Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:41 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
"I'm Not Sure What The Status Is... I'll Have To Look Into It..." Now, Let Me Just Change The...
Subject..."
Where was Chuck's follow up for the YES or NO answer on THE TRANSCRIPTS????? Chuck followed up on the foreign policy stuff with Bernie later... But let Hillary bullshit and sliiiiiddde on releasing the transcripts.... "I don't know what the status is..." BULLSHIT! OK Hillary... Well America wants an ANSWER ON THE STATUS OF THE TRANSCRIPTS! WHO is in control of the effing transcripts if NOT Hillary herself????
|
81 replies, 4109 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | OP |
72DejaVu | Feb 2016 | #1 | |
MissDeeds | Feb 2016 | #2 | |
polichick | Feb 2016 | #4 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #6 | |
polichick | Feb 2016 | #8 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #16 | |
polichick | Feb 2016 | #22 | |
roguevalley | Feb 2016 | #39 | |
Volaris | Feb 2016 | #65 | |
in_cog_ni_to | Feb 2016 | #33 | |
amborin | Feb 2016 | #59 | |
ViseGrip | Feb 2016 | #74 | |
72DejaVu | Feb 2016 | #9 | |
MissDeeds | Feb 2016 | #11 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #70 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #72 | |
krawhitham | Feb 2016 | #20 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #71 | |
Fearless | Feb 2016 | #31 | |
840high | Feb 2016 | #38 | |
metroins | Feb 2016 | #77 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #3 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #14 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #26 | |
cui bono | Feb 2016 | #21 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #25 | |
floriduck | Feb 2016 | #28 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #29 | |
cui bono | Feb 2016 | #50 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #60 | |
cui bono | Feb 2016 | #61 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #64 | |
cui bono | Feb 2016 | #66 | |
cui bono | Feb 2016 | #68 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #69 | |
Fearless | Feb 2016 | #32 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #34 | |
Fawke Em | Feb 2016 | #36 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #41 | |
Bonobo | Feb 2016 | #67 | |
tularetom | Feb 2016 | #5 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #17 | |
NanceGreggs | Feb 2016 | #44 | |
pa28 | Feb 2016 | #7 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #10 | |
polichick | Feb 2016 | #13 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #15 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #18 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #23 | |
840high | Feb 2016 | #40 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #42 | |
840high | Feb 2016 | #54 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #24 | |
Fawke Em | Feb 2016 | #37 | |
840high | Feb 2016 | #55 | |
polichick | Feb 2016 | #19 | |
snagglepuss | Feb 2016 | #35 | |
frylock | Feb 2016 | #45 | |
mindwalker_i | Feb 2016 | #27 | |
retrowire | Feb 2016 | #48 | |
amborin | Feb 2016 | #12 | |
ViseGrip | Feb 2016 | #30 | |
CorporatistNation | Feb 2016 | #81 | |
AzDar | Feb 2016 | #43 | |
Beartracks | Feb 2016 | #46 | |
warrprayer | Feb 2016 | #47 | |
PonyUp | Feb 2016 | #49 | |
grasswire | Feb 2016 | #52 | |
Cartoonist | Feb 2016 | #51 | |
Docreed2003 | Feb 2016 | #56 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Feb 2016 | #53 | |
Cartoonist | Feb 2016 | #58 | |
chervilant | Feb 2016 | #57 | |
asuhornets | Feb 2016 | #62 | |
chervilant | Feb 2016 | #73 | |
Unknown Beatle | Feb 2016 | #63 | |
ViseGrip | Feb 2016 | #75 | |
EdwardBernays | Feb 2016 | #76 | |
demwing | Feb 2016 | #78 | |
onecaliberal | Feb 2016 | #79 | |
Mike__M | Feb 2016 | #80 |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:42 PM
72DejaVu (1,545 posts)
1. America doesn't give two shits about the transcripts
But, please proceed, make that a major focus of the Sanders campaign
|
Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:47 PM
MissDeeds (7,499 posts)
2. I care about the transcripts
and I'm part of America.
![]() |
Response to MissDeeds (Reply #2)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:50 PM
polichick (37,151 posts)
4. Me too. She gets paid a fortune for these speeches - what are they paying for?
Response to polichick (Reply #4)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:55 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
6. When I Was Democratic Nominee for U.S. House in 2006...
I was approached by a BIG Pharma Lobbyist from DC whose final comment to me was, ____ If you are will ing to "Play Ball" w/ the pharmaceutical industry, we'll get you all the contributions you need. I replied, "Well, if I do the same thing as my opponent does then where will my credibility be? "
It's all about "PLAYING BALL!" Hillary PLAYS Ball and Bernie does NOT! Simple choice... Corporatist Hillary or POPULIST People's candidate Bernie Sanders? |
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #6)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:56 PM
polichick (37,151 posts)
8. This should be an op!
Response to polichick (Reply #8)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:26 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
16. I'll do it... Tomorrow.
Stay on the theme... Money buys policy through the agents for The Corporation and Oligarchs that the politicians of BOTH parties are ... at every level. If you cannot put together a bundle of $270,000.. No pol will listen to you.
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #16)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:31 PM
polichick (37,151 posts)
22. Great - I'll look for it!
Response to polichick (Reply #22)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:44 AM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
39. America cares. hrc supporters dont.
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #16)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:27 AM
Volaris (9,986 posts)
65. Those agents are called Paid Lobbyists.
It should be ILLEGAL to get paid to lobby Congress. If you're gonna do that, it should be because you actually and REALLY BELIEVE that Yellowstone should still have wolves (or whatever your thing happens to be), and that you believe in it enough that you would do it FOR FREE, minus basic travel expenses to DC. How many people do YOU think would go and lobby Congress on behalf of Charles and David or Jamie Dimon if they had to do it 'cause they actually bought into what those snakes were 'selling'?
My guess would be exactly 3--Charles and David and Jamie (and if they have to go and do an ask WITHOUT the legal avenue of billion-dollar election funding, how many CongressCritters do you think are actually gonna take that meeting, when their primary source of election funding is a system of Public Dollars that require them to do useful work on behalf of their constituents? Exactly Zero, is how many.). Corporate Personhood is a legal illusion--its a Shade. While the trick was designed by lawyers, the people who keep the theatre lights turned down so you cant see it for what it really is, get PAID to do so, and they are called Lobbyists. |
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #6)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:02 AM
in_cog_ni_to (41,600 posts)
33. There ya go!
Bernie knows exactly what he's talking about! And kudos to you for telling Big Pharma to sod off!
PEACE LOVE BERNIE |
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #6)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:00 AM
amborin (16,631 posts)
59. HRC played ball w/ Wall St donors & changed bankruptcy law to suit them. Eliz Warren spoke about thi
Response to amborin (Reply #59)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:57 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
74. She had to see out. We need to gather candidate testimony like above and have a page just for that.
Response to MissDeeds (Reply #2)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:57 PM
72DejaVu (1,545 posts)
9. Run with that as an issue
Please
|
Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #9)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:58 PM
MissDeeds (7,499 posts)
11. Your candidate seems to have a lot to hide
Run with THAT as an issue. Please.
![]() |
Response to MissDeeds (Reply #2)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:04 AM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
70. Hillary Tells Everyone WHAT They Want To Hear... Why Would She Not Tell Wall Street Moguls...
"What They Want To Hear?"
I mean she cares so much about US... ordinary Americans... However, there is no financial gain from us like there is when she is speaking to Wall Street... ![]() ![]() |
Response to MissDeeds (Reply #2)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:21 AM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
72. POUND THIS HUGE ACHILLES HEEL TO INFINITY!
!!!!!
|
Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:29 PM
krawhitham (4,559 posts)
20. If it is not an issue then release them
Pretty simple
|
Response to krawhitham (Reply #20)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:06 AM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
71. Hello There Hillary... YES IT IS REALLY SIMPLE... RELEASE THE DAMN TRANSCRIPTS!
!
|
Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:59 PM
Fearless (18,421 posts)
31. I care a great deal about what their money bought them. Thanks.
Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #1)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:06 PM
metroins (2,550 posts)
77. This. Nobody cares about some transcripts.
It's a waste of time.
