ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Who's Worse? Trump or Hillary?

Updated on October 22, 2016
Thomas Swan profile image

Dr. Thomas Swan studied cognition and culture at Queen's University Belfast. He enjoys exploring the interplay between politics and culture.

With 65% of Americans willing to support someone who isn't Clinton or Trump, the "vote for a lesser evil" argument is becoming increasingly popular. However, it's not abundantly clear to many progressives who the lesser evil is.

Despite Trump saying some outlandish things, most of the fear surrounding him concerns policy he'd never get past Congress or the Supreme Court. He'd be a lame-duck, which would rile his supporters, and he'd be voted out in 4 years to the cheers of both Republicans and Democrats.

By that point, Trump's bigoted rhetoric may have provoked a progressive backlash within the Democratic Party, meaning there'd be a genuine chance of a progressive government in 2020. This would be all the more likely if Hillary's brand of centrist neoliberalism were defeated in 2016.

Alternatively, a Hillary Presidency would mean at least 8 years without a progressive Democratic government, because she'd be able to run unopposed in 4 years time. 2020 would be another horror show of an election. The only hope for progressives would be the emergence of a credible 3rd party.

Ultimately, when comparing these two politicians, we should look at what their past votes and actions tell us, and what their current policies (supposedly) are. Regarding these policies, we should consider whether, and for how long, they'd be able to enact them. So, without further ado, who's worse? Trump or Hillary?

Note: `worse' is defined as what is least progressive.

Defense and Foreign Policy

This really is no contest. Hillary Clinton has a lot of blood on her hands and a long history of support for interventionist foreign policy. For example, she voted for the Iraq War, calling it a business opportunity, and argued tirelessly for a residual troop presence after the withdrawal. Hillary also wanted more troops in Afghanistan - more even than the military had requested. In Syria, she formulated a plan to use the CIA to train and arm Islamist rebels, and she voiced support for launching air strikes against the Syrian government. She's threatened a no-fly zone, which would provoke Russia, and has essentially pledged to follow a policy of regime change in the country.

In Libya, Hillary also backed regime change and helped orchestrate the downfall of their government. She then laughed about Gaddafi being lynched on TV. The political and humanitarian crises that followed allowed ISIS into the country. On Iran, she's threatened them on several occasions, saying she would "totally obliterate them" if they attacked Israel. In fact, Hillary has always been skeptical of negotiations with Iran, and has said "the time for peaceful negotiation will come to an end". We cannot expect the Iran nuclear deal to survive a Hillary Presidency.

Finally, during Hillary's time in the State Department, she signed a number of weapons deals with dictatorships, and used department resources to provide legal arguments for the legitimization and expansion of drone strikes. If that wasn't enough, Hillary holidays with the legendary war criminal and interventionist Henry Kissinger. She calls him her "friend and mentor".

At the risk of writing a whole article on Hillary's love for the Bush Doctrine, it may be better to summarize with a Time magazine report in which several current and former Obama officials described Clinton as the most "hawkish voice" in Obama Situation Room. Regardless of what Donald Trump may have said in the past year, Hillary's actions over the past two decades are worse.

Who's worse? Hillary.

Hillary's Hawkish Foreign Policy

Energy and the Environment

Hillary's State Department sold fracking to the world, which could lead to large increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The Clinton Foundation has also received millions from the fossil fuel industry, with donations that coincided with approvals of their pipelines by her State Department. Much like Obama, climate change doesn't appear to be a priority for Hillary. Their words aren't in step with their actions.

Alternatively, Trump appears to have denied climate change is even a problem, so we can be sure he'll do nothing to stop it either. However, is 4 years of climate change denial equal to 8 years of the slow death that Hillary's inaction and pretense will give us? Pretty much, yes. Both would be a disaster for the environment.

Who's worse? They're equally awful.

Rights

Trump wants to stop people from particular nationalities and religions entering the US. Taken together with his comments about Mexicans, this suggests his policies may end up discriminating against US minorities. Trump also appears to be anti-choice when it comes to abortion. By all measures, he would be a disaster for the rights of Americans and non-Americans alike.

