Support NeoGAF

[bounchfx]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

i wish they all would. can you imagine the garbage they actually consist of?

even if the others released theirs, I feel like she would still say no and find an excuse
she's such a shady fuck

 

[Pastry]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. No point in singling Hillary out if Bernie isn't going to release transcripts also.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

Saw that segment. Not a good subject for her. Once again stated that she has not once been influenced decision-wise by the big donor money she has received.

I don't see what the new "being outraged" strategy is going to do. It's even more of an obvious attempt to dodge the subject entirely.

 

[Blader]

What exactly are people hoping to find in these transcripts? Did she admit to Goldman Sachs that she hates poor people and engineered Benghazi?

 

[noshten]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. No point in singling Hillary out if Bernie isn't going to release transcripts also.

I'm sure Bernie could release his transcripts tomorrow, he only gave two such paid speeches in 2014 for a whooping total of $1867


Bernie Sanders’ 2014 speaking gigs netted less than $2K

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) netted of $1,867.42 for two paid speeches and a television appearance last year, according to according to financial disclosure reports.

The total reflects a paltry sum compared to the millions of dollars collected over the same period by former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, against whom Sanders is vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The highest-valued Sanders appearance, a spot on comedian Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” in November, was worth only worth $850.

Financial disclosure reports show he gave the money to a charity, a non-profit called Northeast Kingdom Community Action that helps low-income families in Vermont.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, has come under some scrutiny for the large speaking fees for opponents who want to paint her as out of touch.

Recent financial reports showed that she and her husband, President Bill Clinton, earned $25 million for delivering a total of 104 speeches last year.

The former secretary of State made 51 speeches during both 2014 and the first three months of this year, banking more than $11 million. Some speeches, such as a talk at eBay’s San Jose, Calif. headquarters were worth as much as $315,000. She gave the speech only a month before she announced she would run for president.

The Clintons have said they donate part of their speaking fees to charity.

Sanders listed two paid talks to a publishing company and also filed documents listing charitable donations in those amounts to the Addison County Parent Child Center in Vermont.

Overall, he had a minimum net worth of $169,025 in 2014, including at least $25,002 in credit card debt, according to recently released financial disclosure reports tallied by The Hill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...anders-2014-speaking-gigs-netted-less-than-2k

 

[Neuromancer]

What exactly are people hoping to find in these transcripts? Did she admit to Goldman Sachs that she hates poor people and engineered Benghazi?

Probably not but that's just it, no one knows. People are naturally curious as to what she could possibly say to these banks that would be worth over $200k a pop.

 

[Blader]

Probably not but that's just it, no one knows. People are naturally curious as to what she could possibly say to these banks that would be worth over $200k a pop.

She gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars because these organizations can afford it, and they want the cachet that goes with having someone like Hillary Clinton speak at their event. Colleges and universities also spend thousands or tens of thousands to get politicians, celebrities, et al. to speak at their schools, because they want that cachet and they can afford to spend that much.

 

[Neuromancer]

She gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars because these organizations can afford it, and they want the cachet that goes with having someone like Hillary Clinton speak at their event. Colleges and universities also spend thousands or tens of thousands to get politicians, celebrities, et al. to speak at their schools, because they want that cachet and they can afford to spend that much.

You're probably right and if the talks are as innocuous as you suggest she has nothing to lose by releasing the transcripts.

 

[woolley]

You're probably right and if the talks are as innocuous as you suggest she has nothing to lose by releasing the transcripts.

She has nothing to gain either. People will just find some other nonsense to get all worked up about. People say she's in the pocket of big banks but haven't really shown much evidence to back up their claims, it's why Bernie dodges the question every time he's asked.

 

[Pastry]

You're probably right and if the talks are as innocuous as you suggest she has nothing to lose by releasing the transcripts.

Except she does, every word from the speeches will be dissected and likely misconstrued to some degree by her opposition. There is nothing to gain, politically or otherwise, go releasing the transcripts. People will still claim she's a liar and "shady" even if nothing is there.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

Nice. This the shadiest shit in the fucking universe. Obviously republican candidates won't all release their transcripts because Hillary wanted them to. She's basically saying no. How do people support this shit? I totally understand why you support her policy backed through her experience but this sort of shit isn't a deal-breaker for you? It blows my fucking mind.

 

[royalan]

She has nothing to gain either. People will just find some other nonsense to get all worked up about. People say she's in the pocket of big banks but haven't really shown much evidence to back up their claims, it's why Bernie dodges the question every time he's asked.

