I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions.
Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.
It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen.
As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large.
> "It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen."
So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking? Do you see that as a pragmatic choice? How about Wall Street regulation, where she's basically admitted she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself, do you see that as pragmatic? How about her support for TPP, which will end up encouraging more jobs to be taken outside the US, do you see that as pragmatic?
> "As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large."
Other countries manage to have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded higher education systems, and still pay less overall than the current systems in the US. Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it. If some American people ignored the offer and the details, that's their fault, not Bernie's.
>So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking?
Yes, actually. Fracking is a reasonable part of a platform for fighting climate change. It absolutely is the pragmatic choice as it allows local production of natural gas with a lesser environmental impact than the coal or oil it replaces.
>she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself
She didn't say that. If you're referring to her speeches, she said that Wall street should be a part of developing regulation since they know the business the best. That's a straight-up no brainer.
>How about her support for TPP
Anti-free trade is the left's climate change denial. There are things to dislike about the TPP, most of which has nothing to do with trade itself, and for these reasons she's come out against it.
>Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it.
And his plans were widely panned as requiring completely impossible GDP growth and otherwise severely lacking in details.
>tax-funded higher education systems
Yes, but they're not proposing to simply put the government on the hook for already outrageously overpriced institutions like ours. Also, other countries can do public funding because the available spots are restricted. Such restrictions on who are allowed a college education are a non-starter in the U.S.
Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.