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:
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
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".