What is Hillary Clinton's Relationship to The Establishment

[Uchi Mata]

I could see the establishment taking Hillary behind the woodshed for all the things she has done with Bengazi, and the classified email info. But since she is the second coming of the Hindu God Kali, she will not go down without a fight. She is so power hungry, they might have to kill her.

It's either gonna go real good or real bad for Hillary. I don't know witch.< pun intended

My vote, I don't know.

The establishment doesn't give two shits about Benghazi. No one does other than cranky conservatives and Fox News. The emails however...it'll be really interesting to see what happens there. She finally turned over the entire server yesterday, we'll see what comes out of that.

 

[Juventud]

She's more establishment than Bernie, but less establishment than a lot of the Republicans.

This is the correct answer.

She's less establishment than the GOP candidates, and that says more about the GOP than her. Even anti establishment Ted Cruz still begs for cum from The Koch Brothers.

 

[IDL]

pro establishment / anti establishment would be more relevant I think framed in terms of "will act on the behalf of the establishment", or will implement their will.

So it depends on what their will is, and if someone is willing to go against that.

That's the way I look at it anyways.

If the establishment wanted to give everyone a free candy bar (hint: don't eat it, it's a trap) and someone in power worked against that, then that person could be viewed as anti-establishment in that case. Someone who is willing to prevent the will of the establishment on behalf of those outside of it, for better or for worse.

In terms of Hillary, she will be an employee of the existing Oligarchy and would not actively resist their will, IMO.

 

[Bay Area]

pro establishment / anti establishment would be more relevant I think framed in terms of "will act on the behalf of the establishment", or will implement their will.

So it depends on what their will is, and if someone is willing to go against that.

That's the way I look at it anyways.

If the establishment wanted to give everyone a free candy bar (hint: don't eat it, it's a trap) and someone in power worked against that, then that person could be viewed as anti-establishment in that case. Someone who is willing to prevent the will of the establishment on behalf of those outside of it, for better or for worse.

In terms of Hillary, she will be an employee of the existing Oligarchy and would not actively resist their will, IMO.

I think this vid sums it up nicely

[YT]Ba9wxl1Dmas[/YT]

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think this vid sums it up nicely

[YT]Ba9wxl1Dmas[/YT]

Holy shit... I thought that was going to be some kind of CT joke vid.

 

[Jack V Savage]

pro establishment / anti establishment would be more relevant I think framed in terms of "will act on the behalf of the establishment", or will implement their will.

So it depends on what their will is, and if someone is willing to go against that.

That's the way I look at it anyways.

If the establishment wanted to give everyone a free candy bar (hint: don't eat it, it's a trap) and someone in power worked against that, then that person could be viewed as anti-establishment in that case. Someone who is willing to prevent the will of the establishment on behalf of those outside of it, for better or for worse.

In terms of Hillary, she will be an employee of the existing Oligarchy and would not actively resist their will, IMO.

Other than batshit crazy the last sentence, this is surprisingly sane and reasonable.

 

[Final Rehab]

What about the glitch that prevents you from making a serious argument or responding to one? I kind of definitively answered the question when you decided to go the poll-the-sheep route, no?.

Ouch Jack, I think you just called me a sheep. I am wounded sir.

Listen, I know it depends on how you define "the establishment" to settle this argument but the way I think of it, The Establishment refers to people and groups of people who hold power and influence. Government and Big Business/The Wealthy are a coalition that pretty much controls the big picture. Hillary is political royalty and everything that comes with that; she's been rubbing shoulders and making friends with that group for decades. No matter what position she takes on any particular issue she's part of that network, and although she might espouse positions that rankle certain constituents of that network, she's still part of a club that most of us have no realistic chance of ever entering. That's why I see her as part of the establishment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ouch Jack, I think you just called me a sheep. I am wounded sir.

We know the media has been pushing the idea that Clinton is "The Establishment" candidate hardcore, right? And we see how people are reacting to a serious attempt to question that picture. With the kind of rage that people normally react when established, unquestioned beliefs are questioned. If someone is willing to question it and really think about it and then still lands on that conclusion, I disagree, but it's not an ovine response. But when they react with Anungian bleating, let's call a spade a spade.

