Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:44 AM

Hillarity says she won't release her transcripts...

that she'll do it if everybody else does...

then she'll look into it again.

Just on This Week with George Stephanopolis.

186 replies, 13622 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

186 replies	Author	Time	Post
Hillarity says she won't release her transcripts... (Original post)	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	OP
Good for her. Don't feed the trolls.	DanTex	Feb 2016	#1
LOL. You're funny.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#2
Since when is wanting a candidates position with Wall Street "trolling"?	MrMickeysMom	Feb 2016	#15
Trolling on DU as defined since 2008 = Posts that don't toe the line. nt	MadDAsHell	Feb 2016	#129
I think you mis-spelled "voters."	appal_jack	Feb 2016	#21
This won't go away.	cali	Feb 2016	#33
Possibly.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#45
probably exactly as bad as we imagine,but it won't go away until she releases it,and she won't	virtualobserver	Feb 2016	#57
Of course the speculation is worse. Have you been to any of these corporate event things?	DanTex	Feb 2016	#82
So why do they pay her $250,000 for a boring speech no one listens to?	Bread and Circus	Feb 2016	#95
Cause that's what they offered...	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#100
It's called quid pro quo	Plucketeer	Feb 2016	#110
it is not considered a gift	Marty McGraw	Feb 2016	#139
If she doesn't release them now, her wall street problems	cali	Feb 2016	#102
I agree.	MrChuck	Feb 2016	#90
I doubt that Clinton would be so unwise as to publicly say things	ladjf	Feb 2016	#177
Getting close to that line Dan.. Getting awful close.	notadmblnd	Feb 2016	#63
some are more equal	Duckhunter935	Feb 2016	#68
We just can't demand...	Bohemianwriter	Feb 2016	#80
I agree...n/t	asuhornets	Feb 2016	#147
Do you know ?	TubbersUK	Feb 2016	#3
Everybody that has had similar speaking engagements AFAIK.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#6
Thanks :)	TubbersUK	Feb 2016	#7
I'm not sure who "those politicians" are.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#10
Yes, sounds like a pretty moveable feast n/t	TubbersUK	Feb 2016	#17
I was wondering how she'd get around this. Now I know.	Duval	Feb 2016	#94
Bill's	juxtaposed	Feb 2016	#14
I'm shocked	UglyGreed	Feb 2016	#4
O, what a tangled web we weave...	chervilant	Feb 2016	#5
No better way to say guilty. Thanks Hillary	2pooped2pop	Feb 2016	#8
She's smart not to let her enemies pick apart her every word and	oasis	Feb 2016	#9
Or perhaps she knows it would end her campaign if	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#12
There is no upside in releasing them. She knows voters	oasis	Feb 2016	#30
Yes there is. It makes a lot of her wall street/financial industry	cali	Feb 2016	#36
Apparently, she's not going to cooperate in helping her enemies	oasis	Feb 2016	#71
No, it will not go away, imo..the speeches are not likely going to be riddled with	Jefferson23	Feb 2016	#83
She's Asking The Voters For Their Vote - Don't You Think That The Voters Have A Right To Know If....	global1	Feb 2016	#47
Hillary will be judged on her overall record. She's overcome	oasis	Feb 2016	#65
She's overcome nothing	Got it	Feb 2016	#118
And that's what we're doing. Judging her overall record.	frylock	Feb 2016	#151
Like she did in 2008	Goblinmonger	Feb 2016	#183
Important issues like regulation of Wall Street banks?	jalan48	Feb 2016	#50
Hillary vs. GOP. Get it?	oasis	Feb 2016	#54
Not really. It's Hillary with the big banks vs. the people.	jalan48	Feb 2016	#62
It may not be the answer you want, but Hill will let the	oasis	Feb 2016	#79
That's her mistake. Teams that look ahead to the "big game" usually lose.	jalan48	Feb 2016	#88
The GOP vs. the Clinton Machine. Bring it on.	oasis	Feb 2016	#113
And the Wall Street Bankers go crazy with applause.	jalan48	Feb 2016	#132
Newsflash: Not everyone in America is Wall Street obsessed.	oasis	Feb 2016	#134
Go Goldman Sachs go! Rah! Rah!	jalan48	Feb 2016	#135
Respectfully disagree.	H2O Man	Feb 2016	#76
To be sure, Hillary's campaign has already weighed the pros and cons.	oasis	Feb 2016	#86
Yes, Hillary certainly seems to have crossed the Rubicon. Of course, you realize the inappropriate	xocet	Feb 2016	#148
An appropriate metaphor for Hillary's overcoming the many	oasis	Feb 2016	#174
Your reference is to Shakespeare's Richard III; specifically, to the dialog right before Richard III	xocet	Feb 2016	#180
Little tip for you. Don't quote Shakespeare	Goblinmonger	Feb 2016	#185
Right.	H2O Man	Feb 2016	#171
She's boxed in. It's a no win situation, regardless of what she does.	antigop	Feb 2016	#140
More important	Old Codger	Feb 2016	#92
Hillary chooses privacy. Let the chips fall where they may.	oasis	Feb 2016	#108
They will	Old Codger	Feb 2016	#117
"Hillary chooses privacy."	malokvale77	Feb 2016	#153
Let her choose privacy and go away.	frylock	Feb 2016	#154
Yes, she's real smart for not disclosing the truth...	MrMickeysMom	Feb 2016	#20
The "truth" can be distorted, as you well know. nt	oasis	Feb 2016	#31
Then it wouldn't be true, would it?	MrMickeysMom	Feb 2016	#41
These days it's called "spin". Many here are familiar with the tactic. nt	oasis	Feb 2016	#51
Dem party voters are her potential enemies?	Hydra	Feb 2016	#161
Yep	catnhatnh	Feb 2016	#166
Everyone else is not running for president.	RDANGELO	Feb 2016	#11
I'm not sure if She was referring to Bernie or the republicans,	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#18
SHE DOESN'T WANT MAIN STREET TO SEE WHAT SHE SAID TO WALL STREET!	MrMickeysMom	Feb 2016	#23
She is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs...	Yurovsky	Feb 2016	#13
Hey, a big round of applause for her supporters being okay with THAT!	MrMickeysMom	Feb 2016	#26
I'm sure Bernie would release his speech transcripts.	HooptieWagon	Feb 2016	#16
Transcripts would be easy for Sanders	mikehiggins	Feb 2016	#43
What a great candidate for the average American!!	stillwaiting	Feb 2016	#19
That was another gift to Bernie Sanders	INdemo	Feb 2016	#22
If everybody else does?	Erich Bloodaxe BSN	Feb 2016	#24
I'm sure Bernie would be delighted to release transcripts...	Ino	Feb 2016	#29
I'm quoting the first few pages from one of his most comprehensive speeches at Georgetown Univ...	MrMickeysMom	Feb 2016	#38
This speach should be inserted into every negative Bernie thread	StandingInLeftField	Feb 2016	#141
No Transcripts of Bank Speeches, No Iowa Audit	NowSam	Feb 2016	#25
Maybe she'll release them if we paid her $225,000 per speech	Blus4u	Feb 2016	#69
LOL	NowSam	Feb 2016	#70
Maybe she'll respond to a GoFundme	think4yourself	Feb 2016	#75
Stop with the immature Republican-style naming of things. Bernie would not approve.	ancianita	Feb 2016	#27
These were her words.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#35
I'm referring to YOU calling HER "Hillarity." We can knock off the Repub-style cheap shots	ancianita	Feb 2016	#42
When she starts acting like a candidate I can respect	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#44
Snap. n/t	sarge43	Feb 2016	#85
Naw, you need to show some respect toward your party's campaign style if you	ancianita	Feb 2016	#111
