So it's not really cherry picking you care about then.
Come on, dude, I never even called Clinton a Republican. Why am I being pounced on for this? I even said that I would like to identify as a republican once they stop giving voice to neonazis and bible-thumping fascists, so if I did call her a republican, that can only be a
good thing (to me) I truly believe the republican party is our generation's 'red scare,' and that's only going to be worse after Trump, win or lose - I remember vividly in the Bush years acting like anyone who was republican was some cartoon villain who cared about nothing but themselves, and that's patent nonsense, especially on a local level where you can actually go and talk to them and make your point heard over party lines.
No, cherry picking is not the issue, people can and should find central issues they agree with on for a president, because there's lots of other value judgements you can't foresee that the smallest thing affects. On that level, Clinton fails for me big time, but I understand completely if for other people she doesn't. My problem is that we're using scales like these to make overly broad purity tests for party talking points most of us non-existent independents think are false-dichotomies. Who honestly wants a bigger government?
Other people are calling her republican, and that's interesting to me, because in some ways (
some ways) she's what I wish the republican party would be - fairly strong 'left' on social issues (though I wish she were closer to social-libertarian like Sanders), with a dash of economic sanity when it's needed, and metered investment in infrastructure and systemic issues when we're stable enough to support the chaos change causes.
For instance one of Clinton's talking points is putting major support behind Alzheimers research (2 billion/yr). That's 'non-partisan' (code for "good idea") so it's not talked about a lot, but it's actually a budgetary issue that very few people outside of politics (or within - no one wants to think about gradually losing their mind) are talking about. 1/3 of baby boomers are going to develop dementia. How we'll deal with such a massive spike is a very big problem that reaches past economics into widespread changes in the time we'll have to devote to our elders simply to avoid neglect. Truly one of the silver linings of yet another president who supported the annulment of our fourth amendment because terrorism.
You also seem to like to mix 'republican' with 'conservative.' Republicans by my standard are not very conservative at all in terms of their willingness to make sweeping thoughtless adjustments to the federal government to suit their state's voters. Any change causes problems, and both parties are being recklessly liberal with the policy they want to ram through to "fix" everything. Rather than let the economy recover, everyone wants to tinker because it's flashy and wins them votes for reelection. That kind of constant long-term instability can ruin people's lives worse than just doing nothing.
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1581468 times)