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:47 PM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
3. "America" is not the least bit interested in "the transcripts"
The only people interested are BSers who want to search for a "smoking gun" that doesn't exist.
|
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #3)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:22 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
14. Exactly...n/t
Response to asuhornets (Reply #14)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:56 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
26. Hillary's Personal Integrity and Veracity is Significantly .. Open To Question!
Hillary Has no one to blame but herself! Telling the truth is a good policy. One which Bernie adheres to quite religiously.
|
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #3)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:29 PM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
21. Because Bernie supporters are not part of America
and didn't amount to half the votes in Iowa.
![]() . |
Response to cui bono (Reply #21)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:43 PM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
25. No. It's because a group of Bernie supporters on DU ...
... do not represent all of the Bernie supporters in real life.
Just because a small bunch of BSers on a message board are demanding "the transcripts" does not mean that anyone thinks they're important, other than them. |
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #25)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:58 PM
floriduck (2,262 posts)
28. Chuck Todd and MSNBC asked for them, not just BSers..
And, not to get too picky, just because a smaller group of HRCers on a message board are questioning the request does not mean they're not important. If you or anyone you value was adversely impacted by the 2008 financial meltdown, why would you begrudge them for wanting answers?
|
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #25)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:58 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
29. Apparently The Chuckster Thought That America Cared Enough About The Transcripts...
To ask about her providing them. Chuck was not the first to ask. She knows what she told those "banksters" in return for ... THEIR EFFING MASSIVE CHECKS W/ LOTS OF ZEROS!!!
|
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #25)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:02 AM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
50. You talk as if it's not important, as if it's something trivial. n/t
Response to cui bono (Reply #50)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:21 AM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
60. Because it is.
Think about it. Why are the BS supporters so desperate to get those transcripts? It's because they are hoping against hope that there is a smoking gun that will destroy HRC's candidacy, thus clearing the path for Bernie to win the nomination.
Now think about this: If your candidate's only shot at the nomination is the destruction of his opponent, it means you know he can't win on his own merits. There have been many posts here in the past few days that highlight BS's problems in most of the remaining primary states, where HRC is far ahead in the polls. Coincidentally, I'm sure, there is this sudden clamoring for transcripts that potentially contain - oh, sweet lord, make it so! - something that can be explosive enough to knock Hillary's boat out of the water and sink it without a trace. When you're down to frantically searching in every corner, hoping to find something - anything - that would potentially ruin your candidate's opponent, you're pretty much admitting that it's your candidate's only hope. |
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #60)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:27 AM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
61. Oh please, you can't possibly believe that it isn't important. If you really do then you don't have
a clue how our political system works.
