Elections Hillary will be President.

[Denter]

Why does it matter who is pro or anti establishment? If you like their policies and think its worth voting for them, some ad hominem like that won't matter.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

But seriously. What do you think she's going to do to be "pro-establishment" if she wins? Roll back Dodd-Frank? Eliminate capital gains taxes? Eliminate the inheritance tax? Allow oil companies to externalize more costs? Push for increased military spending? Make it harder for minorities to vote? Repeal the ACA? What?

She will definitely roll back Dodd-Frank, if her and her husband's past record is any indication, she might even eliminate or reduce capital gains taxes, it's also possible she'll eliminate or reduce the inheritance tax, she will definitely push for increased military spending, she will likely support and continue to support the keystone XL pipeline and further exploitation of fossil fuel resources to the determint of the planet, I doubt she'll attack minorities and she won't touch Obamas insurance company wetdream act.

 

[Videer]

Hillary is the very essence of establishment, perhaps even more so than anyone else running bar Jebbo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why does it matter who is pro or anti establishment? If you like their policies and think its worth voting for them, some ad hominem like that won't matter.

It's used as an ad hominem (ad feminam?) but I'm trying to bring some actual meaning to it. It's not a big deal, but it's an annoyance to see extreme pro-establishment politicians like the Pauls pretend to be anti-establishment to sell their stuff to rubes while legitimate anti-establishment candidates are called pro-establishment. It feels like truth is being drained out of politics, though I guess that's been going on for a while.

She will definitely roll back Dodd-Frank, if her and her husband's past record is any indication, she might even eliminate or reduce capital gains taxes, it's also possible she'll eliminate or reduce the inheritance tax, she will definitely push for increased military spending, she will likely support and continue to support the keystone XL pipeline and further exploitation of fossil fuel resources to the determint of the planet, I doubt she'll attack minorities and she won't touch Obamas insurance company wetdream act.

Wow. Something substantial. I happen to think you're completely wrong and that you have no basis whatsoever for your claims, but at least they actually amount to something other than that you don't like her. Since she's the favorite to win, we'll have a good chance to see. Would you like to make some kind of wager on this?

 

[ultramanhyata]

But seriously. What do you think she's going to do to be "pro-establishment" if she wins? Roll back Dodd-Frank? Eliminate capital gains taxes? Eliminate the inheritance tax? Allow oil companies to externalize more costs? Push for increased military spending? Make it harder for minorities to vote? Repeal the ACA? What?

So... We're back to "establishment policies" being defined as any policies that are significantly out of step with the DNC's platform.

Whereas, in reality, in the case of democrats, it would only be a candidate who was significantly off the reservation relative to the DNC's policy positions who could legitimately be deemed "anti-establishment".

It's pretty simple, Jack. All the political power in America lies entirely in the hands of two political parties. Those two ideologies represent the "establishment" by definition. Only those running for office who stand in opposition to elements of either the GOP or DNC platforms can therefore be considered "anti-establishment". And it would be by matter of degrees.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So... We're back to "establishment policies" being defined as any policies that are significantly out of step with the DNC's platform.

We're back to "establishment policies" being policies that strengthen the establishment. Would you really argue that redistribution from labor to capital isn't a pro-establishment position, for example? Or that monetary policy favoring banks over workers/borrowers isn't "pro-establishment"? Or that opposition to financial regulations isn't "pro-establishment"? Or that allowing oil companies to pollute more isn't pro-establishment? Seriously, can you answer those questions instead of ducking and insulting the fellow who happens to be asking? Is your point just that because one political party that wins some elections holds anti-establishment positions, those positions are no longer anti-establishment?

 

[Gandhi]

Jack is happy to say what he thinks and doesn't need people who aren't capable of honestly representing his positions to speak for him.

It's quite telling that this late into the thread, no one can say what positions of Clinton's they think are pro-establishment. It's entirely a personality thing.

I listed the Iraq war as one earlier and I think you said that should not count or something to that effect? Supporting three strikes you are out would be another. Israel could be a third.

Why would we not included all the existing liberal policies (progressive taxation, social programs, unions, etc.) as part of the existing power structure. I agree republicans want to change it but we don't live in total tea party land yet or..,,

 

[kpt018]

Wow. Something substantial. I happen to think you're completely wrong and that you have no basis whatsoever for your claims, but at least they actually amount to something other than that you don't like her. Since she's the favorite to win, we'll have a good chance to see. Would you like to make some kind of wager on this?

I'd like to get in on the action as well. It seems like he confused Hillary with the Republican candidates.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I listed the Iraq war as one earlier and I think you said that should not count or something to that effect? Supporting three strikes you are out would be another. Israel could be a third.

I don't see the Iraq war as being an axis issue there, and it's not relevant to the current election. Bill supported three strikes, but Hillary didn't (On the Issues even lists that as one of their points of disagreement, and notes that Hillary has expressed opposition to mandatory minimums, of which "three strikes" is an extreme example). I don't know exactly what you mean with regard to Israel.

Why would we not included all the existing liberal policies (progressive taxation, social programs, unions, etc.) as part of the existing power structure.

Well, like I said, that's a point of disagreement. To me, "The Establishment" is as Anung cited:

"the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority" ... "a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class" and ... "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society."

The rich, in general, capital owners, captains of industry. Social programs are something tolerated by the establishment but always considered beyond our financial capability currently. Progressive taxation is something that the establishment has been fighting forever. Unions are one way that regular people fight against the establishment.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

It's used as an ad hominem (ad feminam?) but I'm trying to bring some actual meaning to it. It's not a big deal, but it's an annoyance to see extreme pro-establishment politicians like the Pauls pretend to be anti-establishment to sell their stuff to rubes while legitimate anti-establishment candidates are called pro-establishment. It feels like truth is being drained out of politics, though I guess that's been going on for a while.



Wow. Something substantial. I happen to think you're completely wrong and that you have no basis whatsoever for your claims, but at least they actually amount to something other than that you don't like her. Since she's the favorite to win, we'll have a good chance to see. Would you like to make some kind of wager on this?

I have "no basis whatsoever for my claims" - she's come out in full support of the Keystone XL pipeline.

I don't think I have to provide a link here, do I?

I base a good portion of what I've said on articles by Glen Greenwald who called her the ultimate bi-partisan defender of the status quo.


I also base my claims on her campaign contributors, Bill's decision to repeal glass-steagall, her record in voting for the Iraq war and supporting the troop surge, her generally being in favour of increased military spending (she's certainly never advocated for a reduction in military spending), etc etc. She was in favour of the patriot act, in favour of the national defense authorization act, and gave up on her national health reform in the 90's.

 

[grimballer]

Nah man. Trump got this.

Ppl want that wall to be build on Mexican border

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Million-Dollar Donors in the 2016 Presidential Race

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/04/us/elections/100000003826044.mobile.html


The top 32 contributions are ALL for Republicans.

All private companies, individuals and foundations. One union (they donated to Hillary). Bernie nowhere to be found.

Conservatives that go on about getting big money out of politics need to either shut the fuck up about it, or admit that they DON'T want big money out of politics.

 

[ripskater]

Hindu goddess Kali made her appearance on the Empire State Building this weekend. This picture reminds me of Hillary and is it a sign that she will be elected? It has me wondering.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have "no basis whatsoever for my claims" - she's come out in full support of the Keystone XL pipeline.

I don't think I have to provide a link here, do I?

Please do. Also, please relate this to your claims.

I base a good portion of what I've said on articles by Glen Greenwald who called her the ultimate bi-partisan defender of the status quo.

Not surprising. Greenwald is one of those self-proclaimed leftists who viciously oppose any attempt to actually move the country leftward while cheering on Ron Paul as they attempt to dismantle the social safety net. If you're coming from the perspective of "purity" politics, everyone is an evil monster except the hard right, which is just a force of nature. That's why I'm focusing on policy.

I also base my claims on her campaign contributors, Bill's decision to repeal glass-steagall, her record in voting for the Iraq war and supporting the troop surge, her generally being in favour of increased military spending (she's certainly never advocated for a reduction in military spending), etc etc. She was in favour of the patriot act, in favour of the national defense authorization act, and gave up on her national health reform in the 90's.

Campaign contributors like unions and the usual groups that contribute to every major campaign, right? And it's quite strange that you'd say that it was Bill's decision to repeal Glas-Steagall when you're talking about him signing a bill that had a veto-proof majority. Furthermore, Hillary and Bill are different human beings. This is her on military spending: "[Defense Secretary Bob Gates] believed it was time for balance among what I was calling the 3Ds of defense, diplomacy, and development. The easiest place to see the imbalance was in the budget. For every dollar spent by the federal government, just one penny went to diplomacy and development. Bob said the foreign affairs budget was "disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military." There were as many Americans serving in military marching bands as in the diplomatic corps. We became allies, tag-teaming Congress for a smarter national security budget." "In favor of the NDAA" makes no sense. Everyone is in favor of it. It has to pass in some form or another. One can oppose or support certain provisions of it. So you'll have to be more specific there. It's not like she said, "ah, fuck it. I just remembered that I'm actually a conservative. Let's keep the same shitty healthcare system we have." Republicans and industry lobbyists won a battle there.

Million-Dollar Donors in the 2016 Presidential Race

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/04/us/elections/100000003826044.mobile.html


The top 32 contributions are ALL for Republicans.

All private companies, individuals and foundations. One union (they donated to Hillary). Bernie nowhere to be found.

Conservatives that go on about getting big money out of politics need to either shut the fuck up about it, or admit that they DON'T want big money out of politics.

But Clinton got some of the ones tied for 33 so we can ignore all that and pretend that both sides are the same.

 

[Denter]

Hindu goddess Kali made her appearance on the Empire State Building this weekend. This picture reminds me of Hillary and is it a sign that she will be elected? It has me wondering.

Are you serious?

There's Hillary- a human woman- and Kali- the representative of death, the void, the female version of raw chaotic energy that ends and transforms all life.

What do you think?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Hindu goddess Kali made her appearance on the Empire State Building this weekend. This picture reminds me of Hillary and is it a sign that she will be elected? It has me wondering.

You saw this....

And thought of this?....

Spoiler

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Are you serious?

There's Hillary- a human woman- and Kali- the representative of death, the void, the female version of raw chaotic energy that ends and transforms all life.

What do you think?

When you put it like that, it's a perfectly logical to be reminded of Hillary.

 

[ripskater]

When you put it like that, it's a perfectly logical to be reminded of Hillary.

This man gets it^

 

[equus]

And welcome Iran to their new nuclear program!

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Please do. Also, please relate this to your claims.



Not surprising. Greenwald is one of those self-proclaimed leftists who viciously oppose any attempt to actually move the country leftward while cheering on Ron Paul as they attempt to dismantle the social safety net. If you're coming from the perspective of "purity" politics, everyone is an evil monster except the hard right, which is just a force of nature. That's why I'm focusing on policy.



Campaign contributors like unions and the usual groups that contribute to every major campaign, right? And it's quite strange that you'd say that it was Bill's decision to repeal Glas-Steagall when you're talking about him signing a bill that had a veto-proof majority. Furthermore, Hillary and Bill are different human beings. This is her on military spending: "[Defense Secretary Bob Gates] believed it was time for balance among what I was calling the 3Ds of defense, diplomacy, and development. The easiest place to see the imbalance was in the budget. For every dollar spent by the federal government, just one penny went to diplomacy and development. Bob said the foreign affairs budget was "disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military." There were as many Americans serving in military marching bands as in the diplomatic corps. We became allies, tag-teaming Congress for a smarter national security budget." "In favor of the NDAA" makes no sense. Everyone is in favor of it. It has to pass in some form or another. One can oppose or support certain provisions of it. So you'll have to be more specific there. It's not like she said, "ah, fuck it. I just remembered that I'm actually a conservative. Let's keep the same shitty healthcare system we have." Republicans and industry lobbyists won a battle there.

Your comment about Greenwald is complete horse shit and you know it. He's never shown support for a right-wing social agenda. He's in favour of dropping less bombs on the middle east.

Greenwald is correct to call the Clintons monsters, Bill is a terrorist who knowingly bombed a pharmaceutical plant and deprived thousands of people of critical medicines. She didn't bat an eye.

I claimed she would further exploit fossil fuels to the detriment of the planet. Re-read my post if you don't believe me. That was one of my "baseless claims", lol. I have a link on the bottom.

She didn't speak out against the death of habeus corpus that was included in the NDAA, (indefinite detention on suspicion of terrorism) she's shown nothing but support for the NSA's mass surveillance program, etc. She voted in favour of the patriot act. She's either supported these initiatives, or kept silent for while supporting them quietly.

"A smarter national security budget" eh? Lol. Okay. That's not proof she wants to reign in military spending at all. That's the equivalent of saying nothing while spending goes up. Its a talking point she might be able to use a little later, at best. Gimmie a break here. She is absolutely a bi-partisan defender of the status quo.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/26/a_former_keystone_xl_lobbyist_just_joined_team_hillary/

-- there's your link. She hasn't come out against keystone, is taking big oil money, and their lobbyists are joining her campaign.

And Bill championed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, lined up the democrats to sign it, when they should have opposed it. That veto-proof majority would not have been possible without the Clintons.

Clinton also passed NAFTA while ignoring every union-based amendment or proposal that might have been included to help strengthen labour rights. They're happy to take union money, not so happy to take union suggestions.

Fair enough on her health care plan, I suppose.