HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillarity says she won't ...

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:44 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, 11476 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 186 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillarity says she won't release her transcripts... (Original post)
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 OP
DanTex Feb 2016 #1
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #2
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #15
MadDAsHell Feb 2016 #129
appal_jack Feb 2016 #21
cali Feb 2016 #33
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #45
virtualobserver Feb 2016 #57
DanTex Feb 2016 #82
Bread and Circus Feb 2016 #95
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #100
Plucketeer Feb 2016 #110
Marty McGraw Feb 2016 #139
cali Feb 2016 #102
MrChuck Feb 2016 #90
ladjf Feb 2016 #177
notadmblnd Feb 2016 #63
Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #68
Bohemianwriter Feb 2016 #80
asuhornets Feb 2016 #147
TubbersUK Feb 2016 #3
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #6
TubbersUK Feb 2016 #7
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #10
TubbersUK Feb 2016 #17
Duval Feb 2016 #94
juxtaposed Feb 2016 #14
UglyGreed Feb 2016 #4
chervilant Feb 2016 #5
2pooped2pop Feb 2016 #8
oasis Feb 2016 #9
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #12
oasis Feb 2016 #30
cali Feb 2016 #36
oasis Feb 2016 #71
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #83
global1 Feb 2016 #47
oasis Feb 2016 #65
Got it Feb 2016 #118
frylock Feb 2016 #151
Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #183
jalan48 Feb 2016 #50
oasis Feb 2016 #54
jalan48 Feb 2016 #62
oasis Feb 2016 #79
jalan48 Feb 2016 #88
oasis Feb 2016 #113
jalan48 Feb 2016 #132
oasis Feb 2016 #134
jalan48 Feb 2016 #135
H2O Man Feb 2016 #76
oasis Feb 2016 #86
xocet Feb 2016 #148
oasis Feb 2016 #174
xocet Feb 2016 #180
Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #185
H2O Man Feb 2016 #171
antigop Feb 2016 #140
Old Codger Feb 2016 #92
oasis Feb 2016 #108
Old Codger Feb 2016 #117
malokvale77 Feb 2016 #153
frylock Feb 2016 #154
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #20
oasis Feb 2016 #31
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #41
oasis Feb 2016 #51
Hydra Feb 2016 #161
catnhatnh Feb 2016 #166
RDANGELO Feb 2016 #11
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #18
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #23
Yurovsky Feb 2016 #13
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #26
HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #16
mikehiggins Feb 2016 #43
stillwaiting Feb 2016 #19
INdemo Feb 2016 #22
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #24
Ino Feb 2016 #29
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #38
StandingInLeftField Feb 2016 #141
NowSam Feb 2016 #25
Blus4u Feb 2016 #69
NowSam Feb 2016 #70
think4yourself Feb 2016 #75
ancianita Feb 2016 #27
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #35
ancianita Feb 2016 #42
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #44
sarge43 Feb 2016 #85
ancianita Feb 2016 #111
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #167
Old Codger Feb 2016 #97
in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #28
Old Codger Feb 2016 #103
in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #106
Bonobo Feb 2016 #32
californiabernin Feb 2016 #34
BklnDem75 Feb 2016 #37
ljm2002 Feb 2016 #121
BklnDem75 Feb 2016 #168
HereSince1628 Feb 2016 #39
bkkyosemite Feb 2016 #40
joshcryer Feb 2016 #59
Metric System Feb 2016 #158
Baitball Blogger Feb 2016 #46
Ichingcarpenter Feb 2016 #48
H2O Man Feb 2016 #60
farleftlib Feb 2016 #127
EndElectoral Feb 2016 #49
litlbilly Feb 2016 #52
Gary 50 Feb 2016 #130
litlbilly Feb 2016 #137
99Forever Feb 2016 #53
notadmblnd Feb 2016 #55
stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #56
Mnpaul Feb 2016 #58
H2O Man Feb 2016 #61
TBF Feb 2016 #64
zalinda Feb 2016 #66
BlandGrenade Feb 2016 #78
Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #124
krispos42 Feb 2016 #159
leftofcool Feb 2016 #67
localroger Feb 2016 #72
Fearless Feb 2016 #73
Android3.14 Feb 2016 #74
debunction.junction Feb 2016 #77
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #81
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #122
BlandGrenade Feb 2016 #84
JoeyT Feb 2016 #87
LibDemAlways Feb 2016 #89
gordyfl Feb 2016 #91
Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #125
ljm2002 Feb 2016 #128
frylock Feb 2016 #156
gyroscope Feb 2016 #93
TxGrandpa Feb 2016 #96
dana_b Feb 2016 #98
hedgehog Feb 2016 #99
backscatter712 Feb 2016 #107
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #115
Floridanow Feb 2016 #164
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #101
whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #104
madokie Feb 2016 #105
nolabels Feb 2016 #143
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #109
EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #112
shawn703 Feb 2016 #114
Floridanow Feb 2016 #162
yourout Feb 2016 #116
Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #119
SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #120
Faux pas Feb 2016 #123
polichick Feb 2016 #126
silvershadow Feb 2016 #131
SoapBox Feb 2016 #133
Dragonfli Feb 2016 #136
antigop Feb 2016 #138
LibDemAlways Feb 2016 #150
antigop Feb 2016 #152
Floridanow Feb 2016 #165
Vinca Feb 2016 #142
DaveT Feb 2016 #144
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #145
asuhornets Feb 2016 #146
Major Nikon Feb 2016 #149
sadoldgirl Feb 2016 #155
Metric System Feb 2016 #157
21st Century Poet Feb 2016 #160
Dems to Win Feb 2016 #163
cui bono Feb 2016 #169
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #170
cui bono Feb 2016 #172
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #173
cui bono Feb 2016 #175
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #179
LittleBlue Feb 2016 #176
asuhornets Feb 2016 #178
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #181
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #182
Beacool Feb 2016 #184
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #186

Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:45 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:47 AM

2. LOL. You're funny.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:57 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:05 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:19 AM

33. This won't go away.

 

The speculation is probably far worse than anything she said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:36 AM

45. Possibly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #45)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:50 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:22 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:36 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:41 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #110)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:32 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:43 AM

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

 

Will grow exponentially worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:31 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:44 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:54 AM

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

Calling DU members Trolls is against TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:59 AM

68. some are more equal

 

Than others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:17 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:45 PM

147. I agree...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:48 AM

3. Do you know ?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TubbersUK (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:50 AM

6. Everybody that has had similar speaking engagements AFAIK.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:52 AM

7. Thanks :)

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

Pretty high I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TubbersUK (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:55 AM

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

 

But it's a great cop out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:58 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:35 AM

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

 

cop out is an apt description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TubbersUK (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:56 AM

14. Bill's

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:48 AM

4. I'm shocked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:50 AM

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

Hi11ary needs new blood in her campaign staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:52 AM

8. No better way to say guilty. Thanks Hillary

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:54 AM

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

distort their meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:56 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:12 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:21 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:04 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:23 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:39 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:57 AM

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

this type of manufactured side show before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:55 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:49 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:15 PM

183. Like she did in 2008

 

God her 8 years of presidency have been great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:45 AM

50. Important issues like regulation of Wall Street banks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

54. Hillary vs. GOP. Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #62)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:15 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:28 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #88)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:51 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #113)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:11 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #132)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:22 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #134)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:23 PM

135. Go Goldman Sachs go! Rah! Rah!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:14 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:26 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #86)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:47 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #148)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:29 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:18 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:17 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:05 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:32 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:33 AM

92. More important

 

Than open above board honesty???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #92)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:47 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:55 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:51 PM

153. "Hillary chooses privacy."

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:52 PM

154. Let her choose privacy and go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:00 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:14 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:25 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:46 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:06 PM

161. Dem party voters are her potential enemies?

Explains a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:33 PM

166. Yep

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:55 AM

11. Everyone else is not running for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:59 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:56 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yurovsky (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:03 AM

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

Take a bow, you guys!

$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:58 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:31 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:00 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

22. That was another gift to Bernie Sanders

 

Thank you Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:02 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:09 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:23 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:36 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:02 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NowSam (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:00 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blus4u (Reply #69)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:01 AM

70. LOL

That must be it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NowSam (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:12 AM

75. Maybe she'll respond to a GoFundme

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:04 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:20 AM

35. These were her words.

 

I'm sure a video will be released soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #35)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:25 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:33 AM

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

 


then i'll show her some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:24 AM

85. Snap. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #111)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:11 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:09 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:43 AM

103. Taking

 

The fifth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #103)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:46 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:16 AM

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

"I'll look into it."

Typical untrustworthy politician's answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:20 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:22 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BklnDem75 (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:56 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #121)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:17 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:23 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:24 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:51 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:00 PM

158. Stop making sense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:37 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:40 AM

48. Nixon responds



























Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:51 AM

60. !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:04 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:44 AM

49. Nothing like transparency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:47 AM

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

 

...nevermind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:07 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gary 50 (Reply #130)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:29 PM

137. I saw that, it was funny:)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:48 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

56. Good for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:51 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

61. Unforced error.

Bad move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #61)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:57 AM

64. ^ Nailed it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:57 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zalinda (Reply #66)


Response to zalinda (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:00 PM

124. unlike her Bernie

 

Donated his small speech fees to charity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zalinda (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:01 PM

159. Came to say this.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:58 AM

67. Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:06 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:07 AM

73. Good luck with this strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:08 AM

74. A candidate running from her word

 

Has nothing on which to stand.

She will never win the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:14 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:18 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #81)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:58 AM

122. Yep.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:23 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:28 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:29 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:33 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordyfl (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:01 PM

125. I saw that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordyfl (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:05 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordyfl (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:57 PM

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

Wow. Not Ready for Primetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:34 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:39 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:41 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:41 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:47 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:52 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:14 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:41 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:44 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:45 AM

105. Hill ain't going to release shit

Bet on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #105)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:43 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

112. This is exactly

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:51 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #114)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:09 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:54 AM

116. she can't....

it would instantly sink her campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:56 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:56 AM

120. Ha! I was right! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:59 AM

123. Watching her duck, dive

and slither away is ALMOST entertaining...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:03 PM

126. Big surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:07 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:20 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:27 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:30 PM

138. LINK TO VIDEO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #138)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:48 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #150)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:50 PM

152. as I mentioned upthread. She's boxed in...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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #152)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:21 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:39 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:44 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:44 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:44 PM

146. GOOD!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:47 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:56 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:58 PM

157. Hillarity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:01 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:14 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:01 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #169)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:58 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #170)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:12 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #172)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:20 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #173)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:36 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #175)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:53 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:43 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:00 PM

178. Excellent...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:24 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #181)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:11 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:15 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #184)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:30 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread