Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The article is a strawman attack and a hit piece rather than an analysis, the latter having only real merit for properly gauging a candidate's strengths and weaknesses.

This isn't to say that I will eventually agree with whatever she puts forth on her platform or that she will get my vote, but every candidate so far that I've examined--like all politicians---have directions they wish to focus the nation and lists of do's and don'ts on their platforms that they feel are best for society, often times representing their bases and seeking converts in the marketplace of ideas.

Reagan was no different contrary to his allegations and, depending on the issue, Hillary would fit that last comment whilst Reagan himself did not. For example, Reagan had many social conservative and government empowerment agendas whilst Hillary has social liberal and libertarian ones. On other issues, Reagan may fit the quote more than her. Depending on the issue and regardless of perceived merits or lack thereof of the positions, one seeks to restrict something whilst another seeks to permit it. Politicians and parties are full of those aspects.

The issue to me turns on whether one likes the platforms of Reagan, Hillary or any other politician. This isn't to knock any of them and I'm glad I have choices. But articles like that seek to remove analysing these things fairly for the best interests of the country.