So I guess you are fine with Citizen's United then? Because clearly you don't think money can buy influence. What a joke your entire post is. You are the one with nothing. That's why you have to pretend that when Goldman Sachs and the health insurance industry give you millions of dollars they don't expect anything in return. Go ahead and be an apologist for Clinton. Doesn't change the facts. And the American people have a right to know what she's telling them when she's making that much money off of them. We have the right to know what that money is possibly getting them. And we both know if there's nothing to hide then there's no problem with releasing them. Why are you so against allowing the people to make an educated vote? Would you rather our politicians be secretive and not let the people know exactly what they are getting? What is Hillary hiding? http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/4/1479904/-Clinton-Last-Night-Name-Anything-Wall-Street-Has-Influenced-Me-On-OK-I-Will
Clinton Last Night: "Name Anything [Wall Street Has] Influenced Me On" -- OK, I Will By HumanOfEarth Thursday Feb 04, 2016 · 11:26 AM PST RSS REBLOGGED BY Team Bernie Bernie News Roundup I ♥ Democratic Socialism Women for Bernie Kelly's Best Reads Recommended TAGS HillaryClinton Recommended WallStreet wallstreetties clintoncutitout bigfinancialindustry It is wrong and unfair to attack or critique candidates on anything but substance, policy, or record — and Clinton’s statements last night definitely fall underneath this umbrella. The following is not an unbridled attack against Clinton, but a response to a statement she made last night that went unanswered, and should not have. -- While being questioned about her Wall Street ties, Clinton said to Anderson Cooper, the moderator— “But you know anybody who knows me who thinks that they can influence me — name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing. I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them.” Challenge accepted. In 2007, while running for president, Clinton made campaign speeches attacking the tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — one of the infamous loopholes that allows rich people to pay way less in taxes than they’re supposed to — but did not sign her name onto legislation that would have ended the tax break and closed the loophole. Just as she’s doing now, she was “out [t]here every day saying I’m going to shut them down,” but did not actually use her elected-official power to keep her word, and follow through with the simple act of signing her name onto someone else’s bill. As Politico reports, When [Clinton] had a chance to support a 2007 bill that aimed to curb a tax break she publicly decried for hedge-fund and private-equity executives, she failed to sign on. Clinton said one thing in public, but did another behind closed doors. She attacked Wall Street to voters, but helped them as a senator. Why? Because Wall Street executives were the biggest donors to her 2006 Senate campaign and her 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton got millions from the financial industry while also protecting them — she is most assuredly influenced by her Wall Street donors. That’s one thing right there, per Clinton’s request — but here’s even more. In 2007 and 2008, Clinton did not work with the other senators in Congress to pass a housing bill to stop individual financial players from destroying the economy. Sure, getting that much money from Goldman Sachs and the insurance industry doesn't influence her at all. ![]() . |
Response to cui bono (Reply #61)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:05 AM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
64. Sorry.
Didn't mean to touch that nerve with that much force.
If you're pinning your hopes on Hillary being downed so that Bernie can win the nomination by virtue of being last man standing, that's your prerogative. Doesn't say a lot for him, or your belief that he can win on his own merits. |
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #64)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:41 AM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
66. Ah, more deflection from the apologist.
So you are fine with her saying one thing to voters and doing another that benefits those who she got hefty sums of money from? How long have you been okay with people paying for policy? How long have you been okay with the erosion of our democracy? How long have you felt that democracy is not about the vote and will of the people but of the money that influences politicians? Do you always back two-faced candidates that don't follow through on the promises they made to the people who then voted for them?
As to your false assumption that my candidate has no merits, here is a list of some Bernie's many merits. He's not bought and paid for by Wall Street and the insurance companies. He' fighting to break the big banks apart. He's honest. He's liberal. He's fighting for working people. He's fighting to get medicare for all. He'd rather have diplomacy with Iran than war with Iran. He's against the TPP and 'free trade'. He's for 'fair trade. He's for equality for ALL. He's for $15/hr minimum wage. He's against the private prison industry. He wants to bring back Glass-Steagall. He doesn't lie to win. He doesn't change his policy positions at will depending who he's talking to and when. He is energizing. He's positive. He speaks truth to power. He's authentic. Your turn. You don't seem to think your candidate can win if she discloses what she said to the banksters. Doesn't say a lot about her or your belief that she isn't bought and paid for. Let's see you defend your candidate on that. . |
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #25)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:52 AM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
68. You 'forgot' to answer the other two posters who pointed out that it was Chuck Todd who asked
for the transcripts, not DU Bernie supporters.
![]() Guess what? That means even more Americans are going to want to see them now. ![]() . |
Response to cui bono (Reply #68)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:58 AM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
69. Oh, yeah, I "forgot" ...
Is Chuck Todd also the one who's posting all of the "we demand the transcripts" posts on DU tonight? If so, I'd say he has quite a few sock puppets.
|
Response to Fearless (Reply #32)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:13 AM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
34. I'm not about to attempt to prove a negative.
Why don't you provide a list of all the people who are interested in those transcripts? I doubt it's a very long list.
|
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:24 AM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
36. I think America is interested given the amount of ink this is getting
Response to Fawke Em (Reply #36)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:47 AM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
41. The "amount of ink" in your linked article ...
... is rather on the (cough) sparse side. And it says nothing about "Americans" wanting to see the transcripts - or even being the least bit interested.