Listen, I know it depends on how you define "the establishment" to settle this argument but the way I think of it, The Establishment refers to people and groups of people who hold power and influence. Government and Big Business/The Wealthy are a coalition that pretty much controls the big picture.

So again the issue is the aspect of the definition that relates to it being a small group with power that is disproportionate to numbers. If people vote for a candidate or indicate to pollsters that they are likely to, that doesn't inherently make that candidate "pro-establishment." So the fact that Clinton previously held elected office (and was married to the president) doesn't make her a "pro-establishment" candidate unless her agenda is pro-establishment, which I don't believe it is.

Hillary is political royalty and everything that comes with that; she's been rubbing shoulders and making friends with that group for decades. No matter what position she takes on any particular issue she's part of that network, and although she might espouse positions that rankle certain constituents of that network, she's still part of a club that most of us have no realistic chance of ever entering. That's why I see her as part of the establishment.

You can say that makes her *part* of the establishment, but does it make her "pro-establishment"? Not inherently, unless that label means nothing more than that someone has held office. So I look at her platform and her voting record, and I don't see it. If anything, it's kind of amazing to me to see how anti-establishment her and some of the other candidates are in this cycle. Shows that we (that is, those of us who care about equality and thus are naturally aligned against the establishment) have made incredible progress.

 

[Zankou]

She is the Democratic answer to Richard Nixon -- a merciless power chaser, who in recent memory has never done anything that is not coldly calculated to maximize her political power.

Since Nixon was one of the best presidents in recent memory, that's not necessarily much of an indictment. Her policies will probably track B. Clinton's quite closely, and that's hardly a bad thing.

If by 'anti-Establishment' you mean 'will she change the current policies and power structures that are established and which govern our country,' then the answer is Holy Fuck No. She will cravenly obey her masters, which (apart from AIPAC, which she services with unequaled abandon) is probably as it should be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

She is the Democratic answer to Richard Nixon -- a merciless power chaser, who in recent memory has never done anything that is not coldly calculated to maximize her political power.

Since Nixon was one of the best presidents in recent memory, that's not necessarily much of an indictment. Her policies will probably track B. Clinton's quite closely, and that's hardly a bad thing.

One of the things that isn't fully appreciated by people who aren't news junkies is the extent to which the mainstream media absolutely hates Clinton (and it's very much mutual). I've never seen the NY Times compromise its ethics the way it did in that whole debacle with Clinton last month. While I generally think that the media's ability to impact elections is ridiculously overstated (and it's not hurting her so far), it does play into the perception of her.

If by 'anti-Establishment' you mean 'will she change the current policies and power structures that are established and which govern our country,' then the answer is Holy Fuck No. She will cravenly obey her masters, which (apart from AIPAC, which she services with unequaled abandon) is probably as it should be.

Her capital-gains tax proposal is pretty radical. A lot of the rest of her agenda pushes against The Establishment, but in a less-radical way.

 

[Zankou]

Everybody hates Clinton though, and always has. That's why I liken her to Nixon. They are both supremely hateful people, who everybody hates in return. Yet they are such masterful politicians, so willing to do whatever it takes to ascend to power, that they can't be stopped.

It's always been thus. Think back to 2007, when she was perceived as an unstoppable juggernaut.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...he-hated-progressives-and-right-wingers-alike

"As Bradley recounted later to the author Carl Bernstein: "It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy." "

Pure Nixon. She just has never been able to avoid communicating that she would sell you to the Crips for 2 bucks and a pack of cigarettes if she thought she could get away with it, all the time insisting she is right to do so; she is right, everybody who gets in her way is the enemy. Nobody trusts her, and for the simple reason that she's not trustworthy. This isn't a new thing, and it probably won't stop her from winning (anymore than it stopped Nixon), but it remains her most consistent vulnerability.

Obama beat her for the simple reason that the vast majority of people perceived him (rightly) as a good and trustworthy man. Almost nobody perceives Hillary that way, on the right or left.

 

[5H3RD0G]

I'll show you the game plan alright. Dems and Reps pretend to hate each other but it drives normal Americans mad with siding for a team. Then when they get the majority hook line and sinker merry xmas. :icon_lol:

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What about the glitch that prevents you from making a serious argument or responding to one? I kind of definitively answered the question when you decided to go the poll-the-sheep route, no?

Huh? You have to admit Jack, its hard to have a serious argument when you lead with "Hillary Clinton is anti-establishment". That kind right-out-of-a-campaign-ad-post takes us right to the nut house. I did try tho. Folks can check it out here. The funny starts at post 375.

You definitively answered NOTHING. Per usual. You blathering on about redefining/reinterpreting official and culturally accepted definitions to meet your agenda counts for nothing.

And lol @ calling everybody who disagrees with you "sheep"!
And now blaming the MSM for attacking your client/ boss!
Your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

If you define "anti-establishment" as being against The Establishment, clearly Clinton is anti-establishment. But I don't vote in polls here generally, and I didn't vote in this one.

How about if you define it by its definition? Hows that for a novel idea?

You don't vote in polls. C'mon Jack Be a man of conviction! Stand and be counted!
kpt10 wasn't scared. Neither was that other guys alt account. And neither of them repeatedly called Hillary Clinton "anti-establishment" over multiple threads.

Yeah... That one vote for "anti" was actually caused by my cat when she walked across my laptop keyboard. Obviously no rational human being would have made such a selection.

Who dusted off their alt account "neub" to vote in this poll

We know the media has been pushing the idea that Clinton is "The Establishment" candidate hardcore, right? And we see how people are reacting to a serious attempt to question that picture. With the kind of rage that people normally react when established, unquestioned beliefs are questioned. If someone is willing to question it and really think about it and then still lands on that conclusion, I disagree, but it's not an ovine response. But when they react with Anungian bleating, let's call a spade a spade.

I love how you're blaming the media for this. Probably why you felt compelled to start posting that Hillary is anti-establishment. Or like in the other thread where you claim Campaign Finance Reform isn't an important issue. I wonder if you'll start posting "Hillary isn't a Clinton" next. Be honest. You've entertained the idea, haven't you?

And I highly doubt I could influence Zankou to take a position he didn't take on his own. I think that goes for every poster who voted. Why do you feel the need to insult every single person in this thread with those kind of comments?

You can say that makes her *part* of the establishment, but does it make her "pro-establishment"? Not inherently, unless that label means nothing more than that someone has held office. So I look at her platform and her voting record, and I don't see it. If anything, it's kind of amazing to me to see how anti-establishment her and some of the other candidates are in this cycle. Shows that we (that is, those of us who care about equality and thus are naturally aligned against the establishment) have made incredible progress.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Bump for 100 votes!

Where are Dochter and Gandhi?

 

[dabausplaya]

Symbiotic and mutually reinforcing

 

[Jack V Savage]

Huh? You have to admit Jack, its hard to have a serious argument when you lead with "Hillary Clinton is anti-establishment".

You're saying it's hard to have a serious argument when someone disagrees with you. OK. That says more about you than the argument.

And I highly doubt I could influence Zankou to take a position he didn't take on his own. I think that goes for every poster who voted.

You? I get that you're repeating something you heard pounded into you in the media to the point that you took it for unquestionable truth.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're saying it's hard to have a serious argument when someone disagrees with you. OK. That says more about you than the argument.

Nope. Just silly ones like where you pretend that Clinton is anti-establishment. lol

You? I get that you're repeating something you heard pounded into you in the media to the point that you took it for unquestionable truth.

Yeah, that sounds like...

 

[Madmick]

Bump: let's try and get at least 100 votes.

Jack, the Mods assure me that they're working on the glitch that keeps your vote from showing.

Apparently his employment under the DNC forces him to recuse himself from walking his own plank of shame by casting his vote.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're saying it's hard to have a serious argument when someone disagrees with you. OK. That says more about you than the argument.

Typical tactic from you. A misrepresentation of what he said followed up with a personal attack/deflection (for added distance from the argument I presume).

Bro, at least vote in the poll to help get your side out of the anti-climate-change-nutter-level of being contrary to consensus.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Typical tactic from you. A misrepresentation of what he said followed up with a personal attack/deflection (for added distance from the argument I presume).

Huh? I represented what he said exactly. He's already admitted that he cannot accept a contrary opinion here. What's the point of him even discussing it then? He's just trying to browbeat people into agreement.