We can talk about the past, but we can change the future.
Agreed. And in order to change the future, we need to keep the past in mind so we know what works, what doesn't work, and why.
I'm all for changing the future, or preventing it, depending on the version of the future being discussed. I'm much more interested in reasonable, rational discussions than I am with scoring points against people who I disagree with on specific political issues. I even recognize the value of classic conservatism as a check on rampant, disruptive and counterproductive liberalism that attempts to impose utopia, and instead creates divisions and problems. RINO conservatism, if you want to label it that, but there it is. I see the entire history of civilization as being progressive, and I feel that conservatism has a role to make sure we measure two, three or five times before cutting, to use that analogy.
If you want an example of a RINO Republican whose conservatism I find appealing, you can go read goplifer.com. At the top of the page there are "What is "X" " links that explain his positions. RINO, I know, but it used to be mainstream Republican positions before Nixon and friends stole away the southern baptists/bigots from the old Democratic party, infused them with Bircherism, and then sold them on the faith-based notion that if we just give the people who've already gained the most money and power from the US political and economic system (even with the acknowledged "high taxes"(!) ) even more money, then for some reason, the little people would also get more money, because, like, uh...rising tides lift all yachts or something. Especially if the phrase is abstract, makes sense in the abstract, and fits on a bumper sticker.
Perspective is often lost when discussing politics, especially when one or both sides think their view is the absolute truth and only path to what is good. I have a very long term view on politics and where we as a species should get to, and a short term view on how to best get there. Unfortunately, many people on the right think that the snapshot of history of whatever their favorite time period is how politics and economics should remain, forever. Equally unfortunately, many people on the left think that everything needs to be changed last week, otherwise it will never change. I favor something in the middle for the short term, whereas I recognize that eventually, the political and economical structures that exist today will exist solely in history books. Because, you know, things change and stuff.
In the short term, everything seems in constant flux and potentially catastrophic. I get that. But, if you don't have a long term view that acknowledges the reality that certain progressive ideas will no longer even be up for debate, well, then your either a reactionary who wants to impose on everyone some make-believe political climate that never was and never will be, or a firm Snapshotist, who somehow believes that what we're doing today will forever be the best way to do it, because, again, no long term view will do that to your world view. And I feel that isn't realistic.
I don't particularly want HRC in the White House. She doesn't make my top 10 list. That said, I can contrast her with the people who will be her opponents in the general election, and except perhaps Rand Paul, who has effectively dropped out, HRC is a hippy peacenik.
That's the whole relativity/perspective thing. Additionally, perspective about the United States as a real-life Empire, or "Superpower", with its imperial actions, or "US Interests", is often glossed over. I don't think any politician has the ability to pull a lever or hit an "off" switch on Empire. But some politicians, more than others, would like to start easing back on it, which I feel is necessary if we're actually going to retain the Pax Americana thing that has existed since WWII. I don't condone drone terrorism, which is what it is, and I don't condone dropping bombs on whomever we feel like. But I also won't pretend that the US can't do something even worse than that, like invading a country, shocking and aweing it to pieces, while costing a lot of money, world opinion, and most importantly, human lives on both sides of the arbitrarily-drawn borders on an abstract map.
The US is not broke. The US can still improve its infrastructure while improving the quality of life of every American, and no, it doesn't require that the rich people have all of their stuff taken and given to the poors. Sanders isn't advocating for the appropriation of private property or the means of production, nor the income taxation of everyone at 99.9% so that looterers and moocherers can all eat T-Bone steaks while driving around in Cadillacs. That shit is so hilariously a caricature of reality that anyone who repeats it should simply be pointed at, laughed at, and then ignored.
I'm clearly a Sanders supporter, whereas I'll simply pull the lever for HRC if that is my only option in the general. Whether a BernieBot wants to claim that I'm a Shillery supporter, or a reactionary wants to claim that I'm a gun-grabbing socialist who wants to take away all your stuff because I don't have it doesn't matter, because neither of those people care about observable reality, and are instead just repeating what their handlers have trained them to repeat. Useful idiots, in other words.
tl;dr: if you're unable to read all of that, your personal opinion has zero relevancy to the real world. Go find the newest version of talking points your handers have prepared and copy/paste them wherever you'd like.