This guy gets it.

At this point, asking for Hillary's speech transcripts is basically an attempt at Emailgate pt. 2. Even if she didn't say a single incriminating thing in any of those speeches, those speeches would get ripped apart and every single word dissected and taken out of context regardless. We'd have months worth of articles discussing what she "must have really meant by that," and other pointless bull. And we don't even have to speculate that this would happen because we're seeing it right now with her emails. None of her emails have turned up anything of worth but here we are over six months later still talking about it.

Hillary better not release those transcripts, because she shouldn't have to. No presidential candidate on either side has been required to "prove their authenticity" to this degree. It's insane.

 

[Sunset Samurai]

Let's go

Bernie: Get that shit outta here! You're in my house!

 

[Ogrekiller]

Nice. This the shadiest shit in the fucking universe. Obviously republican candidates won't all release their transcripts because Hillary wanted them to. She's basically saying no. How do people support this shit? I totally understand why you support her policy backed through her experience but this sort of shit isn't a deal-breaker for you? It blows my fucking mind.

Except she does, every word from the speeches will be dissected and likely misconstrued to some degree by her opposition. There is nothing to gain, politically or otherwise, go releasing the transcripts. People will still claim she's a liar and "shady" even if nothing is there.

Republicans dug up the emails thing through the whole Benghazi hearing fiasco and were make a big fuss over her deleting private emails even though those private emails would compromise her personal and private life.

The witch hunt is truly amazing at this point. No one goes to Sanders and demands a day to day itinerary about his honeymoon in the USSR .

 

[Blader]

Did Obama have anything to gain by releasing his birth certificate? It's not like the people who believe he wasn't born in this country have given up that notion; they just think he doctored the birth certificate, or is still lying about it in some way.

And even if Hillary were to release the transcripts, if we see that she's just telling bankers how she handled frustrating negotiations with shitty diplomats and applies it as a professional lesson or life lesson for them, it's not like the "Hillary is bought and owned by Wall Street" camp is going to suddenly give up that belief.

 

[Neuromancer]

She has nothing to gain either. People will just find some other nonsense to get all worked up about. People say she's in the pocket of big banks but haven't really shown much evidence to back up their claims, it's why Bernie dodges the question every time he's asked.

You don't see how receiving millions of dollars from speaking gigs to big banks could have an effect on a career politician's decisions? There is never going to be evidence that because she accepted x dollars, she voted y on this bill. It's the appearance; it looks bad to me and many like me.

It's not up to you to say what is and isn't nonsense not worth getting worked up about, its for the American voter to decide.

 

[BradC00]

Did Obama have anything to gain by releasing his birth certificate? It's not like the people who believe he wasn't born in this country have given up that notion; they just think he doctored the birth certificate, or is still lying about it in some way.

this is so true. I worked with a guy who straight up thought he was not a US citizen. (i'm in the military, and so is he)

when I told him that he released his birth certificate, he just kept moving the goal posts. it's not real, it's doctored, he didn't release it soon enough, etc, etc.

I don't like Hillary all that much but this wouldn't sway me not to vote for her in the general.

 

[Jenov]

Republicans dug up the emails thing through the whole Benghazi hearing fiasco and were make a big fuss over her deleting private emails even though those private emails would compromise her personal and private life.

The witch hunt is truly amazing at this point. No one goes to Sanders and demands a day to day itinerary about his honeymoon in the USSR .

Let's also not forget, Hillary Clinton is and was many magnitudes more famous than Bernie Sanders, and thus was in much more demand, and offered a lot more to speak because her star-power alone garnered it.

And if she were male, I seriously doubt people would be trying to "authenticate" her so hard. It must be such an easy go-to to put doubts in peoples minds based on latent sexism, and attempts to validate stereotypes of the ambitious women being corrupt, two-faced, power-hungry, sneaky, etc. She MUST be hiding something in those speeches, right?

 

[Pastry]

You don't see how receiving millions of dollars from speaking gigs to big banks could have an effect on a career politician's decisions? There is never going to be evidence that because she accepted x dollars, she voted y on this bill. It's the appearance; it looks bad to me and many like me.

It's not up to you to say what is and isn't nonsense not worth getting worked up about, its for the American voter to decide.

Her releasing transcripts wouldn't convince you or anyone else that she is anything other than in the pocket of big banks. There is no point to doing it.

 

[Neuromancer]

Her releasing transcripts wouldn't convince you or anyone else that she is anything other than in the pocket of big banks. There is no point to doing it.

It's her job to convince me, and hiding behind a veil of secrecy isn't going to do that.

 

[Jenov]

It's her job to convince me, and hiding behind a veil of secrecy isn't going to do that.

"veil of secrecy"

What? Have you demanded to see the transcripts of any other candidate before and accused them of being secretive?

 

[AlphaDump]

well that sound incredibly pathetic. would make sense if she could name certain speeches of interest that are known to have transcripts, but this is some matrix level dodging.

would make sense if the ruled applied to everyone and not just Hillary having to provide transcripts. Otherwise it sounds like a witchhunt. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hawaii is still synonymous with Kenya for people despite Obama providing evidence of his birth.

It is just creating ammo out of thin air because you don't actually have anything substantial to combat with.


The only matrix level dodging going on is your cognitive dissonance.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Republicans dug up the emails thing through the whole Benghazi hearing fiasco and were make a big fuss over her deleting private emails even though those private emails would compromise her personal and private life.

The witch hunt is truly amazing at this point. No one goes to Sanders and demands a day to day itinerary about his honeymoon in the USSR .

Yeah honeymoons and speeches are like the same thing, man!
Private life? Tell us.
A political figure known to take money from big banks giving speeches to big banks behind closed doors? Pfft.

I'm sure she was just telling them how hard a time she's going to give them when she's President.

Has this been posted yet?

Here's a video Hillary Clinton gave for Goldman Sachs back in 2014. The subject: Supporting Women in Business.

"The event featured a keynote address from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the business case for empowering women to ensure future economic growth."

Oh no! Hillary so evil! Clearly in the pocket of the banks omg.

Yeah, I'm sure there's no reason why this is out while other things remain guarded secrets.


How are people so trusting of their politicians?

 

[royalan]

Has this been posted yet?

Here's a video Hillary Clinton gave for Goldman Sachs back in 2014. The subject: Supporting Women in Business.

"The event featured a keynote address from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the business case for empowering women to ensure future economic growth."

Oh no! Hillary so evil! Clearly in the pocket of the banks omg.

 

[pannagape]

Did Obama have anything to gain by releasing his birth certificate? It's not like the people who believe he wasn't born in this country have given up that notion; they just think he doctored the birth certificate, or is still lying about it in some way.

And even if Hillary were to release the transcripts, if we see that she's just telling bankers how she handled frustrating negotiations with shitty diplomats and applies it as a professional lesson or life lesson for them, it's not like the "Hillary is bought and owned by Wall Street" camp is going to suddenly give up that belief.

It wasn't? Not that it matters anyway. If Obama was half-decent, not as many people would care.

 

[sphagnum]

"veil of secrecy"

What? Have you demanded to see the transcripts of any other candidate before and accused them of being secretive?

If voters didn't feel like they needed to see someone's transcripts, it's either because they already trust them (Sanders) or they already know that they're bought (any Republican).

The fact that this is a feasible tactic against Hillary at all speaks to the fact that many people don't trust her.

 

[Pastry]

It wasn't? Not that it matters anyway. If Obama was half-decent, not as many people would care.

wut

 

[The Technomancer]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

Well said

Also you don't cause a revolution just by voting in a president. Revolutions start from the bottom up, not the top down

 

[Ogrekiller]

Yeah honeymoons and speaches are like the same thing, man!
Private life? Tell us.
A political figure known to take money from big banks giving speeches to big banks behind closed doors? Pfft.

I'm sure she was just telling them how hard a time she's going to give them when she's President.



Yeah, I'm sure there's no reason why this is out while other things remain guarded secrets.


How are people so trusting of their politicians?

The same way you trust Sanders?

Hillary's private life has been dragged out into the public life enough yet apparently Sanders is suddenly off limits. So impressive.

Face it, you just don't believe she is clean to begin with. Nothing she does will sway people like you no matter how many docs are put out.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

How are people so trusting of their politicians?

Because it would make them feel bad to admit that they support a lying candidate, therefore the candidate cannot be a liar.

 

[Abounder]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

Hillary leading from the behind...I thought she wasn't afraid of the Republicans. Shitty leadership

 

[TheLaughingStock]

What exactly are people hoping to find in these transcripts? Did she admit to Goldman Sachs that she hates poor people and engineered Benghazi?

