• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton's Book

H

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But Clinton’s book waves a big red flag: “… he isn’t a Democrat—that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

Sanders might say: Guilty as charged. In a June address to the “People’s Summit,” an annual gathering of about 4,000 leftists with little fealty to the Democratic Party, he made plain his agenda of remaking the party in his image: “[T]he current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure … The Democratic Party needs fundamental change … The Democratic Party must, finally, understand which side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street or the fossil fuel industry or the drug companies.”

While Sanders argues that the Democratic Party must choose sides between people and corporations, Clinton counters that Sanders must choose whether or not to be a Democrat. For Clintonites, his refusal to embrace the party label is not a mere matter of nomenclature. It suggests he does not have the Democratic Party’s best interests at heart; he is unwilling to partner with Democrats who have different views about the scope of government and its relationship with business; and, in turn, he can’t make the trade-offs essential to governing
Click to expand...
Hillary’s Message To Dems: Don’t Give Bernie The Keys - POLITICO Magazine

Because that's what this is all about, Clinton Corps offense that Bernie does not care for this failed Democratic party which they have been in charge of for over 20 years, and he needs to pay for his tarnishing of their brand (In the warped Clinton minds). This is not about what is best for America. This is not about what is best for the D party. This is about the Clintons getting the retribution which they are sure that they deserve for Bernie messing with Hillary's destiny, just as that nobody Obama did.

With the Clintons is was always all about them, it was never about us, never about making America Better.
 
Last edited:
Clinton is right about Bernie...he never had the Democrats best interests in mind...it was always about him and his fairy tale agenda. Democrats have every right to be in charge of their own party and they don't own Bernie a damn thing. In fact, the DNC should never have supported his campaign in the first place unless he became a Democrat.
 
Moot said:
Clinton is right about Bernie...he never had the Democrats best interests in mind...it was always about him and his fairy tale agenda. Democrats have every right to be in charge of their own party and they don't own Bernie a damn thing. In fact, the DNC should never have supported his campaign in the first place unless he became a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Clinton changed the party first. Bernie is a throwback Democrat. If Democrats want the working class maybe a little more FDR and a little less Clinton could help.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Hillary’s Message To Dems: Don’t Give Bernie The Keys - POLITICO Magazine

Because that's what this is all about, Clinton Corps offense that Bernie does not care for this failed Democratic party which they have been in charge of for over 20 years, and he needs to pay for his tarnishing of their brand (In the warped Clinton minds). This is not about what is best for America. This is not about what is best for the D party. This is about the Clintons getting the retribution which they are sure that they deserve for Bernie messing with Hillary's destiny, just as that nobody Obama did.

With the Clintons is was always all about them, it was never about us, never about making America Better.
Click to expand...

I heard the first printing is 5006 copies. 5000 handouts to the press, and 6 possible sales.
 
MrPeanut said:
Clinton changed the party first. Bernie is a throwback Democrat. If Democrats want the working class maybe a little more FDR and a little less Clinton could help.
Click to expand...

How did Clinton change the party?
 
Moot said:
Clinton is right about Bernie...he never had the Democrats best interests in mind...it was always about him and his fairy tale agenda. Democrats have every right to be in charge of their own party and they don't own Bernie a damn thing. In fact, the DNC should never have supported his campaign in the first place unless he became a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Hillary had different ideas back when she was not taking him seriously: VIA Twitter:
I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America's middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race. –H
Click to expand...
Clinton: I 'welcome' Bernie Sanders to the race | TheHill
 
jimbo said:
I heard the first printing is 5006 copies. 5000 handouts to the press, and 6 possible sales.
Click to expand...

This is shaping up to be like it was with Al Gore's book/agenda:

"GO AWAY!"
 
Jetboogieman said:
Pretty ironic thing for a fake Trump supporter to say.
Click to expand...

To be honest, no one fully supports everything about Trump.

Hawkeye is just able to see that the Clinton's never really wanted anything good for the people, just themselves.
 
Moot said:
Clinton is right about Bernie...he never had the Democrats best interests in mind...it was always about him and his fairy tale agenda. Democrats have every right to be in charge of their own party and they don't own Bernie a damn thing. In fact, the DNC should never have supported his campaign in the first place unless he became a Democrat.
Click to expand...

He had America's best interests in mind, not the Democratic party. What you're basically saying is that in a system where it's impossible for a 3rd party to be viable, you want two private organizations to deliver our two and only two candidates to us and shut out anyone they don't like. How can you possibly think denying Americans the right to choose their candidate is a good idea or helpful to our democracy? Either the system has to change, or he can run under the Dems if he wants and the voters will decide. The loss in 2016 was 100% Clinton and the DNC's fault, so don't try to push this off on anyone else.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
He had America's best interests in mind, not the Democratic party. What you're basically saying is that in a system where it's impossible for a 3rd party to be viable, you want two private organizations to deliver our two and only two candidates to us and shut out anyone they don't like. How can you possibly think denying Americans the right to choose their candidate is a good idea or helpful to our democracy? Either the system has to change, or he can run under the Dems if he wants and the voters will decide. The loss in 2016 was 100% Clinton and the DNC's fault, so don't try to push this off on anyone else.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure that the DNC AKA Clinton Corp Party had to let Sanders in, and I dont think for a second that this happened without Hillary's AOK.