I'm a socialist.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#167
Like the guy	Old Codger	Feb 2016	#97
COVER UP! If you have nothing to hide, release them. She obviously said things that corroborates	in_cog_ni_to	Feb 2016	#28
Taking	Old Codger	Feb 2016	#103
Yes she is! We're not as stupid as she thinks we are.	in_cog_ni_to	Feb 2016	#106
We KNEW she wouldn't. It would destroy her.	Bonobo	Feb 2016	#32
Then she just shot herself in the foot. Repetitive lies make one a liar.	californiabernin	Feb 2016	#34
Smart move...	BklnDem75	Feb 2016	#37
There's a bit of a flaw in your argument...	ljm2002	Feb 2016	#121
I just don't see it...	BklnDem75	Feb 2016	#168
Having got their opponent to dig in her heels it's now time for people stalking the story	HereSince1628	Feb 2016	#39
On CNN this morning she was setting the record straight on what Elizabeth Warren	bkkyosemite	Feb 2016	#40
Warren's own book "A Fighting Chance" admits that reality.	joshcryer	Feb 2016	#59
Stop making sense!	Metric System	Feb 2016	#158
Seriously, why doesn't someone put up a wanted ad and ask for a bootleg copy of the speech?	Baitball Blogger	Feb 2016	#46
Nixon responds	Ichingcarpenter	Feb 2016	#48
!!!	H2O Man	Feb 2016	#60
Great compilation. Kudos.	farleftlib	Feb 2016	#127
Nothing like transparency	EndElectoral	Feb 2016	#49
As soon as Bernie releases his Goldman Sachs speach transcripts then Hillary will, Oh, wait	litlbilly	Feb 2016	#52
Bernie already released his Goldman Sachs speech transcript.	Gary 50	Feb 2016	#130
I saw that, it was funny:)	litlbilly	Feb 2016	#137
Great idea Hillary!!!	99Forever	Feb 2016	#53
But we already knew that, didn't we?	notadmblnd	Feb 2016	#55
Good for her.	stonecutter357	Feb 2016	#56
That was not a good appearance	Mnpaul	Feb 2016	#58
Unforced error.	H2O Man	Feb 2016	#61
^ Nailed it. nt	TBF	Feb 2016	#64
She could have avoided all this	zalinda	Feb 2016	#66
This message was self-deleted by its author	BlandGrenade	Feb 2016	#78
unlike her Bernie	Duckhunter935	Feb 2016	#124
Came to say this.	krispos42	Feb 2016	#159
Good!	leftofcool	Feb 2016	#67
She can't release them	localroger	Feb 2016	#72
Good luck with this strategy.	Fearless	Feb 2016	#73
A candidate running from her word	Android3.14	Feb 2016	#74
I am SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!!!	debunction.junction	Feb 2016	#77
Who is everybody else? Bernie is the only one running in the primary with her.	Jefferson23	Feb 2016	#81
Yep.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#122
Makes perfect sense to me	BlandGrenade	Feb 2016	#84
You peasants only need to know what we want you to know!	JoeyT	Feb 2016	#87
The only thing worse for her would be to release	LibDemAlways	Feb 2016	#89
Hillary Told George Stephanopoulos She Will Release Transcripts on One Small Condition	gordyfl	Feb 2016	#91
I saw that	Duckhunter935	Feb 2016	#125
How many of those people are running for President, Hillary?	ljm2002	Feb 2016	#128
I wonder which DUer she borrowed that argument from?!	frylock	Feb 2016	#156
Who does she mean by "everybody else?"	gyroscope	Feb 2016	#93
Of course she won't release the transcripts....	TxGrandpa	Feb 2016	#96
and she wonders why people don't trust her?	dana_b	Feb 2016	#98
I believe the speeches were totally innocuous, and that's the problem.	hedgehog	Feb 2016	#99
That's it right there. People will ask "They paid you how much for this crap?"	backscatter712	Feb 2016	#107
Yep, wink wink transactions. Why would any politician allow themselves to be	Jefferson23	Feb 2016	#115
I am sure that nothing is there.	Floridanow	Feb 2016	#164
Clinton is on Face the Nation going out on a limb trying to slam Sanders all the while	Jefferson23	Feb 2016	#101
Hillary declines to provide information vital to assessing her relationship with Wall Street	whatchamacallit	Feb 2016	#104
Hill ain't going to release shit	madokie	Feb 2016	#105
I will place my bet on the Bronco's for the win by 3+	nolabels	Feb 2016	#143
You would have to believe WS gives money because they're just stupid, and	Jefferson23	Feb 2016	#109
This is exactly	EdwardBernays	Feb 2016	#112
What an amateur move	shawn703	Feb 2016	#114
I agree.	Floridanow	Feb 2016	#162
she can't....	yourout	Feb 2016	#116
In other words: she really is a Wall Street shill. Thanks for the notice. eom	Betty Karlson	Feb 2016	#119
Ha! I was right! nt	SusanCalvin	Feb 2016	#120
Watching her duck, dive	Faux pas	Feb 2016	#123
Big surprise!	polichick	Feb 2016	#126
I more or less predicted as much less than 12 hours ago. Go figure. nt	silvershadow	Feb 2016	#131
She does NOT want voters to know what she said...	SoapBox	Feb 2016	#133
She must have something to hide. We do have the 5th amendment	Dragonfli	Feb 2016	#136
LINK TO VIDEO	antigop	Feb 2016	#138
What kind of a response is that? Sounds like a kid	LibDemAlways	Feb 2016	#150
as I mentioned upthread. She's boxed in...regardless of what she does.	antigop	Feb 2016	#152
Then she should just release the damned	Floridanow	Feb 2016	#165
Wow - her sucking up to Wall Street must be worse than we suspected.	Vinca	Feb 2016	#142
These speeches raise two questions	DaveT	Feb 2016	#144
She can have seat next to Romney and his taxes.	Spitfire of ATJ	Feb 2016	#145
GOOD!!!	asuhornets	Feb 2016	#146
That strategy didn't work so well for Nixon either	Major Nikon	Feb 2016	#149
These speeches were probably not that	sadoldgirl	Feb 2016	#155
Hillarity?	Metric System	Feb 2016	#157
Fallacious thinking	21st Century Poet	Feb 2016	#160
How did the Dems get here????	Dems to Win	Feb 2016	#163
I hope you will reconsider using "Hillarity". No matter what you think about Hillary, we should be	cui bono	Feb 2016	#169
How about "Clintoon?"	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#170
No matter what you think of her, your behavior reflects on you.	cui bono	Feb 2016	#172
I don't fekkin care.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#173
There's plenty of policy to mock her about and criticize her for.	cui bono	Feb 2016	#175
Try rereading my earlier reply, and if somebody is going to make their opinion	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#179
She's a crippled candidate with the email thing and Goldman speech hanging over her head	LittleBlue	Feb 2016	#176
Excellent...n/t	asuhornets	Feb 2016	#178
Why is it that Hillary must release the transcripts but it's okay if all the other candidates don't?	kstewart33	Feb 2016	#181
It's a convenient parry by Hillary.	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#182
Hillarity???	Beacool	Feb 2016	#184
Yes. Hilarity. She gives me a lot to laugh about	R. Daneel Olivaw	Feb 2016	#186

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:45 AM

DanTex (20,709 posts)

1. Good for her. Don't feed the trolls.

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:47 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

2. LOL. You're funny.

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:57 AM

MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)

15. Since when is wanting a candidates position with Wall Street "trolling"?

What's the word now for someone who defends full disclosure on whether their candidate represents Wall Street or American working families who bail out Wall Street?

