4 ms·

> There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. That's because politics in the US requires money and no politician can rise to the ma

> There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. That's because politics in the US requires money and no politician can rise to the mainstream without money. Not only that, if the capital interests saw you rising in local/state elections, then they could fund your opponents and whittle you down. We are a nation ruled by money/capital. NK is a nation ruled by the kim family. The chinese are a nation ruled by the communist power. Someone in the US going against corporate interests has as promising a political future as a north korean politician railing against the kim family or a chinese politician going against the communist party. Everyone, including the politicians, have to play by the rules of the system. Look at the past election, both trump and clinton were pro-corporate/capital politicians. Hillary was probably even more pro-corporations/neo-liberalism than trump. But democrats will argue that hillary cared about the lowly workers. But can you really blame the clintons, trumps, obamas, bushes or any other politician in the US? They are just playing the game within the system. Ultimately, in the US, both the republican and democratic parties serve one master - the capital owners. The US is really a 1 party nation if you look beyond the silly social issues that the republican and democratic play off of each other to distract the masses.

blfr 9y ago
First, Trump was completely outspent by Clinton and won. Money follows the likely winner and this weird political betting market usually gets it right. It's also hard to say that he served the GOP. It very much looked like the elephant reluctantly did what Trump told it to do. Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the living memory. Both of your points are seriously weakened by the 2016 elections.
- freehunter 9y ago
  The 2016 election is a extreme outlier for many reasons, so it's difficult to look at it and make any meaningful conclusions in this regard.
  - corporateslave3 9y ago
    Outlier with regards to what? It was an exposure of the extreme discontent bubbling under the surface in America. If anything, it was completely rational. The election did not happen in a vacuum and it was not random. I personally believe that it was just the start of things to come in America and shows cracks in the status quo.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      I'm not a professional statistician but basically the only thing I remember from my stats class in college is that if you have an extreme outlier, even if you think it might be indicative of future trends, you have to adjust for it. Just like electing a single black man after electing 43 white men as president was not an indicator that racism is over (since an openly racist man was elected following that) nor is it an indicator that minority groups are now going to be elected in higher numbers (since a white man was elected immediately after). There's also the fact that Trump cannot actually be anti-corporate since he is a billionaire owner of a multi-national corporation. He is the definition of corporate because his name is literally a corporation. And now to get political (so skip to the next paragraph if you don't want get into politics), there is the serious question about how much influence foreign nations had during the election. It's an open question whether or not Americans consciously elected Trump on his own merits, or if the propaganda from Russia swayed the vote enough to change the outcome. Then there are less well-sourced questions about hacking of the voter rolls, hacking of the voting machines, etc. I'm not sure if you've seen the news about how this guy is hiring a bunch of high-priced lawyers to investigate if the president actively colluded with a foreign power in order to win the election, but long story short, the president actively colluded with a foreign power in order to win the presidency. And now I just read your username and realized you're the same guy who thinks Western Europe is failing because they're socialists and who has said Obamacare is literally Hitler, so god damn it why do I waste my time arguing with extreme right-wing trolls.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  That's why I wrote : "Hillary was probably even more pro-corporations/neo-liberalism than trump. But democrats will argue that hillary cared about the lowly workers." > Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the living memory. Sure. If a NY billionaire is the "most anti-corporate" president, then does that prove what I'm saying? > Both of your points are seriously weakened by the 2016 elections. No. It confirmed it as far as I can tell.
  - corporateslave3 9y ago
    Trump was: Anti globalization in all of its manifestations (immigration, tariffs, taxes, trade) That was what he ran on. How can you say he was pro corporation?
    - soundwave106 9y ago
      The interesting thing about Trump is that, in spite of what he ran on, quite a bit of Trump's advisor picks ended up being from the business, banking, or investment side of the equation. (Prominent examples include Rex Tillerson of Exxon; Steven Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs; and Wilbur Ross of Rothschild.) It's hard to say that Trump is "pro corporation" though, because his cabinet also includes anti-globalization nationalists (most prominently Steve Bannon who is now gone, but there are others). The policy conflict between these groups (and others) actually has, in my opinion, been one of the strongest defining features of Trump's presidency so far. I agree that Trump campaigned as an anti-corporate and (along with Sanders) showed that there is current popular discontent with the state of business in America.
    - rhcom2 9y ago
      He is also very pro-deregulation and anti-oversight.
    - eighthnate 9y ago
      > Anti globalization in all of its manifestations (immigration, tariffs, taxes, trade) He wasn't anti-globalization. If you listened to what he said, he was anti-"terrible" "free" trade deals which he claimed benefits other nations but not the US. He was pro-globalization where the US wins - according to his definition. > That was what he ran on. How can you say he was pro corporation? Because he is? The guy is a "corporation". You think a NY billionaire is "anti-corporation"? The fact that people are even claiming that a NY billionaire is anti-corporations just proves my point. If Trump = "anti-corporation", then "anti-corporation" is meaningless.
dang 9y ago
Would you please stop posting political boilerplate to HN? It's tedious and not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131729 and marked it off-topic.

blfr 9y ago

First, Trump was completely outspent by Clinton and won. Money follows the likely winner and this weird political betting market usually gets it right. It's also hard to say that he served the GOP. It very much looked like the elephant reluctantly did what Trump told it to do. Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the living memory. Both of your points are seriously weakened by the 2016 elections.

freehunter 9y ago
The 2016 election is a extreme outlier for many reasons, so it's difficult to look at it and make any meaningful conclusions in this regard.
- corporateslave3 9y ago
  Outlier with regards to what? It was an exposure of the extreme discontent bubbling under the surface in America. If anything, it was completely rational. The election did not happen in a vacuum and it was not random. I personally believe that it was just the start of things to come in America and shows cracks in the status quo.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I'm not a professional statistician but basically the only thing I remember from my stats class in college is that if you have an extreme outlier, even if you think it might be indicative of future trends, you have to adjust for it. Just like electing a single black man after electing 43 white men as president was not an indicator that racism is over (since an openly racist man was elected following that) nor is it an indicator that minority groups are now going to be elected in higher numbers (since a white man was elected immediately after). There's also the fact that Trump cannot actually be anti-corporate since he is a billionaire owner of a multi-national corporation. He is the definition of corporate because his name is literally a corporation. And now to get political (so skip to the next paragraph if you don't want get into politics), there is the serious question about how much influence foreign nations had during the election. It's an open question whether or not Americans consciously elected Trump on his own merits, or if the propaganda from Russia swayed the vote enough to change the outcome. Then there are less well-sourced questions about hacking of the voter rolls, hacking of the voting machines, etc. I'm not sure if you've seen the news about how this guy is hiring a bunch of high-priced lawyers to investigate if the president actively colluded with a foreign power in order to win the election, but long story short, the president actively colluded with a foreign power in order to win the presidency. And now I just read your username and realized you're the same guy who thinks Western Europe is failing because they're socialists and who has said Obamacare is literally Hitler, so god damn it why do I waste my time arguing with extreme right-wing trolls.
eighthnate 9y ago
That's why I wrote : "Hillary was probably even more pro-corporations/neo-liberalism than trump. But democrats will argue that hillary cared about the lowly workers." > Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the living memory. Sure. If a NY billionaire is the "most anti-corporate" president, then does that prove what I'm saying? > Both of your points are seriously weakened by the 2016 elections. No. It confirmed it as far as I can tell.
- corporateslave3 9y ago
  Trump was: Anti globalization in all of its manifestations (immigration, tariffs, taxes, trade) That was what he ran on. How can you say he was pro corporation?
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    The interesting thing about Trump is that, in spite of what he ran on, quite a bit of Trump's advisor picks ended up being from the business, banking, or investment side of the equation. (Prominent examples include Rex Tillerson of Exxon; Steven Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs; and Wilbur Ross of Rothschild.) It's hard to say that Trump is "pro corporation" though, because his cabinet also includes anti-globalization nationalists (most prominently Steve Bannon who is now gone, but there are others). The policy conflict between these groups (and others) actually has, in my opinion, been one of the strongest defining features of Trump's presidency so far. I agree that Trump campaigned as an anti-corporate and (along with Sanders) showed that there is current popular discontent with the state of business in America.
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    He is also very pro-deregulation and anti-oversight.
  - eighthnate 9y ago
    > Anti globalization in all of its manifestations (immigration, tariffs, taxes, trade) He wasn't anti-globalization. If you listened to what he said, he was anti-"terrible" "free" trade deals which he claimed benefits other nations but not the US. He was pro-globalization where the US wins - according to his definition. > That was what he ran on. How can you say he was pro corporation? Because he is? The guy is a "corporation". You think a NY billionaire is "anti-corporation"? The fact that people are even claiming that a NY billionaire is anti-corporations just proves my point. If Trump = "anti-corporation", then "anti-corporation" is meaningless.

dang 9y ago

Would you please stop posting political boilerplate to HN? It's tedious and not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131729 and marked it off-topic.