as in, I want to fundamentally change the trade policies corrupt politicians like Clinton supports because of the actual impact those policies have had on working people and the poor. I want to radically change the economy, because if we don't, we will see worldwide ecological collapse, and soon (which is the case). I want to fundamentally change our health care system because universal systems elsewhere are more human, efficient and equitable, and ours (even with the ACA), is still too efficient, costly and immoral. "Purity" is looking at the fact that Clinton's generation inherited an infrastructure in much better shape than the one they're handing over (they decided to not pay taxes to fund the proper upkeep), and as a result those selfish people are now passing off trillions onto their kids and grandchildren (the infrastructure gap). "Purity" dictates that politicians do something about the fact that real wages haven't grown for most in decades (thanks in large part to the very policies the Clintons have supported), inequality has exploded, de-industrialization has spread, infrastructure is crumbling from neglect, etc. You'll notice too that the "compromises" (in actuality, there is a huge gap between popular opinion on the issues and government policy) of the last few decades benefited the rich and corporations, while those during the New Deal and Great Society eras far more benefited the poor and working people. Are we to assume there are no differences, are we to ignore that obvious reality?
You're just justifying not fundamentally changing a corrupt and inequitable system that is leading us to ecological collapse. Basically, your corrupt candidate starts from an already compromised position (which is to the right of most in her party and the general public). You call that "centrist" but never explain what it's in the center of exactly. Any rate, she as a "centrist" negotiates with the far right Republicans, and we all know that a compromise results in a middle position between the two. So, if that's the case, where will that position be? Well to the right of this party and the general public, it will result in nothing more than the continuation of this horrible system. I fail to see, given how much of a disaster the establishments' policies have been, how that is pragmatic.
= new reply since forum marked as read
. I'll have no trouble voting for Hillary in the general. But that doesn't make me think she's anything other than the least objectionable choice. And it certainly doesn't lead me to expect that she won't be lying to me again soon.
