Thu May 5, 2016, 10:05 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
No more distractions: HILLARY - WHERE ARE THE WALL STREET TRANSCRIPTS!
It's to a point, even if you do release them now, I won't believe it's the real transcripts. The fact that you have refused to do this for so long now, is absolutely telling. You have been asked and you just dismiss us voters who want to know, and act like you just don't give a shit.
No transcripts? No integrity. Hardly presidential material.
|
121 replies, 5777 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | OP |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #1 | |
bobbobbins01 | May 2016 | #5 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #6 | |
bobbobbins01 | May 2016 | #9 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #12 | |
bobbobbins01 | May 2016 | #13 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #16 | |
bobbobbins01 | May 2016 | #19 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #20 | |
bobbobbins01 | May 2016 | #24 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #27 | |
panader0 | May 2016 | #48 | |
truedelphi | May 2016 | #37 | |
CorporatistNation | May 2016 | #121 | |
TM99 | May 2016 | #51 | |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #53 | |
bobbobbins01 | May 2016 | #54 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #29 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #31 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #32 | |
Renew Deal | May 2016 | #33 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #40 | |
redstateblues | May 2016 | #56 | |
peace13 | May 2016 | #80 | |
scscholar | May 2016 | #83 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | May 2016 | #105 | |
Ferd Berfel | May 2016 | #116 | |
farleftlib | May 2016 | #2 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #3 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #4 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #7 | |
SFnomad | May 2016 | #15 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #22 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #35 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #43 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #44 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #47 | |
Ohioblue22 | May 2016 | #102 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #106 | |
Ohioblue22 | May 2016 | #107 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #110 | |
Ohioblue22 | May 2016 | #113 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #114 | |
reformist2 | May 2016 | #8 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #10 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #39 | |
COLGATE4 | May 2016 | #46 | |
AgadorSparticus | May 2016 | #118 | |
basselope | May 2016 | #11 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #14 | |
basselope | May 2016 | #18 | |
JudyM | May 2016 | #73 | |
AzDar | May 2016 | #17 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #21 | |
Melissa G | May 2016 | #75 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #23 | |
reformist2 | May 2016 | #25 | |
pkdu | May 2016 | #26 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #28 | |
Ned_Devine | May 2016 | #52 | |
CorporatistNation | May 2016 | #61 | |
Corporate666 | May 2016 | #30 | |
uponit7771 | May 2016 | #38 | |
truedelphi | May 2016 | #41 | |
Corporate666 | May 2016 | #69 | |
truedelphi | May 2016 | #77 | |
dana_b | May 2016 | #55 | |
Corporate666 | May 2016 | #71 | |
dana_b | May 2016 | #91 | |
timmymoff | May 2016 | #96 | |
NorthCarolina | May 2016 | #108 | |
Sparkly | May 2016 | #112 | |
Duckhunter935 | May 2016 | #115 | |
Sparkly | May 2016 | #120 | |
Sparkly | May 2016 | #111 | |
truedelphi | May 2016 | #34 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #63 | |
kgnu_fan | May 2016 | #36 | |
JohnnyRingo | May 2016 | #42 | |
Tarc | May 2016 | #45 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #49 | |
Tarc | May 2016 | #50 | |
B Calm | May 2016 | #86 | |
Tarc | May 2016 | #90 | |
B Calm | May 2016 | #92 | |
StayFrosty | May 2016 | #57 | |
merrily | May 2016 | #58 | |
NanceGreggs | May 2016 | #59 | |
KittyWampus | May 2016 | #60 | |
B Calm | May 2016 | #62 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #65 | |
Vinca | May 2016 | #64 | |
ViseGrip | May 2016 | #66 | |
2cannan | May 2016 | #67 | |
raouldukelives | May 2016 | #68 | |
seabeyond | May 2016 | #70 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | May 2016 | #72 | |
George II | May 2016 | #74 | |
Tarc | May 2016 | #76 | |
coffeeAM | May 2016 | #78 | |
underthematrix | May 2016 | #79 | |
Buzz cook | May 2016 | #81 | |
timmymoff | May 2016 | #97 | |
Buzz cook | May 2016 | #98 | |
Darb | May 2016 | #82 | |
Art_from_Ark | May 2016 | #84 | |
Darb | May 2016 | #95 | |
Bern2WinUSA | May 2016 | #85 | |
DrDan | May 2016 | #87 | |
betsuni | May 2016 | #88 | |
kgnu_fan | May 2016 | #89 | |
kgnu_fan | May 2016 | #93 | |
Joob | May 2016 | #94 | |
B Calm | May 2016 | #99 | |
Vote2016 | May 2016 | #100 | |
Ohioblue22 | May 2016 | #101 | |
Logical | May 2016 | #104 | |
Logical | May 2016 | #103 | |
Orsino | May 2016 | #109 | |
AzDar | May 2016 | #117 | |
EndElectoral | May 2016 | #119 |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:06 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
1. YOU WILL NEVER SEE THEM
![]() |
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #1)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:17 PM
bobbobbins01 (1,681 posts)