"Well America wants an ANSWER ON THE STATUS OF THE TRANSCRIPTS!" states the OP. Do you see "America" demanding an answer about the status of the transcripts? Do you see people standing on street corners with picket signs demanding that the transcripts be released? It's kind of sad that Bernie supporters are reduced to trying to make a non-story into a story - particularly when the story is only of interest to themselves. |
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:49 AM
Bonobo (29,257 posts)
67. Congratulations. You have identified a symptom of the problem at the heart of our politics.
I imagine there was not much interest in the "Pentagon Papers" when they were released.
That did not invalidate their importance. |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:51 PM
tularetom (23,664 posts)
5. Maybe the people who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the transcripts
are in control of them.
And you can be sure they will never release them voluntarily. But somewhere there is a disgruntled employee/whistleblower who will let the cat out of the bag. Hope it happens in time to have some effect on the nomination. |
Response to tularetom (Reply #5)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:27 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
17. The MSM Needs To PRESS HER on Who Is In Control of The Transcripts S We Can Get Them RELEASED
to US!
|
Response to tularetom (Reply #5)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:56 AM
NanceGreggs (27,595 posts)
44. So THIS is what you're down to ...
... hoping against hope that there is a "gotcha" moment that some "disgruntled employee/whistleblower" will let out of the bag in time to have some effect on the nomination.
Sounds like you don't have much faith in Bernie's ability to win the nomination on his own merits, but has to hope for some scandal that will affect his opponent before it's too late. That's pretty telling - and extremely sad. |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:56 PM
pa28 (6,145 posts)
7. Here's the status. A reporter asked her about it and she laughed and turned away.
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:58 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
10. Oh my the Bernie supporters have found
something else to criticize her about. So Faux Newsish
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #10)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:01 PM
polichick (37,151 posts)
13. We just want to know what they're paying her so much for...
What's to hide?
|
Response to polichick (Reply #13)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:24 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
15. There is nothing to hide just that
Several other politicians and presidential candidates give paid speeches. Why would you only want to see her transcript.
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:28 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
18. She Is Running For PRESIDENT For Crying OUT LOUD! THAT'S WHY!
WTF!
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #18)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:34 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
23. Stop your crying loudly..
All politicians give paid speeches. Get a grip. No one cares about that. If that's all you got then you got nothing, nada, zero!!
She's running for President because she is qualified unlike Sanders. |
Response to asuhornets (Reply #23)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:45 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
40. I care - show them.
Response to 840high (Reply #40)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:54 AM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
42. I bet you weren't
even thinking about transcripts until the debate. You had no idea they even existed.
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #42)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:29 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
54. Wrong. I've posted
about them on my FB before the debate.
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #18)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:35 PM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
24. Oh yea and she won all of the debates...eom
Response to asuhornets (Reply #24)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:25 AM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
37. If she was debating about who could be more snide, then yes, she won. eom
Response to Fawke Em (Reply #37)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:30 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
55. Also - who could interrupt more.
Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:28 PM
polichick (37,151 posts)
19. She wants to be prez - why are they paying her so much, for what...
Maybe to make sure the status quo isn't threatened too much?
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:14 AM
snagglepuss (12,704 posts)
35. No other person cashed in before he was elected president.
The influence an ex-president is minimal but influence peddling is a very real concern when someone rakes in millions of dollars on their way to the Oval Office.
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #15)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:57 AM
frylock (34,825 posts)
45. Name one presidential candidate that has given paid speeches.
Response to asuhornets (Reply #10)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:57 PM
mindwalker_i (4,407 posts)
27. The term "Target Rich Environment" comes to mind
Finding things to criticize Hillary about are painfully easy.
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #10)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:01 AM
retrowire (10,345 posts)
48. oh damn
didn't realize I had lost my right to scrutinize those who seek the highest office in power to rule over my country.
my bad. |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:00 PM
amborin (16,631 posts)
12. Hillary is dissing all Americans with that reply
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:58 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
30. kick
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #30)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:32 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
81. KICCCCKKKKKK!
Boom! Hillary Will Be withdrawing in the next month w/o a doubt....
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:55 AM
AzDar (14,023 posts)
43. K & R
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:57 AM
Beartracks (12,026 posts)
46. I didn't see the debate. I thought R. Maddow was moderator...??? n/t
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:59 AM
warrprayer (4,734 posts)
47. ...
![]() |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:01 AM
PonyUp (1,680 posts)
49. People were talking about the transcripts before the debate. Why wasn't she ready with an answer?
She either has some piss-poor advisers that don't relay the public's questions and concerns about her, or they do advise her and she just doesn't give a shit.
|
Response to PonyUp (Reply #49)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:07 AM
grasswire (50,130 posts)
52. that WAS her prepared answer
Last time she was asked she just laughed.
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:04 AM
Cartoonist (7,083 posts)
51. Fear of transcripts
Reading this thread, it is obvious that the HRC supporters are scared to death that the transcripts will be released. Otherwise they would welcome the words spoken by the most qualified candidate.
|
Response to Cartoonist (Reply #51)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:40 AM
Docreed2003 (15,032 posts)
56. Exactly...
I'm not sure why some are choosing so vociferously to defend not releasing the transcripts of these speeches. Either there is "no there...there" or there's content within the speeches which would highlight Sec Clinton's private views. I'm not looking for a scandal...I'm looking for the truth! As a Democratic voter, I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm too cynical to trust a politician who says "take my word for it, I'll fight against 'X' group", while taking money from those groups on the side.
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:23 AM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
53. I half expect to hear something about a confidentiality agreement.
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #53)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:57 AM
Cartoonist (7,083 posts)
58. Or pleading the 5th
Need to know
For members only Pay to play You don't want to know |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:52 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
57. I saw a comment on fb that sticks
in my mind: "Hi11ary has more baggage than United Airlines."
Another thing that I find striking is her constant interruptions. This tells me she is too busy formulating her "response" to actually hear what her opponent is saying. Plus, it is politically inexpedient for Hi11ary to attack Bernie on issues that the majority of the vast Hoi Polloi have long wanted to be available for all. |
Response to chervilant (Reply #57)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:38 AM
asuhornets (2,405 posts)
62. What were Bernie's highpoints in the debate?
U don't know cause you are too busy finding fault in Hillary.
|
Response to asuhornets (Reply #62)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 08:05 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
73. And, that's entirely
too easy to do!
FEEL THE BERN!!! #NotMeUs |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:45 AM
Unknown Beatle (2,641 posts)
63. You know, this is what gets to me,
Hillary lying with a straight face. It takes a lot of practice to be able to do that. She's really trying very hard to convince everyone that she's an honest person that tells the truth, always.
I had a friend just like her, always lying through his teeth and always trying to convince me he was telling the truth. But I disputed his lies with facts and when he couldn't lie his way out of his lies, he sputtered. Kinda funny, really. But he wasn't running for public office. Hillary, on the other hand, is running for the highest profile office in the US and arguably the highest office in the world, but she lies and then lies some more to cover the original lie, and gullible people believe her. Why? |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:00 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
75. Oh my it is Hillary & only Hillary that controls her transcripts and anything she says behind doors.
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:04 PM
EdwardBernays (3,343 posts)
76. Ask her campaign chairman
Try not to laugh. Or gag. |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:09 PM
demwing (16,916 posts)
78. She could tell us...
But then she'd have to kill us
![]() |
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:19 PM
onecaliberal (28,732 posts)
79. She has them, and no one else.
Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:26 PM
Mike__M (1,052 posts)
80. I have decided that
I will "look into" donating $27 to the Clinton campaign.
|