Reply to this post

Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:05 PM

MadDAsHell (2,067 posts)

129. Trolling on DU as defined since 2008 = Posts that don't toe the line. nt

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:01 AM

appal_jack (3,813 posts)

21. I think you mis-spelled "voters."

Voters /= Trolls!

Hillary is a candidate, not a queen. We are not amused...

-app

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:19 AM

cali (114,904 posts)

33. This won't go away.

The speculation is probably far worse than anything she said.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:36 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

45. Possibly.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #45)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:50 AM

virtualobserver (8,760 posts)

57. probably exactly as bad as we imagine,but it won't go away until she releases it,and she won't

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:22 PM

DanTex (20,709 posts)

82. Of course the speculation is worse. Have you been to any of these corporate event things?

The person gets up there and says something boring and nobody cares, but they pretend to act interested. The point of having someone like Hillary is to make the execs feel important, and show to the world that whatever organization hosting the event is "big time."

I kinda think she should release them at some random time after the primaries but before the GD, so that they're out there. If she does it now, she's seen as caving, and just the fact that there will be another Goldman news cycle will hurt her. Do it at some time when nothing is happening.

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:36 PM

Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)

95. So why do they pay her $250,000 for a boring speech no one listens to?

Reply to this post

Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:41 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

100. Cause that's what they offered...

Reply to this post

Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:48 PM

Plucketeer (12,882 posts)

110. It's called quid pro quo

They cut the check and they get a nice lecture in return! Just that simple.

Reply to this post

Response to Plucketeer (Reply #110)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:32 PM

Marty McGraw (1,024 posts)

139. it is not considered a gift

That way. Hell, I'll bet you a bag of Funyuns they even write off the expense

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:43 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

102. If she doesn't release them now, her wall street problems

Will grow exponentially worse.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:31 PM

MrChuck (279 posts)

90. I agree.

In any case they are making it much worse with all of the hmms and hawws.
So many on her squad have defended her and so have I. Maybe I'm a fool but I wouldn't expect her to divulge all of her evil plot like a villain in a Superman comic. I think she gave a bland speech and got a huge check that implies her influence would be used in favor of the signature at the lower right hand corner.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:44 PM

ladjf (17,320 posts)

177. I doubt that Clinton would be so unwise as to publicly say things

that would later come back to haunt her. I believe her to be a very guileful person.

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:54 AM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

63. Getting close to that line Dan.. Getting awful close.

Calling DU members Trolls is against TOS.

Reply to this post

Response to notadmblnd (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:59 AM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

68. some are more equal

Than others

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:17 PM

Bohemianwriter (978 posts)

80. We just can't demand...

the details of the love affair between Lloyd Bankfein and Hillary.

Because taking millions from Goldman Sachs will NOT clout anyone's judgement, right?

What's the difference between Ted Cruz taking Wall Street money and Hillary taking money from the exact same source?

Does that mean that Hillary and her supporters are morally and politically closer to Ted Cruz than Bernie Sanders and his supporters?

Reply to this post

Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:45 PM

asuhornets (2,405 posts)

147. I agree...n/t

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:48 AM

TubbersUK (1,427 posts)

3. Do you know ?

Who did she mean by "everybody else" in this context?

Reply to this post

Response to TubbersUK (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:50 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

6. Everybody that has had similar speaking engagements AFAIK.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

TubbersUK (1,427 posts)

7. Thanks :)

ETA: I was trying to gauge how high she set the bar for disclosure.

Pretty high I guess.

Reply to this post

Response to TubbersUK (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:55 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

10. I'm not sure who "those politicians" are.

But it's a great cop out.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:58 AM

TubbersUK (1,427 posts)

17. Yes, sounds like a pretty moveable feast n/t

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:35 PM

Duval (4,280 posts)

94. I was wondering how she'd get around this. Now I know.

cop out is an apt description.

Reply to this post

Response to TubbersUK (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:56 AM

juxtaposed (2,778 posts)

14. Bill's

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:48 AM

UglyGreed (7,661 posts)

4. I'm shocked

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:50 AM

chervilant (8,267 posts)

5. O, what a tangled web we weave...

Hi11ary needs new blood in her campaign staff.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

2pooped2pop (5,420 posts)

8. No better way to say guilty. Thanks Hillary

We already knew it but were waiting g for your confirmation.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:54 AM

oasis (48,813 posts)

9. She's smart not to let her enemies pick apart her every word and

distort their meaning.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:56 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

12. Or perhaps she knows it would end her campaign if

her speech to Wall Street show her intentions if she becomes POTUS.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:12 AM

oasis (48,813 posts)

30. There is no upside in releasing them. She knows voters

in the GE will be more focused on important issues.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:21 AM

cali (114,904 posts)

36. Yes there is. It makes a lot of her wall street/financial industry

stuff go away- as long as there isn't some bombshell.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:04 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

71. Apparently, she's not going to cooperate in helping her enemies

elevate this non issue above its present "side show" level.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:23 PM

Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)

83. No, it will not go away, imo..the speeches are not likely going to be riddled with

any indication of promises by her. She would be crazy to have such a
paper trail, they will be so benign in nature and that will be telling,
that is what worries her, I feel.

The American voters will have to believe she is paid such an outlandish
fee for milk toast. Those are wink wink transaction.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:39 AM

global1 (24,484 posts)

47. She's Asking The Voters For Their Vote - Don't You Think That The Voters Have A Right To Know If....

she is saying one thing to them and another thing to Wall St.? What's more important than having a president that you can believe in?

And the comment 'she knows voters in the GE will be more focused on important issues' - my comment back is that - 'she might not make it to the GE if she looks like she is hiding something'.

Reply to this post

Response to global1 (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:57 AM

oasis (48,813 posts)

65. Hillary will be judged on her overall record. She's overcome

this type of manufactured side show before.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:55 PM

Got it (59 posts)

118. She's overcome nothing

And that's why she can't be trusted. She moves from one scandal to the next, the new obscuring the old.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:49 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

151. And that's what we're doing. Judging her overall record.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:15 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

183. Like she did in 2008

God her 8 years of presidency have been great.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:45 AM

jalan48 (13,692 posts)

50. Important issues like regulation of Wall Street banks?

Reply to this post

Response to jalan48 (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:49 AM

oasis (48,813 posts)

54. Hillary vs. GOP. Get it?

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:52 AM

jalan48 (13,692 posts)

62. Not really. It's Hillary with the big banks vs. the people.

The Republicans are worse is not the answer.