5. Hurray for Transparency!
Static noise machines and secret email servers for everyone!
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #5)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:18 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
6. It's all noise
It's a right wing witch hunt as usual
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #6)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:23 PM
bobbobbins01 (1,681 posts)
9. The right wing made her get a secret server?
And use a noise machine?
And keep her transcripts hidden? How are they doing this???? |
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #9)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:24 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
12. No. They made something out of nothing
Which is what they do.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #12)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:25 PM
bobbobbins01 (1,681 posts)
13. So those are non-issues?
You're cool with all that?
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #13)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:27 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
16. All noise
The server was unethical, but not illegal.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #16)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:29 PM
bobbobbins01 (1,681 posts)
19. So unethical behaviour is acceptable?
We just draw the line at what is illegal?
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #19)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:30 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
20. Technically it was acceptable.
Though I wouldn't have done the same thing. But no one is perfect including Bernie.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #20)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:33 PM
bobbobbins01 (1,681 posts)
24. No one is asking for perfection.
But ethical behavior isn't that high of a bar.
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #24)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:34 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
27. I agree
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #27)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:59 PM
panader0 (25,816 posts)
48. Not ethical is one thing
But the issue is whether it was legal.
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #24)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:51 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
37. You'd think it would not be an impossible bar to attain, but
then we are talking about a Clinton.
|
Response to truedelphi (Reply #37)
Mon May 9, 2016, 09:42 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
121. Clinton's Personal "Character" Is Certainly Is Not What Most People Would Consider Acceptable
in a Presidential Candidate Much less a President... It's The TRUST Issue People!
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #19)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:14 AM
TM99 (8,352 posts)
51. If it was good for Bush,
it is good for Clinton.
I can't count the number of seemingly rational and intelligent Republicans I knew who said that if it was legal was Bush Co. was doing then it really didn't matter that it was unethical, inappropriate, or wholly unprofessional. |
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #19)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:15 AM
redstateblues (10,564 posts)
53. I'm still waiting for proof of quid pro quo. Bernie could not even come up
with one shred of proof of corruption after railing about it for a year. So she made a lot of money- I know that BSS consider making money evil-but there is no there there.
|
Response to redstateblues (Reply #53)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:17 AM
bobbobbins01 (1,681 posts)
54. Elizabeth Warren has you covered.
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #16)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:43 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
29. I tend to vote for ethical people
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #29)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:44 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
31. Me too
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #31)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:45 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
32. Glad to hear you are not voting for Hillary
![]() |
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #32)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:46 PM
Renew Deal (81,388 posts)
33. I will be voting for the Democratic Nominee
And that person is Hillary Clinton
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #33)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:53 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
40. I guess you are not telling the truth sorry to say
You state she was not ethical and you vote for ethical people. At least I am good to my word on that. I will not vote for her as she is unethical.
|
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #29)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:19 AM
redstateblues (10,564 posts)
56. what is unethical about making money when you have the chance?
There is no proof of quid pro quo-Bernie, when pressed, could not name one instance of corruption in the debate after railing about it for a year
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #16)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:53 PM
peace13 (11,076 posts)
80. Maybe...but the transactions ....not so much.
But, certain people will overlook this. I will never know why. People with little or nothing and everything to lose if she gets in. Sad broke people holding tiny pieces of paper thar read....thanks Bernie.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #16)
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:12 PM
scscholar (2,902 posts)
83. Considering the state of government IT,...
it was probably a good thing. Well, that is assuming she really did that which I haven't seen any proof of yet.
|
Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #9)
Sun May 8, 2016, 10:05 PM
InAbLuEsTaTe (24,001 posts)
105. It's right-wing mind control!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
![]() |
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #1)
Mon May 9, 2016, 05:55 PM
Ferd Berfel (3,687 posts)
116. Unless leaked - they will never surface because they would cause a "Romney" problem for her
If there was noting to them they would have been released by now.
It's a safe bet that they would prove that she has been lying to the rest of us. ![]() |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:08 PM
farleftlib (2,125 posts)
2. Except that's not an act
She really doesn't give a shit.
At this point keeping them under wraps just proves she's a paid shill and nobody in their right mind could condone her unethical behavior. Worst. Candidate. Ever. |
Response to farleftlib (Reply #2)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:11 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
3. For sure.....worst ever!
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:14 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
4. Kick for focus....
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:19 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
7. One of the reasons she will not get my vote or support
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #7)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:27 PM
SFnomad (3,473 posts)
15. tRump thanks you for your support ... n/t
Response to SFnomad (Reply #15)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:32 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
22. My state is so fucking red my vote
Is worthless for the top of the ticket. I am not helping him at all and your and the Hillary supporters childish threats are part of the reason I will not support her. I will vote down ticket. I bet you also think she will get stuff done, right? HOW?
|
Response to SFnomad (Reply #15)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:49 PM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
35. What if I would be out-voted 3-1 in the state in which I live, a state that WILL vote tRump?
Am I supporting tRump by not voting?
|
Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #35)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:52 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
43. I guess they ran away
All they have is threats, way to win people over, lol
|
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #43)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:54 PM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
44. I guess so...
![]() |
Response to SFnomad (Reply #15)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:59 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
47. I hope congress thanks him too, cuz they'll really be miserable with Trump!
hmmmmm
|
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #7)
Sun May 8, 2016, 09:42 PM
Ohioblue22 (1,430 posts)
102. That will make you part of the 9-11% of party members that vote cross-party every election
Response to Ohioblue22 (Reply #102)
Sun May 8, 2016, 10:46 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
106. cross party?
how is a non vote and voting all dem down ticket cross party? Do tell young one
Member since: Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:08 PM
Number of posts: 45 Interesting a lot of people joined just a Brock started his giveaway. |
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #106)
Mon May 9, 2016, 09:57 AM
Ohioblue22 (1,430 posts)
107. Oh goody post-count snobbery
Response to Ohioblue22 (Reply #107)
Mon May 9, 2016, 01:08 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
110. Just answering
Your snobbery
|
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #110)
Mon May 9, 2016, 03:19 PM
Ohioblue22 (1,430 posts)
113. I just donated to hillary's campaign are gonna run off and do that too?
statistical facts aren't snobbery
|
Response to Ohioblue22 (Reply #113)
Mon May 9, 2016, 04:59 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
114. Nope , I will donate to Bernie
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:20 PM
reformist2 (9,841 posts)
8. Trump is going to make so much hay over this, if Hillary is the nominee.
Response to reformist2 (Reply #8)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:23 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
10. So did Bernie, and I hope Trump gets going...she deserves it.
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #10)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:52 PM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
39. Ok, I like you and we've been cool, but please don't go to such lengths...
...opposing Hillary that would have you cheering on tRump.
Whatever else is fucked up on our side, that's just not cool. |
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #10)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:58 PM
COLGATE4 (14,732 posts)
46. You know, it's generally not considered a good idea
to post your wishes that the Rethug candidate beats up on the Democrat. This is Democratic Underground.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #10)
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:22 PM
AgadorSparticus (7,963 posts)
118. I'm sorry, but...you need a reality check. Maybe DU is not for you... 😨
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:24 PM
basselope (2,565 posts)
11. They will be released when best for the GOP.. don't worry.
Response to basselope (Reply #11)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:26 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
14. Right, didn't Cruz or Trump have a copy from Cruz's wife?
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #14)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:27 PM
basselope (2,565 posts)
18. Probably.. or any of the people who attended and recorded them.
Like Romney's 47% comment, you are looking at your October surprise. They didn't want it coming out during the primary b/c it would give Sanders the nod, which they don't want.. but a choice between Trump and Clinton.. they will go with Trump and those speeches will find their way to YouTube.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #14)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:14 PM
JudyM (27,873 posts)
73. We should group-fund a reward for anyone who produces a proven copy or recording... betting it would
get to be up in the $thousands...
take out a big ad in the wall st journal and NYT... which we ought to do anyway to take off the gloves and put it all out there... i'm getting more and more pissed... |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:27 PM
AzDar (14,023 posts)
17. Yep... that's REAL leadership: "Only If Republicans Do It First!"
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to AzDar (Reply #17)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:31 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
21. She's their gal! Her campaign is fundraising to Bush donors right now!
Gads!
![]() |
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #21)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:07 PM
Melissa G (10,170 posts)
75. +250,000!
Totally cool with Hillary supporters that she is pitching Republicans for cash!
Her small donors do not support her like we do Bernie. She needs Big Republican Bush Donors to stay competitive. What do her supporters say about this? Crickets... |
Response to AzDar (Reply #17)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:33 PM
reformist2 (9,841 posts)
25. You might even say, when it comes to Wall Street, Hillary does whatever the Republicans do... ;)
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:33 PM
pkdu (3,977 posts)
26. You have a vise grip on something alright....just not the facts.
Let's start with the usual Tax Returns.....then we can continue
|
Response to pkdu (Reply #26)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:35 PM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
28. Knowing that the Senate must have every year for him, at least I know there is no
pay to play going on there. Are you kidding me?
|
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #28)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:15 AM
Ned_Devine (3,146 posts)
52. The millionaire asks the guy who shops at Men's Wearhouse for his tax returns
I stole that from Michael Moore, but it's the first thing I think when I see this tax return nonsense.
|
Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #52)
Fri May 6, 2016, 07:10 AM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
61. LAUGHABLE... SHOW US THE EFING TRANSCRIPTS!
![]() |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:43 PM
Corporate666 (587 posts)
30. You have no right and no reason to see them
It's a total manufactured issue.
It's amazing that so many people can be so clueless as to how the world works. Companies pay people to give speeches. The benefits to the company are that it looks good having top-shelf people come in to talk to their staff, it cozies them up with powerful people, it's a way for the executives to rub elbows with influential people and it helps with employee morale and retention. There is almost certainly nothing controversial in the speeches. Hillary isn't an idiot - of course she kept her speeches clean. The only idiots are the people who believe there would be something damning in the speeches. You think this woman is going to say something damning in front of a room full of people - some of whom almost certainly dislike her? She's not that dumb. Only the people bleating about her speeches are that dumb. On the other hand, she has nothing to gain by releasing them. Of course she will be complimentary to the company and employees - and there are probably plenty of sentences that would be edited to paint her in the worst possible light. But most of all, she doesn't owe you or anyone else a damn thing. I mean... should we be entitled to Bernie's bank statements? He isn't even releasing his tax returns, despite promising to do so. Tax returns are standard practice. But if we're going beyond tax returns, then what else should we be allowed to see? Bank statements? Credit card statements? Phone records? Copies of business financials? Please folks, stop with the idiocy. |
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #30)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:51 PM
uponit7771 (89,624 posts)
38. +1, They seem more entitled now what when Sanders started
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #30)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:54 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
41. Hmm, but the FBI doesn't share your opinion.
I guess they have a lot of time on their hands lately.
And they are not only doing an investigation into the email server issues, but also the Clinton Foundation. One Candidate; two FBI investigations. Let's hope the shell game that was played out with State Department monies that offered up money to an "educational foundation" and then Bill Clinton receives some three million a year from the same "educational" entity, gosh oh gee, how will the Clintons wiggle out of that one? |
Response to truedelphi (Reply #41)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:00 PM
Corporate666 (587 posts)
69. Incorrect
The FBI isn't investigating her speeches. They are investigating the "intersection of the Clinton Foundation and her work at State". In other words, checking if she gave preferential treatment in her position as SoS.
