The fact we have ended up with this choice in the first place is indicative of the state of the electorate in this country.

Are you trying to say that Clinton is a dove?

I wasn't saying Clinton was anything, merely that there is a third logical option to what is going on in addition to the two you suggested.

No way, you'd win....

If progressives aren't smart enough to figure out that they lack broad support and will need to compromise with others who disagree with them on many issues, then they deserve to get nothing.

Trump surely has to be trying to sabotage his own campaign. He has flat out averred that ISIS was founded and co-founded by Obama and Clinton:

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally - CNNPolitics.com

Wouldn't it make more sense for progressives to concentrate on the House and the Senate anyway, since they will have a lot more of an influence over what a President can and can't 'get done' during a term or two? So vote for progressive senators/congressmen and work from the ground up, rather than trying to spunk it all on the Presidency.

To me, then, it makes more sense to vote for Hillary as she is the one who will be able to work with a progressive House.

It just keeps getting better

Trump just confirmed every Republican's worst fear

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally

Of the 435 members of the House, 68 are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Of the 100 senators, one is a member, and you guess who that is. (His name rhymes with Bernie Sanders.)

That's enough to influence an agenda and get just some of what progressives want.

The reality is that there aren't that many progressives in America. If progressives want to improve their odds, then they need to get more Americans to agree with them. Griping about Hillary is akin to the Tea Party griping about Mitt Romney -- what can they possibly expect when they are greatly outnumbered?

Interesting

My original quote :

That doesn't change the fact that US corporate taxes are higher than many of our competitors, and the regulatory burden is often much higher than other countries- and often regulations that make no sense

I quite agree with you that the effective rate is more important. Since I have specifically been involved in determining structure of overseas operations I have to consider such issues. And lowering the stated or corporate tax rate is quite obvious one of the factors to persuade companies not to move operations overseas.

I agree that each industry has a different regulatory burden implied by my comment above. Medical products, engineering and construction, mining (compared to Latin America), anything involving FNRA or SEC , anything involving the EPA, are a few areas where in the US regulations are quite excessive compared to many countries.

As far as CEO's I find more annoying instead of paying more dividends or investment more in business or worker training the trends in corporations buying back their own stock to keep prices up- CEO's make a bundle through stock options.

Well the smartest and ablest people in the world avoid politics. All we get are second stringers and some of them aint too bright at that

Unbelievable. Clinton should be an easy candidate to beat, yet Trump appears headed to the worst electoral college loss mainly based on his own choice of words.

And don't you dare forget it.