In my very limited experience attending 1 talk at Bank of America on Wall St. and a Goldman lecture at a Catholic school although Hillary wasn't at either, liberals blame the homeowner, talk about reckless behavior by lenders, and discuss business ethics. At the more conservative venue at the Catholic school...Obama is a cancer, too many regulations, conservative values are under attack, etc.

Who knows, but probably victim blaming would show up on the transcript I'd bet.

 

[royalan]

Yeah, I'm sure there's no reason why this is out while other things remain guarded secrets.


How are people so trusting of their politicians?

Because so far this only thing leading this ridiculous witch hunt is the fact that she got paid to give a speech. It's as asinine as people who believed that Barack Obama wasn't pro gay rights because he attended the church of an anti-gay minister in the past.

Here we have video evidence of the kinds of speeches Hillary gave for Goldman Sachs. You can continue to think that behind closed doors is where they sacrificed goats and plotted on stealing the savings lower class Americans if you want to, but acknowledge that that is your own unfounded belief.

 

[Your Entertainer]

This guy gets it.

At this point, asking for Hillary's speech transcripts is basically an attempt at Emailgate pt. 2. Even if she didn't say a single incriminating thing in any of those speeches, those speeches would get ripped apart and every single word dissected and taken out of context regardless. We'd have months worth of articles discussing what she "must have really meant by that," and other pointless bull. And we don't even have to speculate that this would happen because we're seeing it right now with her emails. None of her emails have turned up anything of worth but here we are over six months later still talking about it.

Hillary better not release those transcripts, because she shouldn't have to. No presidential candidate on either side has been required to "prove their authenticity" to this degree. It's insane.

To say this is to ignore the entire basis of why the transcript thing was even ever brought up. It's not about the transcripts - it's about the influence of money on politics. It has been a repeated attack against her from Sanders and even O'Malley, and stands as a big point of differentiation between the two frontrunners at this point. When you're trying to distance yourself from big-donors and special interestes, and have received millions over your career, for this campaign, and add on top of that speeches, it does not look good for you. Beng-bullshit and the email thing are witch hunts. This is absolutely not. It's not about solely her "authenticity" at all, and to say otherwise is a blatant deflection.

Let's also not forget, Hillary Clinton is and was many magnitudes more famous than Bernie Sanders, and thus was in much more demand, and offered a lot more to speak because her star-power alone garnered it.

And if she were male, I seriously doubt people would be trying to "authenticate" her so hard. It must be such an easy go-to to put doubts in peoples minds based on latent sexism, and attempts to validate stereotypes of the ambitious women being corrupt, two-faced, power-hungry, sneaky, etc. She MUST be hiding something in those speeches, right?

would make sense if the ruled applied to everyone and not just Hillary having to provide transcripts. Otherwise it sounds like a witchhunt. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hawaii is still synonymous with Kenya for people despite Obama providing evidence of his birth.

It is just creating ammo out of thin air because you don't actually have anything substantial to combat with.


The only matrix level dodging going on is your cognitive dissonance.

See above. It's not about the transcripts. She said today that the large sums of money she has received over her career have never once influenced a political decision - an absolutely fantastical statement that itself was the summary argument used by Scalia/Thomas in justifying Citizens United. Crazy how people are defending that argument now.

Any attempt at claiming this is about sexism or her character entirely are blatantly unfounded and an obvious deflection. The numbers are there for everyone to see. She has received over $20 million from big donors this election cycle alone. To deny that there has never in the past been any basis for this or that it won't ever have any impact on a single policy position is outrageous.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Because so far this only thing leading this ridiculous witch hunt is the fact that she got paid to give a speech. It's as asinine as people who believed that Barack Obama wasn't pro gay rights because he attended the church of an anti-gay minister in the past.

Here we have video evidence of the kinds of speeches Hillary gave for Goldman Sachs. You can continue to think that behind closed doors is where they sacrificed goats and plotted on stealing the savings lower class Americans if you want to, but acknowledge that that is your own unfounded belief.

Why do you think large corporations, big banks and wall-street give Hillary Clinton, and other American Politicians, Money? Why is it that you think they do this? Why to her?

 

[Jenov]

If voters didn't feel like they needed to see someone's transcripts, it's either because they already trust them (Sanders) or they already know that they're bought (any Republican).

The fact that this is a feasible tactic against Hillary at all speaks to the fact that many people don't trust her.