Hillary voted for Bush's Patriot Act and recently called for more surveillance to curtail the rights of ordinary Americans. She also wants to imprison whistleblowers of these programs, like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Clinton is for keeping the death penalty, and was against gay marriage until only a few years ago. Indeed, she previously supported the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and still accepts donations from regimes that execute homosexuals and suppress women's rights.

It's difficult to know if Hillary believes the things she currently says. However, her present position appears to be better than Trump's by a big enough margin to declare a winner.

Who's worse? Trump.

Trade

Trade is another example of Hillary's actions speaking louder than words. Hillary pushed the hugely unpopular TPP trade deal 45 times, calling it a "gold standard". Despite courting progressive voters during the primaries with less supportive words, she is clearly for TPP and is currently maneuvering towards supporting it again. Indeed, her own advisers know she won't oppose it.

Clinton had previously supported the NAFTA trade deal that destroyed American industry and jobs; and the Panama Free Trade deal that led directly to the Panama Papers scandal. The TPP deal may be the worst of the lot, as it stands to hand a considerable chunk of our democracy over to corporations, allowing them to sue governments if regulation harms profits.

Trump is against TPP, but it's difficult to know what he's for. His comments suggest a potential trade war with China, so he may be for something a whole lot worse than TPP.

Who's worse? Hillary.

Economy

Clinton appears to support an economy run by the big banks, which isn't surprising given they contribute huge sums of money, resources, and personnel to her campaign. She voted to bail out Wall Street in 2008, blamed home-owners for the crash, praised her donors for their contributions, refused to reinstate Glass Steagall, and failed to support a bill curtailing the excesses of hedge-funds (despite "speaking" against it). Perhaps her son-in-law being a hedge fund manager had something to do with that last one. But, this really is the crux of the matter: Hillary claims to support progressive economic policies, but her actions tell a very different story. Indeed, Elizabeth Warren described this trait of Clinton's perfectly in the video below.

So, it's no surprise that Hillary won't release transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street, and no surprise that attendees described her as "gushy" and like a "Goldman Sachs managing director". Ultimately, letting banks run the economy is exactly what progressives don't want. Banks serve the wealthy, and that may be why Clinton opposes raising taxes for the wealthy or increasing social security for the poor. This essentially preserves or worsens the currently unacceptable level of wealth inequality.

Donald Trump wants to lower taxes across the board, which would also widen wealth inequality. However, much like Hillary, he wants to increase spending on infrastructure, increase the minimum wage (although he said States should decide), and preserve Social Security and Medicare at their current levels. These aren't particularly conservative policies, and when considered alongside Hillary's morally-bankrupt corporatism, he may actually be a better candidate for the economy.

Who's worse? Hillary.

Money in Politics

Hillary accepts donations from every industry and private interest from AIPAC to private prisons. Similarly, while Secretary of State, the Clinton foundation accepted donations from Middle Eastern dictatorships in proportion to the size of the arms deals they received. During the Democratic Primary, the DNC specifically lifted the ban on lobbying, in a likely attempt to help Clinton's cause and skew the primary in her favor. Clinton also has no problem bending or breaking campaign finance rules, such as when she misrepresented a donation from Peter Paul, or when she funneled State party money into her campaign during the recent primary.

While Trump may be no stranger to backroom deals, he has largely funded his own campaign and does not have an extensive history of suspicious contributions.

Who's worse? Hillary.

Healthcare

Although Hillary is unlikely to do anything to improve the Affordable Care Act (because it keeps insurance companies in control of your health), Trump is likely to do away with it. Ultimately, America desperately needs a single-payer system that treats healthcare as a right. Neither candidate will do that, but Trump will probably take us further from it.

Who's worse? Trump.

Education

Donald Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator in his speeches. He specifically hits the buttons of the dumbest people in American society. He says things that no-one of his intelligence could conceivably believe. In other words, Trump's a demagogue, and demagogues need people who are poorly educated. It's therefore no surprise that Trump wants to drastically cut funding to the Department of Education, and wants more comprehensive education instead of allowing students to specialize and become experts in their field.

Trump University is another example of his flippant attitude towards education. It was a money-making scheme, selling ridiculously-priced seminars to gullible students. This attitude becomes more worrying given Trump's comments about schools needing to `compete more', which hints at a desire for private influences in the education system.

Although Hillary won't forgive student loans or do anything particularly progressive with education, the status quo is probably better than what Trump proposes.

Who's worse? Trump.

Media

Hillary accepts donations from (or has connections to) most of the corporate news networks. This suggests coverage of her won't be impartial, and that she'll return the favor in various ways if she's President. The media oligopoly will not end on her watch, given Bill Clinton created it with the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Trump has expressed disgust with his portrayal in the media by banning some of them from his events. While he has every right to do so, it does suggest the media will be under significant pressure to report on him favorably if he's President.

Who's worse? They're equally awful.

Immigration

Both Hillary and Trump have said they'd build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants (see video). Building a wall would be a reactionary, discriminatory, and divisive response to the question of immigration. It's not in the least bit progressive. However, Trump's bigoted comments about Muslims and Mexicans make him worse on the question of immigration.

Who's worse? Trump.

Overall Score on the Issues

Trump's Awfulness Score: 4
Hillary's Awfulness Score: 4
Equal Awfulness: 2

So, there you have it. There is no `lesser evil' excuse. Trump and Hillary are equally abhorrent characters who should never be President. If you choose to vote for one of them, let their deeds be on your conscience.

The imminent U.S. election

Has spawned, after public reflection,

A pollutant of hate

Wild enough to create,

Toxic, epidemic infection.

— Colleen Swan

Is there another option? Well, yes. Despite the media turning this election into a boxing match, you actually have three options:

  1. Throw away your vote by endorsing corruption, war, and corporate rule.
  2. Throw away your vote by endorsing bigotry, egomania, and corporate rule.
  3. Place a vote towards improving democracy and ending the two party system. Vote 3rd party to stick two fingers up to the establishment and the choice they've given us. Vote 3rd party to not have blood on your hands. Vote 3rd party if you have enough of a spine to support a candidate who probably won't win.

Here's a novel thought. Why not stop voting for evil?
Here's a novel thought. Why not stop voting for evil?

Stop Voting For Evil

The media will portray this election as an almighty duel between two heavyweights on supposedly opposite sides of every argument. They'll make it seem like getting behind one of these prize fighters is your only option, like going to your high-school prom or watching the Superbowl. They'll make it seem like you have to vote for a potential winner, so you `have something riding on it' and can feel involved in the spectacle. They'll make it seem like you should feel satisfied if your evil wretch wins. They'll make considering a 3rd party tantamount to sacrilege, warranting various "you can't let the other one win" forms of outrage. They'll bait you and shame you and try to turn you into a mindless partisan.

All that needs to be said is: don't play their game. If you want to exercise your right to vote, go for a 3rd party like the Greens or Libertarians. They may call it a waste, but consider the following about what a 3rd party vote represents:

  1. It's a vote towards improving democracy so that it represents more people. It's a vote towards ending the unrepresentative two party system.
  2. It tells the two main parties that you're not happy with what they've offered you. They might give you a better choice next time. They won't if you vote for what they've given you this time (or they'll get worse).
  3. You can sleep soundly knowing you've voted for the greater good rather than the lesser evil (if there is a lesser evil). You will have had no part in the future horrors of a Hillary or Trump Presidency. Really, no-one should want to be an accomplice to murder.

Hopefully, these principles and the platforms offered by 3rd parties will sound like something worth voting for. Good luck!

© 2016 Thomas Swan

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      fpherj48 14 months ago

      Hillary is worse by a landslide. Too bad she is going to win by one, though.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 15 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Actually, GLB only set the stage; many other things had to happen for that near depression to happen. They didn't have to, but when you remove the regulatory barrier, human nature often takes over. You might be interested in https://hubpages.com/politics/A-Short-History-of-S...

      The article I referred you to makes a pretty distinct division between its philosophy and that of neoliberalism. Now that I have my terminology right, there is no social conscience to classical liberalism, which is what I prefer to call it rather than inventing a new term for an old dog. Classical liberalism is fundamentally a social Darwinist approach to improving society; clearly the Third Way (it needs a better name) is not that. Classical liberalism embodies laissez-faire; the Third Way rejects it, just not as much as far-Left liberals do.

      "Free market" capitalism is probably the best thing going, IF properly regulated to dampen the self-destructive aspects of it.

      Tax policy, at least according to economist Piketti in Capitalism in the 21st Century, is the best way to get income inequality back under control; and Clinton, both of them, want (and did) to raise taxes on the wealthy (a very non-classical liberal idea).

    • Thomas Swan profile image
      Author

      Thomas Swan 15 months ago from New Zealand

      The Act you refer too was pretty much the cause of the 2007 recession. It removed regulation and appears laissez-faire and neoliberal to me. After a brief look at the details, I wouldn't call it center-left. It's just another neoliberal feather in the cap of Bill Clinton.

      The Third Way seems very close to what I would call neoliberalism. Throw in the aggressive foreign policy and a bit less social justice than they're claiming to advocate, and you've got neoliberalism. In my opinion, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Hillary Clinton are neoliberals more than they are this `Third Way' - which I see as a slightly positive spin on it. What they represent is a dismantling of the left to serve the economic interests of the wealthy elite, who don't really care about social policy; they only care about their money. The left was a threat to them, but Bill and Tony destroyed that threat, and with it, a chunk of our democracy. Now, we only get a choice on social issues - those issues that the wealthy elite really don't give a damn about.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 15 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      In your previous comment you said: “"Neoliberalism refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism"”. - Yep, you are right, I forgot the term "Neo" doesn't mean "new" (from the Greek neos), so I reverted back to "new"liberalism rather than "old"liberalism; which embraces laissez-faire.

      In either case, neither Bill nor Hilary are anything close to that self-destructive policy. Bill Clinton's signing Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, while very dumb indeed, because he ignored history, but instead reflects a centrist-left position.

      Consider this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way . I had never heard of it, but it generally reflects how I believe as well.

    • Thomas Swan profile image
      Author

      Thomas Swan 15 months ago from New Zealand

      Mr. Esoteric, you said ““There is nothing neo about laissez-faire.””

      In your previous comment you said: “"Neoliberalism refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism"”.

      So which is it? I provided evidence to show the Clintons commonly endorse this kind of economics, and now you’re saying it’s actually not neoliberal at all, but classic liberal. Seems a bit disingenuous of you.

      ““Bill Clinton getting rid of the Glass Steagall Act - Yes, one of his biggest mistakes which he still defends; he forgot history.””

      Another Clinton mistake, huh? I don’t buy it. We should look at who these supposed mistakes are benefiting. In this case, it’s their friends on Wall Street.

      ““implementing NAFTA - Common Sense””

      Even the Clintons call this one of their `mistakes’ now (see mizbejabbers comment above). You’d do better to not argue for it.

      ““1996 Telecommuncations Act. - That was a good thing, it broke up monopolies, allowed more competition, brought more choices, and lowered prices; everything a good liberal believes in; but socialists don't.””

      Please, please read up on the consequences of this Act. We can’t have a proper discussion on this until you do. It did the exact opposite of what you’re saying. It led to a rush of mergers, takeovers, and acquisitions. This ended the role of small independent broadcasters and put news into the hands of a few corporations who controlled everything. It gave us the oligopoly we have today. Just read an article, any article, on the subject.

      “”consider her strong support of Dodd-Frank””

      This isn’t Glass-Steagall, not by a long way. Most bankers are quite happy with Dodd Frank., which doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.

      “”there is nothing illiberal about an aggressive foreign policy; within bounds, it is desirable to further your national interest policies.””

      Since when did liberals start supporting wars and interventions for "national interests"? Sounds like something Republicans would say. It doesn’t make her liberal, and it certainly doesn’t make her progressive, as you claimed before.

      ““her slightly left-of-center social policy - Are you saying that is a bad thing?””

      No, it’s the one redeeming trait of neoliberals. However, there’s a purpose to it. Neoliberal Democrats highlight their social policy differences with Republicans to fool people into thinking real democracy exists. This allows their identical economic policy, that serves the wealthy elite, to be ignored. So, the Democrats will stage their sit-ins about guns, and the media will create a furore about transgender bathrooms, while all the neoliberal trade deals and tax policy gets passed quietly in the background. Why do you think Apple still pay almost no tax?

      You can forget your tangential comment about extreme left/right because it doesn’t apply here.

      ““Well, she has stated she is going to try to improve ACA, initially with a public option.””

      I’ll believe it when I see it. When she repeatedly tells the public one thing, and does another to satisfy her donors, it leaves me with no confidence. Regardless, the ACA keeps insurance companies in control of your health. Until this `profit from pain’ situation ends; no small `improvements’ matter.

      “income inequality decreased a bit under Bill and again under Obama since there is now recent evidence that the gap is closing slightly.”

      Interesting you talk about income inequality when I specifically said “wealth inequality”. Regardless, income distribution has been more unequal under Obama than any time since the 30s. He is indeed taking some small steps to combat it, and reduced it slightly, as you say, but he (and you) are ignoring wealth inequality.

    • Thomas Swan profile image
      Author

      Thomas Swan 15 months ago from New Zealand

      Nader didn’t give us Bush. I recommend looking up the Nader myth and how it’s been discredited. First, plenty of Republicans voted for Nader too. If they hadn’t, Bush would have won by a larger margin. Second, more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader, so if anyone is to blame, it should be Bush, right? Finally, the biggest block in the election was non-voters, so Nader voters were more likely to not vote than vote Democrat if Nader wasn’t an option. There are plenty of reasons why the Nader myth is bunk. Mr. Esoteric, perhaps this will console your wife if you told her? She wasn’t to blame.

      Gore was just a poor candidate. He couldn’t even win his home state. The crucial point here is it’s the job of a politician to earn your vote. They are to blame if they don’t, and believing that makes you a democrat (the principle, not the poorly named party). Alternatively, believing people are to blame for the failures of politicians makes you an authoritarian.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 15 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "I don't like Clinton or Trump. I don't think our vote matters, anyway." - Oh Frumpleton, how wrong you can be. My wife voted for the Green Party rather than Al Gore, who she somewhat supported. If she, and about 550 other people in Florida and NOT voted for Nader and voted for Gore instead. there would not have been an Iraq War nor, most likely, a financial meltdown.

      Your vote matters a great deal.

      Thomas, back to you.

      "She won’t improve on the ACA, or reduce wealth inequality," and somewhere saying she will just carry on Obama's policies. Well, she has stated she is going to try to improve ACA, initially with a public option. And, if she carries on Bill and Barack's financial policies then inequality will decrease (actually continue to) because the GINI index (a measure of income inequality) decreased a bit under Bill and again under Obama since there is now recent evidence that the gap is closing slightly.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 15 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Bill Clinton getting rid of the Glass Steagall Act - Yes, one of his biggest mistakes which he still defends; he forgot history.

      implementing NAFTA - Common Sense (and Adam Smith, who was not for laissez-faire, btw) tell you that free-trade is much better than tariff protected isolation which the far-Left of the Democratic seem to prefer. Like balanced budgets at the national lever, tariffs are a straight-jacket on progress. - http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-2...

      1996 Telecommuncations Act. - That was a good thing, it broke up monopolies, allowed more competition, brought more choices, and lowered prices; everything a good liberal believes in; but socialists don't.

      Consider Hillary’s banking and business connections - Then consider her strong support of Dodd-Frank, that is quite anti-business and anti-banking; although in my opinion doesn't go far enough. (BTW, the Telecommunications Act is not the same as the repeal of Glass-Steagal because the former deals with a product and the latter is about finance where an entirely different set of rules apply)

      her aggressive foreign policy - there is nothing illiberal about an aggressive foreign policy; within bounds, it is desirable to further your national interest policies.

      her slightly left-of-center social policy - Are you saying that is a bad thing? Would you rather be slightly right-of-center or maybe extreme Left. Extreme Left and Extreme Right have two things in common, 1) they are self-destructive because they don't have a brake on the reasonableness of their politics and 2) they do have a useful place in society as motivators for change, just not implementors.

