A government that isn't working for its people is dangerous and this President has used whatever intelligence and know-how he has to do just that--manipulate the system for his benefit managing (most of the time) to stay within the law.
Naturally, Obamacare, the legacy fiasco that has been nicknamed by its most ardent salesman, the President, is one of the great impacts of a President manipulating the process. So listening to Hillary Clinton's quote provided to the "Philadelphia Inquirer," about her untrustworthiness specifically regarding her commercial deals with Wall Street which strongly indicate pay to play, you might have thought when asked whether Wall Street was purchasing her influence that Hillary Clinton would have said, "No." But that didn't happen. Instead Hillary Clinton answered, "…there is absolutely no evidence."
So, put yourself in the place of being accused of the same thing or another thing that you didn't do, would you answer, "NO!" or would you answer, "There is absolutely no evidence"?
The new style of trying to prove how cleverly they can outsmart, out-manipulate and out do the ordinary American people is not a sign of leadership or strength, but a sign that our government class is exactly what we suspect, financing their lives of big money and big power off the backs of Americans and IGNORING the very people who pay their salaries.
And, Hillary Clinton is not alone. Almost nightly we're treated to yet another lecture by the failed candidate John Kasich talking about how he can manipulate the system to become President. This week we got the sarcastic putdown of Ted Cruz talking about how going after fraud and abuse in government was a non-starter (in a direct dig at Trump) pretending that we hadn't heard his nonsense about dissolving the IRS in his campaign promises.
Perhaps these individuals are clever political class employees, preserving their survival, salaries and benefits even as they worsen the very lives and very potential to preserve our own lives of the American people, but that should not be considered "clever," it should be considered negligence or worse and voting for candidates who spend more time lecturing us on how they managed to squeeze their particular behavior into some legal loophole---Well we've had that for eight years and we don't need more of it.
