The positive case for voting Hillary Clinton for president.

[Whateverist]

Can't tell you how how happy I am to hear you say that. Makes me more cautious in making assumptions about what your libertarian views mean to you.

[Tiberius]

I'm more of a pragmatic libertarian these days. Social freedom is important, the free market is the best way to run an economy, but there are some things that are better handled by the government.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's been my own direction of drift as well, which is why, while I'm still registered Libertarian, I vote on the basis of pragmatism, and not ideology.

[GrandizerII]

I'm more of a pragmatic libertarian these days. Social freedom is important, the free market is the best way to run an economy, but there are some things that are better handled by the government.

This kind of libertarianism I can accept. It sounds sexy.

[Tiberius]

To me the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" statement outlines what the goal of government should be.

Government should protect the lives of citizens (free healthcare, sensible safety regulations, etc), whilst taking a step back from issues that relate to personal freedom (drugs, marriage, religion, guns, etc), and letting people in general do what they want provided they aren't harming people (pursuit of happiness).

[dyresand]

To me the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" statement outlines what the goal of government should be.

Government should protect the lives of citizens (free healthcare, sensible safety regulations, etc), whilst taking a step back from issues that relate to personal freedom (drugs, marriage, religion, guns, etc), and letting people in general do what they want provided they aren't harming people (pursuit of happiness).

Same i fall more in line with libertarian and green party.

[Fireball]

SCOTUS picks. More conservative judges could potentially roll the US back 50 years in terms of equal rights in all forms.

[Aroura]

SCOTUS picks. More conservative judges could potentially roll the US back 50 years in terms of equal rights in all forms.

This.
We will survive 4 years of any president. But if you are gay or any lgbt, female, Hispanic, black, muslim, or know anyone who is one of these things, even if they are voting against their own self interests with Trump, I would begin you to vote for Clinton.

I'm a middle ages white woman, my husband is in the tech industry where jobs are more secure, so I don't fear too much for us. But I'm not voting just for us, I'm voting for a more socially liberal scotus for my child's lifetime. I'm voting for that so my friends, family, and even complete strangers will have the freedom to be themselves. This matters more, far more, than the individual who is president for a short time. Suck it up, hold your nose if you must, and vote for a better chance at a liberal Scott's, and a better chance for equal human rights for everyone.

[account_inactive]

To me the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" statement outlines what the goal of government should be.

Government should protect the lives of citizens (free healthcare, sensible safety regulations, etc), whilst taking a step back from issues that relate to personal freedom (drugs, marriage, religion, guns, etc), and letting people in general do what they want provided they aren't harming people (pursuit of happiness).

Same here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hillary doesn't have a stellar record on civil rights...and think about how shitty all the other things, we're not thinking about..must have been, to tank her ratings on that built up by her constant, very public and very successful devotion to minorities, women, and children?   

Her stance on special interests isn't enough to outweigh the fact that she has been an enemy of the general interest, at a federal level, the entire time.  Let that sink in.  People think she;s going to support civil liberties..she's not, she's going to say what you want to hear, and then nullify what she's said at the general level, where you're not looking...which is what she's -always- done.  That's how she maintains her unearned "centrist" cred.  Giving a useful special interest "more rights" within a reduced overall bubble of "all rights" is -not- being a defender or promoter of civil rights.  It's the exploitation of civil rights....to destroy them.