      There is nothing "neo" about laissez-faire. Laissez-faire policies is a feature of Classical Liberalism, you know, the original liberal. There are two types of liberals, according to one of the professors I listened to. Limited (or Minimal)-State Liberals (sort of a social Darwinist approach) and Active-State Liberals (who believe gov't can help improve the social condition). The former were your original liberals who began America and which constitutes most of those who mistakenly call themselves conservatives. It was only in the mid-to late 1800s did Active-State Liberals began to develop (many started out as progressive conservatives in America). It is this last group makes up our 2000 version of the Democratic Party where Hillary Clinton is firmly entrenched.

    • Thomas Swan profile image
      Author

      Thomas Swan 15 months ago from New Zealand

      Thanks for commenting Neil, Mr. Esoteric, and frumpleton.

      Mr Esoteric, I think there are countless examples in this hub of Hillary’s neoliberal colors. Neoliberalism is indeed right-wing, laissez-faire, economic policy. Although, in modern usage, it’s typically combined with an aggressive foreign policy and slightly left-of-center social policy. It’s pretty much defined by the policies of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (UK). Bill Clinton getting rid of the Glass Steagall Act, implementing NAFTA, and signing the 1996 Telecommunications Act, are all glaring examples of neoliberal policies. All were supported by Hillary Clinton. When we also consider Hillary’s banking and business connections, her aggressive foreign policy, and her slightly left-of-center social policy, she looks like the poster-girl of neoliberalism.

      You then ask if Hillary matches the definition of a traditional liberal, advocating “the freedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights”. She doesn’t, as explained in the “rights” section of this hub. Her slightly left of center social policy means she has many liberal traits, but her economic and foreign policy mean she’s a neoliberal.

      She is not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. I’m sure most liberals would admit she’s nothing more than a continuation of the status quo. She won’t improve on the ACA, or reduce wealth inequality, or do much of anything to change the control that big business has over the political system. She’s not going to “advance” anything as far as I can tell.

      Neil, I care about that too. A two party system is the minimum a democracy can be without being a dictatorship. And when corporations largely control those two parties, it pretty much already is a dictatorship. Unless we’re a dyed-in-the-wool partisan, we should all recognize that a healthy democracy needs more than two parties. That’s why I really can’t stand these people who say it’s a “wasted vote”. They’re what I would call “friends of authoritarianism”. But, I doubt Jill can win. Still, that should never be an argument for not voting for someone, as I explain in the hub. She’s not doing great in the polls that include her as an option. Many polls don’t even include 3rd parties, which is a deliberate barrier to them getting into the debates (they have to poll 15% in 5 `national’ polls). It’s a deliberate attempt to keep Americans uninformed.

      Frumpleton, to put it in simple terms: the people in charge want good people to think their vote doesn’t matter. If enough good people think their votes don’t matter, it allows bad people to win. All the good people have to do is stand up, and the bad people go away. Not that you needed simple terms; it’s just the easiest way for me to explain it right now.

    • profile image

      frumpleton 15 months ago

      I don't like Clinton or Trump. I don't think our vote matters, anyway. I think it's already been decided and it will be Hillary. We have had a "colored" man in office so now, it's going to be the first woman president. It's all politics

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 15 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You call HRC a neoliberal and that "Alternatively, a Hillary Presidency would mean at least 8 years without a progressive Democratic government,"

      Let's consider this:

      "Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism" -- That is NOT Hillary Clinton, never has been and never will be. She is, without a doubt, a liberal by any modern definition.

      "Liberalism - a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights, and nonviolent modification of institutions to permit continued individual and social progress." - Are you saying Hillary Clinton opposes this philosophy?

      "Progressivism - a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition." - Are you saying that Clinton, either one, does not fit that definition?

      Keep in mind, we are not a socialist country, we don't believe in government controlling the means of production and distribution. Socialism is while not antithetical to progressivism, it clearly is to liberalism.

    • Neil Sperling profile image

      Neil Sperling 15 months ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

      Well.................. Who cares?

