Has anyone read this? Can you give me a quick rundown of the story and the content?

Has anyone read this? Can you give me a quick rundown of the story and the content?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Hz17C4is
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I got it as a gift, and I'm reading it now. At least from what I've read thus far, it has very little to do with what she thinks went wrong in the 2016 election and more to do with her feelings on politics in general.
If you want a book on her campaign, pick up Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes

Is there anything they don't slap "New York Times Bestseller" on?

I’ve read it. It has a wide range of insights into how our political process is being subverted by corporate and foreign interests. There are lots of anecdotal examples provided to show how the election was stolen from her. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to be aware of the current state of our democracy.

Books that aren't New York Times Bestsellers, for one.

You underestimate how few copies of something you need to sell to be considered a best seller. It's a lot free than you think, that's why there are so many

youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Hz17C4is

It's obviously got the classic Clinton-brand political polish, so if you're looking for the "authentic Clinton" people keep searching for, you'll have to find a time machine and travel back to before she was excoriated for giving a speech on "ecstatic modes of living" or something and turned into Punished Hilldog. Aside from that, however, it's not too bad. It was sort of filled with old news when it came out, and nothing was particularly offensive imo, and despite what a lot of people said she did concede that it was her fault too that she lost the election, but because a lot of people want her crucified it of course didn't satisfy her haters. Ultimately, it's just... eh.

This is a lot more raw. Some of the passages in it really wrench at your heartstrings. I recommend this more than I do the former. Neither of these books, however, are compassionless towards Hillary, which I appreciate. I like viewing politicians as vulnerable humans, not heroes or villains, and seeing a tiny glimpse of what made Hilldog tick was fascinating.

that subversion of corporate and foreign interests will exist so long as democracy exists. it's a fact of life in our day and age and there's no escape from it.

soon

FAKE
NEWS
IT'S
THE
JEWS

I hope she includes herself as part of the group subverting it, but I highly doubt it.

I voted for Brexit and love Trump.

Does Hillary's book seem interesting if you view it as the work of a corrupt as fuck, extremely cynical politician who wants to replace the citizens of the Western world with low IQ, docile creatures

Can I ask you in good faith how the do you think anything will change by voting brexit or trump? While I do agree with brexit, not for immigration reasons only, and I'd rather have an incompetent idiot than a good politician at the top of the biggest terrorist country in the world. How do you think this will change anything if immigration and cheap labour are in the nature of capitalism?
>how our political process is being subverted by corporate and foreign interests.
But she is a rappresentative of all those things

>Muslims and africans
>Docile

You seriously think Hillary represents corporate and foreign interests?
Then why is she beloved by the most marginalized members of society? Because she fights for their rights.

low effort bait, and im replying to it

If you think that the most marginalized members of society are blacks, women, gays you are simply stupid.
If you think hilary clinton has the same problems of a Vietnamese women working in a sweatshop, or a single mother working at McDonald's you are a fucking idiot.
Plus she's not beloved by anyone. The lower class, most marginalized one, are got conned by trump.
The only people who love her are stupid fucks who seriously think that your identity comes before your class.
I swear fucking liberals are no better than /pol/ tards

>But she is a rappresentative of all those things
Who do you Donald "mini nukes" Trump represents?

>Can you give me a quick rundown of the story and the content?

The title is basically the entire story, Hillary Rodham Clinton is what happened.

White people obviously

The same exact thing. Just stupid, vulgar and decaying. Like modern day america.

I see.

It's not an opinion every white demographic voted for Trump except single women. No non-white demographic voted for him except I think Orthodox Jews

Fuck off already

...

>Minorities aren’t marginalized by inst. racism
W
E
w

Classic leftist response to being shown the reality behind their ridiculous facade

As the US becomes more multi-ethnic its politics will become ethnic conflict like every other multi-ethnic country.

I don't disagree, my comment was about which piece of the economic elite he represents.

