Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
This kind of semantic gamesmanship is almost as ridiculous as the claim that Hillary Clinton's use of her private server is being investigated, but not Hillary Clinton herself.
Click to expand...

Oh Hillary wants to release her transcripts, but because Trump will laugh right in her face and tell her, and I quote, to "**** off," she isn't going to.

I mean she really wants to, but her political opponents just refused to go along with her completely arbitrary and totally fake condition.

What is she to do?

Poor Hillary.... those meanies preventing her from voluntarily releasing transcripts that she has in her possession.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Oh Hillary wants to release her transcripts, but because Trump will laugh right in her face and tell her, and I quote, to "**** off," she isn't going to.

I mean she really wants to, but her political opponents just refused to go along with her completely arbitrary and totally fake condition.

What is she to do?

Poor Hillary.... those meanies preventing her from voluntarily releasing transcripts that she has in her possession.
Click to expand...
Any ideas on the fishing expedition the Rs will be screaming for after this one fails like all the others before it?
 
16.5 said:
Oh Hillary wants to release her transcripts, but because Trump will laugh right in her face and tell her, and I quote, to "**** off," she isn't going to.

I mean she really wants to, but her political opponents just refused to go along with her completely arbitrary and totally fake condition.

What is she to do?

Poor Hillary.... those meanies preventing her from voluntarily releasing transcripts that she has in her possession.
Click to expand...

And of course Democratic primary voters need to see what Trump has said in private speeches to private groups. What if he actually said something controversial??
 
sunmaster14 said:
And of course Democratic primary voters need to see what Trump has said in private speeches to private groups. What if he actually said something controversial??
Click to expand...

Do you believe, with 16.5, that “I’m happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups, including Senator Sanders.” means she was referring to only Sanders ?

Because that's what your post implies.
 
theprestige said:
Oh I'm sure the transcripts would provide plenty of grist for the mill. Some of it justified, even.

And I think there's a perfectly cromulent justification for not releasing the transcripts. A justification that isn't even very cynical at all. What amuses me is that instead of offering that justification here, her supporters are bending over backwards to appear as disingenuous and cynical as possible about the whole thing.

I'm also amused by the lack of curiosity. What does a candidate like Hillary say to the 1%, behind closed doors? Is it simply the same message, packaged for a different audience? Or is it something more problematic? Aren't you at least a little curious yourself?
Click to expand...


I've seen this used a couple times and thought it was something akin to 'salient', but I became curious enough to look it up as I wanted to make sure I used it correctly. As it turns out, and I'm guessing you are well aware of, it was made up for a Simpsons episode (the other 'made up' word in that episode turns out to be a real word). The usage there seems to be something like 'good'. It even appears as 'kromulent'* in an amicus curiae brief before the US Supreme Court. (No, 'amicus' doesn't mean 'agreeable swearword'.)

I'm betting this has been mentioned on these boards before, but some might be curious. [/ot]

On topic, I imagine the speeches themselves are mostly 'ra-ra look how important you all are to the greatness of the US, don't worry about too many/any reforms'. I doubt that there is too much that would actually hurt her in the general election.

In the primaries though it could hurt her in a major way. I'd expect this fight to go on just long enough for it to become clear she's going to win or lose the primary, and then be released with much mockery to those demanding it all along.

EDIT: *I expect they share my belief that 'C' is an over-rated and useless letter.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
And of course Democratic primary voters need to see what Trump has said in private speeches to private groups. What if he actually said something controversial??
Click to expand...
Indeed. Similarly, Republican voters need to see what Clinton has said in private speeches to private groups. What if she actually said something they don't like?
 
tyr_13 said:
In the primaries though it could hurt her in a major way. I'd expect this fight to go on just long enough for it to become clear she's going to win or lose the primary, and then be released with much mockery to those demanding it all along.
Click to expand...

That is why Sanders is after them, and why the suggestion that Hillary is waiting until Cruz and Trump release "everything" is breathtakingly stupid.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed. Similarly, Republican voters need to see what Clinton has said in private speeches to private groups. What if she actually said something they don't like?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in seeing her speeches. I imagine they're mindnumbingly dull. I am interested in seeing her obvious evasion called out as disingenuous however.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I have no interest in seeing her speeches. I imagine they're mindnumbingly dull. I am interested in seeing her obvious evasion called out as disingenuous however.
Click to expand...
I also have no interest in seeing her speeches, and similarly think they would be boring. However, claiming that Clinton is being disingenuous by refusing to be the only candidate out of 7 to have to release transcripts is a rather transparent ploy. It's almost as transparent as watching this flood of conservatives long time Sanders supporters like Karl Rove, 16.5, and yourself calling for the transcripts as though they are going to get you a new talking point.
 
16.5 said:
That is why Sanders is after them, and why the suggestion that Hillary is waiting until Cruz and Trump release "everything" is breathtakingly stupid.
Click to expand...
The whole thing is a game of gotcha. There was no answer that wouldn't have made her look bad. I wouldn't release them either.
 
varwoche said:
The whole thing is a game of gotcha. There was no answer that wouldn't have made her look bad. I wouldn't release them either.
Click to expand...

Say, maybe she should not have taken $625k from Goldman Sachs while pretandin' to be just a reg'lar gal who is gonna teach Wall Street what fer!

And maybe if she didn't say she was going to "look into it," and then after meeting with her campaign's "brain trust" come back with a simpering juvenile "i'll do it when everyone else in this race does."

Well they did:

http://whenevereverybodyelsedoes.com/

Tick tock Hillary....
 
wareyin said:
I also have no interest in seeing her speeches, and similarly think they would be boring. However, claiming that Clinton is being disingenuous by refusing to be the only candidate out of 7 to have to release transcripts is a rather transparent ploy. It's almost as transparent as watching this flood of conservatives long time Sanders supporters like Karl Rove, 16.5, and yourself calling for the transcripts as though they are going to get you a new talking point.
Click to expand...

Sanders is challenging her for the Democratic nomination, and he challenged her to release speech transcripts. She responded by implying that he was being hypocritical and that she would not submit to a double standard. But he is not being hypocritical, and he does not have a double standard in this respect. He is perfectly willing for potential Democratic primary voters to see his speeches. The fact that there are no private speeches to divulge is not an example of hypocrisy.

If Hillary had instead claimed that she did not want to release her transcripts because that would give Republicans an advantage in the general election, if she were to be the Democratic nominee, that is one thing. It would have been a perfectly reasonable excuse actually. I guess she didn't say that though because it kind of undermines her main selling point over Sanders, which is that she is more electable (something I don't think is obvious). Oh, and also that she has a vagina (something I also don't think is obvious).
 
16.5 said:
Say, maybe she should not have taken $625k from Goldman Sachs while pretandin' to be just a reg'lar gal who is gonna teach Wall Street what fer!

And maybe if she didn't say she was going to "look into it," and then after meeting with her campaign's "brain trust" come back with a simpering juvenile "i'll do it when everyone else in this race does."

Well they did:

http://whenevereverybodyelsedoes.com/

Tick tock Hillary....
Click to expand...

I'm reading Bernie's transcripts now. I hope he'll put up an audiobook version soon. It seems that he has managed to collect the most persuasive arguments for socialism and put them all in one speech.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Sanders is challenging her for the Democratic nomination, and he challenged her to release speech transcripts. She responded by implying that he was being hypocritical and that she would not submit to a double standard. But he is not being hypocritical, and he does not have a double standard in this respect. He is perfectly willing for potential Democratic primary voters to see his speeches. The fact that there are no private speeches to divulge is not an example of hypocrisy.

If Hillary had instead claimed that she did not want to release her transcripts because that would give Republicans an advantage in the general election, if she were to be the Democratic nominee, that is one thing. It would have been a perfectly reasonable excuse actually. I guess she didn't say that though because it kind of undermines her main selling point over Sanders, which is that she is more electable (something I don't think is obvious). Oh, and also that she has a vagina (something I also don't think is obvious).
Click to expand...

:words:

Sanders has not offered to release the transcripts of his Hampton's fundraisers. Quit sidestepping that with excuses.
 
wareyin said:
The fishing expedition into Benghazi didn't pan out, the fishing expedition into her email didn't pan out, so they're trying to start a new fishing expedition. Like a fly bouncing off a window: maybe this time, bonk, maybe this time, bonk, maybe this time, bonk, etc until 2024 or so.
Click to expand...

Screw it - let's just re-start the Whitewater investigation.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Sanders is challenging her for the Democratic nomination, and he challenged her to release speech transcripts. She responded by implying that he was being hypocritical and that she would not submit to a double standard. But he is not being hypocritical, and he does not have a double standard in this respect. He is perfectly willing for potential Democratic primary voters to see his speeches. The fact that there are no private speeches to divulge is not an example of hypocrisy.

If Hillary had instead claimed that she did not want to release her transcripts because that would give Republicans an advantage in the general election, if she were to be the Democratic nominee, that is one thing. It would have been a perfectly reasonable excuse actually. I guess she didn't say that though because it kind of undermines her main selling point over Sanders, which is that she is more electable (something I don't think is obvious). Oh, and also that she has a vagina (something I also don't think is obvious).
Click to expand...

Clinton is playing the long game, here. Sanders isn't, because he doesn't have one.

What makes Clinton's electability obvious is watching Conservatives stumping for Sanders. If you weren't worried about Clinton, or if you had a candidate on your side worth backing, there is no way R's would be promoting Sanders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom