It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Clinton is (probably) the best choice still for a classic liberal

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:10 AM
So, I have been steadily kicking the progressive element and the dullard far leftists for over a year now, and with good reason. I find the progressive social "justice" being pushed to be about as anti-liberal as there ever has been. a cancer and stain on the whole idealism of what liberalism is founded on.

With that said, this is an election season, and we got a couple stinkers to consider for job as chief posterboy for the nation.
Trump and Clinton.
And yep, it is kind of deciding which version of space ebola you want.

So, my view then is simple, stop looking at the people and start looking at the policys.
I found this and it sums up everything quite nicely:

This is about right. Now, with each thing listed here, there needs to be some major controls and oversight. the corruption and inefficiency is near crippling in some areas, but overall I support most of these programs and ideals.

You will note:

No mention of racial or gender issues, no "break down the patriarchy" or "stop toxic whiteness" nonsense here..that is unfortunately what the loud fringe of the left is screaming their tiny little heads off on and have turned off many to even consider what else is going on in the left, but this is the list I would use in order to determine who to vote with.

So..Clinton..ugg...well, unless some 3rd party candidate wants to come along giving this a thumbs up while also not be Clinton (hell, I would vote for Chelsea if we must have a Clinton next..she comes across as pretty smart and well mannered), then it seems for a liberal..even the traditionals like myself, if we are gonna support something...


I suppose it is to safeguard these programs.

(note: I dont think Trump would be eliminating those programs as it states, nor do I think more and more liberal programs need to be added...we just need to streamine and perfect what we have. I do see Trump as not helping there and perhaps trying to defund a few.)

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: SaturnFX

Jill Stein is your candidate, not Hillary who's bought and paid for. Nothing Hillary promises is true unless one of her employers want them to be true. I don't mean we the people either. I mean the special interests that pay her political mercenary fees.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:19 AM
a reply to: SaturnFX

A vote for Hillary is a vote for her financial contributors (NOT America) but have fun with that

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:21 AM

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: SaturnFX

Jill Stein is your candidate, not Hillary who's bought and paid for. Nothing Hillary promises is true unless one of her employers want them to be true. I don't mean we the people either. I mean the special interests that pay her political mercenary fees.

But Hillary (or Trump) are the only two that are realistically up for election here.
Hillary will literally do nothing..which is cool I suppose..hopefully do nothing except keep autopilot on for the programs mentioned here.

pretty low bar, but it is what it is.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: SaturnFX

Hillary can and will dump and/or demolish any one of those things if one of her backers ask her too, and she'll do it without a single moment's hesitation. The likes of Soros or others tell her to jump, she asks: "How high?"

That's why Hillary is so dangerous.
edit on 9/7/2016 by Puppylove because: grammar and spelling

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: SaturnFX

I'll go out on a limb here and point out that Thomas Jefferson was the last Classical Liberal in the US.
I'd vote for TJ.

Clinton is a "Third Way", neo-Liberal Progressive and at her core, Clinton is a Globalist and an Authoritarian. She'll push through Supreme Court nominees that will eviscerate the 2nd Amendment and Free Speech, and she'll pursue policies that will be very authoritarian in nature through draconian regulatory schemes in health care and the EPA. She'll push through TPP, further lowering the US standard of living and she'll formalize the Open Borders program with unrestricted and unregulated immigration and refugee policies.

Here's the Readers Digest problem with HRC, she's all up in favor of a broad reaching, over arching Federal Government that will all but annihilate State and Local control and this at a time when many regions of "States" are all but ready to go their own way. A poll reported in Texas Monthly Magazine showed that if HRC were to win, over 50% of the voters would support secession. While that can't happen, HRC will accelerate the unraveling of the Union and that won't happen either but the level of social discontent and outright denial of Federal authority at the State level will insure years of State vs. Federal litigation which will cast a pall of uncertainty over practically everything.

I expect HRC to win, and don't get me wrong, Trump would be just as much, if not more divisive, but at least Trump would give the country some balance and breathing room in the pursuit of a more centerist approach to the Supreme Court. The beauty of Trump is that he'd so divide the country along cultural and racial lines that I think it would start to become apparent to a majority that the center simply won't hold, that this country is too big and diverse to be ruled over by an Imperious Federal Government.
edit on 7-9-2016 by TonyS because: Edit to Add.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:49 AM
I'm not voting for Clinton, I'm voting against Trump.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:57 AM
"she will say anything and change nothing"
- barack obama 2008

pretty much sums it up. if i actually could believe a word out of her mouth, maybe id vote for her.
instead i will be voting for trump
hillary wants more refugees, i want to feel safe
hillary is paid for by saudi arabia, trump is not
hillary wants to grant amnesty, which is bs... trump wants to allow them to stay, but pay back taxes
hillary is for open borders, trump wants to protect me and my family
theres a reason the border patrol, and the NRA has backed trump. we have a right to defend ourselves, and clinton wants to take that away
clinton is bought by wall street, trump self funded, and has received 19k only from wall street
hillarys husband committed sex crimes in the oval office, and her daughter was spoon fed with a golden spoon since birth, including getting a 900k a year job with her parents foundation when graduating
trumps kids are amazing, his wife is amazing and highly intelligent

hillary has strings tied to her from every country on this planet. im sure russia, mexico, china, and many other countries have hacked her email and have all kinds of information they can use to bribe hillary
trump is tied to nobody

trump is in good health, and ready to fight for us
hillary cant stand up without help, shes throwing up green balls, has amnesia, hasnt talked to the press in a year, she may have a serious medical issue, enough to have a doctor and an ambulance in her cavalcade

trump has balls of steel, and will stand up for us, and fight for us domestically and foreign
all hillary has is " its my turn"

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:58 AM
a reply to: SaturnFX

Thank you! Yes, I've said it many times; This isn't about Hillary or Donald, it's about party platforms. I choose to vote for the Democratic Party Platform, against the Republican Party Platform, for all the reason listed in your picture.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:00 PM

originally posted by: TonyS
Clinton is a "Third Way", neo-Liberal Progressive and at her core, Clinton is a Globalist and an Authoritarian.

Right, but I am voting for the programs listed.
If I focus on any one of the candidates, I will simply support a sweet meteor of death to wipe us all clean and start anew.

Hillary will turn us into a self hating dystopian big business corporatocracy, Trump will turn us into a warring racist dystopian big business corporatocracy, least with one you still can drink clean water.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:04 PM

originally posted by: nobunaga

Red herring

she can want all kinds of things. but you cant abolish an amendment, period.
So, she can just moan and complain. Its like the right crying about Roe V Wade as if something is gonna change. Its talking points that lead to nothing.

btw, your capslock is on.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:10 PM

originally posted by: SaturnFX

So now, the classical liberal is opposed to Hope and Change.

Vote for whomever you want. What you are going to get is more genocide and "nation building" in the Middle East. The US will continue to hand out foreign aid while our veterans lack medical care. Patriot Act type legislation will be expanded. We will still have too big to fail and too big to jail. Government corruption will continue, as will the persecution of those that expose government corruption. The steady erosion of Constitutional rights will keep chugging along. The national debt will increase. Et cetera. Pretty much all the negative things we've seen from the past four administrations will be retained and expanded.

We can still blame it all on those evil, stupid people on "other side."

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:15 PM
a reply to: SaturnFX

And this is why Bernie Sanders caucused with the Democratic Party members in Congress and ran on the Democratic ticket and why he supports voting for Clinton. There is work to be done, but it can be done only through the DP.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:22 PM
a reply to: SaturnFX /05/hillary-clinton-plan-abolish-second-amendment/
she has not said i want to abolish the 2nd amendment... but what she wants to do in effect will abolish it

'I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the “gun show loophole,” closing the “online loophole,” closing the so-called “Charleston loophole,” reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers.'

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:35 PM

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: SaturnFX

A vote for Hillary is a vote for her financial contributors (NOT America) but have fun with that

What is a vote for Trump then? A vote for a crony who is going to bring along all his friends for the ride? Is this the "let's remove the middle man" election? They're both self-serving liars. Your argument seems to be that Clinton is influenced by "evil rich people." Trump is "evil rich people."

Think I'm full of it? Just look at his campaign appointments. He's got Roger Ailes as an advisor ffs. Roger "Fox New's Bill Cosby" Ailes. What is that if not the definition of cronyism? 90% of his economic advisory team is comprised of his billionaire friends. That doesn't hint at anything?

If that's not bad enough, he's positioned himself as the candidate most sympathetic to ideas associated with white nationalism. I know it's not politically correct for me to say that and a lot of people will be triggered by the use of those two words (and believe me, I put that as tactfully as I could) but that doesn't take away from the validity of the argument anymore than pointing and saying "white nationalist!" makes Donald Trump Hitler or his supporters evil unredeemable racists.

Worse yet, he fawns over Putin of all people. Can you please tell me what the hell is laudable about that?

Finally, as the OP points out, regardless of her own self-serving, dishonest, corrupt nature, Clinton doesn't have any political obligation to do something like oh I dunno, stack SCOTUS for the next generation with far-right hardliners or dismantle labor law, enivronmental protection laws, etc — in fact, it's the contrary that's true.

Sanders clearly should have been the Democratic candidate. DWS is out as she should be but here we are, two and a half months out and either Clinton or Trump are going to be the President of the United States.

No matter how how I look at it, I still end up concluding that Clinton is preferrable to Trump.

Meh. I was swearing off diatribes for the week and that didn't even last a whole day.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:05 PM
The fact that people actually think Hillary is a "classic liberal" just shows how far skewed liberalism has become. She literally stands against everything classic liberals stood for. I wish people would stop listening the likes of the young turks(jerks) and start listening to someone like David Rubin to get a sense of real liberal values.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:09 PM
a reply to: SaturnFX

That's because she's the only liberal running

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:16 PM
a reply to: SaturnFX
You're on the losing side, my friend. Hillary simply cannot win. Her campaign is a paper tiger.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: SaturnFX

In some ways, I feel like liberalism is dead. Sure, as a term, it still gets thrown around plenty, but I have seen it replaced pretty much entirely by statism.

Anyway, I strongly believe that strong social programs inevitably lead to a stronger nation. However, it needs to be done in a way that fosters independence and self-sufficiency. If it doesn't, it weakens the nation over time.

The right is in general opposition to any such programs, and the modern left (many self proclaimed "centrists") wants these programs that enable dependency to become stronger, or at the very least, remain as they are now.

In this respect, I think that either platform does not accurately reflect classic liberalism. Though, the right might actually be closer to representing it as the left has gone so far into that that end of the political spectrum while the right has remained relatively static.

Social programs are more likely to remain a topic of conversation with the right, rather than what happens with the left; the programs are just a foregone conclusion with the only focus being methods of expansion, rather than any sort of reform.

So, while the right may not necessarily represent the ideals of a classical liberal directly, such a platform may be more likely to actually achieve policies that are in line with the perspective. At least, much more closely than a government inundated and driven by the modern left.

As far as social evolution in general, it has to happen in the society first and then represented in legislation to preserve independent thought and avoid state-mandated beliefs and its consequent dependency. Of course, there are more facets to the discussion, but I think the above two are the main factors in play.

I think that technology changes the discussion dramatically, but that is a few steps beyond the general conversation.

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:43 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

I didn't bring Trump into the conversation, you did. Classic example of the political threads on ats

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in