      What I care about is voters having access to all information and all options. The Jill Stein movement is growing like crazy.......... "without" media attention up until a few days ago. What???? Who's Jill??? - She could in fact pull a surprise move and win... I personally hope she does.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DLNwo6ETfk

    • Thomas Swan profile image
      Author

      Thomas Swan 15 months ago from New Zealand

      Thanks for commenting Lorelei, Mizbejabbers, and emge.

      Lorelei, I think the fact checkers show both candidates lie a fair amount. Trump has lied more in the recent election cycle. Hillary has lied more over the course of a much longer political career.

      Emge, perhaps, but I think Trump might hasten the decay a bit quicker than Hillary. The `empire' wants Hillary for this reason.

      Mizbejabbers. Yes, sometimes I get too involved in things. I see myself as a citizen of the world. I even lived in America for a year. I removed a couple of the "our democracy" bits, although TPP will ruin more than just American democracy.

      I think Time Warner is probably slanted FOR Hillary. They've contributed plenty to her campaigns down the years, and they own CNN who seem very biased in her favor. I was surprised to see this particular article on their site. I don't see any evidence that they're slanted against her.

      I tried to provide sources for the more controversial or less known facts about the candidates, but I didn't want to litter my article with a sea of blue links. Many should be obvious without sources, but let me know if you want me to back up anything in particular.

      Yes, like the Iraq War, she's said NAFTA was a mistake. But, it's not worth mentioning it (in either case). Like I said many times in the article, actions speak louder than words, especially given the rate at which her words are currently vacillating. If she was pushing TPP like crazy until very recently, can we believe she was against NAFTA before pushing TPP? It would make no sense. It supports the idea that she'll say anything (and everything) to advance her power. Will she get rid of Assad, allow Islamists to take over Syria, and say it's a mistake 10 years from now? One has to look at who these `mistakes' are benefiting.

      I like the Green Party's positions. They're almost identical to those of Bernie Sanders. Polarized is one of those words like `extreme' or `radical' that carries little or no meaning beyond the intention of the speaker to pigeon-hole the target. The Libertarians are probably also a better bet than Hillary or Trump (but not by much). They should appeal to conservatives, but not to progressives.

    • emge profile image

      Madan 15 months ago from Abu Dhabi

      I think you missed the main point that all empires decay after a time and Hillary is a product that will hasten the decay.

    • MizBejabbers profile image

      MizBejabbers 15 months ago

      Thomas, I find most of your hubs very interesting and stimulating, and I really enjoy them, but this one was more of a political rant against a country you seem to know only academically.

      I notice you say “our democracy”, but according to your profile, you are a Brit sitting at a desk in New Zealand, and it isn’t your country that these two politicians are trying to protect from ISIS in the Middle East, especially Syria. I noticed that most of your “facts” are undocumented, except for some sources that are at best slanted anyway (Time Magazine). For instance, you speak of her (fomer) support for NAFTA, but you don’t bring out that both Hillary and Bill have stated that it has proved to be really bad and that they both regret supporting it. Bill, in fact, said on TV that “it was one of the worst decisions he ever made.” I’m not sure if it was CBS or CNN, or both. You may think you are being fair by giving both candidates equal marks for “awfulness”, but you haven’t documented much of anything, so this appears to be little more than a rant against American politics.

      I have been called a liberal, but there are some liberal policies that I can’t support or that I don’t like. Nothing would have pleased me more than to see the big banks fall on their rich asses, but some of us had to hold our noses and watch them being bailed out. You don’t seem to understand that if our government had let the big banks fall, our whole economy would have toppled. And if our economy topples, guess who is next?

      As far as voting for a 3rd Party, have you checked into what their goals are? They are so polarized, that to vote for the Green Party is left of the Democrats and the Libertarians are to the right of the Tea Party. I hope people know what they are doing and aren't just casting a vote in protest of the two leading candidates if they vote for one of the 3rd party candidates.

      Armchair quarterbacking is easy, but coaching the real thing is hard.

    • Lorelei Cohen profile image

      Lorelei Cohen 15 months ago from Canada

      You can also add in the political fact checker for both candidates. It shows exactly who is telling the truth and who is simply trying to create havoc for the other candidate.