Which is it? Is Hillary a Liberal, a Moderate, or a Centrist?

You can't be all three.

and I'm sure that you'll think up something else in the meantime - you can continue with a monologue, not a dialogue - at least insofar as I am concerned.

Buh-bye.

When the fact that Hillary is all over the map in positioning herself is taken into account, what is the meaning of the OP?

She obviously is interested on the labels and the associations they have in voter's minds. Why does it say that you are interested in attacking people who ask how she is simultaneously occupying mutually exclusive ideological space?

be back.

Who could live on that? Raise kids? Pay for healthcare? Stay ahead of the debt machine trying to swallow us all.

Working class debt creates wealth for plutocrats.

but shouldn't stop there...I don't think she's again a livable wage given that she herself worked for free for the gov for 18 yrs

We're done with people who have your attitude and there are way more of us than you.

unilaterally claim the term "liberal" or the real/proper use of "liberal" for their own behaviors and thoughts. If you are not one of them, thank you, an it is not toward you.

No one is claiming perfectionism. But some do seem to be claiming absolutism.

He's voted for the most Pro Gun legislation while not blinking an eye. Even when Moms Demand Action asked him about his support for this measure. his explanation was cowardly to say the least. Pro NRA, pro keeping gun manufacturers from being held responsible, any thing else? That, in itself is enough for me to say "no".

Last night Trump called Bernie a communist. Liberal is the least of his worries.

Because the vast majority of American voters trust every syllable that leaves Trump's mouth.

Because see us over there... And you all over there... Big difference on where we stand as "liberals"

absolutism thinking I speak of and is being used to claim who is the most (or any amount at all) liberal.

but just off hand not sure how Communism gets put that far left. It creates a political class that is essentially a Capitalist entity with in a psuedo socialist structure. Also the chart should be amended to decipher European Libertarianism and American Libertarianism.
Which are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

This whole OP is weird I am really not sure what Sec. Clinton stands for? So how can I judge her on the poly/eco spectrum? I think that's the problem Sec. Clinton seems to be moving back and forth out of political convenience.

History has shown that all three of these forms of social structure can become corrupted by those at the top.

My feeling is, ideally, we would have a blend of all three in a fair and free society, and that each would serve as a check-and-balance on the others.

Capitalism - intrinsically motivates people to excel and invent
Communism - workers own (some) businesses and the means of production
Socialism - public options for healthcare, regulate and tax business, state-run businesses (e.g., universities) alongside private institutions

Idealism - well, that describes me

to me Capitalism does not promote innovation, as seen that most life benefiting innovation is usually developed at the governmental lvl, with governments paying for the means to achieve the break through. Capitalism then takes that breakthrough and sells it for consumption, granted in an ideal "fair" competition heavy consumer market that innovation continues to be innovated on to fit the need of the consumer. Honestly, I have never been able to see how Capitalism can retain that "fair" competition without being HEAVILY regulated by an outside entity, so I question whether the capitalist institutions are actually doing the innovation.

Capitalism was developed to take out the Monarchies and Mercantilism, which it did well, but then it created a super class not really different from the old aristocracy it was developed to break up.

Ideally Communism is suppose to be the workers control the means of production, but by creating that super class workers control has never lasted that long in practice, and to ME tends to look like a State Capitalist system, where the Government Elite control the means of production.

Socialism well I cant complain about that as long as it is fused with a representative system made up the people.

but point well taken

Socialism is state run business. Communism is people run.

I just don't see how you can make an equation Socialism-Capitalism=Communism.

Are you quoting some well-known philosopher?

Thanks.

"Socialism is state run business"

Not really. Socialism is control of the means of production. That should be seen as juxtaposed against unfettered capitalism. Communism is ownership of the means of production by the state.

In the socialistic model, ownership is a bundle of rights* that can be regulated to tweak the individual elements going to obligation and benefit.

* If you google bundle of rights you'll probably see it in reference to real estate, but it underpins most policy-making to some degree.

> Communism is ownership of the means of production by the state.

From Wikipedia ...

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal&quot is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

Right now, that's too much for me to parse out. I'll go with your definition.

Cheers to you.

Hillary Clinton is a 3rd-Way conservative Democrat.

Let's be honest.

The Democratic Party -- including the Clintons -- have been running away from the term liberal for years. They still do it today.

Since it has been orphaned by the Democratic Party, can't blame the people who rescued it for having a say in it.

I am speaking of certainly doesn't fit with any understanding of "liberal" that I have studied or know. Certainty about an opinion/judgement that is not factual is absolutism. Especially when the term is about inclusion, empathy and helping those in need.

Second, "running away" from the term liberal has unfortunately happened more than it should have, mainly due to a successful campaign by the right-wing conservatives who fear it due to knowing it would leave them with less power, but many, including Hillary Clinton AND Bernie Sanders (guns?) have either selectively used it verbally or through actions at times and used other terms at other times. That is different from giving up the term in totality and never again acting liberally.

Because a term is being partially rejected or deferred by one group does not mean it doesn't apply to them and certainly doesn't mean it is correct for others to claim a different definition and hurl it around accordingly as if they are the pure owners and definers of the word.

that you are playing the neo-liberal game when you characterize those people who are NOT neo-liberals as extreme? That's been happening a hell of a lot longer than Sanders has been running a primary campaign.

Are you aware that the term "liberal" has been around for a hell of a lot longer than the neo-liberals who took it for their own and "evolved" it to suit their agenda?

That the neo-liberal takeover of the Democratic Party, the "bloodless coup" enacted by Al From, Bill Clinton, and the DLC, co-opted the terms "liberal" and even "progressive," as in their think tank, the "Progressive Policy Institute," throwing everyone in the party to the left of their neo-liberal stance under the bus? That the "New Democrats" and the "Third Way" have taken over from where the DLC left off, and that your candidate of choice is one of them?

How they "selfishly blanketed" themselves with term while leaving the rest of us out in the cold?

Are you at all aware of how ironic your post is?

Don't try to lecture me about the word "liberal," nor about the Clintons' relationship to it. You are doomed to fail spectacularly.

I said nothing about the failure of any sides in the past to give respect and understanding to the opinions and actions of others that are not perfectly aligned. I try to learn from the history of not only those who I feel most aligned with morally and politically, but of all sides involved in the direction of our country and the care for our citizens (and those of the world.)

I disagree in your opinion that I am playing a game and in your definition of my behavior. Your label of neo-liberals is yours, not mine. I look at actions and facts instead of labels. Since I have felt very aligned with self-defined "liberals" for decades, I am very aware of a good part of the history of the term.

I am also aware of the DLC (a actual, definable group of people) and their stances and actions. I have never been very supportive. I look at each candidate in totality, all of the individuals and groups they have been associated with, and most importantly, the whole of their works/actions/words. I do not let labels given by others lead my opinions. It is a freeing place to be.

My opinion is that you have a lot to learn about the term "liberal" and how it seems to include lots of people that you seem to think it does not. That doesn't make you right and it doesn't make me wrong. We're talking about opinions.

I do love Alanis Morissette's song, but your discovery of irony in my post only works if you see the same in yours. If not, your differing eyesight for texts containing different opinions other than your own must be painful and should be self-evaluated.

Just to educate yourself.

"My" label of neo-liberals is not "mine," but is well-established.
(A shorter, simpler explanation of neoliberalism)
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Written before the 2016 Democratic Primary season:

If Trump declares himself Liberal, it doesn't mean its true.

Liberal actually means something. If Sec. Clinton's positions don't fit the meaning, don't blame Sanders supporters for pointing it out.

becomes accepted as fact.


I've studied, listened to, and watched Hillary Clinton. I've agreed and disagreed with her at times. I wish I could say Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine (well, my emails from her team do sort of make that claim). To you I say, Donald Trump is NO Hillary Clinton!


Jus declaring something doesn't make it so. Never said it does. Yes, religions have been trying to do this (with much success) for centuries regarding what they believe on faith vs what is fact. And the fact that Bernie says his desire for free college tuition and free health care (which I wholeheartedly agree with) will lead to a better tomorrow doesn't mean that will be true. Often, the process of getting to a desired goal has as much or more to do with desired outcomes that do the goals themselves.

Otherwise Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are liberals. You wouldn't want to say otherwise and be some kind of word police, would you?

When you're making out with Henry Kissinger, you're not a liberal. Period.

right vs wrong. Judgements are in people's minds.

If you talk to people who favor expanding gun ownership rights, half or more of them would describe themselves as liberal.

such proof, I don't see how defining "liberal" by a single issue or action is possible or positive.

You make a good point about words and their meanings, but I would argue that they DO still have a lot of weight and meaning, and will always do so, in the our society and world.

I'm a city boy. If I call for the police, they will be here in minutes. I do not want any of my neighbors to have guns.

But, in rural America, it can take hours for police to arrive.

I believe people have a right to defend their homes themselves, if they do not have law enforcement options.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is Bernie's position.)

But, it is true that many choose their guns based on some underlying Freudian metaphor about personal power. (Hence the term "ammosexual.&quot I have no idea how to even begin to solve this society-wide problem.

"Holy shit they said something I didn't like, those damn radicals!"

How very conservative.

And since the large majority of people who support Bernie do not seem to be trying to ostracize me from my long-owned, self-described understanding of myself as liberal, I do think if is an EXTREME segment of people supporting Sen. Sanders. Again, my THOUGHT, not a fact.

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyway

Are you calling me a political holy roller because I support Bernie Sanders. Having lived in a place where people have tried all my life to "save" me, i kind of balk at being termed Evangelical. Evangelism is why I quit the Southern Baptists.

He looks goooooooooood!

But you are an added number to those making my point all the more clear. Thanks for that.

Glad I could help.

Or shall I say the joke of the day:

"Hillary is a liberal."

That makes me chuckle every time I read that...

Misrepresent this all you like, it doesn't change anything.

All we are doing is holding someone to their own words.

Per Hillary herself, she is a moderate, centrist, liberal, progressive.

progressive and a moderate. There is a difference between liberal and moderate. Bernie is liberal. Hillary is a moderate. She is a Reagan Democrat.

Example, I watched Hillary oppose my right to marry for 20 years and that's the action of a conservative, no mater what she calls herself. When I read an OP like yours, which defensively attempts to define 'liberal' as a word meaning 'whatever I am' I assume you also have highly conservative views you are not sharing upfront so if I gave a fuck I'd watch and learn and see how and what you are. But I really don't give a shit about those who long for days of DOMA past.....

Then I'm a proud extremist!