I mean asking millions of people to say they are with you instead of asking politicians to say they are with US seems strange to me.

Do you think she'd ever deny the opportunity to say that?

@ ND What exactly are you talking about?

@Jamie: Hillary is making all of her supporters say "I am with her." That is the campaign slogan. That seems very strange and demagogue like to me. Shouldn't she be looking out for ordinary folks like (trump) and be saying "I am with you" ?

semantics

bitching

it's all the same

Regarding the "free market " concept..and government intervention.. Firstly "free markets" are an abstract concept..all existing markets have distortions that are both unrelated and related to government intervention, for non related an example is natural advantages / disadvantages in supply of "raw materials"
Secondly, governments intervene when capitalism and market systems fail societies, examples..criminalisation of slave trade, introduction of safety regulations for shipping industry ( EG Plimsoll line ) & coal mining..no children allowed to work in coal mines.
So it's clear that governments have to regulate capitalism and markets, the solution is having the right "balance", having effective regulation etc
I would have thought that it was clear that inadequate regulation is as much, or more to be avoided as is over regulation

A 'free market' is an ideal. But as with mos ideals it ignores lots of real issues. Like supply vs demand curve don't work the same when you have medical costs that people need or they will die - suddenly what people are willing to pay become dependent on how much credit is available to them... Which is a different kind of supply.

Patents themselves are a form of monopoly which distorts the 'free market' - a government imposed monopoly.

most of the restrictions people hate from the government are Price Ceilings and Floors, which can cause horrible surpluses and shortages, as has happened in the past

I guarantee a demagogue would say "I'm with you." The campaign's main slogan is "Stronger Together." You're making a much bigger deal about this than it is. If it were "I'm with you," I guarantee she'd be accused of pandering.

I'm with her is a pro-woman slogan. It explicitly states that you're willing to vote for a woman.

And considering the fact that America has never had a woman as president, this is a non-trivial difference.

It plays to identity politics which is horrible and divisive.

I'm a liberal :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

"It explicitly states that you're willing to vote for a woman."

No it doesn't. It says that you're voting for her BECAUSE she's a woman, and that's sexist. Have you heard any male politician use "him" or "he" in his political slogan?

Leftists, on the other hand, tend not to be liberal at all and are merely misappropriating the word.

Modern liberalism has been appropriated. That is true. Most people who identify with the core tenets of the Democratic party are cultural marxists.

In response to the OP, I'm guessing that webdip has a representative sampling of the political spectrum, but skews leftward in terms of who feels comfortable voicing their opinions. As a "silent ???-ority" conservative I'm rather hesitant to express political opinions on public forums in general, because I rather doubt that those who disagree with me would be willing to put in the time or patience to listen and consider. Simply put: it's not worth the time. In a discussion that likely boils down to differences of first principles, the humility to listen and the maturity to reflect on one's assumptions is... a necessity. On the internet, it's a relatively nonexistent commodity. Perhaps it's a bit more present on this forum than other places, but it's difficult to justify the time spent. Come visit me in person though, and i'm sure it'll be easier. You bring pizza, I'll bring some of the homebrew, and I bet we have a better discussion.

@Teacon: I used to be quiet about my views as well, but I feel that we have to speak out. Things are just getting so bad that we can't be silent anymore, but I respect your position.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are applied in historical and social contexts.

@_Leon...that's just rubbish..your assertion that "I'm with her" axiomatically means the person making that statement is intending to vote for Hillary.. Because she is a woman... What nonsense...all you can logically conclude is that " I'm with her" indicates an intention to vote for Hillary, but there is nothing in "I'm with her" that can give any indication of WHY that person intends to vote for Hillary
Have your ideological blinkers been surgically attached to your unattractive head ? It sure looks like they have.

This is the first presidential election with a man and a woman as candidates... Duh...so saying " I'm with her" simply indicates an intention to vote for the woman candidate.. That's all...
Conversely saying " I'm with him " would simply indicate an intention to vote for the man candidate... But it doesn't say " I'm voting for him because he possesses a (pathetic) penis & testicles

All very good teacon, but consider the geography.. You may well be on another continent... In this forum I can have conversations with people I would never meet..that's one of the principal reasons I like WebDiplomacy... I get to have conversations in games, and in the forum with chaps and ladies from many other countries...conversations that would otherwise not occur

Making the statement that "I'm with her" is fine (though no one should be), but making it a political slogan emphasizes the fact that she is a "woman", which is inherently sexist.

Lol. Being in a disenfranchised group and stating you're part of that group and being visible politically is sexist? You're a fucking lunatic.

Actually no, people didn't say I'm with him in the last because there's two "hims", as MM points out. You're getting caught up on a detail that matters precisely zero.

@_Orathaic.. Exactly my point..all markets in the real world are inherently distorted from an idealised abstract concept of a free market...regulations imposed by communities are just another group of distorting factors...and in most cases, fundamental regulations have been imposed to benefit the communities that introduce and enforce them, because "unfettered capitalism" was acting in ways that harmed those communities eg engaging in the slave trade...has the criminalisation of the slave trade eradicated the slave trade ?....No....does that mean we should abandon efforts to eradicate the slave trade such as keeping it as a criminal offence and efforts to enforce those laws ?...you could extrapolate the "logic" of Friedmanite acolytes to say well those regulations and laws have failed since a slave trade still exists, so let's abolish those laws and regulations that interfere with a lucrative capitalistic activity.

SHE'S PLAYING THE WOMAN CARD !!!!!,!!11 WE MEN ARE SO OPPRESSED!!

Continuing that extrapolation... We could say the laws and regulations against slavery impose unnecessary costs on the slave traders and their customers, and argue that the "benefits " of getting rid of laws that criminalise the slave trade would include a reduction in the price of slaves to the customer

So would it be okay if people said, "I am with him", that would be okay right?

Also this isn't the 1890s and no women are not a disenfranchised group.

"So would it be okay if people said, "I am with him", that would be okay right?"

Probably, so long as it isn't a blatant jab at another slogan. It also wouldn't be an impactful.

"Also this isn't the 1890s and no women are not a disenfranchised group."

So first off, right to vote was passed in the 1920s not the 1890s and secondly, yes, they are, like you can look at numerous scientific studies and conclude that societal and other norms and practices do favor men over women by a significant amount.

"So would it be okay if people said, "I am with him", that would be okay right?"
In this particular election, sure. It shows which major candidate you support. That doesn't matter. You'll be accused of lifting someone else's slogan, but that's the extent of backlash you'd earn for that.