That is a different issue than the speeches. People just want to see her speeches because they are sure that Wall St. is the devil incarnate (because Bernie said so), and they want to see every word she said. There's nothing incriminating in the speeches. She knows some of the people in the room hate her when she's giving such speeches. She wasn't born yesterday - she has been around the block many times. She said some complimentary things to the company and staff, things that people would take out of context and turn into sound bytes. She has nothing to gain from releasing them, and she won't. Nor should she. No more than Bernie should release his phone records or his bank statements under the challenge of "if you've got nothing to hide, why do you care if we see it?". |
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #69)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:33 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
77. I did not say they were investigating her speeches.
You write:
They are investigating the "intersection of the Clinton Foundation and her work at State". In other words, checking if she gave preferential treatment in her position as SoS. I wrote that it is something to be investigated, that Bill Clinton got three million from the Laureate Educational Institute which apparently got monies from State Department, and all that seems pretty much which seems pretty much like nepotism, if not downright illegal.. Why do the Clintons even get to call it a Foundation? It is more like a money laundering outfit! |
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #30)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:17 AM
dana_b (11,546 posts)
55. you're kidding, right? She's running
for the President of the U.S. We have every reason to want to see those speeches and right? Well, maybe not a right but then she has NO right to ask for our vote(s).
She doesn't owe us a thing? That goes double for us. Idiocy - look in the mirror. |
Response to dana_b (Reply #55)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:05 PM
Corporate666 (587 posts)
71. Calm yourself and re-read my post...
she doesn't OWE you those speeches whatsoever.
You have no reasonable claim to see them. The only reason you want to see them is because you want her to hand you something that you can use to hate her with. If you think politicians giving speeches stand up and say incriminating things, then you really are an idiot in the truest sense of the word. If you think she didn't say incriminating things, then the ONLY reason you want the speeches is so you can search for one-liners that can be used against her. And to get mad at someone for not providing the ammo to shoot them with is idiotic. Sorry if that ruffles your feather, it just is. It has never been standard practice for politicians to give speech transcripts. It only started with HRC because people are looking for a reason to hate her. How many times has it been posted here that she's a "corporatist" and only cares about wall st and bankers and other stuff - stuff which none of you have ANY support for whatsoever. If you're smart enough to know that there's nothing incriminating in the speeches, then you should be also smart enough to understand why someone isn't going to provide you with the means to paint them in a bad light. If you don't realize the plain truth of the above, then stare into the mirror yourself until you figure out who the idiot is. |
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #71)
Sat May 7, 2016, 02:55 PM
dana_b (11,546 posts)
91. oh - you are not worth ANYONE'S time here
calm myself.... I would tell you what to go to yourself but I'd be hidden.
ignore! |
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #71)
Sat May 7, 2016, 10:42 PM
timmymoff (1,947 posts)
96. She wants our votes, she releases the transcripts,
pretty simple. If not, good luck.
|
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #30)
Mon May 9, 2016, 10:04 AM
NorthCarolina (11,197 posts)
108. "she doesn't owe you or anyone else a damn thing"
Really? She is running for President of the United States, asking for our votes, and you come here and post that she doesn't owe voters a damn thing? Really? That's your take on it?
I am SO FUCKING GLAD I do not think like a Hillary supporter. |
Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #108)
Mon May 9, 2016, 01:19 PM
Sparkly (24,108 posts)
112. She doesn't. She's released more information than ANYONE
and yet one candidate hasn't even released his tax returns.
|
Response to Sparkly (Reply #112)
Mon May 9, 2016, 05:02 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
115. One does not have a foundation as a slush fund
And one does not do quarter of a million dollar speeches
|
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #115)
Mon May 9, 2016, 09:05 PM
Sparkly (24,108 posts)
120. One does not accuse one of having a slush fund
based on phony numbers cherrypicked to include and exclude categories in an attempt to make it appear a foundation is a slush fund.
Also, yes many ones DO make quarter of a million dollar speeches, while other ones make movies, play sports games, and appear in ads for that much and more. I hope one might consider whether one is considering one's facts or one's feelings. |
Response to Corporate666 (Reply #30)
Mon May 9, 2016, 01:18 PM
Sparkly (24,108 posts)
111. Agree - it's all about more fodder for their attacks
Taking quotes out of context, twisting meanings, making accusations based on nothing.
