Elections Hillary will be President.

[ultramanhyata]

There is a lot of equivocating going on here (Ultra's post is a good example), but the real difference does come down to definitions.

It certainly does come down to "definitions"... and the difference between one guy's unique and conjured definition of a term versus the way the term has been defined in common, political parlance for decades if not centuries.

"Anti-establishment" is not about right/left policy or republican/democrat alignment. Both parties, and the world of political journalism and punditry, recognize and distinguish between the perceived "establishment" primary candidates and the perceived "anti-establishment" candidates.

Yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic and obvious reality in discussions about the establishment nature of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It's pure "the sky is green" BS. Or maybe you're trolling... Like MM's sig says... "Trolling or retarded. I can't tell anymore."

 

[Jack V Savage]

It certainly does come down to "definitions"... and the difference between one guy's unique and conjured definition of a term versus the way the term has been defined in common, political parlance for decades if not centuries.

Not really. I'm using the common definition. You specified "the Democrat establishment" which is something else entirely. Hence the modifier.

Yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic and obvious reality in discussions about the establishment nature of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It's pure "the sky is green" BS. Or maybe you're trolling... Like MM's sig says... "Trolling or retarded. I can't tell anymore."

Nah, it's pretty clear. Clinton has a very anti-establishment record and platform, but people don't like her personality and have distorted "establishment" to just mean "whatever I don't like."

 

[Gandhi]

I think I need a definition of establishment here. Clinton's a centrist liberal. Her husband ran the country for 8 years and implemented many of their common policies.

Are you suggesting that all moderate liberals are very anti establishment just by the nature of the country or that Hilary is further to the left or beating down some other path but we are just not aware of it?

And how is a vote for Iraq not an establishment position, the few that were brave enough to stand up to a post 911 president were truly bucking the establishment at the time.

Also given that the democrats are an established governing mainstream party, if she is part of that establishment she is by definition part of the THE establishment. Sanders or even warren I could get, Hilary not really. She is part of the establishment, and that is fine IMO.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think I need a definition of establishment here. Clinton's a centrist liberal. Her husband ran the country for 8 years and implemented many of their common policies.

The Clintons as a team were centrist liberals (operating pragmatically in a more right-wing political environment), with Hillary being the further left one of the two.

Are you suggesting that all moderate liberals are very anti establishment just by the nature of the country or that Hilary is further to the left or beating down some other path but we are just not aware of it?

The left generally is the anti-establishment side of the aisle, and Clinton is a left-wing candidate (not necessarily the most in this election, but certainly much further to the left than most of the candidates).

And how is a vote for Iraq not an establishment position, the few that were brave enough to stand up to a post 911 president were truly bucking the establishment at the time.

I didn't say anything about a vote to authorize force against Iraq being an establishment position or not.

Also given that the democrats are an established governing mainstream party, if she is part of that establishment she is by definition part of the THE establishment. Sanders or even warren I could get, Hilary not really. She is part of the establishment, and that is fine IMO.

Again, it comes to a definitional issue. "The Establishment" generally refers to a small group of elites with power disproportional to its numbers. You go way back, and the Church and the monarchy are the establishment, and there are clear anti-establishment movements. Today, I'd say that the business elite is the real establishment (Christianity still has a lot of weight, but it's pretty divided, and it's not ruling the way it was). Voters as a whole or citizens as a whole wouldn't be considered "The Establishment" so winning elections isn't a sign of being pro-establishment. Supporting capital over labor or inequality generally would be.

 

[Medusas Weave]

Obama ruined the whole democratic party. We need a republican now.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

How is it not? A liberal voting record does, by definition, mean she is anti-establishment. And her platform is very anti-establishment. What do you even mean when you refer to her record being pro-establishment?

an

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I think I need a definition of establishment here. Clinton's a centrist liberal. Her husband ran the country for 8 years and implemented many of their common policies.

Are you suggesting that all moderate liberals are very anti establishment just by the nature of the country or that Hilary is further to the left or beating down some other path but we are just not aware of it?

And how is a vote for Iraq not an establishment position, the few that were brave enough to stand up to a post 911 president were truly bucking the establishment at the time.

Also given that the democrats are an established governing mainstream party, if she is part of that establishment she is by definition part of the THE establishment. Sanders or even warren I could get, Hilary not really. She is part of the establishment, and that is fine IMO.

Which is why I want to vote for her. Also she is part of the establishment that is against radical crony capitalists like Jeb Bush, Walker, Cruz, and those kind. Hillary has continuously taken a stand against those private interests and the like of Koch Brothers and their supporters.

an

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Which is why I want to vote for her. Also she is part of the establishment that is against radical crony capitalists like Jeb Bush, Walker, Cruz, and those kind. Hillary has continuously taken a stand against those private interests and the like of Koch Brothers and their supporters.



Ah see now you are starting with that bank conspiracy stuff.