A reality TV celebrity sex offender with no political experience other than leading the Birther movement ran for president. The Democrats rigged their race to install the only candidate who could possibly lose to him, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton spends the entire book blaming other people for the loss, never at all questioning her decisions like getting US to go to war with half the middle east.

Marginalization is not when you don't have a black protagonist, but when you make shit money for a shit job and live in debt for life depending on your shit job for the rest of life scared of losing it.
The rust belt is not exclusively black. Ethnic politics are good for the ruling class who'd rather have immersed in bullshit than make you think that your fellow white worker have more in common with you than a black basketball player

I don't think there is a conspiracy, it's just vote-buying. The 'ruling class' is not actually that easy to identify anyway. There is an entire bureaucratic organism totally separate from any kind of democratic control in the US, and its funding doesn't come from corporations either.

I know this is b8 but
>Fights for their rights
The Clinton's did a ton to step up mandatory minimums and 70s era crime hysteria
Also she was against gay marriage when she ran against Obama
The Clintons are some of the worst fucking people to happen to politics. Not because they're some massive evil conspiracy, just because ultimately their big contribution to the American zeitgeist is the unopposed institutionalization of reaganite austerity neoliberalism. Neoliberal austerity with a human face

Better than extremely low iq, docile crearures than you

>two candidates
>the one with fewer popular votes wins
>democracy

>t middleclasswhitemale

It always amazes me how few people care about Bacon's Rebellion. The truth of our racial politics has been out in the open for centuries.

>Marginalization is not having a black protagonist
Stopped reading there.
You don’t understand what it’s like to grow up and see all the “heroes” on movies and TV be white males. If you are a minority or a female you feel as if you cannot accomplish what these characters can.

>the one with more electoral college votes win
>exactly how the system was designed
>each candidate knew this before the race, and should have campaigned accordingly
>the archetype and pinnacle of representative democratic republic.
Are you really unable to see the Irony of a book complaining about foreign and corporate interests coming from the candidate with the most money from foreign and corporate interests in history?

Majority rule is a fucking garbage system and you know it

Shit, I'm half asian. Name a more underrepresented group in movies.
Still I'd rather not worry about paying alimony, taxes and affording a house that doesn't smell of murder with 3k a month

the entire Leftist argument just dissolves around the mere existence of East Asians.

Do you realize how many fucking white bois wanted to be bruce lee when they grew up? Do you not understand that Mr. T is an icon for all Americans? Morals are not racial. Did anyone not like Eddie Murphy? If white people can look up to an idolize black people, why can't black people look up to and idolize white people? Why dose it matter what fucking race someone is, more than their actions and values? How stupid and racist do you have to be that you can't respect someone because of the color of their skin? Why are you telling black people that they can only aspire to be like other black people? You're racist.

>the archetype and pinnacle of representative democratic republi

you need to got back

Name a better, longer lasting, more stable system.

But how is he supposed to admit that and then hold onto his victim card?

Being what? There are no poor people in east asia? There is no alienation in east asia? There is no consumerism in asia? Fuck off

Man I really wanted to be like micheal jordan as a kid but now liberals definitely made me more conscious of race unwillingly. They really only have themselves to blame

>crisis every 8 years
>Stable

being that poor, mistreated East asian minorites peform better even than whites in metrics like educational achievement, crime rates, IQ, etc.

If you're talking about Marxist Leftists then no that's a different thing

>Victim card
Haha I’m not a little bitch.
I escaped the inner city. Got a full ride to Harvard. PhD in pol. Science. I campaigned for Obama in 2008, even shook his hand when he came to Boston. Now I’m director of diversity at a small liberal arts college in the Midwest.
I just laugh at how white boys play the victim to “muh ((()))” and then act like minorities use the victim card.

Too bad they can't have thier own forms of media that arent owned by joos. Whitey aint the problem

>crises every 8 years.
Oh, gotcha. You're only 14. Some day you'll be old enough to realize that journalists are always apoplectic, and their stories don't actually represent reality.

