Elections Hillary will be President.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 457759
  • Start date Start date
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.

It means "against The Man."

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

Because "the people" only have power in proportion to their numbers (actually, in almost all cases less than their numbers), while the notion implies a small group with power out of proportion to numbers.

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!

Frankly, I think that is despicable. I know people who lived there and lost friends to late-night power outages and disappearances.
 
It means "against The Man."



Because "the people" only have power in proportion to their numbers (actually, in almost all cases less than their numbers), while the notion implies a small group with power out of proportion to numbers.



Frankly, I think that is despicable. I know people who lived there and lost friends to late-night power outages and disappearances.

Bold: I was being sarcastic. Obviously when people are killed, that is a sad thing. I don't support murder.

Red: So we finally have a definition of "anti-establishment", fresh out of a drum circle transported here from 1972. Anti-establishment means "against the Man". That's deep!

Green: I don't think that's implied at all. Face it, you are torturing the definition of "establishment" so that left wing movements never ::gasp:: become the hated "Man". Is that an emotional thing or what?
 
Bold: I was being sarcastic. Obviously when people are killed, that is a sad thing. I don't support murder.

Red: So we finally have a definition of "anti-establishment", fresh out of a drum circle transported here from 1972. Anti-establishment means "against the Man". That's deep!

Green: I don't think that's implied at all. Face it, you are torturing the definition of "establishment" so that left wing movements never ::gasp:: become the hated "Man". Is that an emotional thing or what?

This was brought up a long time ago. That's the connotation of it. There's no torture going on. Unlike you, apparently, I do not support that. The only real difference is the tone. And if your argument is that I sound like a counter-culture type when defining The Establishment, I'm fine with that. I think it actually makes my point better than I could.
 
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.

I am not sure why you are confused. It is not code, it means fighting for the common man, the masses, against the boss (few that are in power), etc.. Pretty straight-forward.

And yes, it's obvious the left is fighting for the common people and the right is fighting for the rich.
 
I am not sure why you are confused. It is not code, it means fighting for the common man, the masses, against the boss (few that are in power), etc.. Pretty straight-forward.

And yes, it's obvious the left is fighting for the common people and the right is fighting for the rich.

In this country maybe, but that's a pretty limited view of the right generally. The right basically embraces all anti-egalitarian ideologies, and not all of them worship money.
 
In this country maybe, but that's a pretty limited view of the right generally. The right basically embraces all anti-egalitarian ideologies, and not all of them worship money.

Yes, I was referring to the right wing in America. It wasn't meant to be an all encompassing definition of right wing ideology.
 
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."

Now you're getting it. Hillary Clinton is, by definition, "the establishment".
I knew you would come around.



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

I think the definitions that you and I have cited from multiple sources should suffice.

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?

Well, she voted for the War in Iraq. I know how inconvenient that is for a Clinton Supporter such as yourself, but it is a fact. Her vote cost America trillions of dollars and thousands of lives (it cost Iraqis and the citizens of the greater Middle East even more). You say she got duped by faulty intelligence? Interesting, because Bernie Sanders cited that same intelligence, as well as his own, to vote against the war.

Here is his speech:
[YT]/NdFw1btbkLM[/YT]

So not that the intelligence can't be used as an excuse, perhaps her Neocon leanings, Israel-first leanings, or simply he poor judgement were to blame? Any of the 4 should eliminate her entire base. IMO.

Lets, see...what else..?

Oh, yeah:
She's Pro-TPP.
She's Pro-CU.
She's a Hawk (Pro-MIC)
Her policies and support of her husband's policies have been Pro-PIC.
She is Pro-Wall Street. She gets their money (as well as the money of corporations and foreign entities). She won't even speak to Warren's New Glass-Steagall proposal, and she won't entertain the TBTF banks.

How about her lack of integrity.
Iraq wasn't the only thing she was for before it was politically expedient for her to be against it. She has also changed her stances on immigration and gay marriage.

And now she is just copying Bernie Sanders' platform so she can create the perception that there is no difference between them other than that she is a woman and he is an older man.

Student Loans
Citizens United
Hillary Expected to Adopt All of Sanders' Positions By Noon :icon_lol:
She pretended to be indifferent to TPP
She refuses to answer questions re: Keystone

Oooh, here's a fun chart:
OY0zv4l.jpg


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.

And this is why I think your lack of support in the "Sherdog's Funniest Poster" must have been an oversight.

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.

Of course I can comprehend that Jack. There are people with great honor and integrity. You're just not one of those people.


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.

Jack, you've been trying to establish Hillary Clinton's street cred with this "anti-establishment" crap for a few weeks now. If you do a simple Sherdog search you can see that you drop this "anti-establishment" bullshit in 3 or 4 different threads.

[YT]/M5jQe6C01XU[/YT]


Nobody in any of these threads (well, maybe 1...) agrees with you. :icon_chee



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.

I think HVS is going by the ancient Sumerian language that defined "establishment" as society.

I'd like to get in on the action as well. It seems like he confused Hillary with the Republican candidates.

