2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Release the TRANSCRIPTS and Let Everybody SEE IT" | Bernie Sanders
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Segami
(14,923 posts)to release her transcripts 24/7.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)I don't care if he promised to play nice. It's crunch time and the other side doesn't play so nice.
Release The Bernie!!
Segami
(14,923 posts)that she is worried about releasing.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)He should be pounding home the fact she's tainted by taking the money. The transcripts themselves are irrelevant and focusing on them is setting her up for an out if she can produce a run-of-the-mill transcript. In a way, it would be akin to the Bush/Rather document controversy. Everyone knew the truth but the confusion around the docs gave Bush cover to cry foul.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Hillary is basking in the red zone of 'dishonesty, untrustworthy and liar'. Why would she continue reinforcing this character flaw and invite public scrutiny & speculation that she is hiding something? Why not snuff out this flame by releasing the transcripts?
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)The primary issue is the indisputable FACT that she took an exorbitant amount of money from Wall Street, disguised as "speaking fees." Barring a major smoking gun, what she did or didn't say in those speeches is irrelevant to the FACT she is essentially on the Wall Street payroll. Those FACTS should be hammered home and less focus on the content of speeches. If there's nothing of consequence in those transcripts, it'll be akin to "if the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit." We don't need to fall for a Rovian-like trap.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 29, 2016, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)
your point about Hillary taking "exorbitant amount of money" from Wall Street, "disguised as "speaking fees."
What she said in those speeches is quite relevant, it just might NOT be a Goldman Sachs related issue that many are focusing on.
The time for the Rovian-Like trap has long past away......if Hillary released her transcripts within the next week and there's (in your words) "nothing of consequence in those transcripts", the blame would rest at her feet for NOT producing her transcripts earlier and putting all this speculation to rest.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)The media will pounce to proclaim there's no proof of influence. Whether she stalled or not is irrelevant. We need to stick to the FACTS. If someone can produce a smoking gun transcript thats unimpeachable, I'm all for it, but this has a chance to backfire if played wrong. Just my opinion.
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)the transcripts could be altered to look as if she said tough things to GS?
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Unless whatever is in those transcripts is actually more damaging that whatever people might imagine is in them.
Segami
(14,923 posts)and see what Hillary was saying back then....
Could there be another more damaging reason that could prove detrimental to Hillary's campaign? Was Hillary, (in her speeches) trash-talking president Obama's foreign and economic policies while promoting her own muscular, war hawk vision? Was she serving notice to Wall Street that she is tacking right of Obama?……Hmm,...Is it reasonable to consider these scenarios?
Segami
(14,923 posts)It seems Hillary was NOT bear-hugging Obama like she is doing now. Did Hillary expand on these Obama policy criticisms in her Goldman Sachs speeches? Such criticisms would NOT sit well with Obama supporters, especially the AA community that she so desperately needs to win this primary.
Here are some headers from 2014:......NOT exactly Obama friendly at all.
Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton has not yet said whether she will pursue the presidency. But for a candidate-in-waiting, she is clearly carving out a foreign policy distinct from the man she used to serve. In the spring, President Obama articulated a philosophy for avoiding dangerous entanglements overseas that was modest in its ambitions and focused on avoiding mistakes. Don’t do stupid things, he said. Now Clinton is offering a blunt retort to that approach, telling an interviewer, “Great nations need organizing principles — and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-criticizes-president-obamas-foreign-policy-in-interview-with-the-atlantic/2014/08/11/46d30564-2170-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html
Now, though, Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that she and the president hold different views on how best to project American power: His view is cautious, inward-looking, suffused with a sense of limits, while hers is muscular, optimistic, unabashedly old-fashioned.
“You know, when you’re down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward,” Mrs. Clinton said to Mr. Goldberg. “One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/world/middleeast/attacking-obama-policy-hillary-clinton-exposes-different-worldviews.html
Obama adviser David Axelrod took to Twitter to slam Hillary Clinton after she criticized the president’s foreign policy. Former Sec. of State Clinton was trying to define her own candidacy when recently criticized the president’s foreign policy by saying, “Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle. It may be a necessary brake on the actions you might take in order to promote a vision.”
