Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
11. I have to agree with this:
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 11:36 AM
Apr 2015

"If rich people are not worried about today's levels of income inequality, then they are stupid,"

That is pretty much why I do think they are stupid. Smart elites govern well. Things work. Change happens smoothly and sensibly. Progress is not measured by profit alone. Everything is not politicized and treated as a source of patronage. Ours do not. And our government seems to be too disfunctional to do anything about it, hamstrung by the national obscurity state and transformed by the corruption of elections into a disunited oligarchy, all fending for themselves. It is not a pretty picture.

But I get your point, Clinton is most unlikely to lead the revolution, and that is why those rich people who are not stupid are comfortable with her.

I am curious to see what she will do, how this plays out, and having sat through Nixon, Raygun, and Bush the Elder and Bush the Lesser, Clinton will do if she must.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton surprises...»Reply #11