2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Attacks Trump for Not Releasing His Tax Returns... Irony is Lost on Her
She hammers Trump on his tax return, and he'll hammer her on her paid speeches. This isn't a good scenario in the general election.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)riversedge
(70,299 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Every damn time you ask for it,....... nothing.
What do they call it? Oh yea, Making shit up.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)is pretty unprecedented!
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)
My bad.
Story highlights
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address
The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
Legal. Bribes. Services rendered and expected.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)all we get are huge fucking crickets.
I'm sorry, who's desperate again?
mcar
(42,372 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)May Bernie take both of these Oligarchs down...
[link:|
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Noms is sexist. This same post pops up ever couple of days it wasn't clever then either
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)It hasn't been required of any other candidate because no other candidate gave paid speeches to Wall Street and other corporations at $225,000 a pop. What does she have to hide? Trump supporters don't care if he releases his tax returns. Hillary supporters don't care if she releases her speech transcripts. Both are cults of personality, which is particularly hard to understand given those two odious personalities.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Thanks for the confirmation.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I doubt that comes into play with the speeches. American people just want to ensure she's not buddies with Wall Street.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)He gets a pass and Hillary gets criticized... Strange how that works.
merrily
(45,251 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Bernie is the one who isn't following precedent. I don't know if he's hiding anything, but for someone who wants to open every aspect of the process, and who has been whining for months about speeches given by a private citizen, he should step up to the plat and do the bare minimum before calling anyone else out.
Bernie, on this issue, is a hypocrite on the level with Trump.
merrily
(45,251 posts)No sale.
And, again, Bernie has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Desperation to avoid the actual topic of the thread is not a good look.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I've had enough of the desperate deflection attempts. Besides, your replies are getting less mature as they go along, sure sign of nothing meaningful to say, just posting for the sake of posting. Have a great day.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)youceyec
(394 posts)Only sexism and double standard by people like you. I wonder how many of you are phony Democrats? Ud rather have the orange monster have a shot than vote for hrc?
msongs
(67,441 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)For one reason or another we all want to see Trumps returns.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)"The country" you're thinking of is the one depicted by the corporate media whose owners mostly back Clinton but also love Trump as a ratings machine. They perhaps don't give a shit about her speeches... and actually they will, soon as these are leaked on Trump's behalf in the general campaign!
But think more deeply on what kind of person you have committed yourself to. Someone whose words don't count for "shit," as you say.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And I'm really getting use to those comments completely based in entitlement from Sanders supporters.
Outside of that and the media being for Clinton, I agree with the rest of what you said. The media supporting Democrats and Clinton is an absolute bullshit talking point. Has been for a really long time.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)How could I even care who you are as a person? Do I know you?
You, an Internet persona, presented a small-minded opinion as though it was that of "the country" or "we."
All I said in reply is that you alone don't get to define either.
If that's "entitlement" on my part - meaning that I have a low tolerance for bullshit on the Internet - too bad. In using that word, all you've done is to parrot the latest attack points dispensed from the highly entitled campaign to which you have tied yourself.
Still, it's interesting that you seem to believe the words of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton are meaningless and of no consequence. And yet support them. Curious.
And finally:
"The media" make drama out of Clinton and Trump alike. For the ratings. They will eat up either one or both in the next six months, responding to stimuli as they come.
But the media owners, as I said? Why they are among those entities who have provided many tens of millions in legal bribes ("speech fees," "campaign finance," super PAC funds, etc.) to said Clintons, and barely any so far to Trump.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You made another strong showing.
Add projection to the list.
"You seem to believe the words of Hillary Clinton are meaningless and of no consequence."
I never said such a thing.
"They will eat up either one or both in the next six months."
it was just brilliantly explained to me that they are in Clintons camp.
I suggest you stop talking down to people.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)See how easy that is? Win win win!
Sejon
(109 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Doesn't make much of a splash on the news. Haven't had it brought up by anyone in my life. A small vocal online group, most of whom we clearly know what they are against, still not sure what they are for.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)You and Reince Preibus sound alike
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/us/politics/reince-priebus-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Desperation does that to people.
Think things through if you are going to go around calling people republicans.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She needs to release them. One of the reasons, she does not earn my vote.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Please don't get me wrong, I think she should. I'm not sure why most people don't give a shit but they don't. I think many people are like me and have read so much about Clinton and know no candidate in history has been vetted as she has so we are ok with them not being released. I would still like to see them.
I do find it comical that those yelling the loudest for them to be released are all the same people who don't say a thing about Sanders tax returns. Sanders has not been transparent in that area while Clinton has. You see, I feel the same about Clintons transcripts as you do about Sanders taxes. Most of the country does.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She also does not need my vote then.
I think Bernie should release his taxes. He has for one year but should do more. At least he does do yearly financial disclosure forms and has done so for decades. Those are publicly available.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Your arrogance and entitlement is astonishing.
This is another reason the study of the classics is so important: no one understands hubris anymore.
merrily
(45,251 posts)tbat doesn't mean the country doesn't give a shit.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)And then they had a live auction for her influence. Finally, they sacrificed an improvised family to the ghost of John Rockefeller.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Releasing speech transcripts is important but is not a standard that every candidate has been held to, as is the case with tax returns.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)I agree, the Dems should be attacking Bernie & Jane before they go after Donald!
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Tax returns are usually released by politicians, pretty much since 1976.
Paid speeches, not so much.
The transcripts are a fascination and obsession by Bernie followers.
There's noting ironic about this.
Funny that the tea party of the far left wound equate the two as one being like the other.....
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)to their decision making, I would certainly call it "advisable". That she hasn't is telling.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Some high strung Sanders supporters think it's Paramount, but that's certainly not a good enough reason.
That she hasn't is telling that she doesn't have to.
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)That's pretty pathetic.
I wonder how many of those 67% were conservatives with Benghazi on the brain.
Heck of a crowd you align yourself with.
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)what do you expect. When she says other people used email like she did, which they didn't. They had personal email but they also had a government account, and they didn't have the server in their bathroom, they also didn't open up the entire department of state for hacking by foreign governments. When she says she is transparent, but refuses to show the American people what she promised the big banks in return for their huge payday, what do you expect. I could go on, but something tells me it doesn't matter what she does. No one has any idea what she really stands for because she will flip on a dime depending on who she's talking to.
People think Hillary is a liar because she gets caught telling lies on a daily basis. Your smear does nothing but roll off my back. It's no wonder this country is in a shamble. When you people elect trump, don't come crying to me.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)[youtube]
[/youtube]There's been no evidence that her server was ever hacked, the State Department Server is a different story.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-statedept-idUSKCN0J11BR20141117
What make you think she promised any bank anything. More hack rhetoric from someone with no proof. So what if she gave speeches as a private citizen. That's allowed.
I'm sure you could go on, most know-nothings can.
People like yourself are quite gullible to the hype and rhetoric, similar to a tea partier.
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)after you elect trump. You people are his best argument. Take your head out of the sand.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)It's not my vote who'd elect Trump, it's those Bernouts throwing tantrums.
My head isn't in the sand, it's held high.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)that's been used a bajillion times that's too stupid to consider.
Arneoker
(375 posts)Versus anything else she has ever said to anyone of any kind of power and influence?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)As it is outside of a few online bubble chambers nobody cares (and I don't really take seriously people who claim to care here; nobody actually cares which focus-grouped, vapid bromides she used at a keynote speech).
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)How long have you been a Republican?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They become relevent. When you received millions in personal payments for companies your administration will regulate, it DOES become relevant.
coffeeAM
(180 posts)by the bubble that is the democratic primary and has to face the 320 million people of this country.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)speeches she made a a private citizen....you can see what she made. You can't from the Jane & Bernie Snowjob.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)That's it.
Not even LAST year's.
Personally, I'd like to see what happened in 2012.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)his boring tax return, LOL.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)LOL?
He's running for President of the United States.
This is standard.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)who stolen our money and then got our tax dollars to bail them out, I might be persuaded to support her if she wins the primary. Depending on what she said in her speech.
You on the other hand could care less about Bernie's boring little tax returns, you are only in it for the phony smear.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Taxes - Yes.
Didn't bother with the rest of that mess.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)pretty pissed off about bailing out those crooks.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You're going in circles here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1971776
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)This thread is entirely silly.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)They can ignore it very easily somehow
Arneoker
(375 posts)For not releasing tax returns while insisting on speech transcripts really is something, isn't it!
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)Google is your friend. They can also be found with a search on this very site.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)dchill
(38,532 posts)Response to Gregorian (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Are people who would never vote for her anyway. They can go piss up a rope. Nobody else cares about the transcripts.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)me to piss up a rope, I want to know what the hell she said.
Arneoker
(375 posts)Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)
Concerning things like transcripts and campaign contributions.
What if she released the transcripts.
What if she took no more in contributions from those connected to Wall Street or other powerful interests than Bernie did.
And she had the same positions on the issues.
Would those of you supporting Bernie think any better of her? If so, why would you?
Now I think there should be transparency in campaign contributions, and also think that they should be regulated a lot more. I think candidates releasing tax returns should be expect. I lean towards Hillary releasing the GS transcripts. I don't think that they'll show much of any substance, although I expect that they would be cherry picked for stuff of trivial meaning.
But in terms of judging candidates, I think that some perspective needs to be maintained.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Want proof?
Try sending in transcript of a speech to the IRS.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you know full well that releasing taxes has become the go-to Presidential nominee's public requirement since Nixon. Speeches made as a private citizen to a private organization...not so much.
Speeches are in part intellectual property and and been bought and paid for. And now you all want it for free?
OP is disingenuous they are NOT the same and both with a very difference set of precedence.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Actor
(626 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Since 1976, every presidential candidate has released their tax returns. This is not the case with paid speeches. Bernie/Trump supporters are trying to pretend apples are oranges. They're not. Paid speeches are not relevant.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Absolutely brilliant. She can dangle them forever without repercussions, and she can release them because there's nothing there. So she can and will use them for Trumps tax returns.