Obama adviser David Axelrod fired back at Clinton on Twitter:
“..Just to clarify: "Don't do stupid stuff" means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision…”
The perception of a difference of opinion between Clinton and the Obama administration is a good thing for her 2016 candidacy. The two biggest criticisms that Hillary Clinton is going to face as a candidate are that she is a return to the past and that her victory would represent a third Obama term.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/12/obama-adviser-slams-hillary-clinton-criticizing-presidents-foreign-policy.html
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an expected contender in the 2016 presidential election, has positioned herself to appeal to more moderate or even neoconservative audiences in recent days. Speaking to CNN on Sunday, she praised President George W. Bush's AIDS relief programs in Sub-Saharan Africa, saying his initiatives there make her "proud to be an American."
In the same interview, Clinton distanced herself from President Obama's foreign policy, suggesting that he has not made it clear how D.C. "intend[s] to lead and manage" international affairs. Clinton advocated a more interventionist approach, arguing that, "We have to go back out and sell ourselves" as guarantors of worldwide stability. Currently, the U.S. military has as many as 900 bases worldwide, and has ground troops or drones active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen.
Meanwhile, despite objections from supporters within her own party, Clinton has repeatedly spoken to audiences at large Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Ameriprise Financial. "The problem is these speeches give the impression that she's still in the Wall Street wing of the party," said Charles Chamberlain of the left-wing Democracy For America PAC.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/449196/hillary-clinton-tacks-right-praises-bush-criticizes-obama-cozies-wall-street
Foreign policy decisions under President Obama have allowed Islamic terrorists to gain a better footing in the Middle East, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/214796-clinton-criticizes-obama-foreign-policy
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)They don't call it an Oct surprise for nothing.
Segami
(14,923 posts)that republicans will be keeping their oppo powder dry until timing favors their position.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)when they could use her Wall-Street transcripts to benefit themselves?
All of this bull roar about Republicans buying anti-Clinton ads to help Bernie. What an outrageous joke.
Supposedly, this was happening in Iowa and Rover was supposedly blaring anti-Clinton ads. I live in the largest media market in Iowa, and we've got two televisions on 24/7--because we both work at home. Never saw one anti-Clinton ad. Neither did anyone else in Iowa.
It was either lies or greatly exaggerated.
And if they did run these ads, they were doing it to gin up their base and get them motivated to participate in their own primaries.
.
Segami
(14,923 posts)like she's been doing these past few months......quite frankly, if anything, she was pretty critical of Obama.
PWPippin
(213 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Why anyone other that Hillary hasn't released anything. To see what Hillary gives up and to see if it's been changed at all.
I also think that's why the FBI is waiting for all of the emails to be released from the St Dept. To compare their records against theirs. We have to remember that there is zero cooperation between the FBI and the state department on Hillary's emails.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts) 
Svafa
(594 posts)
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,605 posts)
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts) 
SamKnause
(14,896 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts) stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Um. Ok.
Cray cray.
Segami
(14,923 posts)from Bernie to Hillary.........
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Last week, I was aghast when Robert Kagan, the founder of the neocon movement, endorsed Hillary. It seemed horrifying that the man who engineered the Middle East war strategy (brought to life by Cheney and Bush) was now shilling for Hillary.
But suddenly...I'm no longer mortified that warmonger-king Kagan endorsed Hillary over ANY OTHER Republican!
It's gotta be this handsome ad! SOOOOO well produced.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Otherwise I don't believe it represents Clinton's foreign policy.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts) MisterFred
(525 posts)However, you may be interested to learn that there are positions other than War Criminal and Pacifist when it comes to foreign policy.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)To the use of soft and militaty power substantially differ? She talked/pressured Obama into Libya and Syria and we've seen how well that worked out. And now that she's hugging the President's legacy and slamming Sanders for daring to criticize him, everyone forgot about her book and early campaign spiel that she would take a tougher approach.
So I ask yet another Clinton supporter to explain it to me. How is her approach to power substantially different from Cheney's? Both refer to Dr. Kissinger ....
Trav
madokie
(51,076 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)She would rather drag us down with her. It's her turn, transcripts be damned. Trump won't be so nice.
ALBliberal
(3,347 posts)He won't be saying look at her she's corrupt I'm not. It will be look at her she's like me. Then he will proceed to run to her left on the Iraq war she will have no rejoinder.our only hope will be people thinking he's crazy and he is. However with his populist message he will be attracting independents and new voters. This script is written for Trump.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You know. The confirmed thief that use to work for his campaign.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I know what you mean. Seems people just don't care about outright campaign fraud. Except baseless accusations of course. Nothing baseless about my concern. It's real.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)By posting more irrelevant, untrue, hateful garbage? Good luck with that tactic.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)spinning wheel!!!! Pretty, pretty, pretty good!!!! 
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)on their side so the think tank is pretty deep......
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)my bad that name fits their purpose much better
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Josh Uretsky, the data director fired by the campaign, was recommended to the Sanders campaign by DNC officials and a staffer at NGP VAN..........
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Is she ashamed of her performance?
Segami
(14,923 posts)(other than Goldman Sachs praise) as to why she is willing to absorb character criticisms for refusing to release her transcripts.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)The focus should not be on the transcripts, it should be on the fact she took the money and is in effect on the Goldman Sachs payroll. The speech is merely a conduit to buy influence, it doesnt matter what she did or didnt say. By focusing on the transcripts, and what she said in the speeches, what happens if she releases an innocuous transcript? It'll give her cover to say she wasn't influenced. But we all know she was, simply by taking the money. That's what the focus should be on.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)She's a purchased politician.
She and her husband earned several million from those Wall Street speeches.
That's a full-time job with an incredible salary over multiple years.
Is that not mind blowing?
"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)No link...thus the quotes.
Unless we think there really is something other than the above, other than political harrassment, which in this case is truly appropriate, what else is to be gained. I mean she clearly wasn't there to promote trading options or membership in her Foundation.
People are not stupid. 6 figure speeches for a candidate for a wannabe POTUS who was planning her coronation at the time...to me, that's the issue and it covers others, as well.
Segami
(14,923 posts)a "Goldman Sachs Director".......she could have been laying the criticism lumber on Obama's economic & foreign policies as well as openly trashing Elizabeth Warren's positions...............for $300K, that's just the red meat tartar a Goldman Sachs crowd would want to hear...
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
riversedge
(80,814 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)
revbones
(3,660 posts)boomer55
(592 posts)
appalachiablue
(44,024 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts) 
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) 
livetohike
(24,283 posts)supporters what they should be concerned about. Wall Street! Establishment! Corporations! Don't trust anyone over 30!
Not working out so well is it?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)seaotter
(576 posts)
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)COMPLEMENTARY & ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE CONFERENCE
Hosted by Sen. Bernie Sanders
Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
October 16, 2010
Vermont Technical College, Randolph, VT
It is my pleasure to welcome all of you here today. It was just about 15 years ago that I convened my first conference on complementary and alternative health care – right here at Vermont Tech. A lot has happened since then in health care, and particularly in the area of integrative health care where there has been a growing understanding, acceptance, and use of complementary and alternative approaches by the public and professionals. Yet, as we will hear and discuss at this conference, significant opportunities and challenges remain before us, especially in light of the recently passed health reform law.
Helping us sort through all of this today is a distinguished guest. You will hear from her later, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Josephine Briggs, for joining us. She is the Director of the National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) at the NIH. Thank you, Dr. Briggs.
As you may know, an NIH survey has found that well over one-third of all adults use complementary and alternative health care products, professionals, and treatments. A majority do so in conjunction with conventional medicine. One example demonstrating the growth in complementary medicine use and acceptance -- over one-third of hospitals nationwide now offer one or more CAM services. In just a recent three year period, this increased from about 26% of all hospitals to 37%.
To me, the increasing integration of CAM and conventional care just makes sense. Research shows that more people are demanding and turning to integrative care because it parallels their personal values and desire to be treated as a whole person. For a wide variety of reasons, more and more people are not simply content to go to a doctor’s office, get a diagnosis and take a pill. They want to know what the cause of their medical problem is and how, when possible, it can be best alleviated through natural, non-invasive or non-pharmaceutical means.
People are asking questions, and they want answers. What role does stress play in our lives, how does it contribute to illness and how can it be alleviated? What about diet? Clearly, there is a revolution taking place in this country as people are more and more concerned about the quality of food that they and their kids are eating – and how that relates to our health? Every corporation in the world is now selling us “organic” food. Do we know enough about what constitutes a healthy diet? Is the federal government capable of standing up to powerful special interests as they research and advise the American people on diet?
People are also increasingly interested in knowing if there is an environmental causation of health problems and how those issues can be addressed on a societal or governmental level. Do particulates in the air we breathe from coal burning plants contribute to asthma? Is the water we drink clean? What does it mean that pregnant women must now limit their fish consumption because of the heavy metal pollution which exists in lakes and rivers all across the country?
Are our kids becoming overweight and prone to diabetes because food manufacturers are selling them products with enormous amounts of sugar? What impact does watching TV 40 hours a week have on health? What role do chemicals play in cancer causation? Are the tobacco companies still figuring out ways to hook young people into smoking – with the myriad of diseases that cigarettes cause? And on and on it goes.
I believe integrative health care offers an excellent opportunity to address these and many other issues and improve our too-expensive and not always-effective “sick-care” system. Clearly, we need to put much more emphasis on disease prevention and wellness, and on care that links physical and mental well-being.
We need to make sure that there is sufficient primary care so that every person in this country is able to get medical help when they need it – not when it is too late. It is appalling that according to a study at Harvard some 45,000 Americans die each year because they don’t get to a doctor when they should and millions of others become much sicker than they should.
As a member of the Health, Education Committee I worked hard with Senator Tom Harkin, the Chairman of that committee, to make sure that in the Health Care Reform legislation disease prevention in this country finally receives the attention and funding that it deserves. And we had some significant success. In the next 5 years, $7 billion dollars will be awarded to states and community organizations for health promotion and disease prevention programs. That is a huge step forward.
One of the best examples of integrating health services has been the federally-qualified community health center program. In one setting, FQHCs combine primary care services that include medical, dental, and behavioral health care, as well as low cost prescription drugs. And their services are available to all regardless of ability to pay.
Over the next 5 years, $11 billion will be added to the funding health centers now receive to double the number of FQHCs from 7,500 to 15,000 sites nationwide. This will also double the number of Americans with access to community health centers from 20 million to 40 million.
Vermont is now leading the country in terms of community health center utilization and, and within a few years, every region in Vermont will have an FQHC and over 25% of Vermonters will get their care at 50 or 60 convenient locations. Already, Vermont leads the nation with the highest percentage of people using heath centers for their care. Over 108,000 patients are seen at one of the 41 sites run by the state’s 8 FQHCs.
Just last week, 3 of Vermont’s FQHCs received $4.3 million in health reform funding to build new facilities to expand their services and increase the number of patients they see. And a new health center is being built in Burlington thanks to stimulus funding of almost $11 million dollars.
Throughout the day today, you will have the opportunity to learn a lot more about CAM, not just how it will fit in with broader health and insurance reforms, but also at a more personal level. We have workshops planned that include experts to talk with you about improving your own health. So let’s begin. Again, thank you all for coming.
How nice. He endorses homeopathy by sponsoring a conference of homeopaths.
senz
(11,945 posts)so that he would do their bidding.
c-ville rook
(45 posts)That is your best shot? The great societal scourge that is homeopathy?