Looks like Wall Street has her confused with one, too:

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

2rcacy0.jpg



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?

Being wealthy and powerful are definitely qualifications. Being a wealth and powerful politician is a next level qualification. Supporting or even not opposing major pro-establishment policies are others. If it looks like a duck... At the very least its a complete stretch of the truth and the human language to define her as "anti-establishment".
 
Looks like Wall Street has her confused with one, too:

Wallstreet always backs the candidates. Do you think they are a fan of her capital gains proposal?



Being wealthy and powerful are definitely qualifications. Being a wealth and powerful politician is a next level qualification. Supporting or even not opposing major pro-establishment policies are others. If it looks like a duck... At the very least its a complete stretch of the truth and the human language to define her as "anti-establishment".

I totally disagree that being wealthy and powerful in itself make you pro-establishment. Just about everything she supports would benefit the middle class and wealthy. Do you really think combating climate change, increasing the capital gains taxes rates, financial regulation, etc. are pro-establishment positions? Even an angry partisan like yourself has to admit at a minimum her positions are anti-establishment, no?
 
Now you're getting it. Hillary Clinton is, by definition, "the establishment".
I knew you would come around.

*yawn*

I think the definitions that you and I have cited from multiple sources should suffice.

They make it clear that she's anti-establishment. But I was asking about your evidence that the entire group agrees with you (it would be a logical fallacy for you to claim it proves you right even if it were true, but it's not).

Well, she voted for the War in Iraq. I know how inconvenient that is for a Clinton Supporter such as yourself, but it is a fact.

There you go again with the immature sniping. Like I asked before, why is it so hard for you to just be honest and discuss something like a normal person? You're not a lawyer, are you?

Lets, see...what else..?

Oh, yeah:
She's Pro-TPP.
She's Pro-CU.

She is not pro-TPP (and it doesn't even make sense to be pro- or anti-TPP until it's hammered out anyway). She's very much not pro-CU, and the fact that you're choosing to lie about that speaks volumes about the perceived strength of your argument.

She is Pro-Wall Street. She gets their money (as well as the money of corporations and foreign entities).

What does that even mean? Every candidate gets money from Wall Street, particularly the ones most likely to win. Collectively, Wall Street strongly favors the opposition to her. And anyway, her proposals are objectively harmful to Wall Street.

How about her lack of integrity.

What does that have to do with anything? Ron Paul has no integrity at all, and you thought he was "anti-establishment." Gleen Greenwald has no integrity, and I'd agree that he's anti-establishment.
 
Wallstreet always backs the candidates. Do you think they are a fan of her capital gains proposal?

Well, it's just a proposal, right?
All of that rhetoric has mattered little to Wall Street. Already among the biggest donors to Clinton's political career, employees of some megabanks have funneled big money into her bid for the 2016 nomination.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/clinton-rakes-in-wall-street-cash-amid-tough-talk.html



Lets not get confused by what a politician says in campaign speeches. Instead, let's "follow the money"


Wall Street is in Hillary Clinton's Corner
Her proposals for reforming capital gains tax by scaling up the amount of time it takes to get truly favorable rates, for instance, met mixed reviews. Some critics say it won't accomplish her stated goal of getting companies to look beyond quarterly profits.

In any case, it's small potatoes compared to forthright calls by her rivals for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, to break up the banks and impose more drastic restrictions on bank activity.

In fact, Clinton has rejected the idea of reintroducing a Glass-Steagall Act to separate commercial banks from investment banking, saying the issue is "more complicated" than that
 
*yawn*



They make it clear that she's anti-establishment. But I was asking about your evidence that the entire group agrees with you (it would be a logical fallacy for you to claim it proves you right even if it were true, but it's not).



There you go again with the immature sniping. Like I asked before, why is it so hard for you to just be honest and discuss something like a normal person? You're not a lawyer, are you?



She is not pro-TPP (and it doesn't even make sense to be pro- or anti-TPP until it's hammered out anyway). She's very much not pro-CU, and the fact that you're choosing to lie about that speaks volumes about the perceived strength of your argument.



What does that even mean? Every candidate gets money from Wall Street, particularly the ones most likely to win. Collectively, Wall Street strongly favors the opposition to her. And anyway, her proposals are objectively harmful to Wall Street.



What does that have to do with anything? Ron Paul has no integrity at all, and you thought he was "anti-establishment." Gleen Greenwald has no integrity, and I'd agree that he's anti-establishment.


Paul's positions on the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, and the Iraq War were all anti-establishment. He was also against TPP. Three positions that are of great import.
Now, I know you want to distract this thread with our arguments about Ron Paul, but lets not derail this thread. Its about Hillary Clinton, the pro-establishment candidate for the DNC.

Perhaps you would like to re-address your replies to Gandhi and I regarding Hillary's Iraq War vote?
 
Paul's positions on the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, and the Iraq War were all anti-establishment. He was also against TPP. Three positions that are of great import.
Now, I know you want to distract this thread with our arguments about Ron Paul, but lets not derail this thread. Its about Hillary Clinton, the pro-establishment candidate for the DNC.

My point is that you considered Paul an "anti-establishment" candidate despite his lack of integrity (and his extreme pro-establishment platform) so clearly that is not an "establishment" issue. The fact that you even bring it up demonstrates what I was saying all along. It's just about personality with you. You're not basing your view on her positions or any realistic assessment of what she'll do in office (or what she previously has done). You don't like her so you label her "pro-establishment" even if it makes no sense.

Perhaps you would like to re-address your replies to Gandhi and I regarding Hillary's Iraq War vote?

What?
 
My point is that you considered Paul an "anti-establishment" candidate despite his lack of integrity (and his extreme pro-establishment platform) so clearly that is not an "establishment" issue. The fact that you even bring it up demonstrates what I was saying all along. It's just about personality with you. You're not basing your view on her positions or any realistic assessment of what she'll do in office (or what she previously has done). You don't like her so you label her "pro-establishment" even if it makes no sense.



What?

And my point is that I supported Ron Paul for the same reasons I won't support Hillary Clinton; there are major issues that need to be corrected and a status quo career politician isn't going to fix them. The fact that he was marginalized by his own party and the MSM shows how anti-establishment he was. So, again, it has nothing to do with her personality as much as her character (which I've defined by following the money and measuring her rhetoric against her actions). Why can't you just accept differing opinions without resorting to lies, insults, and distractions?
 

My bad, I misremembered one of your responses as being directed toward Gandhi, instead of me.

Here is what you replied to me:
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 excused Hillary's vote for the Iraq War as being "based on faulty intelligence".
Bernie Sanders cited the intelligence as the reason to vote against the War on Iraq.
Comes down to judgement and interpretation. Hillary got it wrong (maybe not for her and other members of the establishment), Bernie didn't.

Hillary followed
Bernie lead.

Establishment.
Anti-establishment.

You also say you consider her entire record and not just her recent record.
How is ignoring the biggest vote of her career not important?
 
And my point is that I supported Ron Paul for the same reasons I won't support Hillary Clinton; there are major issues that need to be corrected and a status quo career politician isn't going to fix them. The fact that he was marginalized by his own party and the MSM shows how anti-establishment he was. So, again, it has nothing to do with her personality as much as her character (which I've defined by following the money and measuring her rhetoric against her actions). Why can't you just accept differing opinions without resorting to lies, insults, and distractions?

Can you point to any example of lies or distractions from me? Of course not. But you keep doing it. Like, why did you say that Clinton supports CU? What do you get out of that kind of thing? Wouldn't you rather actually be right in the real world than just make stuff up?

My bad, I misremembered one of your responses as being directed toward Gandhi, instead of me.

Here is what you replied to me:

You excused Hillary's vote for the Iraq War as being "based on faulty intelligence".
Bernie Sanders cited the intelligence as the reason to vote against the War on Iraq.
Comes down to judgement and interpretation. Hillary got it wrong (maybe not for her and other members of the establishment), Bernie didn't.

Hillary followed
Bernie lead.

Establishment.
Anti-establishment.

You also say you consider her entire record and not just her recent record.
How is ignoring the biggest vote of her career not important?

I don't read it the way you do. Don't know what to tell you there. It came down to how much you trusted the administration's case. It's not a "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment" issue as far as I can see.
 
Can you point to any example of lies or distractions from me? Of course not. But you keep doing it. Like, why did you say that Clinton supports CU? What do you get out of that kind of thing? Wouldn't you rather actually be right in the real world than just make stuff up?
.

Well, she supports the benefits of the est $1B in SuperPac funds. She's not speaking out about that.

So, if saying she is going to replace Ginsberg with a candidate who passes her CU Litmus Test is doing, then why would anybody believe she doesn't support it?

Actions > Words
Money corrupts
 
Does this "anti-establishment" debate include agreement over what the "establishment" is?
 
Well, she supports the benefits of the est $1B in SuperPac funds. She's not speaking out about that.

So, if saying she is going to replace Ginsberg with a candidate who passes her CU Litmus Test is doing, then why would anybody believe she doesn't support it?

Actions > Words
Money corrupts

???

Does this "anti-establishment" debate include agreement over what the "establishment" is?

The more-civilized parts of it do. The parts involving Anung, not so much.
 
Might be hard to see eye to eye then. Does anyone's definition include the federal government?

Probably. Kpt put it well, defining it as "The Man." I think it has to be a small group with outsized power relative to its numbers. So the gov't as a whole (in a democratic nation) doesn't really work. When I say that Clinton is "anti-establishment" I am referring to rich capital owners, as opposed to workers. Her support for financial regs, opposition to CU, and especially her proposed changes (increases) to capital-gains taxes all define her as "anti-establishment." Her having the support of unions reflects the anti-establishment nature of her campaign.

But if you just define it in terms of being ahead in the polls, getting most of the big endorsements from her party, fundraising, etc., then, sure, she's an "establishment candidate." But an establishment candidate in that sense can be "anti-establishment" in the truer sense.
 
Back
Top