I can just imagine it: HRC: "Thank you for that introduction. I'm happy to be here." 1. Why is she thanking Wall Street? What did they give her, other than thousands of dollars of Wall Street money? Nobody with integrity would say "thank you!" 2. Introduction? What introduction? What did they say? Or do they mean that they are introducing her all around their Wall Street corporation to meet other Wall Street people so she can do more work for Wall Street? Nobody with integrity would want an introduction on Wall Street. 3. She's happy to be there? Why is she happy? I guess she loves those Wall Street bankers. Nobody with integrity would say "happy to be here." 4. She said "I'm." Why is it always all about HER? etc. etc. etc. ![]() |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:48 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
34. Hey ViseGrip - if you spare a moment later tonight,
Go to google and then type in the word "crooked."
It might make you smile to see what pops up! |
Response to truedelphi (Reply #34)
Fri May 6, 2016, 08:17 AM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
63. I did that! HILLARIOUS!
And so true!
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:50 PM
kgnu_fan (3,021 posts)
36. So tightly guarded. She must have said something really bad.
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 10:57 PM
JohnnyRingo (18,094 posts)
42. Is that you Reince?
Just a guess.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:55 PM
Tarc (10,441 posts)
45. Do you just reach into a hat and find an attack-meme-of-the-day?
Emailgate just took a hit today with the comments about no evidence of intentional wrongdoing,
Guccifer is the next Curveball. The math is getting worse for Bernie. So now you recycle "OMG TE TRANSCRIPTS!" ? ![]() |
Response to Tarc (Reply #45)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:04 AM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
49. You know many are angry that Hillary made these speeches when she KNEW she was running for prez
and continue to ask why the fuck did she do that?
Maybe you don't care, but understand many people do care. |
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #49)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:05 AM
Tarc (10,441 posts)
50. I understand that a "few" people care; not "many"
Sanders did just lose a primary, afterall. One loses elections by having less votes than the other guy/girl.
|
Response to Tarc (Reply #50)
Sat May 7, 2016, 06:58 AM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
86. You do know these Wall Street Banksters stoled a lot of our money and brought the world
economy to it's knees? You are not the least bit interested in what she said after we were forced to bail these crooks out?
|
Response to B Calm (Reply #86)
Sat May 7, 2016, 08:20 AM
Tarc (10,441 posts)
90. Not interested in the slightest
The "BIG BANKS ARE YUUUGE" lines were red meat with little substance on how to actually tackle the perceived problem.
|
Response to Tarc (Reply #90)
Sat May 7, 2016, 07:39 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
92. I guess that's one of the requirements in supporting Hillary.
Amazing. . .
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:21 AM
StayFrosty (237 posts)
57. Find me
Find me a piece of legislation or just proof of something that shows that the money she received for the speeches influenced her votes while she was a senator.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:25 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
58. She told you. When everyone else, including Republicans, releases transcripts, she will.
Why isn't that good enough for you?
The equal of two evils? |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:03 AM
NanceGreggs (27,812 posts)
59. In other words ...
... it looks like the much-desired indictment isn't going to happen - so you're back to hoping the Transcript Fairy will deliver the nomination to Mister Also Ran.
And for the record, "no full and complete tax returns" means no integrity. Is Bernie SO ignorant of the way politics work, he didn't KNOW those tax returns would be asked for? Did he NOT KNOW that there is a precedent for candidates to release full tax returns for multiple years? Next primary: no amateurs. THAT'S a concept I can get behind. |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:06 AM
KittyWampus (55,894 posts)
60. after this you can go back to yelling at clouds.
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #60)
Fri May 6, 2016, 07:19 AM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
62. You are not the least bit interested in what she said to the Banksters we were forced to bail out?
Response to B Calm (Reply #62)
Fri May 6, 2016, 08:20 AM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
65. Exactly, and there problems where people ignore thier own vetting process.
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 08:19 AM
Vinca (49,760 posts)
64. Maybe Trump will release them since he just hired a Goldman Sachs guy
(and Hillary donor).
|
Response to Vinca (Reply #64)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:25 AM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
66. Exactly, or protect them? We'll see how much reality TV based this campaign really is.
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:41 AM
2cannan (344 posts)
67. They were probably email attachments on that damn server
and Lord knows how many people (Guccifer, the FBI, NSA, Chinese, Russian, etc.) have them!