When compare to Hillary's record? I am just talking the stuff we know about.
Wow weak.
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)Sanders praises Fidel Castro:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3281335/Bernie-Sanders-praised-Fidel-Castro-1985-interview-educated-kids-gave-kids-health-care-totally-transformed-society.html
Sanders illegally went to Cuba - TWICE!:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article62748002.html
The cost of Sanders' healthcare plan will be between 40 and 49 percent higher than Sanders claims it will be:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/01/20/why-bernie-sanders-health-plan-will-cost-at-least-40-more-than-advertised/#10d014aa252a
Bernie Sanders' capital gains tax rate: 65 percent
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/01/19/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-would-raise-the-dividend-tax-rate-to-a-near-insane-65/#1232e7f36b20
Kenneth Thorpe: "The Bernie Sanders health plan is too good to be true"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-health-plan-cost_us_56a8ff99e4b0f6b7d5447ee8
I can't find the link, but at one time Bernie proposed to squeeze $327 billion in savings per year out of the pharmaceutical industry...a neat trick considering TOTAL ANNUAL SPENDING IN THE US ON PHARM IS ONLY $305 BILLION! When someone called him on it, he reduced the savings to a figure that still requires the pharm industry to operate at a loss, then pulled extra savings out of other line items in the health care budget to compensate for the loss. IOW this isn't a well-thought-out plan.
I ALSO don't think anyone's numbers are even close to being accurate, especially on health care. This is why: You have, roughly, four groups of people in this country. The first are people who have health insurance and income sufficient to pay the user fees like deductibles and copays. The second are people who are so rich they can afford to pay all their doctor bills out of pocket...most of these guys buy health insurance anyway, but that's another issue. Group 3 is all the people who have insurance but who can't afford the user fees, and the last group can't afford insurance. We can assume the people in Groups 3 and 4 only go to the doctor when they can't stand the pain anymore because they can't afford any other way. They will all go to the doctor if it's free. My feeling on this, which could probably be backed up pretty easily by medical people, is if you just fling open the doors to the clinics and the hospitals and yell out, "come one! come all! Get fixed up and never pay a cent!" then utilization of the health system will AT LEAST double over the current rate. Therefore, take the $3.5 to $4 trillion Americans spend on doctor bills a year, multiply by two to 2.5, and you'll be in the real ballpark. Where is he planning to come up with THAT much money? And the answer is simple: he's not. There's no way in hell you could fund Bernie Sanders' healthcare program. And if he scales it back to something reasonable - say, the Canadian system that requires you pay for your own meds - all his followers will walk on him. "But Bernie! You said I could get my $95,000 Hep C regimen for free! GFY, I can't believe you lied to me!"
At this time it doesn't matter what your opinion of Hillary is. Like her, hate her, it's all up to you. But we cannot, under any conceivable circumstance, run Bernie Sanders for president in November and expect to win more than one state.
senz
(11,945 posts)We're to know exactly as much about her as she wants us to know and the rest is none of our business.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)hounding her to release the transcript if there is really nothing to hide. What kind of person believes that?
When Hillary said others should release theirs, Bernie released his speech the next day. No big fanfare, no big deal, no whining about a "different standard". He just released the thing.
Everyone knows that if there is nothing to hide there should be no problem with releasing it. Why not? What is her problem? It's not a "different standard", she said Bernie should and he did. Nothing to it. What's her problem?
Segami
(14,923 posts)What was Hillary's mindset back in 2014? It surely wasn't the 'bear-hugging, love-fest' we see her displaying towards Obama today.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)than her being honest for once, eh?
Gary 50
(490 posts)Actually that is exactly her position but she is smart enough not to say it. If any Hillary supporter can give any reasonable answer to why she wont release the transcripts I would love to hear it. Please don't bother with she's looking into it or she will release hers when EVERYBODY else does.
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)Thanks for the thread, Segami.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)He echoes The New York Times editorial board as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html
Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts
“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.
A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”
In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.”
Their conclusion:
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)