Do you agree?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am not so sure that the DNC AKA Clinton Corp Party had to let Sanders in, and I dont think for a second that this happened without Hillary's AOK.

Do you agree?
Click to expand...
They didn't have to but they thought he was going to just auto lose. When it became clear that he was going to win, the DNC and MSM went to work sabotaging his campaign. Bernie didn't want what was best for the Democratic Party. He wanted (what he thought) would be best for America. I didn't agree with everything he said but at least I could see that he had his heart in the right place and he was my third favorite candidate in 2016 during the primaries.
 
reinoe said:
They didn't have to but they thought he was going to just auto lose. When it became clear that he was going to win, the DNC and MSM went to work sabotaging his campaign. Bernie didn't want what was best for the Democratic Party. He wanted (what he thought) would be best for America. I didn't agree with everything he said but at least I could see that he had his heart in the right place and he was my third favorite candidate in 2016 during the primaries.
Click to expand...

You see my point though.....Hillary now claiming that Sanders does not care about Democrats is not a democrat yet they let him run for the D nomination. ..........if Clinton Corp had a problem with it that was the time to make their case.
 
In another leaked passage, Clinton equates Sanders’ grandiose plans with the get-rich-quick scheme shared by the drifter in There’s Something About Mary who plans to outsell “Eight-Minute Abs” with “Seven-Minute Abs.” “On issue after issue,” she mockingly complains, “it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!”
Click to expand...
This is a particularly disingenuous charge from the Clintonistas: before Sanders started making waves her campaign was "I'm a woman", "its my turn", and "I've flown 638058495" miles as Secretary Of State. Once Sanders entered the races she cribbed nearly every single one of his policy proposals: from "free college" to immigration and everything in between.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am not so sure that the DNC AKA Clinton Corp Party had to let Sanders in, and I dont think for a second that this happened without Hillary's AOK.

Do you agree?
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that when we have a system that makes it impossible to run under a third party and the two parties in power have a death grip on 100% of our elections, they shouldn't get to choose which candidates they do and do not let run under their party. Many GOP didn't want Trump to run, just as many Dems didn't want Sanders to run. Both should've been able to run and let the people decide for themselves instead of statists choosing our candidates for us in closed rooms.
 
reinoe said:
This is a particularly disingenuous charge from the Clintonistas: before Sanders started making waves her campaign was "I'm a woman", "its my turn", and "I've flown 638058495" miles as Secretary Of State. Once Sanders entered the races she cribbed nearly every single one of his policy proposals: from "free college" to immigration and everything in between.
Click to expand...

That is what politicians do - they claim to be for all three sides of any issue and yet somewhat against it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm arguing that when we have a system that makes it impossible to run under a third party and the two parties in power have a death grip on 100% of our elections, they shouldn't get to choose which candidates they do and do not let run under their party. Many GOP didn't want Trump to run, just as many Dems didn't want Sanders to run. Both should've been able to run and let the people decide for themselves instead of statists choosing our candidates for us in closed rooms.
Click to expand...

Yep, and with ever more power being taken over by the federal government they only need to control the House, the Senate and/or the POTUS. That may sound big but that is merely the majority of 535 slots (270 individual professional liars) in a nation of 320 million people. Even as more voters define themselves as "independent" (neither a demorat nor a republicant) the two party's bosses call the shots - that will only get worse if they manage to get campaign finance reform (control?) passed. We the sheeple get to choose between the candidates provided by the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government.
 


Pretty good dissection and analysis of how hilariously disingenuous Hillary's accusations against Bernie are.

Moot said:
How did Clinton change the party?
Click to expand...

Bill did specifically; he was the posterboy of third way/'new'/neoliberal democrats who were the original insurgents trying to wrestle control away from traditional FDR style progressives. The erosion of Democratic progressivism was gradual and ongoing since about the mid 70s (not so coincidentally in line with Buckey v Valeo opening the flood gates of money in politics), but Bill was the one who clinched it; making the change of guard final, complete and official.

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

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

In reality, it's Clinton style Democrats who are and were the usurpers/interlopers in the party, not the FDR traditionalists championing Bernie that are rightfully attempting to take it back.
 
Last edited:
But whatever you want to read this book for, chances are, there's something else that does it better. If you want to read a history of the 2016 election, you'll probably want to read a book that covers the subject from a wider standpoint. If you're wondering how to win other elections, Clinton probably has little to tell you. And if you want to educate yourself on one of the many very pressing material concerns that the country faces, you'll want a different sort of book altogether. There are books about climate change and there are books about health care and there are books about prisons and there are books about the opiate epidemic. You (probably) aren't going to learn anything from What Happened about these issues. You (almost certainly) aren't going to learn about how to make them an effective part of a political message because if Clinton could have done that, well, she would have.
Click to expand...
Friends don't let friends read Hillary Clinton's new book

OUCH!
 
Obama claims that he wants to make up for his long term neglect of the party.

WERE IS OBAMA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom