Not when the immigrants are taking der minimum wage jobs at McDonalds that they don't want.
Why Isn't It a Bigger Deal That Trump Hasn't Released His Tax Returns?
- Thread starter Darkgran
- Start date
- Status
Not when the immigrants are taking der minimum wage jobs at McDonalds that they don't want.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
One probably has to do with national security and the other probably has to do with a guy trying to not cause himself harm by releasing before audit updates are made.
I know which one I'm more interested in.
SolidSnakex
Member
My point is that he's given her so many opening and she won't take them. She's essentially allowing Trump to dictate media coverage. He won't even mention her name without putting "Crooked" in front of it. That helps create the perception that she can't be trusted. And then you have him and his people beating the drum about her health. They know that they can't beat her toe to toe, so they're going to take different avenues to try to get there. It's a lot like how McCain and Romney tried to take down Obama. The whole "He's a Muslim!?!?!" bullshit with McCain and the birther/tea party nonsense with Romney. But McCain isn't a scumbag so he eventually stood up to his supporters and told them to knock that shit off.
If she plans on using it later then that's fine. But I was just thinking of that article from last week that said that claimed internally they're just trying to run out the clock. That's a really bad strategy if she's really going to hand the media over to Trump to blast away at her for months. But you may be right about her wanting to bring it up in a debate. Trump is incredibly thin skinned so putting him on the spot so that he can't run away from charges would be smart.
You've just described pretty much every elected democrat in New York... and Harry Reid.
This is a man who could legit murder someone in the streets and still garner at least 35-40 percent of the vote. Tax returns are nothing.
And who knows why exactly? Because he's a rich, famous, and boorish white male that garners lots of media attention? As long as he keeps people watching/reading/tweeting/commenting on him, the media will enable whatever he does, no matter how ridiculous.
And who knows why exactly? Because he's a rich, famous, and boorish white male that garners lots of media attention? As long as he keeps people watching/reading/tweeting/commenting on him, the media will enable whatever he does, no matter how ridiculous.
She's literally using the rope a dope strategy except instead of punches in reserve, it's campaign dollars for a knock out finish.
That lets him get in big ritzy shots too. But...
He's burning air and calories on futile shit and exposing himself to hits in the process.
/RockyHilboa
You can continue moving the goalposts all you want, but it's not going to make your point any more cogent.
Biden
Cuomo, A.
Feinstein
Booker
Pelosi
Schumer
So now we've gone from making paid speeches to only making paid speeches to banks to only Democrats who take money from banks and still haven't found that distinction you assume exists. What's next?
RedAssedApe
Banned
emails...benghazi...clinton foundation
Rip?
Depends how you measure "bigger deal". If you mean, endless, breathless punditry on cable TV? Someone probably is, mentions it, and since there's nothing to report, over on. David Corn (from MoJo) mentions it multiple times a week on Twitter, but the result is the same. It's not like you're going to get an answer from the campaign or that Congressional Democrats can do much more than point it out.
Also, it isn't going to change anyone's mind about the guy. It's not like he's lacking in the scandals department,
Also, it isn't going to change anyone's mind about the guy. It's not like he's lacking in the scandals department,
So long as she doesn't absolutely tank during the debates, it's a wrap. Electoral map is ridiculously OP for Clinton right now. She is still super rigid and awkward as fuck in front of crowds and talking to actual people (aka voters.) She should be strong in a 1v1 debate over issues and policy, but jeez, she is a terrible campaigner and a mediocre candidate. If it was almost anyone but Trump this election would be much closer for the GOP.
Dot Matrix
Member
But it isn't about writing new stories every week on the subject. It's about bringing it up at every opportunity to everyone associated with Trump. The next time that bitch of a spokeswoman is on TV defending him for punching a baby, end the segment by asking when the returns will be released. When Trump is interviewed about the laser sentry towers that will be placed along the Mexico wall, ask about an ETA on those returns.
Make it so that every media appearance from camp Trump has to comment on it. Saturate the coverage so that no one can hear a Trump story without being reminded that the only candidate in the last 40 years not to release them, turned out to be a tax cheat.
So I see that you just want to be obnoxious. That's fine.
Let me itemize this:
Point 1: "We" didn't go anywhere. You -- being completely obnoxious -- thought you could straw man this argument into an issue about paid speeches in general. Has the issue about Hillary's speeches ever been about paid speeches in general? What transcripts did Bernie want her to release? What transcripts did CNN grill her on? Her paid speeches to a hospital? Her paid speeches to a Barnes & Noble? Her paid speeches to the Boys & Girls Club? No. It was her paid speeches to Wall Street.
When I said "these kinds of speeches", what could you have possibly thought I was referring to, considering the fact that Hillary's paid speeches to banks were the kinds of speeches that were so controversial and that dominated the news during the primaries? Why would you think that this was an issue about her overall paid speeches, when her overall paid speeches were never an issue in the first place?
My guess is that you tried to prop it up as a straw man (that I'm targeting Hillary for making paid speeches) so you could knock it down (by claiming that everyone makes paid speeches).
Well, that was never the argument in the first place (which is why they call it a straw man) so you unfortunately won't be able to knock down this particular item down.
It was always about her paid speeches and your failure to either realize that (which I suspect you did indeed realize), or acknowledge it is your own fault. Given 1) the context in which her speeches are always brought up and 2) my posting history about these particular speeches, you cannot claim that anyone moved the goal posts. It was your own failure to recognize the issue (that, or your failure to straw man an issue).
Additionally, your link to Romney completely and utterly failed to address 1) the issue at hand and 2) the proper context (which I will get to later).....so to save face, you're pretending as if someone moved the goal posts. But if you paid any attention to the election and the issue at hand (I'm sure you have, but once again, it's a straw man you were trying to use), you'd know that this was always about her Wall Street speeches. Others already tried to push the narrative that I was arguing otherwise (and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt), but you're doubling down by claiming that I'm moving the goal posts from "paid speeches" to "paid bank speeches." But your straw man has been exposed so I'd recommend that you stop pushing the false narrative that someone is moving the goal posts.
Point 2: As for your line about "only Democrats who take money from banks"....what do you think this is about? The Democrats are the ones for Wall Street reform, not the Republicans. So it's important that Democrats conduct themselves in accordance with these policies.....which is why Hillary giving paid speeches to banks has become an issue. If a Republican was for comprehensive Wall Street reform and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from the banks in which they are trying to reign in, then it would be important to ask for them to release THEIR transcripts, too. It would be nice if Romney was for Wall Street reform....but he isn't. So why would I care what he said to a bank when he wants to let them run wild in the first place?
But just for fun, I'll ask for their transcripts, too. Does asking for everyone else's transcripts somehow undermine my ability to want Hillary's transcripts? One would think that the fact that she is running for President for a party that I'm part of and has amassed an unprecedented amount of wealth from Wall Street would make her release a bit more pressing for me. But I guess not.
Point 3: As for the links you posted, what am I supposed to do with that? First of all, none of those people are running for President. You understand that, right? I'm not about to elect any of those people for anything, nor have I ever cast a vote for them as President. None of these people are asking for my vote or support. I think it's important that we hold those accountable who want something from us....such as people wishing to become elected officials through our votes. They want something from us (our votes) so I think that it's fair to want something from them in return (accountability). Is this a fair proposition?
But just for some more fun, I'll ask for their transcripts, too. Again, does asking for everyone else's transcripts somehow undermine my ability to want Hillary's transcripts. One would think that the fact that she is running for President for a party that I'm part of and has amassed an unprecedented amount of wealth from Wall Street would make her release a bit more pressing for me. But again, I guess not.
Next, I claimed that Hillary's paid speeches (from Wall Street, in case you forgot) were unprecedented. Just clicking a few of those links, it is clear that Hillary is unmatched in that department.
And where are the Wall Street speeches? I'd appreciate next time if you posted the relevant content from your links, instead of having me have to mindlessly click your links, looking for whatever information you think you're presenting.
And just so I don't want to be labeled as a hypocrite, I will do exactly what I asked of you. Here is the list of all of her Wall Street speaking engagements, as well as how much she made from them:
4/18/2013, Morgan Stanley Washington, DC: $225,000
4/24/2013, Deutsche Bank Washington, DC: $225,000
5/14/2013, Apollo Management Holdings, LP New York, NY: $225,000
6/4/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group Palmetto Bluffs, SC: $225,000
7/11/2013, UBS Wealth Management New York, NY: $225,000
10/24/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group New York, NY: $225,000
10/29/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group Tuscon, AZ: $225,000
11/7/2013, Golden Tree Asset Management New York, NY: $275,000
11/13/2013, Bank of America Bluffton, SC: $225,000
07/26/2014, Ameriprise Boston, Ma.: $225,500
10/07/2014, Deutsche Bank AG New York, N.Y.: $280,000
01/22/2015, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Whistler, Canada: $150,000
http://theduran.com/hillary-clintons-21667000-speaking-fees-fortune-broken-speech-speech/
Unprecedented was the word I believe I used.
Hillary and Trump are seeking my vote. Bernie Sanders (and others) also sought my vote. And had they conducted themselves in a manner in which Hillary did, I would be demanding to see their transcripts as well. But they didn't (and if they did, I didn't vote for them). Hillary conducted herself in such a manner (as shown above). And trying to excuse, rationalize, or pawn her conduct off on other people isn't going to make her seem any less sketchy-looking. And trying to confuse the issues isn't going to make the demand for her transcripts any less louder. You can try, but the issue is clear: Hillary is in a league of her own on this issue, and no amount of obfuscation will change that.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Hillary Attacks Trump for Not Releasing Tax Returns can be a headline as new news though.
I'm just not sure if they're not reporting on anything she says like they do with trump, or if she's just not saying anything.
Aeriscloud
Banned
Why doesn't Hillary stop coughing??!
EmpressInYellow
Banned
So why is Wall Street the one actual thing that matters? Why is it so uniquely toxic among all possible organizations that THOSE transcripts must be released but other stuff doesn't really register?
And if you're twelve, you can't do either.
I don't understand how transcripts even got brought up. Transcripts are not Tax Returns. There's no correlation there. Tax returns are ALWAYS released. Transcripts haven't been an issue until this election.
If you bring up transcripts in response to a Tax Return question, it just reveals you have no answer.
I'm not sure why you would think there was anything there in the transcripts anyway. There was nothing there in Benghazi, nothing in emails, nothing in the Clinton Foundation. Keep crying wolf.
A claim to "reign in Wall Street" amid swimming in an ocean of their money in the context of her nosediving honest and trustworthy numbers makes her actual words extremely important. She's running on a platform of being tough on banks.....all the while getting rich from them.
I'm not sure what sort of clarity you think you are expressing with "these kinds of speeches," nor why you think your statements inherently imply a mountain of wholly consistent context you don't actually provide, but if you think I misunderstood you, fine.
Despite your fervent insinuation, however, I did not construct your argument out of wholecloth.
You proceeded from this:
To this:
To this:
So we have "these kinds of speeches are unprecedented," and "correct me if I'm wrong."
Paid speaking arrangements are not unprecedented, I point out.
You meant speeches to banks, you say, by clarification.
"Fine, but Romney spoke to banks and securities firms for pay all the time."
"But he's not a DEMOCRAT!"
"Democrats take money from banks, hedge funds, securities firms, you name it, and all the time." I reply.
"But they don't also give paid speeches," is your answer, completing the circle and finally revealing your entire point, that "these kinds of speeches" mean "speeches to banks by current Democrats running for President," which apparently inherently have no meaningful precedent.
I simply don't see how else I was supposed to proceed as you gave me the runaround, but I'm willing to accept that it wasn't your intent to mislead. It was not mine to misunderstand.
In any event, the litany of reasons you've given as to why this situation is unique and any historical antecedent is irrelevant -- that the audiences are big banks, that the other speakers weren't Democrats, that they're not running for president, that Clinton's amassed wealth from these speeches is large, that you would ask the same of anyone else -- are all a combination of self-serving and conclusory. They do not present any compelling reason to think that the release of transcripts of paid speeches should be placed on equal footing with the release of tax returns, one of the most fundamental gestures toward transparency made by Presidential candidates over 4+ decades, much less that they would be in any way revelatory about what Clinton may do vis-a-vis Wall Street reform.
And before you accuse me of building a strawman in stating you equated the two, let me remind you that you entered into this topic, in response to the notion that the release of speech transcripts has no precedent, with this:
But back to the relevant point. In essence, you are proceeding from the assumption that Clinton's issue in this area is unique and then grasping for justifications for that belief. And if your posting history provides context for anything, it's that your stance on Clinton is an assumption of guilt in search of corroboration.
However, just so this entire conversation isn't 100% mutual snark, I actually would tend to agree with your underlying point: Clinton should be more transparent in this area, if only to assuage legitimate concerns over her connections to the finance industry. I simply do not find your protestations credible, if for no other reason than the fact that your default response to an issue with Trump, Sanders, or whoever is "but what about Clinton."
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I would guess that it's because this election is, from top to bottom, about whether or not you support white nationalism. One's tax returns just aren't terribly relevant to that debate.
neurosisxeno
Member
People said the same thing about Tom Wheeler, last I checked it ended up being a non factor.
We get it Mimic, you don't like Hillary.
1. I never claimed that the transcripts were on equal footing of tax returns. However, it remains as a gaping hole of transparency, one in which her honesty and trustworthiness are gushing out. So regardless of whether or not it is on equal footing, she has a monumental transparency issue (aside from tax returns).
2. Claiming to be tough on someone and at the same time getting rich by them isn't a problem? If you don't think that her words to the public about being tough on them need to be compared to what she actually said to them (while getting paid to do it) doesn't need to be revealed then....I just don't know.
Yeah, I did. To act as if there is no context to this transcript story is completely disingenuous. I was playing devil's advocate to make a point: you can always argue that you don't HAVE to do something. The point is whether you SHOULD.
1. It is unique (a Democrat running on a platform of Wall Street reform getting their bank account flooded by Wall Street money)
2. Um, she already has major trust issues so it's not like I'm ever going to just take her word for anything in light of outrageous behavior. It's not just me asking for her transcripts. The news media is demanding them, too (and please don't get into conspiracy theories about them being unfair to her; it's a completely legitimate request). Note that I didn't say that she has been bought by Wall Street. It is, however. incumbent of her to demonstrate that she hasn't been, in light of this incredibly sketchy behavior. And the longer she lets this fester, I don't know what you expect people are supposed to think.
The only time I have ever "defaulted" to "but what about Clinton" was just now in this very thread (when I was playing devil's advocate). I have never defended anyone else by talking about Clinton (or without FIRST having addressed that person's issues). So whatever perceptions you have about my posting history is clearly inaccurate. If I'm wrong, then so be it (and I will acknowledge it) but your accusations are not true.
neurosisxeno
Member
She gave those speeches ~2 years ago, at least a year before she officially started running for President. Since then, her platform has evolved as the voters made it clear what they expected, and one of those points includes Wall Street Reform. It's hardly a centerpiece of her platform, but it is a stance she has taken since the Democrats that chose her as their nominee made it abundantly clear it's an issue they care about.
nice attempt there
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked