Elections Hillary will be President.

[Gandhi]

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.



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.

Iraq not relevant to the current election ok. I mention Israel as being pro Israel (in a hawkish extent) would have to be a establishment position as that is what the power structures are pulling for (I don't want to risk over generalizing here, people know my views here). I give Obama cred on the antinestab front here more than Hilary. To make it simpler, the current power structure favors a hawkish foreign policy and Hilary is in that wing.

You got me on three strikes, good for her.

This really is a definitional issue, it just seems like Hilary is def part of the ruling class
as is warren buffet. I don't see her changing the established power structure beyond some useful tinkering (which i think is a good thing). She will stop some negative trends that would get worse under rpubs but preventing negative change in not ant establishment per say.

I def see things like the IRS and the EPA as the establishment. Same for the ACA (now that it is passed).

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

No, but he's been pimping Ron Paul, who has a right-wing social and economic agenda. It's odd how some "leftists" are so strongly opposed to any actual attempts to reshape our institutions in ways that are favorable to workers and so supportive of right-wing extremists who make symbolic gestures in their direction.

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.

Your link refutes your own claim ("she's come out in full support of the Keystone XL pipeline"), which is an insignificant symbolic issue anyway. If you want to see a real establishment candidate's position on fossil fuels, look up Scott Walker. Or here: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/scott-walker-environment-climate-change-2016. But I know to the Greenwalds of the world, someone who is working to reduce emissions but not in the exact same way as him is a thousand times worse than someone who is denying that limiting emissions is even desirable and is actively working to prevent any limitation.

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.

Looking at On the Issues:

"Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad."
"Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision."

And she co-sponsored the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.

"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.

You're playing dumb. The context is that we spend too much on the military and not enough on diplomacy. It's a very clear statement in opposition to military spending, which you said we'd never see from her.

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

Your assertion was that "she's come out in full support of the Keystone XL pipeline." What big oil money are you talking about? Are you claiming that big oil wants her to win the election?

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.

That's something that isn't based on anything factual. Further, LOL at "the Clintons." Everyone knew at the time that Bill and Hillary were divided on lots of issues related to financial reform and finance in general.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Iraq not relevant to the current election ok. I mention Israel as being pro Israel (in a hawkish extent) would have to be a establishment position as that is what the power structures are pulling for (I don't want to risk over generalizing here, people know my views here). I give Obama cred on the antinestab front here more than Hilary. To make it simpler, the current power structure favors a hawkish foreign policy and Hilary is in that wing.

My issue there, then, is that it's too vague. I don't generally follow foreign policy as closely as other issues that matter more to me and it's not something I can research as you said it. I don't think there are any American legislators that are anti-Israel in the sense of not believing it should exist as a nation or even being indifferent to the fate of its people.

This really is a definitional issue, it just seems like Hilary is def part of the ruling class
as is warren buffet. I don't see her changing the established power structure beyond some useful tinkering (which i think is a good thing). She will stop some negative trends that would get worse under rpubs but preventing negative change in not ant establishment per say.

I def see things like the IRS and the EPA as the establishment. Same for the ACA (now that it is passed).

Yeah, so, same response. I don't see "The Establishment" as being the public as a whole (and thus winning elections doesn't make you part of it--it depends where you go from there). I think the capital gains changes that she's proposing and that are getting dismissed by extremists here are a very big deal. I don't see the ACA as an "establishment" thing. It raises taxes on the rich to pay for a new benefit for the poor, in addition to the general cost-cutting.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

No, but he's been pimping Ron Paul, who has a right-wing social and economic agenda. It's odd how some "leftists" are so strongly opposed to any actual attempts to reshape our institutions in ways that are favorable to workers and so supportive of right-wing extremists who make symbolic gestures in their direction.