It's a witch hunt tactic. It's a no-win situation similar to Obama's birth cert. Her "voters" are not the ones asking for the transcripts, just people who want to smear her regardless and want to enforce the "Ooh she's so secretive, see!!" narrative.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Oh no! Hillary so evil! Clearly in the pocket of the banks omg.

What is the argument for not allowing big business to give infinite amounts of money directly to candidates.

Not only why should Citizens United be overturned, but why should there be any restrictions on campaign financing at all?

Isn't it the case that politicians will just take the donations and do whatever the hell they want and the money and access is totally irrelevant to the politician's policy output?

Every single Democrat in the Senate, every party leader in the party, and all of the candidates for president in the party this year all agree Citizens United should be overturned. But I can't for the life of me figure out why.

 

[royalan]

To say this is to ignore the entire basis of why the transcript thing was even ever brought up. It's not about the transcripts - it's about the influence of money on politics. It has been a repeated attack against her from Sanders and even O'Malley, and stands as a big point of differentiation between the two frontrunners at this point. When you're trying to distance yourself from big-donors and special interestes, and have received millions over your career, for this campaign, and add on top of that speeches, it does not look good for you. Beng-bullshit and the email thing are witch hunts. This is absolutely not. It's not about solely her "authenticity" at all, and to say otherwise is a blatant deflection.

I can understand there being debate on the influence of money in politics in terms of campaign contributions (as long as people are willing to admit that politicians across both sides have accepted money from big donors, and this isn't a unique at all to Hillary on any level), but the attack on the speeches doesn't apply here. Hillary was paid to give a speech. The access that money bought was in Hillary Clinton showing up and giving said speech. The "debt" is paid. This is nothing like a campaign contribution, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, and ignores the incredible power and demand Hillary wields not just as a politician, but as a celebrity. Nobody's paying big money for O'Malley and Sanders to give speeches, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with their perceived "political purity". It's because they're no-names on national level. Well, Bernie could probably command a sizable speaking fee these days.

 

[Shaffield]

I can understand there being debate on the influence of money in politics in terms of campaign contributions (as long as people are willing to admit that politicians across both sides have accepted money from big donors, and this isn't a unique at all to Hillary on any level), but the attack on the speeches doesn't apply here. Hillary was paid to give a speech. The access that money bought was in Hillary Clinton showing up and giving said speech. The "debt" is paid. This is nothing like a campaign contribution, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, and ignores the incredible power and demand Hillary wields not just as a politician, but as a celebrity. Nobody's paying big money for O'Malley and Sanders to give speeches, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with their perceived "political purity". It's because they're no-names on national level. Well, Bernie could probably command a sizable speaking fee these days.

Goldman Sachs has donated three-quarters of a billion dollars to her campaigns, so I think its reasonable to guess that they liked what they heard

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Her male husband was as or more scrutinized and attacked than she is, but he is more likable, more charming, and a better speaker, and so has weathered the attacks better. With Obama, I absolutely buy that race was a not insubstantial portion of the acrimony he drew, but I don't buy that sexism is a significant part of what is driving the backlash against Clinton. Maybe 5% of it, but it's mostly the fact that she and her husband played a significant part in shifting the Democratic party to the right and playing the political game that big money donors want to play. As long as people like her continue to get elected, the big banks, the shadow banks, and the corporations having their way with the global economy and planetary resources know that the opposition to them will be token, at best. You can argue that's just political reality, but expecting people not to fight it is foolish. Change has to start somewhere, and most young people seem to think that Bernie and his scorched-earth rhetoric is a better opening salvo than the incrementalism of a Clinton.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Republicans dug up the emails thing through the whole Benghazi hearing fiasco and were make a big fuss over her deleting private emails even though those private emails would compromise her personal and private life.

The witch hunt is truly amazing at this point. No one goes to Sanders and demands a day to day itinerary about his honeymoon in the USSR .

Not saying I care about emails, but it warms my heart that Sanders' USSR honeymoon is the best you can do for a scandal to compare to.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

She has nothing to gain either. .

It would stop this entire line of discussion....

 

[SamVimes]

I don't care about what she talked about, denying that giving a person money doesn't influence them in any way is foolish.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Not saying I care about emails, but it warms my heart that Sanders' USSR honeymoon is the best you can do for a scandal to compare to.

Sure, if that's what warms your heart. I'm sure the Republicans could do much better than I could.

If Bill Clinton getting a blowjob that his wife isn't involved in is the firing salvo from the Republicans to attack Hillary I'd bet my bottom dollar that they have stacks of papers detailing how exactly Sanders will destroy their perfect American way of life.