Reply to this post

Response to jalan48 (Reply #62)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:15 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

79. It may not be the answer you want, but Hill will let the

entire electorate decide who can rein in the big banks, she, or the GOP. This refusal to release the transcripts is an indication her campaign is looking past the primaries.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:28 PM

jalan48 (13,692 posts)

88. That's her mistake. Teams that look ahead to the "big game" usually lose.

Reply to this post

Response to jalan48 (Reply #88)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:51 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

113. The GOP vs. the Clinton Machine. Bring it on.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #113)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:11 PM

jalan48 (13,692 posts)

132. And the Wall Street Bankers go crazy with applause.

Reply to this post

Response to jalan48 (Reply #132)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:22 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

134. Newsflash: Not everyone in America is Wall Street obsessed.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #134)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:23 PM

jalan48 (13,692 posts)

135. Go Goldman Sachs go! Rah! Rah!

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:14 PM

H2O Man (70,914 posts)

76. Respectfully disagree.

You are definitely correct in saying that those who are anti-Hillary would use what is in the transcripts to try to discredit her. And you are equally right that some of them would twist her words, take them out of context, etc, to do so. There are lots of dishonest people out there, unfortunately.

But I do think that there is a very real potential upside to releasing those transcripts. There are lots of Bernie supporters -- like myself -- who would feel a lot more comfortable if she is our candidate this fall, if she would release them. A failure to do so could be more of a negative than you think. The opposition will surely make use of it, as part of their never-ending effort to make her appear less than honest and open. More, it will handcuff our efforts to counter their argument.

I respect that you are every bit as entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. And I do agree with much, though not all, of what you have said here.

Reply to this post

Response to H2O Man (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:26 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

86. To be sure, Hillary's campaign has already weighed the pros and cons.

Much of what you say was most likely considered, but the die has been cast.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #86)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:47 PM

xocet (3,547 posts)

148. Yes, Hillary certainly seems to have crossed the Rubicon. Of course, you realize the inappropriate

nature of your metaphor, don't you? (Caesar ending the Roman Republic and founding the Roman Empire.)

Reply to this post

Response to xocet (Reply #148)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:29 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

174. An appropriate metaphor for Hillary's overcoming the many

lifetime obstacles put in her path, by doing it HER way:

"I have set my life upon a cast and will the stand the hazard of the die" Richard lll act 5.

Hillary says to her detractors, "Bring it on".

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:18 PM

xocet (3,547 posts)

180. Your reference is to Shakespeare's Richard III; specifically, to the dialog right before Richard III

...is killed.

Astoundingly, this reference is possibly even worse than your last one when coupled with your explanation, because it expresses quite the opposite of eventual victory through personal perseverance and determination.

In your new frame, Hillary is Richard III.

Richard III' haughtily opens the address (your partial quotation) by intoning the word "Slave...."

Richard III's chosen way leads to his ultimate failure - i.e., his death - and to him being named a "bloody dog" and a "bloody wretch" as his crown is taken from him.

King Richard III
by William Shakespeare

ACT 5

...

SCENE IV. Another part of the field. (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardiii/richardiii.5.4.html)

Alarum: excursions. Enter NORFOLK and forces fighting; to him CATESBY

KING RICHARD III

A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

CATESBY

Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse.

KING RICHARD III

Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,
And I will stand the hazard of the die:
I think there be six Richmonds in the field;
Five have I slain to-day instead of him.
A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

Exeunt

SCENE V. Another part of the field. (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardiii/richardiii.5.5.html)

Alarum. Enter KING RICHARD III and RICHMOND; they fight. KING RICHARD III is slain. Retreat and flourish. Re-enter RICHMOND, DERBY bearing the crown, with divers other Lords

RICHMOND

God and your arms be praised, victorious friends,
The day is ours, the bloody dog is dead.

DERBY

Courageous Richmond, well hast thou acquit thee.
Lo, here, this long-usurped royalty
From the dead temples of this bloody wretch
Have I pluck'd off, to grace thy brows withal:
Wear it, enjoy it, and make much of it.

RICHMOND

Great God of heaven, say Amen to all!
But, tell me, is young George Stanley living?

...

Ironically, aside from "Bring it on!" being one of W's most famous phrases, Richard III could not withstand anyone "Bring(ing) it on!"

Are you sure that you support Sec. Clinton? Indirectly comparing her to either Julius Caesar or to King Richard III is not in the least bit complimentary....

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:17 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

185. Little tip for you. Don't quote Shakespeare

because, my friend, you are fucking it up royally.

Yeah, keep comparing Clinton to Richard III. Those of us that have read it and actually understand it will have our laugh at what you are saying.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:05 PM

H2O Man (70,914 posts)

171. Right.

The only thing that I disagreed with you on was that there is "no upside" to releasing them. I agree that the Clinton campaign evaluated the upsides and downsides -- for both releasing and not releasing them -- and decided that it was in Ms. Clinton's better interests to not release them.

Reply to this post

Response to H2O Man (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:32 PM

antigop (12,778 posts)

140. She's boxed in. It's a no win situation, regardless of what she does.

If she doesn't release them, it looks like she's hiding something.

If she does release them, then

1) The transcripts have damaging information -- in which case she's screwed.

or

2) The transcripts reveal that nothing of importance was said -- in which case the question will be asked, "Why the hell did GS pay so much for that?"

She's boxed in.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:33 PM

Old Codger (4,205 posts)

92. More important

Than open above board honesty???

Reply to this post

Response to Old Codger (Reply #92)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:47 PM

oasis (48,813 posts)

108. Hillary chooses privacy. Let the chips fall where they may.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:55 PM

Old Codger (4,205 posts)

117. They will

Fall all over her campaign, she has pretty much buried herself, if she ends up the candidate she will lose big time... if the users here on DU can see it that way the R's will eat her lunch...

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:51 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

153. "Hillary chooses privacy."

If that's the case, then maybe running for POTUS is not such a good idea.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:52 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

154. Let her choose privacy and go away.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:00 AM

MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)

20. Yes, she's real smart for not disclosing the truth...

Especially when she knew she had a choice.

Now EVERYONE can understand why some truths need a defense!

Real smart...

Reply to this post

Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:14 AM

oasis (48,813 posts)

31. The "truth" can be distorted, as you well know. nt

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:25 AM

MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)

41. Then it wouldn't be true, would it?

Reply to this post

Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:46 AM

oasis (48,813 posts)

51. These days it's called "spin". Many here are familiar with the tactic. nt

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:06 PM

Hydra (14,459 posts)

161. Dem party voters are her potential enemies?

Explains a lot.

Reply to this post

Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:33 PM

catnhatnh (8,976 posts)

166. Yep

She'll be smarting about this for a long time....

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:55 AM

RDANGELO (3,205 posts)

11. Everyone else is not running for president.

Reply to this post

Response to RDANGELO (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:59 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

18. I'm not sure if She was referring to Bernie or the republicans,

but it is apparent that she doesn't want Main Street to see what she said on Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:01 AM

MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)

23. SHE DOESN'T WANT MAIN STREET TO SEE WHAT SHE SAID TO WALL STREET!

R. Daneel.... Scored a truth with THAT one!

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:56 AM

Yurovsky (2,064 posts)

13. She is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs...

I guess her supporters are OK with that.

I know when I'm being screwed. So do millions of other working-class & poor Americans. Nothing the corporatists or party elites can do or say will alter that reality.

Reply to this post

Response to Yurovsky (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:03 AM

MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)

26. Hey, a big round of applause for her supporters being okay with THAT!

Take a bow, you guys!

$$$$$

$$$$$ $$$$$

$$$$$

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:58 AM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

16. I'm sure Bernie would release his speech transcripts.

In Hillarys case she's probably making a good decision. As she saw in Romneys case, the blowback from not releasing the speech content isn't as bad as the 47% public reaction to what she's saying to Wall St. behind closed doors.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:31 AM

mikehiggins (5,614 posts)

43. Transcripts would be easy for Sanders

He could just play tapes of just about any speech he's given in his life, including the one where Gloria Steinheim praised him for his support of women's rights. Its the same speech. The poor, the working class, the middle class are all being screwed by the rich (and their enablers), just like they have since the farmers were getting frostbite in Valley Forge.

