| | | And who is more likely to accomplish a given task?
Do you agree with her views of equity vs. equality? (Arguably, the most important argument in the election).
Why do you consider it so?
Equity is not feasible. Even with all three branches of government, a most unlikely event, it's just not popular enough. Worst case is that there is a lot of sturm und drang for four or eight years producing perhaps a smallish benefit program for some cohort or a more progressive income tax. She would not have the wherewithal to accomplish that even if she still favors it, which is unlikely given that her role has changed from an advocate for the hot progressive cause du jour rather than having a broader constituency as President. President is a very different hat from Senator or from VP.
I have never been affiliated with either party. I don't much like either of them, never have, even when the Republicans were sane. So each election I would have to assess the feasibility of each party gathering the means to do what most concerned me. For example, it would have been possible for me to vote for a Republican until quite recently because the anti-abortion forces weren't yet strong enough to do damage. No point fearing something that can't happen. I think it's absurd to rail against the equity thing. We may have to deal with that eventually but not for a long time. It just doesn't have the heft. Listen to the Republicans who are supporting her. They are dismissing that risk out of hand and disabusing potential Republican backers quietly but clearly of concerns they might have.
Has she shown you that she would be capable of bringing peace to nations at war, to prevent the world breaking out in wider wars?
Her head's in the right place. That's one of the things I most like about her. She buys into liberal democracy and partnering with fellow liberal democracies for our mutual betterment. I have seen no sign of the nation building or meddling in things not our business or just general warmongering that we experienced from the hawks and the neocons.
Has she shown you, in spite of her claimed education in economics, that she understands one iota of the variables and connections among them in a functioning economy?
I haven't had much opportunity to evaluate that other than that she knows what a tariff is, unlike Trump. She seems like someone who would gather the best input and would be conservative in her approach.
Has she shown you, in spite of her claimed education in economics, that she understands one iota of the variables and connections among them in a functioning economy?
Absolutely. She understands the dynamics of Central America and the drug business, the constraints under which we operate, and she wants to get comprehensive immigration reform from Congress.
Has she convinced you can negotiate in a league with people like Putin and Xi and Netanyahu?
We have no experience to guide an answer to that question. There is no pilot simulator. I have not seen any indication that she can't.
Has she shown any evidence of knowledge of taxation?
I have not paid much attention to that. The only taxation with which I have been concerned is tariffs. See above. I doubt taxing unrealized gains is workable, at least not on any scale, or is right.
I cannot find ONE SINGLE ISSUE that is both important and understood by her.
OF COURSE NOT.
You managed to pick mostly matters with which either I have no serious issue or are unlikely to happen so who cares. Perhaps you could find some more concerning matters.
|
|