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:37 AM
raouldukelives (5,178 posts)
68. Any day now. I think all the remaining candidates have released them.
So all her demands have been met. It'd not like her modus operandi is to not mean what she says.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:01 PM
seabeyond (110,159 posts)
70. VISEGRIP... IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:08 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
72. nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton
Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:18 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
74. Just don't give up, do you? She NEVER promised transcripts, but Jane promised to release...
...Sanders' tax returns by the due date, which was 18 days ago.
Where are they? It is customary for candidates to release their tax returns, has been happening for decades. This transcript "BS" is just a contrived smoke screen. |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:30 PM
Tarc (10,441 posts)
76. This issue is deader than Emailgate
As the primary is no longer being actively contested, this is less of an issue than it was last month.
As dead as a door-nail, Ebeneezer. |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:44 PM
coffeeAM (180 posts)
78. She is hiding something which is so obvious!
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:45 PM
underthematrix (5,811 posts)
79. You should contact Goldman Sachs since they purchased
her time and those transcripts belong to them.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 10:57 PM
Buzz cook (2,443 posts)
81. I would advise Clinton not to release any transcripts.
If they are innocent, they won't be believed as the OP points out.
|
Response to Buzz cook (Reply #81)
Sat May 7, 2016, 10:43 PM
timmymoff (1,947 posts)
97. Trump thanks you for the advice that keeps sanders voters home.
![]() |
Response to timmymoff (Reply #97)
Sun May 8, 2016, 02:55 AM
Buzz cook (2,443 posts)
98. If I keep them at home
They are very easily influenced indeed.
|
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:07 PM
Darb (2,807 posts)
82. Gumby-like contortion.
Nice going. Where's the nose?
|
Response to Darb (Reply #82)
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:13 AM
Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)
84. Yes, Hillary supporters are doing Gumby-like contortions
to try to rationalize Hillary's Nixonesque behavior.
|
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #84)
Sat May 7, 2016, 10:33 PM
Darb (2,807 posts)
95. Poor bernies, gotta be tough.
We told you all along that we are voting for Hillary and that she is going to win. We asked you not to cut off your noses to spite your faces, but here you are, cutting off your noses.
Trump is gonna need your vote. Go all the way. Don't just carry his water, cast a vote. |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:38 AM
Bern2WinUSA (44 posts)
85. Great Post!!! And...
It wont be the first second or anything close to her dismissing the "non-Wealthy Oligarchs" she serves. In quotes because it is my belief. If you do support her name just one, only one economic issue important to working-class Americans and Americans living in poverty, that she has stood by and not changed her tune on. She will talk about terrorists to scare people, she will talk about whats his name to get more free media, on the whole she hasnt a single economic issue that she represents to her core.
She is the one telling us, "You cant expect too much, things are difficult to change." Bernie is the one saying "You all need to stand Up and fight to make change that this country needs!" |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sat May 7, 2016, 07:45 AM
DrDan (20,411 posts)
87. these posts remind me of those poor little guys at Speakers Corner, standing on their chairs,
shouting their message.
Folks walking by completely ignoring them. But they continue to drone on . . . . |
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sat May 7, 2016, 08:00 AM
kgnu_fan (3,021 posts)
89. Kick for Saturday morning....
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sat May 7, 2016, 09:58 PM
kgnu_fan (3,021 posts)
93. It has been too long.... Transcripts now!
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sat May 7, 2016, 10:10 PM
Joob (1,065 posts)
94. where's the transcripts? Maybe release a paragraph.
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2016, 08:01 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
99. Another day and still no transcripts of what she said to the Wall Street Banksters.
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2016, 08:53 PM
Vote2016 (1,198 posts)
100. Trump is going to define her by this campaign fail. He's a worse person but a far smarter campaigner
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2016, 09:39 PM
Ohioblue22 (1,430 posts)
101. You aren't entitled to them
Response to Ohioblue22 (Reply #101)
Sun May 8, 2016, 09:50 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
104. No, but she is not entitled to people voting for her also. nt
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2016, 09:49 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
103. I'll consider donating money to her if she releases them and they do not kiss wallstreet ass.
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Mon May 9, 2016, 12:25 PM
Orsino (37,428 posts)
109. She's looking into it. n/t
Response to ViseGrip (Original post)
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:31 PM
EndElectoral (4,213 posts)