Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:22 AM May 2016

What am I missing?

The topic of the quarter mil speech transcripts gets almost NO mention of late. Yet, unless I missed some pivotal post one day, I'm still under the impression that Hillary's challenge HAS BEEN met. That challenge being that we'd get to see her speeches "when all the others have released theirs!". So - is there some specific qualifiers I've overlooked? WHO is it that constitutes "all the others"? And what's required to certify that those others have released any pertinent transcripts?
I'm betting - if pressed - she would specify that ALL of the long-departed presidential aspirants will have to cough up speeches as well (Rubio, Christie, Webb, OmMalley et al). It's not been that long ago that Bernie's mentioned her lofty speaking fees, but he's never, to my knowledge, called HRC out on her specifics other than to say that he had nothing to release. So what am I missing here? Why hasn't his campaign held Ms. Phony's feet to her own fire?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Mira

(22,375 posts)
1. I think you are correct. The challenge has been met.
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:27 AM
May 2016

Look at this post of mine that got stopped/locked yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027844503

I posted it in the wrong forum, and was gone a few hours and then found it locked.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
2. You need to ask? Hillary backers don't want the transcripts released.
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:29 AM
May 2016

They never have. It might harm Ms. Golden Sacks chances of winning. They don't care what's in the transcripts. Nothing that's in them could change their undying devotion to the Anointed One - even if they showed she promised Goldman whatever it wanted.

The Hill fanatics only want her to win the election - they don't care what she has ever said or done. It's a cult.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
4. I understand all that.
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:43 AM
May 2016

I wanna know when someone's gonna corner HRC as to exactly what the parameters of her challenge are / were. Sure they don't want them out - I get that. But SHE'S the one that laid out the conditions that would provoke the release of the transcripts. I'm still wondering as to what, exactly, those parameters look like. WHO IS "all the others"???

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
3. Maybe what you're missing is that there are no transcripts because there were no speeches
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:37 AM
May 2016

The "speeches" were a fiction, a smokescreen created to camouflage the outright bribery of a prospective candidate for office.

That's my opinion anyway, and I've not yet seen refutation of it.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
5. If she conceeded that they exist
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:53 AM
May 2016

and specified conditions for their unveiling, then we ought to see them. Imagine the legacy if time proved that such never existed.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
7. I've read: 'You Go Woman!" "Most women don't even get paid for speeches, so she rocks
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:28 AM
May 2016

and it's none of your business!"



Yet these same people were happy as hell when Romney's 47% remark was leaked out.

The danger of pay-to-play seems to only apply to some.

surrealAmerican

(11,316 posts)
8. It was never a challenge.
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:30 PM
May 2016

It was an excuse.

She never had any intention of releasing any transcripts. Maybe she will make up some other excuse if she gets asked about them again, or maybe she will change the subject.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»What am I missing?