
If we agree that Trump is an idiot, how is it that Hillary is barely winning?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A frightening large number of voters and “leaders” of the party will vote for a madman as long as he pretends to be a Republican. I don’t think it matters much if he’s running against Mrs. Clinton, Obama, JFK or FDR. Those voters simply don’t care.
That’s ignorant. You may not like Hillary, but if you think she’s among the least qualified in our history, I think you need to do some fundamental information gathering.
Trump won. The Right in America has a core of ignorant and angry people. That core is attracted to Trump. Trump is certainly not qualified, but he’s the *strongest *candidate, given that he got the nom even with the GOP trying to kick him off the hill.
Our system will only have two parties until we change the fundamental make up of our voting process. There can only be two stable parties. The makeup and ideology may shift, but there aren’t going to be more than that.
America is 30%+ ignorant, angry, misinformed people. Since the rise of the RW media, there has been a generation brought up with a parallel and not accurate source of information and news.
So, a question: This has been an establishment vs. maverick/challenger election (Hillary vs. Bernie, Hillary vs, Trump.) What *meaningful *change in the status quo will Hillary deliver?
What’s the biggest, best change we can expect from a Hillary presidency, or can we not expect anything to change?
I expect Clinton to maintain the status quo.
Which is reason enough to vote for her instead of Trump.
I could foresee some improvement in the status quo–if we don’t have a Senate & House full of obstructionist Republicans.
Yes, I’d like more change. Positive change can appear incrementally–with new, young candidates working for the future. If the Supreme Court doesn’t get filled with Rightist fossils.
I’ve always wanted to live in The Future. 
Incremental change comes from compromise. For the past eight years, we’ve seen that reasonable Republicans have become all but extinct, and the Tea-Party-led newcomers will not accept less than (and in one case, more than) they are asking for.
From my UK POV the Republicans are the opposition to Obama and the Democrats, so it’s their duty to oppose him.
And that’s a good reason for many to vote against her. She is the epitome of the system that has failed them - so they think.
What do you think?
What a fascinating question. So insightful. What made you think of it?
Probably the OP’s oh-so-carefully (if ineffectively) cultivated posture of disinterested neutrality.
From a fellow Brit; bollocks it is. Not so carte blanche. It is the duty of an opposition to provide capable, intelligent, reasoned opposition where there are sensible disagreements, and to agree when there is no such opposing viewpoints. It is not their “duty to oppose”, in the same way that it is not a ruling party’s duty simply to “govern”.
I tend to think that a good opposition is extremely important for basically everyone concerned. But emphasis on “good”. In the hypothetical situation of bad opposition, that causes problems for, again, basically all concerned. Your blanket statement ignores an important point.
Pretty much, yeah.
My 2 cents: I think that Hillary can be fierce and hard-edged. I can’t put my finger on exactly what Obama has that Hillary doesn’t, but whatever it is, I think Hillary will be a less demure and passive-seeming president than him (focusing on the optics too much is unfair to Obama though, I think he does a good job without needing a lot of attention). We’ve had 8 years of this obstructionist bullshit, Hillary has been at a high level in politics that whole time, but with real presidential power, I don’t know, I just think she will approach America’s problems with force. I really do.
I think she will at least appear more pointed in confronting obstructionism. She won’t just have her own abilities, she’ll have Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and inherit an incumbent’s administration. I think she will be a tough, powerful president. She doesn’t just have the knowledge and experience of power to wield it effectively, she has the math and science on her side, and the weight of precedent. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work- common sense could have told us that before we tried it, but we did, and it doesn’t. Of course climate change isn’t a hoax- if you can follow the argument you can see that. Government can create jobs without becoming the USSR because, look! We’ve been doing it the whole time! She’ll pursue the right policies with focus and vigor, and the trogs can just gnash their teeth, too bad.
It is true that my view boils down partly to a perception or a feeling. But I think Hillary would be formidable as president, somebody people might hesitate to fuck with, somebody that will get things done.
If the “status quo” includes all the things Obama accomplished, that is a valid and worthy expectation. God knows it wasn’t easy. Present it as “conserving” the status quo!