Your link refutes your own claim ("she's come out in full support of the Keystone XL pipeline"), which is an insignificant symbolic issue anyway. If you want to see a real establishment candidate's position on fossil fuels, look up Scott Walker. Or here: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/scott-walker-environment-climate-change-2016. But I know to the Greenwalds of the world, someone who is working to reduce emissions but not in the exact same way as him is a thousand times worse than someone who is denying that limiting emissions is even desirable and is actively working to prevent any limitation.



Looking at On the Issues:

"Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad."
"Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision."

And she co-sponsored the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.



You're playing dumb. The context is that we spend too much on the military and not enough on diplomacy. It's a very clear statement in opposition to military spending, which you said we'd never see from her.



Your assertion was that "she's come out in full support of the Keystone XL pipeline." What big oil money are you talking about? Are you claiming that big oil wants her to win the election?



That's something that isn't based on anything factual. Further, LOL at "the Clintons." Everyone knew at the time that Bill and Hillary were divided on lots of issues related to financial reform and finance in general.

He has not been "pimping" Ron Paul, he's come out and said he has good foreign policy ideas. Which he does. The rest of your comments on Greenwald are total hogwash.

As to the rest of it, alright, that's interesting. Maybe I was wrong about her.

 

[ripskater]

You saw this....

And thought of this?....

Spoiler

Yes

I'm telling you, Hillary is one evil woman. And she could win.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He has not been "pimping" Ron Paul, he's come out and said he has good foreign policy ideas. Which he does. The rest of your comments on Greenwald are total hogwash.

I don't think so. Greenwald is not someone who is contributing in a positive way to the causes favored by the left in America.

As to the rest of it, alright, that's interesting. Maybe I was wrong about her.

Sure. Don't take it to an extreme. She has, for example, voted for the Patriot Act, and she's not Noam Chomsky or something. But there's more to the story than what you get from someone like Greenwald. She was the left voice in the Clinton WH, and her policy positions are mostly in line with today's Democratic Party (which why she's the front-runner), and that is anti-establishment. Further, her capital-gains tax proposal is surprisingly radical.

 

[bad seed]

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.

https://instagram.com/p/6OYsHMh0TH/

 

[ripskater]

https://instagram.com/p/6OYsHMh0TH/

Who knows?

 

[Gandhi]

My issue there, then, is that it's too vague. I don't generally follow foreign policy as closely as other issues that matter more to me and it's not something I can research as you said it. I don't think there are any American legislators that are anti-Israel in the sense of not believing it should exist as a nation or even being indifferent to the fate of its people.



Yeah, so, same response. I don't see "The Establishment" as being the public as a whole (and thus winning elections doesn't make you part of it--it depends where you go from there). I think the capital gains changes that she's proposing and that are getting dismissed by extremists here are a very big deal. I don't see the ACA as an "establishment" thing. It raises taxes on the rich to pay for a new benefit for the poor, in addition to the general cost-cutting.

I think the ACA is a good example. In Canada the candian health care act is like a holy grail. Any federal politician who talks about changing it is doomed. It does not favor the ruling elite in a strict parochial sense but they are not trying to change it. I think the ACA was a challenge to the establishment at first but it will quickly become part of it. It's already becoming impossible to undo due to broad vested interest. To me that forms part of the established power structure. I agree it's more than just being elected. But the status quo and power structure is more than just the rich it's network of interests. Thats just me though, I think there are other axioms that are more important.

 

[Contra-dictator]

Yes

I'm telling you, Hillary is one evil woman. And she could win.

No garden variety evil.

 

[CauseImbetta]

I don't like her. She is for big insurance companies and is in bed with AIPAC, the most dangerous lobby group in the US.

No charisma, but that being said, she is better than any brain-dead republican out there right now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the ACA is a good example. In Canada the candian health care act is like a holy grail. Any federal politician who talks about changing it is doomed. It does not favor the ruling elite in a strict parochial sense but they are not trying to change it. I think the ACA was a challenge to the establishment at first but it will quickly become part of it. It's already becoming impossible to undo due to broad vested interest. To me that forms part of the established power structure. I agree it's more than just being elected. But the status quo and power structure is more than just the rich it's network of interests. Thats just me though, I think there are other axioms that are more important.

What you're talking about is a really popular policy. But the public as a whole isn't the establishment, IMO. It's a small subsection of the population that wields disproportionate power. The equivalent would be Social Security in the U.S. (though the GOP has occasionally made noise about getting rid of it and tried to reduce support by fabricating a funding crisis). But we're talking about a policy designed to reduce poverty among a group that is extremely vulnerable to it (pre-tax and transfer elderly poverty is 45% in America vs. 9% post tax and transfer, with SS being the biggest factor in that reduction). I don't see support for SS (either wanting to expand it or fighting cuts) as a "pro-establishment" position. Attempts to cut it amount to redistribution from a very vulnerable group to a more-powerful one and that strikes me as a "pro-establishment" position.

 

[Boy God]

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like it. Obama seems disgusted with himself that he had to do that. But it's personal, as she ran a dirty campaign against him.

 

[bad seed]

I'm telling you, Hillary is one evil woman. And she could win.

looks more like

The Bushes are the real evil. Skull&Bones wont invite Barack to their midnight mass.

rip: do you agree that Lindsey Graham is a closeted homosexual?

 

[ripskater]

looks more like

The Bushes are the real evil. Skull&Bones wont invite Barack to their midnight mass.

rip: do you agree that Lindsey Graham is a closeted homosexual?

I have no idea.

 

[Gandhi]

What you're talking about is a really popular policy. But the public as a whole isn't the establishment, IMO. It's a small subsection of the population that wields disproportionate power. The equivalent would be Social Security in the U.S. (though the GOP has occasionally made noise about getting rid of it and tried to reduce support by fabricating a funding crisis). But we're talking about a policy designed to reduce poverty among a group that is extremely vulnerable to it (pre-tax and transfer elderly poverty is 45% in America vs. 9% post tax and transfer, with SS being the biggest factor in that reduction). I don't see support for SS (either wanting to expand it or fighting cuts) as a "pro-establishment" position. Attempts to cut it amount to redistribution from a very vulnerable group to a more-powerful one and that strikes me as a "pro-establishment" position.

Social security is a very good equivilant to cdn medicare. This is really not going to be resolvable, as I simply define the current power structure as including all of the devices that distribute power, not just the ones that favor the group with the most power. That is why i see Hilary's FP hawkishness, pro trade, pro liberal programs as very establishment, although I think you have a valid point on the capital gains tax.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

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.

I don't know what's sillier; this post or the claim that Hillary is anti-establishment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know what's sillier; this post or the claim that Hillary is anti-establishment.

What we're seeing is the effect of people not consuming balanced media. You guys are so used to hearing what is actually a highly partisan and questionable charge that you think it's self-evident and you react with shock or outrage to having it questioned. That shaking of your intellectual moorings can be the beginning of education, but you have to be willing to think.

 

[ultramanhyata]

All political power in the US is currently in the hands of two virtually equal political parties: the democrats and the republicans.

Imagine a Venn diagram with a red circle on the right, representing the GOP and a blue circle on the left, representing the DNC.

The purplish overlap area in the middle represents their politically shared center.

To be an "anti-establishment democrat" would require that one's policy positions either extend so far to the right that they exceed the border of the overlap, or so far to the left that they fall entirely outside the blue circle of the DNC platform.

For a political candidate to be strictly "anti-establishment", with no qualifier whatsoever, their policy positions would have to fall entirely outside, to left or right, of the entire Venn diagram.

Hillary Clinton meets the criteria of neither "anti-establishment" definition. To any demonstrable degree whatsoever.*

And, in addition, the sky is blue. And water is wet.





*Her right-wing, neocon foreign policy perspective may be the lone, reasonably debatable exception to calling her a strictly "establishment democrat". Though it can be argued that the Obama administration has already moved the party so far to the right on foreign policy that Hillary's position can now be considered "centrist" or, relative to the Venn diagram, within the purple overlap.