USA Politics

In the latest round of "blame everyone for my loss but me"

(CNN)Hillary Clinton casts Bernie Sanders as an unrealistic over-promiser in her new book, according to excerpts posted by a group of Clinton supporters.

She said that his attacks against her during the primary caused "lasting damage" and paved the way for "(Donald) Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
Clinton, in a book that will be released September 12 entitled "What Happened," said Sanders "had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character" because the two Democrats "agreed on so much."

"Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist," she wrote.

"When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything," Clinton wrote. "Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

The excerpts were first posted by a pro-Clinton Twitter account and by a user on a Clinton "super volunteer" Facebook page.

"She says a lot in this book, and some of it is going to surprise people. People should buy it, read it, and consider what she constructively lays out. It's a great read," a Clinton aide said, asking not be named because they were not authorized to discuss the book.

In her forthcoming book, Clinton noted that the Vermont independent "isn't a Democrat."

"That's not a smear, that's what he says," she wrote. "He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party."
After outlining how she disagrees with Sanders' view of the Democratic Party, Clinton concludes, "I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too."

Clinton wrote that President Barack Obama counseled her to "grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could," according to the excerpts. That strategy, Clinton wrote, made her feel she was "in a straitjacket."

She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.

"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"
 
I have absolutely ordered the book, I will enjoy it just for seeing how she lashes out. Should be an interesting read, and possibly quite a fun display of hubris.
 
From: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/850729/north-korea-news-nuclear-war-attack-missiles-china-usa
CHINA has shot down missiles near the North Korean border in a provocative show of force against Kim Jong-un’s hermit kingdom.

North Korea was sent a direct message from Beijing yesterday in an explosive military drill near the border between the two states.

China's air force carried out exercises near the peninsula, practising to defend against a "surprise attack” - presumably from their erratic neighbours.

Chinese state-run media, which effectively acts as ay propaganda wing for leader Xi Jingping’s government, said the drills took place early yesterday.

They said the provocative drills took place near the Bohai Sea, the innermost gulf of the Yellow Sea which separates China from the Korean peninsula.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I just read an interesting German language piece that came to the conclusion that the bottom line of Trump's current work is that, pushing aside all the stupid things he says and does, the Congress is becoming stronger because the White House delegates important tasks there. If so, I think this would be a good thing, provided the legislative is made up of competent people who know what they're doing. The chance is higher, of course, with 535 congresspeople vs one president. But I also realise that this is exactly the "swamp" that made people vote for Trump.
Any opinions?
 
The struggle between the three branches of government for power has been going on for quite a long time. During periods of very strong presidents, the power migrates towards the executive; during weaker presidents' terms, it seems to regress towards Congress. I don't know if the congressmembers are the swamp; the swamp seems to be more of the lobbyists and stuff surrounding those people that push them towards voting for interests rather than their individual electors. Trump is proving to be a very weak president so far, and he's unwilling to lead the way on legislation. He reminds me a lot of a guy like, say, Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge did mostly what he wanted, but he let Congress take the lead in a lot of ways. He was different than Trump in a lot of ways too - he was, for example, a humble man, something Donald Trump won't be if he lives to be 10,000 years old. But yeah.
 
LooseCannon said:
he was, for example, a humble man, something Donald Trump won't be if he lives to be 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...

"See how old I got? Nobody got this old. I'm the oldest - I tell you, this is the most beautiful age a guy can get."

LooseCannon said:
The struggle between the three branches of government for power has been going on for quite a long time. During periods of very strong presidents, the power migrates towards the executive; during weaker presidents' terms, it seems to regress towards Congress. I don't know if the congressmembers are the swamp; the swamp seems to be more of the lobbyists and stuff surrounding those people that push them towards voting for interests rather than their individual electors. Trump is proving to be a very weak president so far, and he's unwilling to lead the way on legislation. He reminds me a lot of a guy like, say, Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge did mostly what he wanted, but he let Congress take the lead in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...

I don't actually think this is a bad thing. The presidency has become very powerful in recent decades, too powerful in my opinion. My ideal of democracy has the executive branch represent administrative purposes, not political initiative. Then again, political initiative should come from the people, and the only people who take initiative these days in most western countries are those who really rather shouldn't. Bleh.
 
It would be nice if Congress took back some powers it should have and it would be even nicer if the states did.

On an amusing note .. From the Onion

CHAPPAQUA, NY—Saying it would provide a candid account of her experiences writing an unsuccessful tell-all, sources confirmed Thursday that Hillary Clinton is already working on a follow-up book casting blame for the failures of her previous memoir What Happened. “From my agent negotiating that underwhelming deal with Simon & Schuster, to the graphic designer’s lackluster cover art, to my so-called supporters who couldn’t be bothered to drop $17.99 for the hardcover copy—everyone had a hand in undermining my last book’s success,” reads a passage from the introduction to Clinton’s What Also Happened, which repeatedly decries her prior book’s “indecipherable” font and dedicates an entire chapter to lashing out at her copy editor for making her look like “an idiot third-grader.” “I’ll never forget how Amazon buried me and how Barnes & Noble completely sabotaged me by displaying my book way in the back in that no man’s land by the CDs. Frankly, it’s obvious I got screwed on all sides.” Accusing them of stealing her spotlight, the book reportedly concludes with a long list of every other celebrity who published a memoir in the past year.
 
bearfan said:
It would be nice if Congress took back some powers it should have and it would be even nicer if the states did.
Click to expand...
States still have quite a lot of power, but the federal money tap has allowed the central government to push a lot of interesting changes.
 
LooseCannon said:
States still have quite a lot of power, but the federal money tap has allowed the central government to push a lot of interesting changes.
Click to expand...


The money tap is really the issue ... state 'x' do this or no $ .. which the citizens of state 'x' sent in.

For basic rights issues .. sure, though that is really mainly the courts.

For things like ..if you make the drinking age anything under 21 .. no road money (or prior to that, if you set a speed limit above 55 no road money) ... or other items that probably do not make sense of each and every one of the 50 states, which are a pretty diverse group ... that is what really needs to stop.
 
bearfan said:
The money tap is really the issue ... state 'x' do this or no $ .. which the citizens of state 'x' sent in.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think any state, or very few, get back the same that they put in. Many states get much more than they submit to federal taxes, and many states get much less. Quick research says the biggest disparities are Delaware, which contributes $23,982 per person to the federal coffers and receives $9773 back per person, whereas Mississippi contributes only $3836 but receives $11,496 per capita. But I don't really like the idea of using money to enforce legislation, especially moral legislation like drinking age.
 
The point really is ... citizens (at least some of them) in each state send money to the Feds .. how it is sent back out is a different matter.

But for a lot of issues that should really be local .. especially at the more detailed level ... the strings attached to the money going back out generally make no sense. if the US were the size and diversity of Delaware ... yeah, it would make sense ... but of course that is not the case.
 
If this were so serious and we're at the brink and all that, shouldn't something more be happening after a few months than just the firing of some missiles?
 
Well, remember that NK just recently made some major advancements with ICBM's and now a hydrogen bomb so they might be waiting to really build up their arsenal so when they do attack, they can do so with as much fire power as possible. Also, they probably want to do as much testing as possible so they can have the most amount of success when they do actually attack. Also, the USA doesn't want to attack first because of how China and Russia could react. We'll have to see if anything major comes from NK's most recent act, but I'm not betting on much of anything. President Moon has recently said some pretty strong words as you will see here. I have a feeling we won't see too much action unless NK actually attacks first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top