>
FWIW, both my kids are looking for ways to contribute their time to the Clinton campaign. They both consider Trump a threat to democracy.>
>You have been a good influence on them ;)
I certainly hope so. I can say that I've very proud of the men they've become. They care about others in a deep way, and it's not just the others in their lives, but others in the world.
>
>
Yes, the recovery has been slow. It would have been faster if the Republican-majority Congress had been willing to do the things governments normally do to get out of a recession, but instead they decided to cut government workers.>
>There are entirely too many government workers. There are many departments that do very little except to spend our tax dollars and they should be closed. You seem to think that big government can solve all of our problems. I think that big government is part of the problem. That is the one of the differences between progressives and libertarians.
>
I think that Ronald Reagan and his "government is the problem" nonsense was a major step on the way to the joke that the GOP has become. WE are the government. We form societies and governments to make our lives better.
>
I see a more diverse federal bench.>
>ROFL and LOL!!! If Hillary is allowed to nominate supreme court justices, the bench will be less diverse - it will be filled with left wingers.
>
Once again, you deflect a serious point with a political one. We all get more justice when the bench reflects the diversity of the public. Obama has made major strides in that direction:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/judicial-nominationsIn this regard, I like the story about the SCOTUS case regarding a 13-year-old girl who was strip-searched by her school:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690.html'The court's virtual unanimity was in contrast to the intense oral argument that seemed to exasperate the court's only female member, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She later said her male colleagues seemed not to appreciate the trauma such a search would have on a developing adolescent.
"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA Today when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."'
Had SCOTUS been all-male, I think there's a good chance this case would have gone the other way.
>
And yeah, it could better if Congress hadn't obstructed fixing the initial flaws in the program.>
>I don't believe that it can ever be made better. It was a catastrophe from the start.
>
I know that's what you think. Talk to some folks who have insurance now who haven't had it ever or in a long time.
Frankly, I don't think this is the best plan we could have had, but in an (ultimately failed) attempt to get the GOP on board, better options were omitted.
>
And fwiw, your view that things are worse seems to be a minority position. This came out yesterday: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-gallup-president-obama-20160831-story.html>
>We have already been through this. If I had the time right now, I could GOOGLE and find 20 articles that support my position. IMHO, the Chicago Tribune is not exactly
>objective.
You obviously didn't look at the article. It was simply the first hit I found about a Gallup poll that came out yesterday.
Tamar
