What is Hillary Clinton's Relationship to The Establishment

[Jack V Savage]

Wouldn't it be easier for you to point to the part where you acknowledged the government as being part of the establishment?

??? What would be easy and appropriate is the guy would back up his odd assertion. "You suggested X." "No I didn't." "Prove it!" No. He made the claim that I suggested something I never suggested and now you think I should prove I didn't suggest it? How is that even possible?

It's tiresome discussing things with people like you who have no honor.

And if he or you disagree with my actual position, why not disagree with my actual position? Why the need to make up stuff and attribute it to me?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

??? What would be easy and appropriate is the guy would back up his odd assertion. "You suggested X." "No I didn't." "Prove it!" No. He made the claim that I suggested something I never suggested and now you think I should prove I didn't suggest it? How is that even possible?

It's tiresome discussing things with people like you who have no honor.

And if he or you disagree with my actual position, why not disagree with my actual position? Why the need to make up stuff and attribute it to me?

lol. Having a bad Friday? Buck up little camper. I'm sending you a hug in my mind.

I'll slow it down for you. You've been harping on rich people as the establishment and it appeared to me the other poster was trying to point out to you (as have I) that there's more to it than that. So if you're saying that's not your position then it would be easier for you to just point out where you said anything different than blah blah rich people. What you're asking for might likely require rereading multiple posts of yours in order to glean your overall vibe.

But it's obvious why you can't recognize government as the establishment because then you'd have to argue Clinton isn't a government "insider". But with your posting lately I wouldn't put it past you. :icon_lol:

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol. Having a bad Friday? Buck up little camper. I'm sending you a hug in my mind.

I don't like liars or people with no sense of personal integrity. Sue me.

I'll slow it down for you. You've been harping on rich people as the establishment and it appeared to me the other poster was trying to point out to you (as have I) that there's more to it than that. So if you're saying that's not your position then it would be easier for you to just point out where you said anything different than blah blah rich people. What you're asking for might likely require rereading multiple posts of yours in order to glean your overall vibe.

But it's obvious why you can't recognize government as the establishment because then you'd have to argue Clinton isn't a government "insider". But with your posting lately I wouldn't put it past you. :icon_lol:

I can't prove that I never said something like what Ultra said I said. What do you want me to do, quote all my posts so you can see I never said it? Why not just discuss something like a rational, decent person?

My position has been very clear. If you or Ultra think I said something like that, quote it.

And if you think that Clinton has "pro-establishment" policies, what are they? What "pro-establishment" measures do you think she would push in office? Or are you just saying what Ultra was saying--that anyone who wins office is by definition "pro-establishment"?

 

[Ruprecht]

Seems like a semantic argument over whether "The Establishment" means the rich, or means the status quo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Seems like a semantic argument over whether "The Establishment" means the rich, or means the status quo.

I've said that many times. And I even said something similar to what Zank said (though I think there is some utility in the concept). I think the position that "what people want is the establishment" misses a key element of the definition of the term, though (that it's a small group and one with disproportionate power relative to its numbers).

 

[Cold Front]

Hillary is the establishment. She's broadly comfortable with the state and most state policies. She has no revolutionary ideas about governing.

But this is true of 99 percent of Americans who are in politics and those running for political office. The exceptions are very few. Ralph Nader might be an example. The dedicated hardcore libertarians might be another. They are certainly not the establishment. I'd say Donald Trump, too, if his ideas weren't so incoherent and self-serving. (Trump is more like the court jester, who is the only one in the kingdom who can offer insights that are interesting or entertainingly true because his position allows him to get away with it - humor saves the jester, while wealth saves Trump.)

When Jeb Bush gives Hillary an award for public service, you're seeing one member of the establishment congratulating another.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't like liars or people with no sense of personal integrity. Sue me.

Have you considered leading by example?

I can't prove that I never said something like what Ultra said I said. What do you want me to do, quote all my posts so you can see I never said it? Why not just discuss something like a rational, decent person?

My position has been very clear. If you or Ultra think I said something like that, quote it.

And if you think that Clinton has "pro-establishment" policies, what are they? What "pro-establishment" measures do you think she would push in office? Or are you just saying what Ultra was saying--that anyone who wins office is by definition "pro-establishment"?

Does anything other than rich people help comprise "the establishment"?

I'd say one aspect that makes Clinton pro-establishment is her advocacy for the use of federal government. When pretty much every solution stems from government authority or action then that's a pro-establishment mindset. I don't recall her policies having much of a "leave it to the people and local governments" flavor.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is what anti-establishment looks like to me. Snowden broke the law to help us all. Hillary does it to further her career in politics (which some might consider to be serving rich people).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Have you considered leading by example?

Sure, I do that. But it doesn't stop you guys from lying. What would? Short of agreeing with positions I do not agree with, what would get you to be more honorable in your discussions?

Does anything other than rich people help comprise "the establishment"?

Not much. Some lawyers, academia to some extent, maybe a few other groups. When you talk about the gov't, it depends on what it's doing. Passing "right to work" legislation would be a pro-establishment move, for example. Again, if you're just saying that only communists are anti-establishment, the term loses all use.

