Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Thu May 12, 2016, 03:49 PM May 2016

What's in the transcripts?

I would like to know if there's roundup or GMOs in the cereal she's trying to force the public to eat or is it just so good we don't need to know the
ingredients in her the mega buck speeches or is it really like a pork sausage that you really don't want to know what's in it? Just put some ketchup and mustard on it and I'm with her?

I bet there was some roundup or GMOs in her emails too. Neither were FDA inspected.........Is that's why they had to be destroyed?

Anyway enjoy your peas

You might not get my obscure food analogy but I bet most do if they think about it.



10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What's in the transcripts? (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter May 2016 OP
We already know what she said. HassleCat May 2016 #1
I actually think its worse than your explaination Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #3
Somewhere there's a guy laughing his butt off madamesilverspurs May 2016 #2
I posted his picture Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #4
All conditions have been met for Hillary Clinton to release her Wall Street speeches Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #5
... madamesilverspurs May 2016 #6
Nope.. wrong as usual.... Hillary supporters like to eat Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #7
Annnnd . . . madamesilverspurs May 2016 #8
Fealty Depaysement May 2016 #9
Without them, one can only speculate. I know where my mind has silvershadow May 2016 #10
 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
1. We already know what she said.
Thu May 12, 2016, 03:52 PM
May 2016

She got paid to make those speeches, so she went there and flattered them. She told them she likes them, that they're unfairly judged by too many people, that they provide jobs and stimulate the economy, and so on. She avoided promising them that she would give them tax breaks, or anything else that could be seen as quid pro quo. That's the way it's done. She knows the game, and she colors within the lines.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
3. I actually think its worse than your explaination
Thu May 12, 2016, 04:11 PM
May 2016

I think it has a mixture of rat shit, dog shit and bullshit mixed in with it too.
That if the public were able to read them, would say they were inedible for public consumption but banksters ate them up anyway and gladly paid for them cause they knew she would help them fill their trough in the coming years


Now for a cute picture of farm animals




madamesilverspurs

(15,798 posts)
2. Somewhere there's a guy laughing his butt off
Thu May 12, 2016, 04:09 PM
May 2016

as he counts the money he gets for selling all those dead horses for whipping . . .

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
5. All conditions have been met for Hillary Clinton to release her Wall Street speeches
Thu May 12, 2016, 04:29 PM
May 2016

Earlier in the primary season, Hillary Clinton set the condition that she would only release the transcripts of her paid, closed door speeches to Wall Street if everyone else running for president did the same. Now it seems that standard has been met, in that the only two people left in the race have no Wall Street speeches to release.

If you will recall, a few months back Clinton was adamant that she would only release the transcripts to her Wall Street speeches if the Republicans released theirs as well. “If everyone agrees to do it — because there are speeches for money on the other side — let’s set the same standard for everybody,” she said in an April debate against Bernie Sanders, as if he wasn’t even there. “When everybody does it, OK, I’ll do it.”

This seemed like a bad standard at the time, as she wasn’t technically running against any Republicans yet, just Sanders, who’s never given a speech to Wall Street unless you count his frequent, emphatically unpaid attacks. But it was information the Republicans might ostensibly use against her in the general election, so it made political sense that she’d want potential nominees Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich to put their cards on the table as well.

But, as progressive commentator Cenk Uygur pointed out on a recent edition of his web show “The Young Turks,” it’s just Clinton, Donald Trump, and Sanders now. And neither Trump nor Sanders have given paid speeches to Wall Street; Trump because he’s the laughingstock of the financial sector, and Sanders because of mutual loathing. In fact, my favorite part of the recent Sanders rally in Long Island City was when he “released” his Wall Street speeches by throwing a bunch of imaginary papers into the air and saying, “Here they are!” Because there are none, get it? I’m really gonna miss that guy.

Anyway, now that her own standard has been met, it’s going to be a bad look if she tries to move the goal post to “when Trump releases his tax returns” or what have you. We know Clinton too well at this point to think there’s anything in there but the bland corporate cheerleading we’ve come to expect from her. Perhaps something about how we need more women and minorities in the ruling class. Bill has even showed signs of trying to get out in front of it by talking about how it’s not fair to blame the people who wrecked our economy for wrecking our economy.

madamesilverspurs

(15,798 posts)
6. ...
Thu May 12, 2016, 04:39 PM
May 2016

At this point, even if Hillary Clinton DID release the transcripts, Bernie Sanders and the Republicans would invent some other criterion for her. She’s already met and in some cases surpassed the usual standards, but it will never be enough, will it? She’s released thirty years of tax returns, Sanders has released one and considers that just exactly the same and, therefore, she should release the transcripts. Comparing apples to oranges? Hell no — it’s comparing apples to a fruit that hasn’t even been invented yet. It’s no longer a matter of double standards. At this point it’s gone well beyond triples.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
7. Nope.. wrong as usual.... Hillary supporters like to eat
Thu May 12, 2016, 04:43 PM
May 2016

food that hasn't been inspected and wants to change the subject


The SUBJECT IS HILLARY'S LIE ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPTS

Depaysement

(1,835 posts)
9. Fealty
Thu May 12, 2016, 05:14 PM
May 2016

Not so much to Goldman, JPMorgan and the like, but to their clients, the funds, the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals in the land.

 

silvershadow

(10,336 posts)
10. Without them, one can only speculate. I know where my mind has
Thu May 12, 2016, 05:19 PM
May 2016

taken me too, and it sounds perfectly legit. Therefore, I have dismissed her as a candidate I can support.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»What's in the transcripts...