On a purely scientific level, US is about to run an experiment where they're handing power completely over to one side of the aisle for at least 2 full years after having a split government for the last 6. You're likely to get sufficient data during this period to make your determination whether your (IMHO ill-informed) opinion is indeed true.

I'm keeping an open mind, if it ends up as more of the same again I hope you will as well.

I think the transition Cabinet already shows that there is some difference. Clinton would not have dreamed of trying to abolish Social Security.

Currently I'm mostly keeping an open mouth watching the events that are unfolding in this timeline.

The place to change that is the primaries.

This thread could rapidly veer out of control, so rather than add my counterargument here, can I (as an ordinary user not affiliated with HN) suggest that we stop here, or at least hold ourselves to a minimum length and point/counterpoint format?

Particularly for local and state elections (where all of those issues besides war and torture will primarily be decided).

Only those holding an insufficient amount of nuance on these issues can honestly believe that.

Not true. Both final candidates supported and benefited from the causes of most of that list. They also mocked various Constitutional amendments. Tyrants that are just the same for that list and what supposedly empowers them.