I'd say one aspect that makes Clinton pro-establishment is her advocacy for the use of federal government. When pretty much every solution stems from government authority or action then that's a pro-establishment mindset. I don't recall her policies having much of a "leave it to the people and local governments" flavor.

Wait, what? The fact that a presidential candidate is talking about things that a president should do makes that candidate "pro-establishment"? And how would local gov'ts be exempt here? When the National Guard helped the Little Rock nine go to school safely against the objections of the local gov't, who was "pro-establishment" there? Not the National Guard, that's for fucking sure.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Seems like a semantic argument over whether "The Establishment" means the rich, or means the status quo.

What is your take Rup?
Establishment or Anti-establishment? Per common usage and accepted definition as opposed to some pre-Sumerian root origin philosophy gymnastics, do you think Hillary Clinton is anti-establishment?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sure, I do that.

I meant with your posting here.

But it doesn't stop you guys from lying. What would? Short of agreeing with positions I do not agree with, what would get you to be more honorable in your discussions?

I've certainly misremembered things and misunderstood them at times. I don't remember any lying. It's humorous you believe I think you're worth lying to.

Not much. Some lawyers, academia to some extent, maybe a few other groups. When you talk about the gov't, it depends on what it's doing. Passing "right to work" legislation would be a pro-establishment move, for example. Again, if you're just saying that only communists are anti-establishment, the term loses all use.

I'd consider communists to be about as pro-establishment as you can get.

Wait, what? The fact that a presidential candidate is talking about things that a president should do makes that candidate "pro-establishment"? And how would local gov'ts be exempt here? When the National Guard helped the Little Rock nine go to school safely against the objections of the local gov't, who was "pro-establishment" there? Not the National Guard, that's for fucking sure.

Yes. Policy that places more power and decision-making in the hands of the few (legislators) is pro-establishment. Let's use guns as an example. Hilary doesn't address gun fears by saying it's out of the hands of the federal government as prescribed by the founding document, which would be an anti-establishment position. Her solution would involve more government, and that's pro-establishment. Savvy?

Local governments aren't exempt. But they're far less exclusive on the local level than the state level, which is less so than the federal level.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I meant with your posting here.

I've certainly misremembered things and misunderstood them at times. I don't remember any lying. It's humorous you believe I think you're worth lying to.

Come on. You saw a perfect example here. Someone falsely attributes a position to me, I say that it's a falsely attributed position, and you reaction is to ... ask me to prove I never said what the guy said I said? You think that's discussing things honorably?

I'd consider communists to be about as pro-establishment as you can get.

So people who want to eliminate the gov't entirely and overturn the whole power structure in society are "as pro-establishment as you can get." OK.

Yes. Policy that places more power and decision-making in the hands of the few (legislators) is pro-establishment. Let's use guns as an example. Hilary doesn't address gun fears by saying it's out of the hands of the federal government as prescribed by the founding document, which would be an anti-establishment position. Her solution would involve more government, and that's pro-establishment. Savvy?

So she hasn't made some statement about guns that you want her to make and it's "pro-establishment" because her "solution" (which you don't identify) involves "more gov't," whatever the flark that means. This is about as rational as your statement that communists are pro-establishment.

Local governments aren't exempt. But they're far less exclusive on the local level than the state level, which is less so than the federal level.

Less exclusive? What? Local gov'ts are much more controlled by big businesses than state gov'ts, and state gov'ts are much more controlled by big businesses than the federal gov't is. That was one of the great insights behind our Constitution.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Come on. You saw a perfect example here. Someone falsely attributes a position to me, I say that it's a falsely attributed position, and you reaction is to ... ask me to prove I never said what the guy said I said? You think that's discussing things honorably?

<sigh> That's not correct. I said it would be easier for you to point to you saying something than for him to demonstrate any implication of your statements through your omissions. If you don't think I've interpreted his position correctly that's one thing. Saying I asked you to prove you never said something is in fact the opposite of what I asked. If you keep up this insistance I'll have to believe you're lying because you've now been corrected on your misunderstanding.

So people who want to eliminate the gov't entirely and overturn the whole power structure in society are "as pro-establishment as you can get." OK.

Communists want to live in the absence of government? I always thought they wanted more of it.

So she hasn't made some statement about guns that you want her to make and it's "pro-establishment" because her "solution" (which you don't identify) involves "more gov't," whatever the flark that means.

Stupid mischaracterization of a simple concept followed up by playing dumb. <yawn>

Less exclusive? What? Local gov'ts are much more controlled by big businesses than state gov'ts, and state gov'ts are much more controlled by big businesses than the federal gov't is. That was one of the great insights behind our Constitution.

If you think the average person can get into national politics as easy as local politics then that makes one of us.

 

[Ruprecht]

What is your take Rup?
Establishment or Anti-establishment? Per common usage and accepted definition as opposed to some pre-Sumerian root origin philosophy gymnastics, do you think Hillary Clinton is anti-establishment?

I don't think "establishment" is used as universally as you think.
As used here, "establishment politician" usually refers to the political establishment of the relevant party (ie they've risen through the usual paths to political power and represent the usual interests within those groups. Unions. Factions such as Labor Unity or the Socialist Left etc).
There's no doubt that Hilary is an establishment Democrat (both Clintons really, the Clintons are a smiley, shiny, political machine), just look at her history and position.
You could say Trump for instance isn't an establishment politician (in that his political power/ambition is entirely through his personal fame and wealth), and we have equivalents here (Bob Katter, Clive Palmer).
You couldn't really call Trump "anti-establishment" though, because in the broader sense of "The Establishment" being the political and social elite, he is a part of it and in favour of entrenching that via policy.
That said, I don't think I'd call Hilary "anti-establishment" under any definition.
From what I've seen of her positions, she's moderately progressive, but not challenging to the establishment itself (whether you're talking about the democratic political establishment, or the broader social establishment) in a way that could be called "anti".

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Great post.

Cast your vote bruh!


20 more votes for an even 100:
Paging Nicky, Gandhi, Dochter, Rup, JVS, Darkballs, Nnnbear, TG, Jukai, WU, OldGoat, JohnnyRingo81, Chesten Hesten, Lugar, JDragon, Mikey90, Rod1, Arkain2K

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't think "establishment" is used as universally as you think.
As used here, "establishment politician" usually refers to the political establishment of the relevant party (ie they've risen through the usual paths to political power and represent the usual interests within those groups. Unions. Factions such as Labor Unity or the Socialist Left etc).
There's no doubt that Hilary is an establishment Democrat (both Clintons really) .
The Clintons are a smiley, shiny, political machine.
You could say Trump for instance isn't an establishment politician (in that his political power/ambition is entirely through his personal fame and wealth), and we have equivalents here (Bob Katter, Clive Palmer).
You couldn't really call Trump "anti-establishment" though, because in the broader sense of "The Establishment" being the political and social elite, he is a part of it and in favour of entrenching that via policy.
That said, I don't think I'd call Hilary "anti-establishment" under any definition.
From what I've seen of her positions, she's moderately progressive, but not challenging to the establishment itself (whether you're talking about the democratic political establishment, or the broader social establishment) in a way that could be called "anti".

I rarely use or hear the term "the establishment". Tbh, I can't recall using it beyond the walls of sherdog these past few days. The term "anti-establishment" however does have an understood meaning, and like you say, I can't see Hillary Clinton as "anti-establishment" under any definition.

And I think you nailed her position pretty soundly; moderately progressive without challenging the establishment. when you consider the impropriety of her financial entanglements there is at least a symbionic relationship between Clinton and the establishment.

 

[speakhandsforme]

I'd consider communists to be about as pro-establishment as you can get.

lol

Communists want to live in the absence of government? I always thought they wanted more of it.

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

 

[Phanuel]

There has been some recent debate in the WR about Hillary Clinton's relationship to The Establishment.

Some people are saying she is The Establishment/ Pro-Establishment
Some people are saying she is Anti-Establishment


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-establishment

What says the War Room?

Come on TS!



BOOM! Listen to what Hillary says here in regards to the CFR or the "Establishment"

 

[Jack V Savage]

<sigh> That's not correct. I said it would be easier for you to point to you saying something than for him to demonstrate any implication of your statements through your omissions. If you don't think I've interpreted his position correctly that's one thing. Saying I asked you to prove you never said something is in fact the opposite of what I asked. If you keep up this insistance I'll have to believe you're lying because you've now been corrected on your misunderstanding.

Oh, this is total bullshit. But as a general rule, if someone badly mischaracterizes your position, would you say that you are obligated to prove that their claim is incorrect or have it assumed that it is? I submit that you don't apply that generally, but shift your principles to support your emotional alignment.

Communists want to live in the absence of government? I always thought they wanted more of it.

Well, now you know. And surely, if the word meant anything at all to you, you knew that they want to completely destroy The Establishment.

Stupid mischaracterization of a simple concept followed up by playing dumb. <yawn>

Nope. Here's what you said:

"Hilary doesn't address gun fears by saying it's out of the hands of the federal government as prescribed by the founding document, which would be an anti-establishment position. Her solution would involve more government, and that's pro-establishment."

So you first say what she doesn't do ("address gun fears" by making a statement in support of current law). Then you add that that statement in favor of the existing law would be "anti-establishment," somehow. Then you jump to her (unspecified) position, which you think involves "more gov't," which you claim is pro-establishment. Maybe you just did a bad job of expressing yourself, but that sounds like a complete load as written.

If you think the average person can get into national politics as easy as local politics then that makes one of us.

If you think I said that, that makes one of us. It is much easier for a big business to influence a local or state gov't than it is to influence the federal gov't. Would you at least concede that? That Madison kind of had a point there?

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

Yup. And other communists argued that that wouldn't happen and the state should be targeted first. That was the most bitterly contested issue among communists, but they all agreed that in communism, there would be either no state at all or a very minimal one.