Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html
Quote:The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.
Please don’t take my word for it, though.
Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.
Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.
In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.
Posts: 3,033
Threads: 14
Reputation:
7197
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Yawn....if she releases this, then she has no defense to releasing many other things. Par for the course.
--------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5,814
Threads: 159
Reputation:
19883
Joined: May 2015
Location: Ohio
Mood:
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(04-16-2016, 05:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yawn....if she releases this, then she has no defense to releasing many other things. Par for the course.
For example? I am unaware of any other situations like this for her.
Posts: 11,960
Threads: 103
Reputation:
81482
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
I don't see how any thinking person could ever vote for her. There are so many things swirling around her. With all that smoke, there has to be fire somewhere.
Posts: 5,814
Threads: 159
Reputation:
19883
Joined: May 2015
Location: Ohio
Mood:
Posts: 10,718
Threads: 63
Reputation:
57608
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
At this point, I don't think it will matter much. Nobody is really voting for her because of her sound policies. She's pretty much advocating everything that's gotten us a shit economy so far, and that seems to be ok with her supporters.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(04-16-2016, 08:38 AM)McC Wrote: I don't see how any thinking person could ever vote for her. There are so many things swirling around her. With all that smoke, there has to be fire somewhere.
Just because she has been the subject of multiple political attacks does not mean they were true.
Remember how much "smoke" there was about Obama being born in Kenya?
Or how about all the "smoke" around Bush/Cheney being involved in the 9-11 attacks?
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
I am sure Hillary made some comments in these speeches that she does not want us all to hear.
What exactly are the terms she has placed on releasing them? How unreasonable are they. Seems like if everyone wants te hear what she saied that would comply with her terms.
Posts: 37,610
Threads: 892
Reputation:
123486
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
I sincerely hope Clinton gets the Democratic Bid. The DNC can't rig the National Election for her. I think folks are free enough with other people's money to vote for Sanders and that scares me.
Posts: 2,351
Threads: 94
Reputation:
9381
Joined: May 2015
Location: Tampa
Mood: None
(04-15-2016, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html
Calls to mind Romney's "47%" comment. Now, why anyone would have voted for him to begin with is beyond me, but that one remark really seemed to be what sunk him.
Hillary, on the other hand, is an accomplished politician and quite intelligent. She reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton (or Pete Rose if you want a sports figure comparison) - someone who may be a horrible person in many ways but is in fact very good at what she/he does for a living.
Still, I am willing to wager there are more than a few comments in her speeches quite similar to Mitt's 47 percent line that, while big hits with the Wall Street folks who bankrolled Romney and Clinton, would not play well in Peoria or even much of Manhattan. Not everyone who works there is a hedge fund manager or a stock broker.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
Posts: 2,351
Threads: 94
Reputation:
9381
Joined: May 2015
Location: Tampa
Mood: None
(04-16-2016, 08:38 AM)McC Wrote: I don't see how any thinking person could ever vote for her. There are so many things swirling around her. With all that smoke, there has to be fire somewhere.
She is the one of the few people to whom I would not apply ^ this logic. There really has been a smear campaign against her for over 20 years now. I don't think she is pure as the driven snow, but to paraphrase Bush, some people undoubtedly "hate her for her bush," and others just hate her because there has been a decades long smear campaign against her which, at the end of the day, has turned up very little "fire" in spite of the "smoke." I conclude the smoke is manufactured by smoke machines and not her conduct about 98% of the time.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
Posts: 3,033
Threads: 14
Reputation:
7197
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(04-16-2016, 07:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For example? I am unaware of any other situations like this for her.
Really? Nothing in common here with emails? Investments? Donors? The Clinton foundation? Produce records for questions into one thing and you open the floodgates. It's a lose-lose for her.
Personally I think it's damning enough that she put rules in place preventing a record of her speech and preventing any release of a record....because it should be simple enough to ask "Well what did you say that you don't want voters to know?"
--------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(04-16-2016, 05:35 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Really? Nothing in common here with emails? Investments? Donors? The Clinton foundation? Produce records for questions into one thing and you open the floodgates. It's a lose-lose for her.
Personally I think it's damning enough that she put rules in place preventing a record of her speech and preventing any release of a record....because it should be simple enough to ask "Well what did you say that you don't want voters to know?"
Did she withhold any of that information? I mean, a lot of stuff that doesn't bode well for her from my perspective, but I thought, given your comment, that there were other situations in which she was withholding information like this. But I am unaware of that being the case in what you mention here.
Posts: 37,610
Threads: 892
Reputation:
123486
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(04-16-2016, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did she withhold any of that information? I mean, a lot of stuff that doesn't bode well for her from my perspective, but I thought, given your comment, that there were other situations in which she was withholding information like this. But I am unaware of that being the case in what you mention here.
Well there was that time she took sniper fire in Bosnia. She didn't withhold any information on sharing that event.
Posts: 4,746
Threads: 129
Reputation:
12749
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Maybe she isn't a corrupt, deceitful politician. She's just a good business women who wants paid 100k for every person who hears the speech, like the first time she gave it.
Posts: 5,814
Threads: 159
Reputation:
19883
Joined: May 2015
Location: Ohio
Mood:
(04-16-2016, 07:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Maybe she isn't a corrupt, deceitful politician. She's just a good business women who wants paid 100k for every person who hears who speech, like the first time she gave it.
Did you type that with a straight face ?
7/10
Posts: 4,746
Threads: 129
Reputation:
12749
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Posts: 3,033
Threads: 14
Reputation:
7197
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(04-16-2016, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: but I thought, given your comment, that there were other situations in which she was withholding information like this.
Sure. Always. You think that because she DIDN'T disclose in those situations.
Seriously. Did you think she had a private server in order to NOT withhold info?
--------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(04-17-2016, 04:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sure. Always. You think that because she DIDN'T disclose in those situations.
Seriously. Did you think she had a private server in order to NOT withhold info?
I don't know why she has one, but she turned the emails over to the State Dept as required and it was up to them to release them. I see that as two different situations, both shady as hell and untrustworthy, but not the same thing.
|