It's quite sad to see that Hillary's many many faults are being glossed over because of the overarching insanity that is Trump. He may or may not have suggested that some groups may kill her. She suggested the same, in a slightly less direct but more coherent fashion, with Obama in 2008. Both statements can have two interpretations.
What has seemingly swung the election is Trump being unable to control both his mouth and his bigotry one more time, and for once it's backfired. It's meant that terrible people (but not openly racist) have declared their support for Hillary. 50 GOP security guys have endorsed Hillary. The next president has the backing of the top strategist in the bloodiest part of the Vietnam War and almost the entire cabinet that pushed the Iraq war. And when you look at her foreign policy record, of aggressive muscular short-sighted disaster, it makes sense. She was for Iraq which created the instability ISIS thrives in. She was for LiIbya which gave them another safe haven, which her successor is now bombing. She was for toppling Assad, and now she is for killing his enemy. That's without the shadier side of things in Honduras and Haiti. Does nothing give her pause or doubt?
But does this record scare no one? When the overlap between her and Bush becomes so blatantly obvious, when the convention screams USA as a speaker talks about killing them all and anti-war slogans are drowned out, when mainstream liberals are welcoming Paul Wolfowitz, is there not a danger of the party itself becoming the mirror image of its (soon-to-be) leader?
The policies she supported and her husband implemented in the 90s helped lay the ground for the recession (and increased painful it would be) in 2008. The foreign policy she supported as senator and secretary of state has created a vacuum filled by a terrifying death cult. Those are the 2 most toxic Bush legacies.
Finally I'm assuming "my last 6 posts" probably refers to my reply to fishy and not my posts about Rubio's cuntishnes or the relative harmlessness of free trade. I really disagree with the idea that there is some centre ground, and if politicians compromised and found it the country would improve. That's especially true when one half of the compromise is going to be from the party of Ayn Rand worshippers. Even with relatively moderate parties, compromise isn't good enough for the biggest challenge: global warming. Finally, compromise usually means tinkering around the edges and letting systemic issues linger, since both sides will have the opposite way of dealing with a big problem (Unemployment: cut top tax rates so that job creators stimulate the economy, or, increase top tax rates and increase government expenditure through investment or job training). There is no compromise between those positions (actually there is, the compromise is to do nothing).
