Jimmy Carter: America is an Oligarchy

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I'd actually like to see what the guy's list would be. As far as I can see, the Obama administration is in the running for most scandal-free administration ever. Even conservatives (like David Brooks) who don't like the administration's policies have acknowledged that.

Ha like I said I think he's smoking crack.


It's well established reagan ran one of the most corrupt administrations of all time. Common knowledge.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

The Reagan Myth lives on.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's a matter of degree (Kerry and especially Bill Clinton were more "pro-establishment" than any current Democratic candidates but far more anti-establishment than their rivals), but the left is by definition anti-establishment, and since the death of the Southern Democrat, the Democratic Party is the party of the left in America.

Wow... So... Would you at least be willing to call Hillary the establishment, democratic candidate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/president-hillary-clinton_b_5525235.html

Hillary Clinton, former senator and secretary of state, is more conservative than most Democrats, and ironically, most Republicans would ever admit. She might be so conservative that even if Clinton beats her GOP rival for the presidency, a moderate Republican would still sit in the White House.

Hillary Clinton is neither a liberal nor a true conservative. Rather, she's an electable Democratic candidate who leans to the right. She's the Democratic version of Mitt Romney. President Hillary Clinton will be a conservative Barack Obama and a somewhat liberal George Bush. She'll bail out banks in another collapse and send ground troops to a foreign country in the event of a terror attack.

And let's not forget the classic Hillary line about she and Bill being "dead broke" when they left the White House and not being "truly well off" even now.

Despite the fact that she and Bill made 141 Million Dollars just between 2007 and 2014.

There are almost no words for her level of conscious disingenuousness. Although "vile pig" comes very close.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wow... So... Would you at least be willing to call Hillary the establishment, democratic candidate?

No.

I don't agree with the assertions that you quoted and they're funny considering the source--an allegedly "liberal Democrat" who says he's voting for Rand Paul and admits to "hating" Clinton (he doesn't want someone that he claims, with no real support, leans to the right so he's going to vote for a far-right candidate).

And personal finances aren't really relevant. Would you say that FDR was an establishment candidate?

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Again, it all depends on your definition of "establishment." To some people, being popular makes you part of the establishment. Or being supported by unions or minorities. I see it as, you know, the actual establishment. Clearly, Clinton's policy proposals make her, along with Sanders, the most "anti-establishment" notable candidates currently running.

Here's an easy definition for you.

Anti-establishment = Candidate who refuses to accept money from corporate interests (in the form of direct donation or SuperPac) and who refuses to pass legislation that is favorable for, or minimizes the harm to, said corporate donors.

By this definition, Hilary is NOT anti-establishment.

By this definition, candidates that garner financing through small individual donations, denounce Super Pac support, and have no large for-profit corporations financially supporting their campaigns are anti-establishment.

By this definition, Bernie Sanders IS anti-establishment.

The political "left", by definition, is NOT anti-establishment. Many members of the purported "left" actively engage in establishment politics (i.e. corporate lobbying and financing, passing legislation that is favourable to corporate donors). What's most important with the definition of anti-establishment is what a candidate has actually done and consistently promoted during their careers, rather than what they presently SAY they'll do if elected.

Hope I clarified that for you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here's an easy definition for you.

Anti-establishment = Candidate who refuses to accept money from corporate interests (in the form of direct donation or SuperPac) and who refuses to pass legislation that is favorable for, or minimizes the harm to, said corporate donors.

That's a dumb definition. For one thing, candidates are not allowed to have control over Super PACs. For another, it can apply to almost anyone. I define it in terms of policy, which is the only thing that makes sense IMO.

 

[Thames]

That's a dumb definition. For one thing, candidates are not allowed to have control over Super PACs. For another, it can apply to almost anyone. I define it in terms of policy, which is the only thing that makes sense IMO.

I'm following this discussion with great curiosity.
Not meaning to participate, but I just wanted to know, who/what do you consider to be/define the establishment in the U.S?

 

[ultramanhyata]

No.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but, with this answer, you've proven you're a shill. The fact that you also refuse to just come out and say you're supporting Clinton in the primary seals the deal.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

That's a dumb definition. For one thing, candidates are not allowed to have control over Super PACs. For another, it can apply to almost anyone. I define it in terms of policy, which is the only thing that makes sense IMO.

And I think those are absurdly naive positions which, to me, solidify that your interpretation for what type of political behavior is morally acceptable has been markedly distorted by the political norm of the past 40 years. The fact that my definition of anti-establishment can apply to almost any politician is more indicative that the American political system is ridiculously corrupt than it is indicative that the definition is "dumb".

In summary, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you... Interested?

At this point, consider not even replying (although I know it's damn near impossible for you not to get the last word), because I think everyone here already knows, and largely rejects, where you stand.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm following this discussion with great curiosity.
Not meaning to participate, but I just wanted to know, who/what do you consider to be/define the establishment in the U.S?

Depends on the context, but primarily the rich, and the culturally dominant who aren't necessarily rich (Christians, the media, etc.). Unlike I suppose a lot of people here, I don't take "anti-establishment" to be inherently good, though I strongly favor policy to focus on concerns that I see as being opposed to the establishment (for example, more equality, and a higher share of national income going to labor as opposed to capital) or ignored by them (like unemployment). I don't think there is any candidate that is more hated by the elite media than Clinton, and the rich are certainly worried.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but, with this answer, you've proven you're a shill. The fact that you also refuse to just come out and say you're supporting Clinton in the primary seals the deal.

So you've "given me the benefit of the doubt" by making sure that I disagree with you before you throw out a dumb label. That's great. Everyone's a "shill" unless they fall in line here. And I'm not supporting Clinton in the primary. You people are so ridiculous. Anytime someone doesn't blindly support you, you have to portray them as your enemy. I am undecided on Sanders vs. Clinton because they both have some major liabilities, IMO, though I'd easily support either over whoever makes it out of the Republican mess. I'd take Biden over both Clinton and Sanders, for what it's worth. And O'Malley also (like Sanders and Clinton) has some things I like and some things I don't.

It's hilarious how people read, "I have some reservations about Clinton (and Sanders), but overall, I think she's a pretty good candidate (and he is), and between the two front-runners, I'm not decided" and think, "you loooove Hillary and hate Bernie and you just won't admit it!!1!!1!" Nuance has no place when you're discussing politics with idiots is the lesson, I guess.

And I think those are absurdly naive positions which, to me, solidify that your interpretation for what type of political behavior is morally acceptable has been markedly distorted by the political norm of the past 40 years. The fact that my definition of anti-establishment can apply to almost any politician is more indicative that the American political system is ridiculously corrupt than it is indicative that the definition is "dumb".

In summary, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you... Interested?

At this point, consider not even replying (although I know it's damn near impossible for you not to get the last word), because I think everyone here already knows, and largely rejects, where you stand.

I see stuff like this and I just have to wonder what the heck is wrong with you. I mean, is this how you are in real life?

If you actually care about getting stuff right, maybe try to provide some evidence for your position? Or is my asking that out of bounds?