Questions for DUers about Hillary

[Rebkeh]

I'm not a Star member so I cannot post these questions as a poll. If a star member wants to do so, please do.

1. Do you believe Hillary is loyal to/part of the racist and classist establishment she aims to challenge?


2. Can an elected leader be both loyal and disloyal to the establishment?


3. Do you trust the establishment to meet your needs?

[Rebkeh]

1. Yes, no, no

Yes, she is loyal to the establishment therefore I do not believe she would look out for the people, nor would she affect change for justice and equality.
The system thrives on injustice and inequality, why would a loyalist like Hillary walk the talk? She can, and says she would, but I don't believe for a minute that she would actually do it. Hillary is looking out for Hillary - her history is clear about this. And no, I do not trust the establishment to meet our needs

[upaloopa]

6. Bull shit

This Hillary you all have invented only exists in your minds.

I think you see yourselves on some crusade against the evil establishment and you need a foil so you've invented one.

We are not your enemy

that's the repubs

[Rebkeh]

10. Never said anything about enemies

You did. As for me, for the primary, I'm voting for something rather than against something.

And I'm old enough to remember Hillary as First Lady. I was there.

So, answer the question. Or use a feeble derailing tactic.

[LiberalLovinLug]

50. Exactly

We are "voting for something rather than against something". Yet some Hillary supporters flame the fans that Bernie supporters actually are a part of the GOP hit machine. Like this OP on an article from a "concern troll" that Bernie supporters are obsessed with Benghazi and the emails (despite our choice for President even decrying that tactic in a debate!)

The left’s absurd Hillary hate: Why this ridiculous anti-Clinton crusade needs to stop!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=28945

So I responded to that thread, albeit a little angrily, in the Hillary Group with this statement and was immediately banned of course:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=29017

"There are real reasons to have reservations about a Clinton presidency — including her oft-cited ties to Wall Street and her hawkish foreign policy — but how often are they the central force of the criticism lodged against her campaign? In an August poll, Quinnipac found that while political respondents felt that Hillary Clinton was “strong” and a candidate with “experience,” the words they most associated with her are “liar,” “dishonest,” and “untrustworthy.” These designations appear to be motivated by her Emailgate scandal and the ongoing questions about Benghazi — but none of the myriad investigations into either have turned up anything close to a smoking gun."

What a pile of crap! He doesn't know what he is talking about. He is conflating right wing baseless mud-slinging with the mindset of progressives in the Democratic party and projecting that we have the very same reasons to oppose her. As if the majority of us, or even a significant minority, are concerned with the faux Benghazi witch hunt, or the over-inflated email "scandal". Yes, you idiot, the "oft-cited ties to Wall Street and her hawkish foreign policy" ARE some of our main concerns. Jesus..speak for yourself you fucking twit! I highly doubt you are really a Bernie supporter as he himself rebuked this kind of stupidity.

"...how often are they the central force of the criticism lodged against her campaign?" Uh....pretty much 100% from the left. Of course there will always be some exceptions, but most of us follow Bernie's example and realize that the email "scandal", and Benghazi are ridiculous, and are meant for another audience; the Faux News and hate radio crowd. Sure you will find one or two ignorant irrational haters, even on DU, but to imply that there is any concordance among any significant portion of Bernie supporters with the GOP that Benghazi and emails are Hillary's biggest problems is appallingly disingenuous and yellow journalism of the lowest order. And even worse, we are so stupid that, unlike the GOP that let slip this is all political theater, we actually believe these faux scandals into a "full-on Hillary hysteria".

This article is laughable if it wasn't so harmful. Ironically he is perpetrating exactly what he purports to be exposing; polarization in the Democratic party. Trying to create a larger flame war on baseless accusations. Splitting the party further with those on one side saying, " See...this confirms what I always knew...Bernie supporters also support the GOP's witch hunt!" While at the same time this piece of garbage also makes us in Bernies camp angry at that induced reaction, and the flames reach higher.

[leftofcool]

8. Another "The Democratic Establishment is evil thread"

If you don't like the Democratic Party and you don't like Hillary, then don't vote for her. It is as simple as pie.

[NurseJackie]

15. Is this what's called a push-poll question? (without the actual poll)

I stopped reading as soon as I realized that I'd been-had by another click baitish post about the "establishment". At that point it was easier to scroll down and check out the comments to see if I could find any friendly faces.

I did ...

(Good response, BTW. What more needs to be said?)

[Buzz Clik]

11. Trust: I don't trust ANYONE who talks about "the establishment" as if it means something.

It's a silly buzzword that meant something (sort of) 40-50 years ago but means nothing now.

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. So...its not a word anymore?

I guess you'd also throw out, "Status Quo", "privileged class", "ruling oligarchy", or what a former Republican President said: "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores, Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

So is just the sound of the word you don't like, or do you actually not believe that there is an "established" strong political force of wealth and privilege that has undue influence on the leadership of the country?

[Buzz Clik]

55. Ignoring the hyperbole...

... there was nothing left.

[upaloopa]

2. You need to define your terms

[Rebkeh]

3. They are clear and you don't have to answer n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Isn't Bernie Sanders showing fealty to the Establishment by working for the government ...

Isn't Bernie Sanders showing fealty to the Establishment by working for the government and taking its money as is every other public servant?

[Rebkeh]

14. No, he is there but he certainly is not loyal to the status quo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Then why did he swear an oath to defend the Constitution and take tax payer dollars to serve it?

EOM

[Rebkeh]

18. Seriously?

Lol ... Bye.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I wear your petty, puerile, and personal insults like a medal, especially so given the source.

[Nitram]

29. Yes, seriously.

We've just turned your silly and meaningless questions back on yourself and you apparently didn't like it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I approve this post.

[whatthehey]

34. Nope they are not

What is the establishment? Who are its members? How have they demonstrated their racism and classism? How does one evince or abjure loyalty to this putative group?

Oh yes I know all the armchair rebel without a clue buzzwords but I don't think people using them often have a coherent picture what they mean. Does the establishment mean rich people? Then you are making Soros and the Kochs part of a monolith to whom one can potentially be "loyal" Does it mean political power players? Then how does one be loyal to both Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan? Does it mean big corporations? Then is that loyalty to US exporters, producers and employers or loyalty to US offshorers, polluters and exploiters? The big corporations after all are all of the above.

Is that her racist collaborators in the establishment like John Lewis? Her classist supporters like LIUNA?

To whom SHOULD a Dem nominee be loyal? People? Unions? The poor? Minorities? She has strong support from all those groups.

HRC is not my first choice amomg the three, but I'd be happy with any of them as POTUS, don't think any of them is in Illuminati-like thrall to some nameless faceless but indefinably evil "establishment" and find such hyperventilating personality-driven animus to be risible and self-defeating.

[Rebkeh]

37. ???

Armchair rebel? Illuminati?? Wow, you've got me pegged completely wrong. I fit into neither of those characterizations. Not even close. Not even by a mile... Not even by ten miles.

A dem nominee should be beholden to the majority of the people that elect him or her. A progressive nominee should be loyal to the principles of progress, regardless of party.

[redstateblues]

54. Another Strawman- The Establishment!!

I'd say someone who has been getting a large paycheck from the government for 24 years is part of the establishment. What happens when the majority of the people want to send an large contingent of troops to the middle east the way recent polls they do? Do you do the smart thing like Obama is suggesting or do you bend to the will of the people?

[quickesst]

4. First time I've ever used this emoticon...

... but its all I got.

[leftofcool]

5. UNREC

[Buzz Clik]

9. In answer to your very (mis)leading questions:

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. No.

As far as #3 goes, I don't trust anyone to meet my needs. I sure as hell don't trust any candidate who claims that just the right changes in government policy/programs will solve my problems. And "the establishment"? Damn -- are we really reheating the 60s rhetoric again?

[misterhighwasted]

12. Ignorant baiting. Stop it.

[Rebkeh]

17. Nope

Honest questions. I'm trying to understand the cognitive dissonance of so-called progressives falling over themselves for Hillary. It doesn't wash.

Make sense of it for me. Explain how you can want change, and by that I mean progress, while simultaneously trusting her to follow through.

She is better than any republican, yes, that's established. And I'll concede she is reasonably liberal, but make the case for why she would actually bring about progress.

[JoePhilly]

23. And another candidate seeks the title of High Priest of Liberalism.

Be careful, DU already has a bunch of folks who have decided that they are the "good liberals" who think they can diagnosis " the cognitive dissonance of so-called progressives".

You pretend to want people to "Make sense of it for me ... " when in reality, you already think you know everything you need to know, and so you now sit comfortably in judgement.

[Rebkeh]

26. Actually...

I don't know anything about what's going on in the Hillary supporters' hearts and minds, I can only guess. Hence my pointed questions to get to the core of my confusion about them.

I suspect, to put it simply, white Hillary supporters either trust the system or don't fully understand what's at stake for the working poor and people of color.

I suspect black Hillary supporters are averse to risk - rocking the boat after all this hard work is, well, to that mindset, it's crazy. (But then, to trust Hillary to follow through is also crazy, so...)

If I am wrong about you all - please explain. These are honest and legitimate questions I am asking here. I genuinely don't understand.

To those who feel they don't have a lot to lose - there's less risk, at least that's how it looks to me.

Or maybe some people who call themselves progressives actually like the status quo. In that case, fundamental change, true progress, is a threat. Somebody like Bernie coming in to upset the apple cart, so to speak, is a threat to their comfort zone. That would make sense of it.

If you care to clarify, I'm all ears.

[JoePhilly]

27. You said they suffer from "cognitive dissonance".

So clearly you do think you know what is going on in their "hearts and minds", or you simply wanted to insult them. Perhaps its both.

And I have to laugh when you say you don't know what those Hillary supporters "think" ... and then immediately start "guessing" ... and guessing badly.

Here I'll help you.

I think that Hillary will take a more pragmatic approach (much like Obama has), which will lead to ACTUAL changes, versus Bernie, who will talk abstractly about grandiose and sweeping changes that are much less likely to be realized given the current make up of the country.

Here's the reality. You make the mistake of thinking that Hillary supporters don't want the same changes that you claim to want. You are wrong. We simply disagree on how to get there.

Not terribly complicated.

[Rebkeh]

32. Wow, okay.

I guess I have to literally be literal with every. single. word.

Fine, I'll clarify.

Please explain the apparent cognitive dissonance of "progressive" Hillary supporters that want change but pledge to vote for the same old thing that keeps the wheels of injustice spinning like they always have.

Okay, pragmatism...

The problem I see with that is that Obama has to play the game because the opportunity to change the game itself has already passed.

The next president could do more and I don't understand why anyone would believe Hillary would do more. She is loyal to the game itself. Bernie, and people like him, have no such marriage. Why do you trust a con (wo)man to change the rules of the con game? It makes no sense.

Maybe some progressives don't believe the game can be changed. Okay, but that is defeatist and then ... why bother vote at all?

Or they don't want to change the game, in which case, they are not interested in Progress.

Or is the problem of injustice not systemic after all?

We progressives want it both ways, apparently.

[JoePhilly]

39. You start with a conclusion of "cognitive dissonance" ...

... and then work backwards from it.

As for this "game" you keep talking about. There is a reason we on the left struggle, and its not because the game is rigged against us.

Its because we never get behind the people we elect.

Were Bernie to win the primary and the election ... his current supporters would turn on him in an INSTANT ... one second after his first compromise. Hell, they might turn on him the second that he announces the speakers for the inauguration.

The way you change the game is to keep electing more and more Democrats at every level of our government.

One person, even Bernie, the new Messiah, won't cause it.

[Nitram]

30. If they are honest questions, could you please define "establishment"? nt

[Rebkeh]

33. Fair question

Though it seemed obvious to me.

The establishment I refer to is the elected government beholden to the wrong people: lobbyists, Wall St., big oil, big ag, big pharma, prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, corporations, private prisons, fossil fuel industry, and the like. There are too many to list here, just follow the money.

I also refer to a culture, largely in the beltway but in the states as well. A culture where 'equality and justice for all' are threatening because we believe that a gain for one must come at a cost for another. Where one's wealth is contingent on another's poverty. Where profit comes before people and business comes before the planet. In such a culture, equality cannot exist. Justice cannot exist.

It's not just about policy, it's also about principles.

[Nitram]

35. Is your assumption is that anyone who receives donations from any of these entities...

...is bound to be beholden to them and will necessarily introduce and support legislation and make policy to conform to their expectations?

[Nitram]

31. Rebkeh, you expose your agenda and your reluctance to discuss the topic in good faith...

... when you accuse your opponents in advance of cognitive dissonance. Think about it.

[brooklynite]

13. So, this is a push poll?

[FSogol]

25. Has everyone forgotten the Pushme-pullyou?

[oasis]

20. Hillary will begin the repair of America's infrastructure. That's the kind

of "establishment" I can believe in. <<<This establishment too.

[Rebkeh]

21. She cannot be loyal to both.

The establishment thrives on injustice, yet she is loyal to it while saying she will fight for justice.

Please explain how that is supposed to work.

Even if she could do both, why would anyone trust her to choose the people? She has never been honest.

I truly do not understand.

[oasis]

24. "The establishment thrives on injustice". You are obviously

operating under a false premise. America is not Russia or Iran.

[Nitram]

42. Big Bernista assumptions, no evidence.

Clinton has not signed a loyalty oath to the establishment. She has fought for liberal causes all her life, and as president, she will be in a strong position to do good. A good politician can use the support of others without giving the store away in return.

[Rebkeh]

45. Her record speaks so loud

a loyalty oath is unnecessary. We know where she stands. She is loyal to social progressivism and money. When you're poor, she ain't the one for you.

And most of the country is poor. Or struggling, at least.

[Nitram]

46. You're right, her record as a life-long progressive speaks very loudly. nt

You'll see.

[Rebkeh]

47. She's been both progressive and conservative.

I acknowledge her progressive record but I also acknowledge her conservative one. Do you?

[Nitram]

48. No, of course I don't. Clinton is not a conservative, she is a liberal.

And has always been. She is more conservative than Bernie. That places her slightly to the right of the democratic socialist.

[Rebkeh]

52. Slightly?

The party has been moving to the right since the 90's, with the business friendly liberal fantasy and it lurched even further during Obama's presidency thanks to Congress. Words like "slightly" have no meaning anymore.

Do you believe in that magical middle too? If so... I don't even know what to say.

Forget it, I'm done. You are not living in reality, this conversation is a waste of time.

[Rebkeh]

22. Any democrat will improve infrastructure n/t

[Nitram]

28. No, no, and no. nt

[CharlotteVale]

38. Yes, no, no.

[Hepburn]

40. Yes, no, no. n/t

[demwing]

41. yes, conditionally, hell no! /nt

[LexVegas]

43. More paternalism..yawn. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. We plebeians don't know what is good for us without the instruction of others on this board.

EOM

[redstateblues]

51. Just like the question"are you still beating your wife"

[TIME TO PANIC]

53. Yes No No

1. Yes, she will be loyal to the banks & corporations.

2. No, you're either loyal or you're not.

3. Hell No!