Look Obama had received money from the very banks that later tried to fight him on Dodd Frank and wall street reform. Quit trying to equate Hillary to a wall street crony which she is far from and has proven to be far from.

And again in the coming months she will prove that she is far from a Wall Street crony.

LMAO @ Dodd Frank. Obama did nothing about Wall Street.
He was the Chosen One and could have corrected whatever he wanted to regarding Wall Street and our aggression in the Middle East when he was first elected.

And I'm not even down on Obama, I think he has been an exceptional POTUS, especially given the hand he was dealt. If the Iran deal goes thru without a hitch and he somehow reverses his course on TPP he'll be the GOAT POTUS (GOATAPUS) imo.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

LMAO @ Dodd Frank. Obama did nothing about Wall Street.
He was the Chosen One and could have corrected whatever he wanted to regarding Wall Street and our aggression in the Middle East when he was first elected.

And I'm not even down on Obama, I think he has been an exceptional POTUS, especially given the hand he was dealt. If the Iran deal goes thru without a hitch and he somehow reverses his course on TPP he'll be the GOAT POTUS (GOATAPUS) imo.

That is pushing.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That is pushing.

If you want to start a thread on Dodd-Frank I'll visit (probably not until Tue tho)

 

[Jack V Savage]

an

 

[CutStryker]

I sure as hell hope not. A liar or incompetent women who wants millions of illegals to have amnesty. Takes political contributions to scratch conglomerate businesses. Didn't she not help those at the over seas Embassy who then were murdered? Any other person would have been in jail or prison with what she done with those e-mails. She's protected by Democrats that are in power now. I believe politicians will never get it done, need a diff. mind to get real change. Pick the lesser of the evils. IMO, you put HC in power;nothing will change. Another Obama

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Sure there is. What do you think the establishment is?



I'd agree with this from your own link (which, like the other one, you obviously didn't read if you think it supports your claim): "Dictionary.com defines the establishment as "the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority",[7] Merriam-Webster defines the words as "a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class"[8] and The Free Dictionary defines it as "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society."



Why would you break up this post??? My definition

Clearly, by that definition, Clinton is an anti-establishment candidate. You can admit that, right?

No logical reason to break up that post.
And no logical reason to agree that Clinton is anti-establishment when the definitions I listed clearly show Hillary Clinton to be part of the establishment.
Furthermore, nobody on this entire board agrees with your unique definition of anti-establishment that includes Hillary Clinton. I'm just going to assume you're trolling.

Well, that's retarded. You quoted the link as if it supported your point, but you didn't quote from it, and to anyone who actually read it, it didn't. Do you think that your approach here is honorable?

Thats offensive language and hardly honorable.

Did you?

From your own link:

Are you deliberately avoiding the fact that Wall Street has given more money to Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio?

So that's your response when I asked you what actions you're referring to. Why are you arguing in that manner? Like, if you're wrong you're wrong, but just answer the question. You seem to be valuing scoring cheap rhetorical points (like your slimy posting of a link that doesn't support your point and not quoting any of it) over actually learning the truth.

Why the sudden change in tone? Is it because your argument is failing on every level?
I answered you. You asked if I dismiss her entire platform and I said I dismiss what I see as rhetoric relative to her actions. Are you asking me for an example? I thought that was rhetorical: Iraq. Better?

I do value her entire voting record, positions and donor history (though, let's be honest, that's not really a big thing). You don't acknowledge the change that your own link discusses, though. Again, why is that? Why not just be honest here?

You really don't want to talk about that, Jack.
Your entire position is Wall Street funds the GOP > the DNC.
Your quote says WS is moving away from the DNC.
The same article leads with Clinton getting more money than her GOP peers.
The only logical conclusion from that is Hillary Clinton is even more GOP than Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

I know what you're saying, but you're saying more than you're saying, if you get my drift. It's clear that you have your mind made up about her for personal reasons and you're then changing your definition of "pro-establishment" in order to fit her into it.

Wrong again, Jack. The reality is that I know, and you know that I know that you know that I know that you're a Hillary Clinton supporter. Why you pretend that isn't the case is truly beyond me, but it would help if you came out of the closet about this so we could have a more honest conversation. I have been very clear with the fact that I don't like Hillary Clinton. And I've been very clear as to why I don't like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton isn't just pro-establishment, she IS the establishment. Only a DNC shill or a troll would argue otherwise.

He has many anti-civil liberty positions (all the states' rights silliness) and he was an extreme pro-establishment figure on all significant issues. He wanted to completely eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes, while also removing progressivity from income taxes. That seems to be the most extreme possible pro-establishment stance one can take. He wants hard money, fer crissakes. He wanted to eliminate the social safety net. I guess you define "The Establishment" as "those who aren't rich," which actually makes sense given your position on Clinton.

LOL! Another random and unfounded "you must hate poor people" insult form JVS.
Nobody on this board would back you up on that Jack (maybe 1...). Pretty pathetic, especially since this conversation was going along pretty civilly. Let the record show that, per usual, Jack went negative first.

Oh brother...

 

[EGarrett]

Agreed.

Also, kind of shocking that the same guy who typed this:



...is now considering voting Republican.

A criticism of one party is not necessarily an endorsement of the other. Republicans can degenerate into segregationist theocrats who create sodomy laws that allow them to murder homosexuals.

Libertarians (of which I generally am one), can degenerate into a rabid mob that wants to murder government employees. This isn't a proper application of the right of self-defense, since the employees are not aware of what they are doing and one must make reasonable efforts to explain your point of view before you turn to physical methods, and even then it should be generally proportional the initiated force.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

In one thread we have IGIT calling Hillary a neocon, and ITT we have Jack saying she is anti-establishment. Although IGIT was probably just trolling, this place never gets old.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No logical reason to break up that post.
And no logical reason to agree that Clinton is anti-establishment when the definitions I listed clearly show Hillary Clinton to be part of the establishment.

Well, that's just not true. Here they are again:

"Dictionary.com defines the establishment as "the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority",[7] Merriam-Webster defines the words as "a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class"[8] and The Free Dictionary defines it as "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society."

Furthermore, nobody on this entire board agrees with your unique definition of anti-establishment that includes Hillary Clinton. I'm just going to assume you're trolling.

Can you cite the survey of the group that you're referring to? Or are you making an argument from imagined consensus?

Are you deliberately avoiding the fact that Wall Street has given more money to Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio?

This is not a response to the points made by your link that clearly contradict your position.

Why the sudden change in tone?

No change in tone. I'm just wondering why you choose to argue so dishonestly. That's not new.

I answered you. You asked if I dismiss her entire platform and I said I dismiss what I see as rhetoric relative to her actions. Are you asking me for an example? I thought that was rhetorical: Iraq. Better?

You didn't answer me. So your answer is "Iraq." She voted to authorize the use of force for an invasion of Iraq based on faulty information being presented by the administration 13 years ago, and in your mind that was a pro-establishment move that overweighs all of her actions since then and her platform?

You really don't want to talk about that, Jack.
Your entire position is Wall Street funds the GOP > the DNC.
Your quote says WS is moving away from the DNC.

So you're again lying. Is it a change of tone if I ask you why you can't just discuss something like a normal person instead of constantly lying? My entire position is that her platform is objectively anti-establishment, as is her voting record. WS donations are a side issue (really a distraction), but your own link points out the well-known fact, not that "they moving away from the DNC" but that have moved away from Democrats and are heavily in favor of the GOP now.

Wrong again, Jack. The reality is that I know, and you know that I know that you know that I know that you're a Hillary Clinton supporter.

And there you go again. I've stated my position. I would certainly vote for her in the general, and I likely will not vote for her in the primary (though I am not a big fan of Sanders either--they'd both be behind Biden if he runs and O'Malley for me). You simply cannot comprehend that someone would be honest about someone because they believe in being honest.

Why you pretend that isn't the case is truly beyond me, but it would help if you came out of the closet about this so we could have a more honest conversation. I have been very clear with the fact that I don't like Hillary Clinton. And I've been very clear as to why I don't like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton isn't just pro-establishment, she IS the establishment. Only a DNC shill or a troll would argue otherwise.

So your problem is that you simply refuse to even acknowledge that anyone can honestly disagree with you. What's the point of even trying (badly) to make a case then? You're arguing in bad faith from the beginning, and you're admitting that here.

LOL! Another random and unfounded "you must hate poor people" insult form JVS.

So you're making stuff up again. This is what I said:

"He has many anti-civil liberty positions (all the states' rights silliness) and he was an extreme pro-establishment figure on all significant issues. He wanted to completely eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes, while also removing progressivity from income taxes. That seems to be the most extreme possible pro-establishment stance one can take. He wants hard money, fer crissakes. He wanted to eliminate the social safety net. I guess you define "The Establishment" as "those who aren't rich," which actually makes sense given your position on Clinton."

Not random and not "you must hate poor people." You supported a very extreme pro-establishment candidate in the last election so unless you've had some big change of heart, your claim to not like someone because they are pro-establishment (rather than calling them "pro-establishment" because you don't like her) is refuted.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Are you deliberately avoiding the fact that Wall Street has given more money to Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio?
...

Hillary Clinton isn't just pro-establishment, she IS the establishment. Only a DNC shill or a troll would argue otherwise.

Jack thinks Wall Street is anti-establishment. The fact that it's donated the most money to a democratic candidate's campaign is the evidence. It's Logic 101.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack thinks Wall Street is anti-establishment. The fact that it's donated the most money to a democratic candidate's campaign is the evidence. It's Logic 101.

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.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Hillary and her friends have been the establishment for decades now. The only position that would make her anti establishment would be to drop out entirely.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary and her friends have been the establishment for decades now. The only position that would make her anti establishment would be to drop out entirely.

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?