I am surprised at the responses in this thread. You have described your own feelings and been very careful about not making your claims universal.
Your reasons for being skeptical or cynical about this election resonate with a good number of posters on this site and in the world who I talk to. Not everyone but a lot.
You pretty much hit everyone of my reasons for being unenthusiastic and thinking that in some ways we are choosing between scylla and charbodis on the economic issues.
I think you are right we will continue to make progress on social issues as we sink deeper into income inequality. We will have a perfect world where all races, genders and sexual preferences will have the purely equal opportunity to seek a job in a shrinking job pool which does not provide any kind of a good life. I suspect that this social equality in principle might even give everyone of all races genders racial preferences an equal opportunity to be one of the 40 people who own 90 Percent of everything in the world.
Further, your mention of "revolving family dynasties" as a significant issue is not discussed enough. One of my questions about Hillary's judgement (nothing about policy) is that this concept alone did not cause her to not run. Even is she had exactly the policies that I liked and was the smartest person on the planet I think that reinforcing this concept alone should have made her make an internal decision not to run. Even Barbara Bush in a coherent moment knew this (although probably has backed off this). It is bad for democracy regardless of the candidate's qualifications or abilities.
Again mostly because your post had many critical responses, I wanted to give you a strong response on how good your post read to me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
