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