She is afraid of what use her enemies would put her words to, which, by the way, IMHO is the reason she tried so hard to keep her emails out of their hands as well. Her fears were/are well founded as can be shown by the furor the "secret server" is feeding. Again, IMHO, I really doubt she imagined for a second that what she was doing was improper. Her problem, ditto IMHO, is that it contributes to the widespread opinion that her judgement is faulty on a lot of fronts.

That is as much of a problem as anything else.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:00 AM

stillwaiting (3,795 posts)

19. What a great candidate for the average American!!

There SHOULD be huge consequences for this. We'll see.

Bernie provides such a stark contrast to HRC.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:01 AM

INdemo (6,983 posts)

22. That was another gift to Bernie Sanders

Thank you Hillary

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:02 AM

Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)

24. If everybody else does?

Has Bernie ever had clauses in his speeches that require him to get transcripts of speeches he gives? Does he HAVE any transcripts to release? Or has he ever prevented anyone from recording any of his speeches?

Reply to this post

Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:09 AM

Ino (3,366 posts)

29. I'm sure Bernie would be delighted to release transcripts...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-comes-clean/?_r=0&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

Voters should be grateful for the government transparency laws that required Senator Bernie Sanders, a rival to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, to reveal how much he made last year in speaking engagement fees. The total is $1,867.42 for three appearances, a grand sum that is chump change in presidential politicking but enough for the senator to respectably donate the money to charity.

Mr. Sanders, the Senate’s Vermont independent and self-described Democratic socialist, is a far better speaker than those numbers indicate, as his weekly talk radio conversation, “Brunch With Bernie,” has shown. He has delighted leftist political junkies for the past decade with his iconoclastic broadsides. But the senator doesn’t milk his signature New England contrariness for money, not yet anyway.

I couldn't be happier that Hillary refuses to release hers

Looks very bad.

Reply to this post

Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:23 AM

MrMickeysMom (20,453 posts)

38. I'm quoting the first few pages from one of his most comprehensive speeches at Georgetown Univ...

In his inaugural remarks in January 1937, in the midst of the Great Depression, President Frankline Delano Roosevelt looked out at the nation and this is what he saw.

He saw tens of millions of its citizens denied the basic necessities of life.

He saw millions of families trying live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hung over them day by day.

He saw millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and then to of their children.

He saw millions lacking the means to buy the products they needed and by their poverty and lack of disposable income denying employment to many other millions.

He saw one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

"Almost everything [FDR] proposed was called 'socialist'"

And he acted. Against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called economic royalists, Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of people back to work, took them out of poverty and restored their faith in government. He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our country. He combatted cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed the country.

And that is what we have to do today.

And, by the way, almost everything he proposed was called "socialist". The concept of the "minimum wage" was seen as a radical intrusion into the marketplace and was described as "socialist." Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described in one way or another, as "socialist." Yet, these programs have become the fabric of our nation and the foundation of the middle class.

Thirty years later, in the 1960s, President Johnson passed Medicare and Medicaid to provide health care to millions of senior citizens and families with children, persons with disabilities and some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Once again these vitally important programs were derided by the right wing as socialist programs that were a threat to our American way of life.

That was then. Now is now.

Today, in 2015, despite the Wall Street crash of 2008, which drove this country into the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the American people are clearly better off economically than we were in 1037.

But, here is a very hard truth that we must acknowledge and address. Despite a huge increase in technology and productivity, despite major growth in the U.S. and global economy, tens of millions of American families continue to lack the basic necessities of life, while millions more struggle every day to provide a minimal standard of living for their families. The reality is that of the last 40 years the great middle class of this country has been in decline and faith in our political system is now extremely low.

The rich get much richer. Almost everyone else gets poorer. Super PACs funded by billionaires buy elections. Ordinary people don't vote. We have an economic and political crisis in the country and the same old, same old establishment politics and economics will not effectively address it. If we are serious about transforming our country, if we are serious about rebuilding the middle class, if we are serious about reinvigorating our democracy, we need to develop a political movement which, once agin, is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation. The billionaire class cannot have it all. Our government belongs to all of us, and not just the one percent.

My fingers are getting tired. Google the rest, if you haven't heard it all. It's one of the most comprehensive statements and it's been out there. Speaking TRUTH TO POWER is like that. Yeah, it is...

MMM

Reply to this post

Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:36 PM

StandingInLeftField (972 posts)

141. This speach should be inserted into every negative Bernie thread

and made into a campaign ad. Juxtaposition scenes from thd Great Depression with similar scenes from today with Bernie's powerful speech overlaid.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:02 AM

NowSam (1,252 posts)

25. No Transcripts of Bank Speeches, No Iowa Audit

No, No, No! Well, her "No" creates the perception in my mind that there is something in those speeches that she doesn't want us to hear. It creates the perception that maybe she was serving the 1% but not the rest of us.

Fact: When you are a government official and are supposed to be held accountable to the constituents, then really it is a conflict of interest to go to these gigantic powerful interests and take their money for a speech. I don't believe - that it was for merely her words wisdom that the bankers hired her to speak. I believe they expected her to continue voting for things that were good for them which has often been bad for us.

De regulating the industries so we can all enjoy more wars. Endless wars. More fracking, more GMOs, more TPP trade like deals, More Keystone Pipeline types of things, more breaks for too big too fail banks. Hillary, I hope you will feel that the city of Flint is too big to fail too.

If I am wrong and the speeches reflect something else, why not release the transcripts?

Reply to this post

Response to NowSam (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:00 PM

Blus4u (608 posts)

69. Maybe she'll release them if we paid her $225,000 per speech

And I was holding my breath. Man, that was a waste of time.

Peace

Reply to this post

Response to Blus4u (Reply #69)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:01 PM

NowSam (1,252 posts)

70. LOL

That must be it!

Reply to this post

Response to NowSam (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:12 PM

think4yourself (833 posts)

75. Maybe she'll respond to a GoFundme

crowd funded effort. How could she refuse, say,3 million dollars?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:04 AM

ancianita (30,914 posts)

27. Stop with the immature Republican-style naming of things. Bernie would not approve.

Reply to this post

Response to ancianita (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:20 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

35. These were her words.

I'm sure a video will be released soon.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #35)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:25 AM

ancianita (30,914 posts)

42. I'm referring to YOU calling HER "Hillarity." We can knock off the Repub-style cheap shots

around here and show some respect toward our differences, maintain some dignity as a party.

Reply to this post

Response to ancianita (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:33 AM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

44. When she starts acting like a candidate I can respect

then i'll show her some.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:24 PM

sarge43 (28,681 posts)

85. Snap. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:48 PM

ancianita (30,914 posts)

111. Naw, you need to show some respect toward your party's campaign style if you

refuse to show some self respect.

There's already a Republican party you can join that will chorus about Hillary with you.

Reply to this post

Response to ancianita (Reply #111)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:11 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

167. I'm a socialist.

And I don't give out respect when precious little snowflakes demand it.

Respect is earned, not demanded, by those who want my vote.

Reply to this post

Response to ancianita (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:41 PM

Old Codger (4,205 posts)

97. Like the guy

Calling us "bernouts"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1162952

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:09 AM

in_cog_ni_to (41,600 posts)

28. COVER UP! If you have nothing to hide, release them. She obviously said things that corroborates

everything Bernie is saying about pay to play.

We'll take her "NO, I will not release the transcripts" as GUILTY AS CHARGED.

UNTIL she proves otherwise.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:43 PM

Old Codger (4,205 posts)

103. Taking

The fifth

Reply to this post

Response to Old Codger (Reply #103)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:46 PM

in_cog_ni_to (41,600 posts)

106. Yes she is! We're not as stupid as she thinks we are.

This just means she's Guilty...until she proves otherwise.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:16 AM

Bonobo (29,257 posts)

32. We KNEW she wouldn't. It would destroy her.

"I'll look into it."

Typical untrustworthy politician's answer.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:20 AM

californiabernin (421 posts)

34. Then she just shot herself in the foot. Repetitive lies make one a liar.

Shes a liar. This is why the American people do not trust her. Its pattern with her.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:22 AM

BklnDem75 (2,918 posts)

37. Smart move...

If people are looking for stones to throw at her, why would she provide the stones? Let them do their own homework.

Reply to this post

Response to BklnDem75 (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:56 PM

ljm2002 (10,751 posts)

121. There's a bit of a flaw in your argument...

...namely, she just did provide people with stones to throw at her. Her refusal to let us know what she actually said to the bankers is a tacit admission that there is something to hide -- at least, that is how it will play to voters, aka "rubes" in some rarefied circles.

Reply to this post

Response to ljm2002 (Reply #121)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:17 PM

BklnDem75 (2,918 posts)

168. I just don't see it...

Other than Bernie supporters and the right, who wants to see Clinton defeated, who else has expressed interest on this issue? It's shrug-worthy. I'd be more disappointed if she freely gave anyone ammunition to attack her.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:23 AM

HereSince1628 (36,063 posts)

39. Having got their opponent to dig in her heels it's now time for people stalking the story

to get her to continue to dig. If she does she's going to get beat up. What starts out to be foxhole will come to look like a grave for her campaign. To avoid that, she'll have to concede the transcripts, and that will look weak, minimally a surrender to the media, and worse if there is no there there, it'll show she had terrible judgment to choose this molehill to make a last stand.

If not sharing the transcripts is her decision, she must completely ignore anymore questions or comments on the issue, and act like it never happened.

That could be hard for her to do, especially if the Chuck Todds of the media decide to make a campaign feature of it.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:24 AM

bkkyosemite (5,792 posts)

40. On CNN this morning she was setting the record straight on what Elizabeth Warren

stated about Clinton as First Lady crushing the bankruptcy and then as Senator she says let me explain. There was some women and mothers who did not want a portion of the bill to go through so she made a deal with the other Senators to have that taken out but she would have to vote for the bankruptcy bill if that happen. So she voted for it. Oh my it does not fly. She did forget to mention the 140,000 she got from the banks on this credit card deal.

Reply to this post

Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:51 AM

joshcryer (62,176 posts)

59. Warren's own book "A Fighting Chance" admits that reality.

And she even noted Clinton called bankruptcy reform "that awful bill." Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold and many other "establishment" dems worked hard with Warren to pass something. But the 2001 bill she voted on never became law. Unfortunately once Bush was reelected he was able to get "reform" passed in 2005. Also famously one of Clinton's "not votes." (Obama voted no, but it passed by super majority.)

(Note: I have her book right here and wanted to check out of curiosity, I forgot where I'd seen that before. Chapter 2: Bankruptcy Wars)

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:00 PM

Metric System (6,048 posts)

158. Stop making sense!

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:37 AM

Baitball Blogger (45,245 posts)

46. Seriously, why doesn't someone put up a wanted ad and ask for a bootleg copy of the speech?

Surely, someone taped it.

Lord, even on the dog walks people are savvy enough to turn on their Phone recorder when they see someone down the street that they want to implicate in conversation. You're telling me that not one billionaire in the dining hall thought to document her speech?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:40 AM

Ichingcarpenter (36,988 posts)

48. Nixon responds

Reply to this post

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:51 AM

H2O Man (70,914 posts)

60. !!!

Reply to this post

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:04 PM

farleftlib (2,125 posts)

127. Great compilation. Kudos.

So "move along, there's nothing to see here" is more of a golden oldie than I ever realized.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:44 AM

EndElectoral (4,213 posts)

49. Nothing like transparency

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:47 AM

litlbilly (2,227 posts)

52. As soon as Bernie releases his Goldman Sachs speach transcripts then Hillary will, Oh, wait

...nevermind

Reply to this post

Response to litlbilly (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:07 PM

Gary 50 (360 posts)

130. Bernie already released his Goldman Sachs speech transcript.

It was on the DU the other day. I'll quote the speech in its entirety. "Go fuck yourselves."

Reply to this post

Response to Gary 50 (Reply #130)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:29 PM

litlbilly (2,227 posts)

137. I saw that, it was funny:)

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

99Forever (14,524 posts)

53. Great idea Hillary!!!

Please proceed.

We all know that just letting shit this simmer will make it go away.

Right?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:49 AM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

55. But we already knew that, didn't we?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:49 AM

stonecutter357 (12,495 posts)

56. Good for her.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:51 AM

Mnpaul (3,655 posts)

58. That was not a good appearance

Stephanopolis also challenged her with the Warren video. She didn't do a good job responding to that one either.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:52 AM

H2O Man (70,914 posts)

61. Unforced error.

Bad move.

Reply to this post

Response to H2O Man (Reply #61)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:57 AM

TBF (31,869 posts)

64. ^ Nailed it. nt

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:57 AM

zalinda (5,621 posts)

66. She could have avoided all this

if she had not given speeches between her SOS and running for President........or at least not do paid speeches. This was a mind boggling stupid thing to do when you KNOW you are going to run for President. It's not like they NEED the money, for Pete's sake.

It's not like Whitewater didn't happen to her. She knows that the GOP hate her. I really, really do not understand her logic. The impression I get, is that it is all about her.

She has made bad choices, and I don't want this country to suffer because she made bad choices while President.

Z

Reply to this post

Response to zalinda (Reply #66)

BlandGrenade This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to zalinda (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:00 PM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

124. unlike her Bernie

Donated his small speech fees to charity

Reply to this post

Response to zalinda (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:01 PM

krispos42 (49,445 posts)

159. Came to say this.

But you already did it, so I'll just second it.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:58 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

67. Good!

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:06 PM

localroger (3,271 posts)

72. She can't release them

As I wrote on another forum, you don't take $200K from someone and go to their house to dis them. I'm sure those speeches are full of reassurances and platitudes that will go over about like Romney's 47% remark to the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:07 PM

Fearless (18,421 posts)

73. Good luck with this strategy.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:08 PM

Android3.14 (5,402 posts)

74. A candidate running from her word

Has nothing on which to stand.

She will never win the GE.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:14 PM

debunction.junction (127 posts)

77. I am SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!!!

Of course Hillary is not going to release the transcripts. I don't know anybody that ever thought she would.

Withholding the transcripts may do more harm than releasing them, but I seriously doubt it.

We have been force fed Hillary's (and Bill's) thoughts and ideas for years (those for public consumption that is). How could anything that Hillary had to say behind closed doors, no press allowed, be good for the public?

No way Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 to hear about her thoughts on (many subjects given by Hillary, fill in the blank), all thoughts the rest of us have gotten for free.

The lack of transparency by politicians in general stinks to high heaven. Without public financing of elections nothing will change, and the lives of the masses will continue it's downward spiral.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:18 PM

Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)

81. Who is everybody else? Bernie is the only one running in the primary with her.

If she releases them, in full, they are going to sound benign, and that is
going to be highly damaging to her.

Anyone with half a bran will see that NO ONE pays a politician that kind
of money for something they most likely already know. She also told
Anderson Cooper, everybody does it...her words.

Those "speeches" are a cover for wink wink. You would need to have
some major head in the sand and or idol worship going on not to see
it.

Reply to this post

Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #81)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:58 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

122. Yep.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:23 PM

BlandGrenade (29 posts)

84. Makes perfect sense to me

The Clintons are influence peddlers, and Hillary has been out making the rounds, selling access to the Oval Office for several years. Sadly we will never see those transcripts unless wiki leaks or anonymous manages to retrieve them. She's prepared in advance for that scenario by saying that at the time she made those speeches, she 'didn't know' she'd be running for the top job. Yeah right.

This is all a big plan she hatched back when she was first lady, when big pharma offered to finance a future senate campaign if she'd back off on universal healthcare. "Think of the possibilities" they told her, "you could go all the way to the presidency, if you play your cards right." She knew back then that Bill would bring her unparalleled access to the big donors, and the name recognition is why she hasn't dumped him for the decades of sleeping around. He knew it and that's why he made a game of it, humiliating her privately. They hadn't planned on it coming out in such a big way, and that's why she has no response to questions about her dedication to women's issues, when she has never left Bill.

If Hillary becomes the dem. Candidate, get ready to see her 'deer in headlights' expression a lot more, as the GOP has certainly stashed a mountain of dirt, and questions they know she can't and won't answer. America and the world cannot afford a trump or cruz presidency, either will certainly start WW3.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:28 PM

JoeyT (6,785 posts)

87. You peasants only need to know what we want you to know!

It's her turn now and she won't be denied.

Good job Ann.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:29 PM

LibDemAlways (15,139 posts)

89. The only thing worse for her would be to release

heavily redacted transcripts. Better to just let the whole truth out and suffer the consequences than to stonewall and leave the public wondering just what was said to those crooks behind closed doors. Making those speeches in the first place, unapologetically accepting a king's ransom for them, and then refusing to divulge their contents all speak to a considerable lack of judgement on the part of a Democratic candidate for President. This is the kind of shit that would be a no-brainer for a Republican. As a lifelong Democrat, I think we should hold our candidates to a higher standard.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:33 PM

gordyfl (598 posts)

91. Hillary Told George Stephanopoulos She Will Release Transcripts on One Small Condition

Hillary: "Yeah, let everybody who's ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We'll all release them at the same time."

Reply to this post

Response to gordyfl (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:01 PM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

125. I saw that

Reply to this post

Response to gordyfl (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:05 PM

ljm2002 (10,751 posts)

128. How many of those people are running for President, Hillary?

Oh that's right, just one: you.

The reason we even care about what you said in those speeches is that you are running for President.

You could have declined the big $$$ for your speeches, or you could have declined to speak at all. Since you did not do so, it is fair for us rubes, er, voters to want to know just what you said to the big money boys, BEFORE we decide on whether or not you should be our champion in the Presidential race.

Reply to this post

Response to gordyfl (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:57 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

156. I wonder which DUer she borrowed that argument from?!

Wow. Not Ready for Primetime.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:34 PM

gyroscope (1,443 posts)

93. Who does she mean by "everybody else?"

Bernie is the only other candidate running against her but he has never given speeches to Wall Street.

What is she smoking?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:39 PM

TxGrandpa (124 posts)

96. Of course she won't release the transcripts....

...............on the grounds that it might incriminate her campaign.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:41 PM

dana_b (11,546 posts)

98. and she wonders why people don't trust her?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:41 PM

hedgehog (36,286 posts)

99. I believe the speeches were totally innocuous, and that's the problem.

It's tough to speak truth to power when power is paying you $675,000

Reply to this post

Response to hedgehog (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:47 PM

backscatter712 (26,355 posts)

107. That's it right there. People will ask "They paid you how much for this crap?"

...followed by "What were they really paying you for?"

Reply to this post

Response to hedgehog (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:52 PM

Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)

115. Yep, wink wink transactions. Why would any politician allow themselves to be

blackmailed by WS..what they have instead of hard copy promises is
an understanding.

Reply to this post

Response to hedgehog (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:14 PM

Floridanow (74 posts)

164. I am sure that nothing is there.

She has a record of advocating for women all over the world. If the speech was about Goldman Sachs funding women businesspeople as a good investment, I think that would be viewed favorably.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:41 PM

Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)

101. Clinton is on Face the Nation going out on a limb trying to slam Sanders all the while

using Obama as an airbag to prove Democrats are not influenced by WS.

What a fucking joke.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:44 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

104. Hillary declines to provide information vital to assessing her relationship with Wall Street

and her fans cheer! To quote many of her NSA loving supporters, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about"...

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:45 PM

madokie (51,076 posts)

105. Hill ain't going to release shit

Bet on it

Reply to this post

Response to madokie (Reply #105)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:43 PM

nolabels (13,133 posts)

143. I will place my bet on the Bronco's for the win by 3+

Many of us know how the thing operates and sometimes better than the one pulling off the operation. In the movie "The Sting" the plot to set up avarice and greed mongers so they could be hoisted unto their own petard seems seems like a simple version of what is going on now.

Instead of laying low and watching things fly by, these well-to-do folks believe they should have and own all and are also thinking anyone that slows them down in that process will be dealt with swiftly. The idea that someone would challenge them to any of that just gets them more confrontational it seems.

Help stamp out socialism for the wealthy, support Bernie Sanders for President

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:48 PM

Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)

109. You would have to believe WS gives money because they're just stupid, and

who the hell in politics ever admits they are influenced by it?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:48 PM

EdwardBernays (3,343 posts)

112. This is exactly

What Bernstein said would be the worst decision possible and could end her campaign.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:51 PM

shawn703 (2,700 posts)

114. What an amateur move

Feeds right into the narrative that she has something to hide. This is going to dog her the entire campaign.

Reply to this post

Response to shawn703 (Reply #114)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:09 PM

Floridanow (74 posts)

162. I agree.

It stuns me that she doesn't just fucking release the transcripts, at least the Goldman-Sachs ones. She is being poorly advised by her staff.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:54 PM

yourout (7,400 posts)

116. she can't....

it would instantly sink her campaign.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:56 PM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

119. In other words: she really is a Wall Street shill. Thanks for the notice. eom

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:56 PM

SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)

120. Ha! I was right! nt

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:59 PM

Faux pas (13,672 posts)

123. Watching her duck, dive

and slither away is ALMOST entertaining...

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:03 PM

polichick (37,151 posts)

126. Big surprise!

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:07 PM

silvershadow (10,336 posts)

131. I more or less predicted as much less than 12 hours ago. Go figure. nt

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:20 PM

SoapBox (18,791 posts)

133. She does NOT want voters to know what she said...

Which means...that voters would not like what she said to the Banksters/Millionaires/Billionaires.

Guess she really wasn't telling them to "Cut it out!"...more like, just keep doing what you are doing...and if elected President, I will not interfere...even if by a Wink-and-Nod.

