General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm sorry but I have to say this [View all]semanticwikiian
(69 posts)For many, there are certain litmus tests that reveal the 'value' of the candidate.
Things like
1. Do you support the corporate state agenda, e.g., the TPP? (HRC would likely say yes)
2. Do you support the national security state and its violence as a foreign policy? (yes)
3. Do you support policies & programs needed to truly combat climate change? (no)
4. Do you support breaking up the mega-banks and a securities transaction tax? (no!)
5. Do you support increasing Social Security payments, decreasing SS taxes to 1980 levels? (uhh)
6. Do you support having a prison population that is now over 1 million people? (yes)
7. etc
Can we truly afford another 8 years of stalling? Of run-around?
Bill Clinton perfected the run-around, and it was called "small-ball" remember?
Why should we think we'll get *anything* that is different from Bill's "small-ball"?
Here's the core argument.
Noone is saying that HRC is a change-agent --- she's *all about* continuity.
However we desperately NEED a change-agent now, right now, to play "big-ball".
She's wrong for the times, is all.