>implying quality of life is determined by how valuable they are to employers
Oink oink

I implied nothing of the sort, you are pathologically obsessed. If you don't understand why that undermines the Leftist project idk what to tell you

Right? They're trying to bring back segregation while calling it progress. Absolutely mind boggling.

Nice shifting of goalposts.

Great Britain, to start. But you know you shouldn’t teach your daddy to fuck.

I love Great Britain. I was born there, and my ancestors are from there. But it is far less free, and did you forget about Cromwell? Also, if the archetype is not the first, best, longest lasting, and most stable, then what is the archetype. We could add to that freedom, which would still have America in the lead.

>If you're talking about Marxist Leftists then no that's a different thing
M8 all of my post itt are from a Marxist Leftist prospective, it's the liberal fuck who shout shit like "muh blacks in movie" i specifically said that that's not marginalization.
Journalists do exaggerate when it comes to predict one. But when it happens, it happens for real

>once again a newfag has no idea what Shifting the goalposts mean
>Great Britain for start
>Once again a newfag has no understanding of history
Yes because the British Empire is the peak of all egalitarian ideals and is self evidently the most stable democracy to ever exist.

Representative democracy and the electoral college system was designed to mitigate what's known as "the tyranny of the majority" where people from certain geographic areas can completely dictate the lives of those living hundreds of miles away by virtue of population. Purely direct democracy is mob rule , if you had ever read anything by John Stuart Mill or De Tocqueville and not Huffington Post you would realize this

> far less free
wtf are you talking about
> did you forget about cromwell?
no. did you forget about your civil war?
> we could add to that freedom.
shifting goalposts again.

>Marxist Leftist prospective,
Well I fear Leftism has somewhat passed you by then. Class warfare seems to have been basically forgotten in the wake of intersectionality

Old lady yells at cloud

>but when it happens, it happens for real
???
So you admit you're 14?

> talking about democracy
> start talking about stability and longevity of political systems.

l think it’s you who doesn’t know what shifting goalposts means.

> we must have le electoral college to avoid le direct mob rule

whatever you say user.

Press freedom laws are not as wide. Libel and slander laws are stricter for royalty and government than for ordinary citizens. Education is less flexible. Their citizenry has less effect on policy. They have actual, legally enforced classes.

Cromwell was an actual dictator who took control of the government. The civil war was a rebellion, but the same government was in control before, during, and after. The same legal documents from our nation's founding are still in place as the supreme law of the land.

Lastly, I cannot shift the goalposts if you refuse to either provide or accept a definition. I said it is the archetype and pinnacle of a representative democratic republic. If we were to actually debate this, step one would be agreeing on how such a claim could be measured and assessed. I've provided several possible metrics. You have done nothing.

...

I know. Still. I'm not gonna change position because fags in college are idiots.
I lived enough to remember just 3 of them, not being american, the 1997 one in asia because I was living there and I was 3, the 2008 one and the european one in 2010.
These affected me. But you are more of an apologist of imperial britain, and so I have to give it to you: It was fucking A stable, Britain had to colonize half the world and kill millions but it was stable as fuck

If you have to use military force to make it work, can you really call it stable, or particularly representative?

It's more that East Asians are the most marginalized and discriminated against group, the only group discriminated against both leftists for being successful and the right for being soulless slant eyes. yet are the most successful anyways.

Affirmative action, using racial discrimination to accomplish equity looks positively retarded when you realize that by far the most adversely affected by it are East Asians. In an attempt to counter some of the advantages white people got through systemic oppression I.E. slavery what affirmative action actually ends up doing is oppressing an already oppressed minority and giving their jobs to another minority group. This inconvenient truth is probably the biggest problem with racial politics on the left because it's obviously and demonstrably untrue that seeking equity through racial discrimination will result in equality. Yet this is the status quo.

