Elections Hillary will be President.

[IDL]

My point is that you're not really in a position to be talking about what's "anti-establishment" since you have wholly bought into the establishment agenda (to a far greater degree than is typical) while still bizarrely seeing yourself as anti-establishment.

Vote for Hillary then.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If you're the darling of either the Democratic or Republican party you're not anti-establishment. To quote some old guy, R's and D's are two wings of the same bird of prey.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you're the darling of either the Democratic or Republican party you're not anti-establishment. To quote some old guy, R's and D's are two wings of the same bird of prey.

But isn't that just vacuous sloganeering? I mean, Clinton is putting forth very concrete proposals that are objectively very anti-establishment. There's no response to that from the people who follow the media religion and make dumb statements about both parties being the same.

Vote for Hillary then.

I probably will in the general (and probably not in the primary), but don't make the mistake of thinking "anti-establishment"=unquestionably good. I mean, even you'd have to admit that Al Sharpton is probably the most anti-establishment figure in politics, and even liberals are afraid to acknowledge when he makes a good point or to defend him against unreasonable criticism.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Her entire platform, maybe?

So if she ran on being a black man we could use that to define her?
A leopard can't change it's spots.

Hillary Clinton IS the establishment and her rhetoric on the campaign trail cannot erase her record as Senator of NY and Secretary of State.

More financial regs

What exactly are her proposals? I've only read vague populist rhetoric and that she has no intention of including Elizabeth Warren's new Glass-Steagall proposal into her platform.
Clinton will not propose reinstating bank break-up law -campaign adviser Blinder

increase in capital gains,

This is mostly rhetoric and much ado about nothing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/a-sneak-peek-at-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-plan-

Its also something her husband proposed 20 years ago, and I don't think we can call the man who repealed Glass-Steagal as "anti-establishment".


Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Backers: We get it

It

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I mean, Clinton is putting forth very concrete proposals that are objectively very anti-establishment. There's no response to that from the people who follow the media religion and make dumb statements about both parties being the same.

You're going to have to give your definition of "concrete" as well as some sources for this. I have not seen anything close to concrete coming from her campaign.

I probably will in the general (and probably not in the primary), but don't make the mistake of thinking "anti-establishment"=unquestionably good. I mean, even you'd have to admit that Al Sharpton is probably the most anti-establishment figure in politics, and even liberals are afraid to acknowledge when he makes a good point or to defend him against unreasonable criticism.

Al Sharpton is a parasite. The establishment is his host.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So if she ran on being a black man we could use that to define her?

???

Hillary Clinton IS the establishment and her rhetoric on the campaign trail cannot erase her record as Senator of NY and Secretary of State.

You're changing the subject (I'm talking policy, you're changing it to rhetoric--please try to be honest). And she had one of the most liberal voting record of any senator, no? Not sure why you think he record as senator makes your point.

What exactly are her proposals? I've only read vague populist rhetoric and that she has no intention of including Elizabeth Warren's new Glass-Steagall proposal into her platform.

That's something you can look up for more detail. I already provided an outline.

This is mostly rhetoric and much ado about nothing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/a-sneak-peek-at-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-plan-

You didn't actually read that link, did you?

Its also something her husband proposed 20 years ago, and I don't think we can call the man who repealed Glass-Steagal as "anti-establishment".

It's not what Bill Clinton proposed, actually, and we've moved in a more-establishment direction since the 1990s, which Hillary Clinton is trying to reverse.

Now lets look at who has donated to Clinton throughout her career:

Why not look at who is donating to (and against) her now?

This is her just trying to steal Bernie Sander's thunder.
The fact that she stands to benefit from ~$1B in SuperPac money without denouncing it is far more revealing of her position than copping Sanders' position.

Huh? Are you under the impression that Sanders originated opposition to CU? The left hated it immediately and has been banging the drums against it constantly, right? And you realize that Hillary was at the center of the original case, right? It was about Citizen's United's "Hillary: The Movie".

I disagree. I think it's about distinguishing her populist rhetoric from her record.

What you want to do is ignore her record and her platform and insist against all logic that she's "pro-establishment."

Al Sharpton is a parasite. The establishment is his host.

Yeah, that's what extreme anti-establishment types get. Near-universal hatred from gullible media consumers like you.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But isn't that just vacuous sloganeering? I mean, Clinton is putting forth very concrete proposals that are objectively very anti-establishment. There's no response to that from the people who follow the media religion and make dumb statements about both parties being the same.

It's a big picture perspective. Maybe I consider politics more a dog & pony show than you do and we'll never agree on what constitutes establishment, as subjective as it is. The existence of a fun slogan doesn't devalue my view.

Hilary has been around enough to where I'd listen to nothing she says and instead examine her voting record for insight. Reminds me of the old "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see".

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's a big picture perspective. Maybe I consider politics more a dog & pony show than you do and we'll never agree on what constitutes establishment, as subjective as it is. The existence of a fun slogan doesn't devalue my view.

Hilary has been around enough to where I'd listen to nothing she says and instead examine her voting record for insight. Reminds me of the old "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see".

Her voting record was very liberal, though. ???

And, yeah, I think you're looking at it more like it's an election for class president, while I'm looking more seriously at policy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Her voting record was very liberal, though. ???

I'm looking more seriously at policy.

She voted for Iraq and defended that position for years, yeah? What were her votes on legislation you consider consequential and most importantly what did she have a big hand in pushing through? Ron Paul took hits for never getting anything passed. What's Hilary done that makes here an attractive option?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're changing the subject (I'm talking policy, you're changing it to rhetoric--please try to be honest). And she had one of the most liberal voting record of any senator, no? Not sure why you think he record as senator makes your point.

I'm not changing the subject. Its pretty well established that a multi-millionaire wife of a twice elected POTUS and 5x? elected Governor of AR, former Senator of NY, and former Secretary of State who has been the beneficiary of millions of dollars in donations from Wall Street and Big Business is part of the establishment. Any effort to disprove this will require more than rhetoric. Being a "liberal" Senator is meaningless.

That's something you can look up for more detail. I already provided an outline.

Dodge noted.

You didn't actually read that link, did you?

I did. Actually.

It's not what Bill Clinton proposed, actually, and we've moved in a more-establishment direction since the 1990s, which Hillary Clinton is trying to reverse.

You didn't actually read that link, did you?

Why not look at who is donating to (and against) her now?

The same reason your GPA isn't based on a random semester of work.

But I'm game:

Hollywood, Lawyers, and... Wall Street :redface:
Those Hollywood and Legal donors must be salivating at the prospect of Hillary's support of the TPP.

Huh? Are you under the impression that Sanders originated opposition to CU? The left hated it immediately and has been banging the drums against it constantly, right? And you realize that Hillary was at the center of the original case, right? It was about Citizen's United's "Hillary: The Movie".

Huh? Has Hillary spoken out about the $1,000,000,000 her campaign is expecting to benefit from due to CU and the SuperPacs? Actions speak louder than words. And money influences. And as the election gets closer we're going to see a dramatic shift in those donor numbers (hint: a lot more Wall Street money).

What you want to do is ignore her record and her platform and insist against all logic that she's "pro-establishment."

You've got it twisted. I'm looking at her record. You're positions is that because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and has Democrat leaning positions, she's not a part of the establishment. The DNC is a much a part of the establishment as the GOP, even more-so when you consider the POTUS has been a democrat 16 of the last 24 years.

 

[Jack V Savage]

She voted for Iraq and defended that position for years, yeah?

That's more of a talking point than an accurate description of what happened. She voted to authorize Bush to make the call in Iraq and defended that (based on a "we didn't know the reality was not what was presented" claim).

What were her votes on legislation you consider consequential and most importantly what did she have a big hand in pushing through? Ron Paul took hits for never getting anything passed. What's Hilary done that makes here an attractive option?

Dude, you're all over the place. You said that we have to look at her voting record, didn't you? Her voting record in fact was very liberal. Now you're moving the goalposts. One almost gets the sense that you're not arguing in good faith here.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties

Indeed, Clinton Foundation money-raising already is drawing attention.

 

[Final Rehab]

Sanders doesn't seem to have the same charm as Obama did. To get people swooning you have to have charisma.

That man has explosive charisma brah.

Who hasn't had that wise, crazy grandpa who needs to set things straight? This is the face of the New World Order, get used to it.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why not look at who is donating to (and against) her now?

So I showed her donor list, now lets put it in perspective:
Wall Street Is Putting Money Behind These Presidential Candidates

Clinton, Bush, Rubio Are Top Recipients of Big Bank Cash

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not changing the subject. Its pretty well established that a multi-millionaire wife of a twice elected POTUS and 5x? elected Governor of AR, former Senator of NY, and former Secretary of State who has been the beneficiary of millions of dollars in donations from Wall Street and Big Business is part of the establishment. Any effort to disprove this will require more than rhetoric. Being a "liberal" Senator is meaningless.

Er, despite your assertion that you're not changing the subject, you're changing the subject. I said that her policy platform is anti-establishment (which it very obviously, and indisputably is) and you said that I'm talking about rhetoric. Asking nicely again: Can you please try to be honest about my position?

I did. Actually.

What part of it do you think supports your assertions?

The same reason your GPA isn't based on a random semester of work.

Random?

Hollywood, Lawyers, and... Wall Street :redface:
Those Hollywood and Legal donors must be salivating at the prospect of Hillary's support of the TPP.

You can read their explanations. You think that $90K from MS employees to a presidential candidate outweighs that candidate's voting record and platform? Especially when that industry is heavily favoring her likely opponent (Wall Street money is 2-1 for Republicans this cycle, no?).

Huh? Has Hillary spoken out about the $1,000,000,000 her campaign is expecting to benefit from due to CU and the SuperPacs? Actions speak louder than words. And money influences. And as the election gets closer we're going to see a dramatic shift in those donor numbers (hint: a lot more Wall Street money).

You're changing the subject again. You said that Clinton's opposition to CU is just aping Sanders, when the reality is that she's been opposing CU since it happened. The case was about an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the first place! At least have the decency to admit that you goofed there before moving on to your next lame talking point. Most of her Super PAC money is coming from unions, right? I know another poster posted that unions are part of the establishment, but to that I can only say if you believe that, you can believe anything.

You've got it twisted. I'm looking at her record.

Not her voting record or her platform. It's just a personal thing, no?

You're positions is that because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and has Democrat leaning positions, she's not a part of the establishment. The DNC is a much a part of the establishment as the GOP, even more-so when you consider the POTUS has been a democrat 16 of the last 24 years.

My position is that objectively anti-establishment positions (like an increase in capital gains taxes, sick leave, increased financial regs, etc.) are anti-establishment. How silly of me...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's more of a talking point than an accurate description of what happened. She voted to authorize Bush to make the call in Iraq and defended that (based on a "we didn't know the reality was not what was presented" claim).



Dude, you're all over the place. You said that we have to look at her voting record, didn't you? Her voting record in fact was very liberal. Now you're moving the goalposts. One almost gets the sense that you're not arguing in good faith here.

Call it what you want. Others were against the war and spoke up. She didn't. Did she?

What was the original goal post that I've contradicted by asking you to name any legislative accomplishments (that you chose not to). To my knowledge we agreed to disagree over what the establishment was. Is that what you're anchored to?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My position is that objectively anti-establishment positions (like an increase in capital gains taxes, sick leave, increased financial regs, etc.) are anti-establishment. How silly of me...

My position would be that the establishment allows for range of motion within it to accommodate the stresses. Don't confuse challenging it with patching it up.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Er, despite your assertion that you're not changing the subject, you're changing the subject. I said that her policy platform is anti-establishment (which it very obviously, and indisputably is) and you said that I'm talking about rhetoric. Asking nicely again: Can you please try to be honest about my position?

I'm being honest, Jack. Lets not go there.
Hillary's current position and rhetoric doesn't jive with her record.
And having a "liberal" voting record doesn't mean she isn't part of the establishment or even pro-establishment (which she is).

What part of it do you think supports your assertions?

Its in the article. Read it.

Random?

Arbitrary at best. Cherry picked is probably the better term. Ultimately meaningless.

You can read their explanations. You think that $90K from MS employees to a presidential candidate outweighs that candidate's voting record and platform? Especially when that industry is heavily favoring her likely opponent (Wall Street money is 2-1 for Republicans this cycle, no?).

See my post above. Who is Wall Street's darling, now?
She has more donations than Bush and Rubio.

You're changing the subject again. You said that Clinton's opposition to CU is just aping Sanders, when the reality is that she's been opposing CU since it happened. The case was about an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the first place! At least have the decency to admit that you goofed there before moving on to your next lame talking point. Most of her Super PAC money is coming from unions, right? I know another poster posted that unions are part of the establishment, but to that I can only say if you believe that, you can believe anything.

The reality is her rhetoric doesn't jive with her actions.

Not her voting record or her platform. It's just a personal thing, no?

For you? Sure, it probably is personal. I'm just being objective.

My position is that objectively anti-establishment positions (like an increase in capital gains taxes, sick leave, increased financial regs, etc.) are anti-establishment. How silly of me...

My position is that objectively pro-business and pro-Wall Street politicians with a history of flip flopping on important issues, like Hillary Clinton, cannot erase their history with some populist rhetoric on the campaign trail. I'm also of the position that actions speak louder than words and that being a Democrat does not make one anti-establishment.

 

[IDL]

That man has explosive charisma brah.

Who hasn't had that wise, crazy grandpa who needs to set things straight? This is the face of the New World Order, get used to it.

I stand corrected!

 

[Seano]

This coming presidential election is scary. What a shallow talent pool. I think this is the first time in my life that I've been genuinely concerned for the future of US politics. I mean, sure we all have our politicians we like and don't like but to think we might be seeing Hillary vs Trump? Would anyone have believed this could come to pass 5 years ago?