She's a disaster.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:27 PM

Dragonfli (10,622 posts)

136. She must have something to hide. We do have the 5th amendment

So even tho it is unofficially being invoked by her, I guess she does have the right not to incriminate herself.
Unfortunately for her, people that hide behind not incriminating themselves take on an odor of guilt nonetheless.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:30 PM

antigop (12,778 posts)

138. LINK TO VIDEO

Reply to this post

Response to antigop (Reply #138)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:48 PM

LibDemAlways (15,139 posts)

150. What kind of a response is that? Sounds like a kid

caught red handed by his parents doing something he knows they don't approve of and the best he can do is offer a whining "but everybody does it." Never a winning tactic. Not for a 16-year-old. Definitely not for a Presidential candidate.

Reply to this post

Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #150)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:50 PM

antigop (12,778 posts)

152. as I mentioned upthread. She's boxed in...regardless of what she does.

Reply to this post

Response to antigop (Reply #152)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:21 PM

Floridanow (74 posts)

165. Then she should just release the damned

Transcripts. If there in nothing there, then let Sanders people try to attack her. She can turn clean transcripts against Sanders.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:39 PM

Vinca (49,179 posts)

142. Wow - her sucking up to Wall Street must be worse than we suspected.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:44 PM

DaveT (687 posts)

144. These speeches raise two questions

1. What could anybody possibly say that is worth $200,000?

2. What the hell did she say that a room full of Mister Potters regarded as worth $200,000?

I knew a big time lawyer once who got paid to make speeches from time to time. Not six figures, of course. Not even four, but this was a long time ago. He snorted when I asked him what he said.

"Every speech is the same. You do two things. You point with pride. And you view with alarm."

So I'm sure she points with pride at all the wonderful things that she has done, while viewing with alarm all the "threats" gathering in the Middle East and the Democratic primary election. It would be a shock if she said anything worth a quarter, much less a quarter of a million dollars.

The banks hire people with Huge Names as an exercise in status. The Huge Names show up, act Huge for a while, and rub elbows with the Biggest Dogs and then go cash the fucking check. Thorstein Veblen would have called such speeches Conspicuous Elucidation.

I think she does not want to release the transcripts because the banality of the exercise would be embarrassing -- and a real deterrent to getting similar gigs in the future.

OTOH, maybe she gets tipsy at those things and comes on like Sarah Palin. Or even spills the beans about being their tool.

But I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:44 PM

Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)

145. She can have seat next to Romney and his taxes.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:44 PM

asuhornets (2,405 posts)

146. GOOD!!!

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:47 PM

Major Nikon (36,205 posts)

149. That strategy didn't work so well for Nixon either

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:56 PM

sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)

155. These speeches were probably not that

dangerous to her campaign, since she chooses her
words very carefully.

The problem here is she is taking the same path
as with the e-mails and the server.

Deny access, deny any impropriety, insist on
your privacy until something forces you to
release the info.

It is a bad tactic and has not worked for her
before now. It just creates more suspicions
justified or not.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:58 PM

Metric System (6,048 posts)

157. Hillarity?

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:01 PM

21st Century Poet (254 posts)

160. Fallacious thinking

Hillary Clinton is wrong about this for two reasons:

1) Her situation and personal baggage is very particular. She is the only one who has been a First Lady and Secretary of State. She is the one who gets paid exorbitant amounts for giving speeches. People demand transcripts from her and not from everyone else (who is the everyone else she is referring to?) because people are suspicious of her in a way that they are not suspicious of others.

2) You don't do something because everyone else does it. You do it because it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether others will follow in your footsteps or not.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:14 PM

Dems to Win (2,161 posts)

163. How did the Dems get here????

Going on the speaking circuit is a common way that former high government officials cash in, becoming rich as a result of their public service.

And many of us out here in the real world see it as kind of sleazy. It is legal, but I don't respect former public servants who cash in.

Most public officials understand that cashing in is what you do after you've completed your public service. Going back to the voters asking for support after you've cashed in is a pretty difficult proposition.

I have to wonder at all the political consultants for Clinton, Obama, and the DNC who got on board the Hillary train for 2016. The entire Dem Establishment endorsed her as the one and only DNC-approved candidate, all of them knowing about Hillary's time on the speaking circuit.

The entire Dem Establishment was so very out of touch that they never even imagined a $250,000 speech to CitiBank might be a hindrance to electing a Democratic candidate. They deserve to go down to defeat for their obliviousness.

Bernie Sanders 2016

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:01 PM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

169. I hope you will reconsider using "Hillarity". No matter what you think about Hillary, we should be

trying to bring people over and anyone reading DU will get turned off.

.

Reply to this post

Response to cui bono (Reply #169)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:58 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

170. How about "Clintoon?"

She's just a horrible, lying candidate.

No amount of perfume will cover her BS.

On edit: I don't want such a transparent politician, beholden to Wall Street, pretending that she represents Americans.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #170)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:12 PM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

172. No matter what you think of her, your behavior reflects on you.

And it looks childish and immature.

I don't like her either, but I try to not use names like that for her or her supporters. It's not productive. What do you hope to accomplish by doing it?

.

Reply to this post

Response to cui bono (Reply #172)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:20 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

173. I don't fekkin care.

What I hope to accomplish isshow my disdain for her.

If her fawning supporters can't handle it then I'm sure they will let her know the next time she tells them to "cut it out."

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #173)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:36 PM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

175. There's plenty of policy to mock her about and criticize her for.

You won't run out of material.

But you are just feeding into the whole meme about Bernie supporters. Would be nice if you consider that you are not helping your cause at all and could be hurting it.

.

Reply to this post

Response to cui bono (Reply #175)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:53 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

179. Try rereading my earlier reply, and if somebody is going to make their opinion

based on an annonymous poster on the internets, rather than the candidate's recirds, then rhat's rather sad.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:43 PM

LittleBlue (10,362 posts)

176. She's a crippled candidate with the email thing and Goldman speech hanging over her head

She has to release the transcripts and put the email thing to bed. It would be suicidal to send a candidate with unresolved ethics/legal issues to the general election.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:00 PM

asuhornets (2,405 posts)

178. Excellent...n/t

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:24 PM

kstewart33 (6,551 posts)

181. Why is it that Hillary must release the transcripts but it's okay if all the other candidates don't?

Another example of the double standard of expectations for Hillary but not for anyone else.

Reply to this post

Response to kstewart33 (Reply #181)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:11 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

182. It's a convenient parry by Hillary.

But it is not about all the other phantome camdidates.

It's about Hillary and the percieved notion that she is beholden to Wall Street and said sometimg that she will regret in transcript for, or she is beholden to Wall Street and was paid righteous coin to show up.

Reply to this post

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:15 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

184. Hillarity???

This site has hit the bottom of the barrel and keeps digging.

Frankly, I don't give a crap about her speeches. Furthermore, I don't care about Sanders' either. Neither one was running for president at the time.

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #184)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:30 PM

R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)

186. Yes. Hilarity. She gives me a lot to laugh about

and then shortly after I wretch thinking of her as POTUS; screwing the proles in favour of Wall Street, business, TPP (nafta on steriods), corrupt world leaders and more war... or undeclared collateral damage.

But I understand the mock poutrage. How dare I give my two cents about a corrupt candidate that's not worth a plug nickel.

Oh and this site has crawled much lower than noble I could ever hope to bring it.

Purges, concerted attacks on individuals, tombstoning for minor infractions. It's happened before, and it'll happen again but not by me.

Reply to this post

2016 Postmortem (Forum)