Elections Hillary will be President.

[kpt018]

This seems like a weird argument to me.

I always associated anti-establishment with "fighting for the common man" or "fuck the MAN (the boss)". So clearly Hillary and Bernie are anti-establishment meanwhile the Republican candidates are pro-establishment.

What am I missing here? Does being wealthy and powerful in itself make you pro-establishment?

 

[ripskater]

This seems like a weird argument to me.

I always associated anti-establishment with "fighting for the common man" or "fuck the MAN (the boss)". So clearly Hillary and Bernie are anti-establishment meanwhile the Republican candidates are pro-establishment.

What am I missing here? Does being wealthy and powerful in itself make you pro-establishment?

Hillary is fighting for herself. She's a flip flopper, all show. She can even talk southern. Bernie is probably legit though.

 

[kpt018]

Hillary is fighting for herself. She's a flip flopper, all show. She can even talk southern. Bernie is probably legit though.

Do you have a point related to my post? If not I don't know why you quoted me.

And by fighting for herself you mean supporting things that help the poor and middle class? Shit, the right claims she is at war with the wealthy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This seems like a weird argument to me.

I always associated anti-establishment with "fighting for the common man" or "fuck the MAN (the boss)". So clearly Hillary and Bernie are anti-establishment meanwhile the Republican candidates are pro-establishment.

What am I missing here? Does being wealthy and powerful in itself make you pro-establishment?

That's how I've always seen it, too.

There is an odd tendency (and I've commented on this before) for the lunatic fringe to identify with the right, even though they'd seem to be natural far-left types. I think race is a big part of it, but it's also that the disaffected CT infrastructure has been around since the days when there was a liberal consensus in Washington and so people just pick up that ball (and in some cases, it's the exact same stuff--note how IDL will frequently link loony right-wing videos from that era).

 

[Denter]

This seems like a weird argument to me.

I always associated anti-establishment with "fighting for the common man" or "fuck the MAN (the boss)". So clearly Hillary and Bernie are anti-establishment meanwhile the Republican candidates are pro-establishment.

What am I missing here? Does being wealthy and powerful in itself make you pro-establishment?

Well that has all sorts of assumptions baked into it.

In a communist state, free market advocates would be anti-establishment, even if that would lead to greater inequality, right?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Hillary is fighting for herself. She's a flip flopper, all show. She can even talk southern. Bernie is probably legit though.

and Planned parenthood...don't forget, Hillary Clinton is pro genocide of children.

Hillary is as anti Christian as you can possibly get. It wouldn't surprise me if she was affiliated with a satantic church...especially with he pro gay/sin positions as well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well that has all sorts of assumptions baked into it.

In a communist state, free market advocates would be anti-establishment, even if that would lead to greater inequality, right?

Interesting question (assuming you're talking about Big C Communism). I think that is correct, though the dynamics would be entirely different (they wouldn't be fighting for the existing powerful to be more powerful the way the right in a liberal country is). "The Man" would be the state.

 

[kpt018]

Well that has all sorts of assumptions baked into it.

What assumptions? It simply means fighting for the rights of the common man, or the minority. Union leaders, social movements (Martin Luther King, Susan B Anthony), Occupy Wallstreet, etc..

In a communist state, free market advocates would be anti-establishment, even if that would lead to greater inequality, right?

Depends. If "free markets" simply means a shift of power from the state to the ultra wealthy land/business owners, both would be considered pro-establishment.

 

[ripskater]

Do you have a point related to my post? If not I don't know why you quoted me.

And by fighting for herself you mean supporting things that help the poor and middle class? Shit, the right claims she is at war with the wealthy.

She couldn't care less about poor and middle class. All that matters to her is her high class status.

 

[Zipp]

It's pointless to vote. You guys can stand in line like idiots for hours if you want to. I'm sleeping in.

You'd probably stand in line for some free lemonade tho

 

[kpt018]

She couldn't care less about poor and middle class. All that matters to her is her high class status.

That's a character attack you can't back up quite honestly. And it contradicts her actions.

Although, I do believe her status matters very much to her but who gives a shit? Almost everyone cares about their status and certainly everyone in power does. That's a bad thing now?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

She couldn't care less about poor and middle class. All that matters to her is her high class status.

I'm sure she cares about her secret Lesbian partners too.

 

[Bork]

That's how I've always seen it, too.

There is an odd tendency (and I've commented on this before) for the lunatic fringe to identify with the right, even though they'd seem to be natural far-left types. I think race is a big part of it, but it's also that the disaffected CT infrastructure has been around since the days when there was a liberal consensus in Washington and so people just pick up that ball (and in some cases, it's the exact same stuff--note how IDL will frequently link loony right-wing videos from that era).

Bernie has been addressing this as well. It's part of the reason he's been so staunch on going to red states. I watched some of his houston rally and he called out texans for voting against their best interests. He also has been heavily talking about money in presidential elections as well in his campaign against billionaires.

 

[Denter]

Interesting question (assuming you're talking about Big C Communism). I think that is correct, though the dynamics would be entirely different (they wouldn't be fighting for the existing powerful to be more powerful the way the right in a liberal country is). "The Man" would be the state.

But the powerful would be representing the people. The neoliberals would be representing capital.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Bernie has been addressing this as well. It's part of the reason he's been so staunch on going to red states. I watched some of his houston rally and he called out texans for voting against their best interests. He also has been heavily talking about money in presidential elections as well in his campaign against billionaires.

That's good. I hope he has success there.

But the powerful would be representing the people. The neoliberals would be representing capital.

Not *really*, though. Like kpt said, if there already is a powerful class of capitalists, then you're just talking about establishment in-fighting, but if there isn't, then capital is controlled by the state.

 

[Denter]

What assumptions? It simply means fighting for the rights of the common man, or the minority. Union leaders, social movements (Martin Luther King, Susan B Anthony), Occupy Wallstreet, etc..



Depends. If "free markets" simply means a shift of power from the state to the ultra wealthy land/business owners, both would be considered pro-establishment.

Bold: that is confusing. So "anti-establishment" is basically code for left wing social democracy?

Red: Right, but that's a very deeply leftist belief.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Red: Right, but that's a very deeply leftist belief.

Not really. Traditionally, the right has openly opposed the interests of the common man. In America lately, we have some on the right claiming that the way to *really* help the common man is by cutting capital gains and estate taxes, eliminating the MW, weakening labor, and cutting the social safety net, but we know that that's not sincere.

 

[Denter]

That's good. I hope he has success there.



Not *really*, though. Like kpt said, if there already is a powerful class of capitalists, then you're just talking about establishment in-fighting, but if there isn't, then capital is controlled by the state.

So "the people" are always anti-establishment? This is starting to sound a bit like Permanent Revolution.

Is there no set of circumstances where the people have true representation by the powerstructure? And if so, wouldn't an elitist, less democratic movement by definition be anti-establishment?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So "the people" are always anti-establishment?

Yeah. Is that surprising? Like kpt said, it's like saying "The Man."

Is there no set of circumstances where the people have true representation by the powerstructure? And if so, wouldn't an elitist, less democratic movement by definition be anti-establishment?

Sure you can have people with true representation. People won't like to hear it, but that's pretty much what we have throughout the West. You know, there is still a powerful establishment, but it's balanced by democracy. And, no, an elitist, less-democratic movement would never, by definition, be "anti-establishment." I mean, do you think that Pinochet was an anti-establishment leader (I'm almost afraid to see your answer to that)?

 

[Denter]

Yeah. Is that surprising? Like kpt said, it's like saying "The Man."



Sure you can have people with true representation. People won't like to hear it, but that's pretty much what we have throughout the West. You know, there is still a powerful establishment, but it's balanced by democracy. And, no, an elitist, less-democratic movement would never, by definition, be "anti-establishment." I mean, do you think that Pinochet was an anti-establishment leader (I'm almost afraid to see your answer to that)?

Bold: it is surprising, because it means that the word isn't being used properly. it doesn't mean "democratic" or "socialist", just whoever is against the current establishment.

Red: Why not? I'm curious as to why "the people" can't be "the establishment".

Green: Pinochet was part of a marginalized part of the establishment (Chile's powerful military). That said- he saved Chile and relinquished power rather gracefully. Adios, mi General!

Jk