I don't care about what she talked about, denying that giving a person money doesn't influence them in any way is foolish.

And there it is. The transcripts don't matter, she's dishonest anyway simply by accepting the dollars.

 

[woolley]

It would stop this entire line of discussion....

And I guess we're just going to ignore the rest of what I said. Time and again people have tried to attach fake scandal after scandal to try and bring the clintons down. They aren't going to stop just because she releases some pointless transcripts.

 

[The Technomancer]

Her male husband was as or more scrutinized and attacked than she is, but he is more likable, more charming, and a better speaker, and so has weathered the attacks better. With Obama, I absolutely buy that race was a not insubstantial portion of the acrimony he drew, but I don't buy that sexism is a significant part of what is driving the backlash against Clinton. Maybe 5% of it, but it's mostly the fact that she and her husband played a significant part in shifting the Democratic party to the right and playing the political game that big money donors want to play. As long as people like her continue to get elected, the big banks, the shadow banks, and the corporations having their way with the global economy and planetary resources know that the opposition to them will be token, at best. You can argue that's just political reality, but expecting people not to fight it is foolish. Change has to start somewhere, and most young people seem to think that Bernie and his scorched-earth rhetoric is a better opening salvo than the incrementalism of a Clinton.

Were you watching this thread live when she and Bernie were striking very similar tones and raising their voices and people were commenting as they spoke about how shrill or angry she seemed while Bernie gets praise for being an angry crazy old guy who "isn't afraid to yell it like it is"?

It would stop this entire line of discussion....

No. It really wouldn't.

 

[SamVimes]

And there it is. The transcripts don't matter, she's dishonest anyway simply by accepting the dollars.

You're putting words in my mouth. As stump said why don't we allow businesses to just give infinite money to politicians?

If you see a pharmaceutical company rep buying treating doctors to expensive dinner do you just go "oh yeah, they're just accepting the dinner, not what he's selling" which is total bullshit because many studies show that gifts make people lose their objectivity. If you heard Bernie Sanders was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Russia to give speeches you think that would be fine? What if a politician was paid by the KKK to give speeches? Still fine? Where do we draw the line?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

And I guess we're just going to ignore the rest of what I said. Time and again people have tried to attach fake scandal after scandal to try and bring the clintons down. They aren't going to stop just because she releases some pointless transcripts.

I didnt say it would absolve her of all criticism. Im saying if she released the transcripts people would stop using their imaginations as to what she was saying.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Sure, if that's what warms your heart. I'm sure the Republicans could do much better than I could.

If Bill Clinton getting a blowjob that his wife isn't involved in is the firing salvo from the Republicans I'd bet my bottom dollar that they have stacks of papers detailing how exactly Sanders will destroy their perfect American way of life.

Sanders will lose because of the ignorance of the general public and their kneejerk reactions to tax increases and the word socialism. It will not be because of exposing his shadyness or scandal or special interest pandering.

I know it gets tiring hearing about how Sanders is different, but he is authentic and unbought in a way none of the other candidates are (well I guess Trump but fuck that guy). And that makes the souls of Clinton fans burn ever so slowly whenever they have wade through the latest round of Benghazi/emails/chemtrails nonsense. Clinton is a very strong politician, but where she is weak, to whatever degree she is weak, they are the same weaknesses of a typical politician.

 

[royalan]

Goldman Sachs has donated three-quarters of a billion dollars to her campaigns, so I think its reasonable to guess that they liked what they heard

Oh, I have no doubt they liked what they heard, I just believe that the individuals at Goldmann Sachs are capable of liking something other than, "As President, I will sacrifice babies in your honor and gift you the combined wealth of the poor." Big banks in a whole lot of ways need to be reigned in and broken up, but jesus we're not talking about The Empire here. A lot of good has been accomplished by working with them. Case in point: that speech I linked to.

In that speech, Hillary makes several references to her "banking friends", which to a Bernie progressive probably sounds awful. But look at what she's doing. She's using the sum of her political clout to get her "banking friends" to support the cause of...elevating women in business and the global economy. So awful.

I think that highlights a major difference between Bernie and Hillary. Hillary isn't not critical of big banks and financial institutions, but she's willing to work within these systems to achieve her goals. And I see a whole lot more good being accomplished through that than the crazy idea that Bernie's actually going to be able to break up every major bank within the first year of his presidency.