I would also argue that how East Asia has pulled many people out of poverty using capitalism and "exploitation" such as sweatshop labor also really makes the lefts arguments look fucking stupid. East Asians were far poorer under gommunism than they are under capitalism. Of course the lefts concerns about the exploitation of east asians by capitalists were never sincere and were only ever driven by pro-union protectionist interests.

I was ironic. I call myself marxist and then make apologism for colonialism and imperialism? What am I? hitchens?

>l think it’s you who doesn’t know what shifting goalposts means.
No it went more like
>Talk about democracy
>Talk what is best democracy and why
That's not shifting the goalposts , at all
>That weak leddit tier rebuttal
Lmao, read a book faggot

It is a comedy book

> electoral colleges are somehow integral to representative democracy

make reddit claims, get reddit answers

Yeah, except the right doesn't discriminate against East Asians. Maybe the military component did for a bit after WWII, but by and large Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrants are seen as model citizens. There is a great respect for a somewhat general culture of hard work, community responsibility, and familial devotion. Many right-wring writers talk extensively about how we can make the success of East Asian immigrants a broader cultural trend.

>I would also argue that how East Asia has pulled many people out of poverty using capitalism
Lmao. Korea had more prostitution than fucking Thailand and more suicides than everyone else. Slums are a thing, granny prostitutes are a thing and "confort women" for US soldiers are a thing.
North korea was richer until the 2 coup d'etat organized by americans in South Korea. They applied a 5 plan that made their economy go boom. This did nothing for equality tho.
Korea today is totally fucked up and drinks more than russia.
North Korea is only poor because of the fucking sanctions and bans, but it's still standing there.
No m8. I growed up there in poverty and got out of there just because I had a gold digger mother who sent me to europe.
I don't give a shit what other leftist think, korea for me is a wasteland. Culturally and economically wise

> electoral colleges are somehow integral to representative democracy
... In the United States. But then, again you are only Reddit and can only give Reddit answers seeing as how everything is shifting the goal posts and other phrases you probably heard of only a few days ago.

Can't wait for the next terse meme answer tho

>talking about being the closest to the ideal of a representative democratic republic.
>The ideal of a representative democratic republic is a stable, long lasting, system of government that affords as much freedom to its citizens as possible.
>Measure the success of representative democratic republics on those qualities
Shifting the goalposts how?

Ok, but it hardly means Big Bubba the Cattle Rapist's vote ought to count for more than Steven Hawking's

Democracy is volatile. Some kind of mechanism is needed that allows the government to function in an orderly fashion while not limiting the voice of the people. The electoral college is one mechanism among many, and it serves a vital role. Because of the state system, the US has a somewhat compartmentalized culture and economy; the electoral college combines the popular interest with the territorial interest. This lets the states actually have a large measure of independence without ever gaining too much power over any of the others. The importance of the electoral college is perfectly demonstrated by the 3/5ths compromise and the Civil War. The 3/5ths compromise ceded enough power to the economically superior south to ensure the initial union, but not so much that their supremacy was guaranteed. When the Southern States no longer held the stronger position, they rebelled. They lost because their system was inferior to the northern system.

Well this was a conversation about the good ol US of A initially, so apparently

It absolutely does mean that. That is it's entire purpose. You are committing an appeal to authority. Forgetting for now that Hawking is British, his intelligence does not make him inherently right in all things. If Hawking cannot adequately communicate his position to Bubba the half-wit, then we as a nation cannot in good faith follow Hawking's position. Government relies on consent. If we simply yield control to the states with a larger population, and yield those states to the most powerful people in their government, we will no longer be a democracy. The electoral college limits the influence of the more prosperous and populous states, and empowers the weaker states, keeping the entire nation at a relatively even keel. We all rise together, and we all fall together. There is no other way. If the entire midwest and interior west are opposed to the coastal view, then we cannot simply follow the coasts. The South was once more populated and more economically prosperous than any other region. Had we not had the electoral college, they never would have fallen from power, and we would still have slavery.

And the US for most of its history has had to use very little military strength within its territory. Extreme policing has only come about as a response to purposeful foreign disruption via narcotics.

Lol another butthurt commie blaming capitalist military action for the economic failures of communism. Mind you, scapegoating the failures of communism on the capitalist militarism can't explain shit like why China became so much more wealthy when it started allowing more capitalism and adopted free trade policies. This is because capitalist militarism isn't why communist economies truly failed, communist economies failed because communism is retarded.

>Relative poverty rate
Lmfao, I was talking about how east asia has become more rich, not about how it has become more equal. The poorest in east asia are less poor, the middle class now actually exists, and the rich are more rich. However, because leftists are pathologically envious, they see everybody getting richer as being a bad outcome if somebody else gets a bigger cut than they do.

This is why they like the system of communism where the state oppresses everybody into being poor to establish a state of little "relative poverty". If everybody is standing in bread lines, nobody has to feel bad about it!

>brainlet can’t into Hamilton

Assuming that person wasn't trolling, then holy shit, that person needs to be put into a cryogenic freezer and thrown into the arctic tundra to recover from the searing fire of those burn wounds.

Government by the people and for the people. Unless the people want something the existing power structure doesn't. Maybe it reads well in some high school thought experiment, but ultimately it just means the political classes can just engineer their way around popular will. Most US states are more gerrymandered than Latin American banana republics.
Seriously ask yourself why the most recent presidential election, supposedly a major way for the people to choose their representatives, featured two of the least popular candidates in history
The system is working as intended

>North Korea is only poor because of sanctions
North Korea has an ally in China. Without intervention, they have more fertile land than the South, and immense amounts of other natural resources. Due to a relative lack of some modern resources, they would not be able to be as industrialized as many countries. But with the protection of China, they could safely grow as a pastoral country. Instead they depleted their soil, put all of their resources into military and false cities, and now force the people into hard labor under impossibly harsh laws. They could easily get rid of sanctions, but their despot of a ruler refuses to yield control. It's literally tyranny.

>You are committing an appeal to authority.
Ceded
>Consent of the goverened
That's a happy thought I guess, see
Which is ultimately what I'd like to get at

But that's not true. They were two of the least liked candidates, which is mostly driven by people's personal opinion of the candidate, as measured by things like "would you want to have a beer with this person." Prior to the unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault and unfounded claims of russian interference, Trump had overwhelming electoral support. That he still won after so many otherwise career ending news cycles demonstrates clearly the incredible fervor of his supporters. That he spent relatively little money, against an opponent spending trillions shows that "likability" has got little to do with popularity or belief in their leadership.

QUICK RUNDOWN:
>extremely unlikable candidate with a headstart loses to late entry Obama
>is forced to support him and becomes awful secretary of state
>accomplish nothing and fuck up all along the way gathering dirt and criticisms on her way
>decides to run again
>no one likes her
>majority wants Bernie
>rig primaries so she wins
>still extremely unlikeable but leftists are so up in arms about Trump they blindly follow the DNC
>lose to a narcistic mogul who had as much political experience as a turd in the dirt


Hmmm what went wrong??

Pretty apt summary.

>accomplish nothing
No. Libya was done by Clinton and Obama, as preparation to set up some "winning points" for when she runs.
Ends up in total disaster and fucks over Europe with the refugee crisis.

She didn't do fuckall, user. She really fucked up.

Didnt bernie also have like no numbers with minorities?

bretty gud

tl;dr
Meme magic is extremely powerful

this helped

HUEY, THE BOY

>It has a wide range of insights into how our political process is being subverted by corporate and foreign interests
Does Goldman Sachs and broing it up with the Saudis not count as corporate and foreign interests now? lmao. the absolute state of liberals