(02-10-2016 09:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote: Clinton is the establishment candidate. That isn't a bad thing. The country runs on the establishment. Rapid / radical change will ruin the country, whether it is in the form of Bernie's socialism or Cruz' Tea Party. Barring a sudden resurrection of Bush or the GOP unifying around a dark horse Kaisich (spell) there isn't a establishment candidate coming out of the Republican primary. Clinton wins and as much as those on the right ***** and complain the country runs relatively smoothly. If the GOP puts forth one of the establishment candidates they probably beat Clinton and those on the left ***** and complain and the country runs relatively smoothly.
You make some valid points, particularly with regard to the short term. The concern that I have is that we have a number of adverse long term trends that are not getting addressed by sticking with the establishment:
- The debt and budget deficits (and note that Obama's proposed budget starts growing the deficit again, even more in the out years)
- The even bigger fiscal threat of unfunded off-budget liabilities, like the future of social security and entitlement programs
- The threat of terrorism
- Decline/loss of American prestige in world affairs, as we expend resources hopelessly in no-win limited wars
- The resurgence of Russia and the growing threat of China
- Our balance of trade deficit
- Our transition to a retail/service economy, with more manufacturing outsourced, inevitably increasing income and wealth dispersion
- Global warming/climate change (however real it is, it needs to be included and addressed)
- The increasingly intrusive nature of government interference in basic human and economic rights
Rocking along fat, dumb, and happy is not addressing any of these. And I haven't heard much from any candidate--mainstream or not--about how to address any of those.
