Hillary Clinton is Done

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's an excellent link Roger Ramjets.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Hillary’s Wall Street migraine: 5 reasons the Goldman Sachs debacle isn’t going away. Clinton refuses to release her transcripts unless Republicans release theirs first. That won't cut it this election

You may be right. But if so it's not because of anything Hillary has (or hasn't) done, but the public's perception of her.

With both republicans and Bernie supporters hell-bent on smearing Hillary by any means, it's no wonder that many people's perceptions are inaccurate. It only takes a little research to find the facts. Sadly however, first impressions count - and most people don't bother questioning the distortions and lies that her detractors have invented. What's even more sad is that once someone's mind is made up, even shoving the facts in their face won't change it.

Hillary's challenge will be to be to show people that their perceptions are wrong - but just giving them the facts won't be enough. They also have to see past the spin and innuendo, and unlearn the lies they have been fed. Remember Obama's birth certificate? That issue should have died as soon as the official records were published. But no - many people continued to disregard the fact that he is a US citizen because they didn't want to believe it.

If Hillary unilaterally releases her transcripts you can bet that her enemies will misquote and spin it to their advantage. Only by being able to compare her speeches to those made by other politicians can we evaluate them in context of what to expect at such events. Of course this is unacceptable to the partisans, because they don't want people to see that they are lying and Hillary's speeches were actually quite innocuous (though the same might not be said for some Republican speeches!).

 

[The Big Dog]

You may be right. But if so it's not because of anything Hillary has (or hasn't) done, but the public's perception of her.

With both republicans and Bernie supporters hell-bent on smearing Hillary by any means, it's no wonder that many people's perceptions are inaccurate. It only takes a little research to find the facts. Sadly however, first impressions count - and most people don't bother questioning the distortions and lies that her detractors have invented. What's even more sad is that once someone's mind is made up, even shoving the facts in their face won't change it.

Hillary's challenge will be to be to show people that their perceptions are wrong - but just giving them the facts won't be enough. They also have to see past the spin and innuendo, and unlearn the lies they have been fed. Remember Obama's birth certificate? That issue should have died as soon as the official records were published. But no - many people continued to disregard the fact that he is a US citizen because they didn't want to believe it.

If Hillary unilaterally releases her transcripts you can bet that her enemies will misquote and spin it to their advantage. Only by being able to compare her speeches to those made by other politicians can we evaluate them in context of what to expect at such events. Of course this is unacceptable to the partisans, because they don't want people to see that they are lying and Hillary's speeches were actually quite innocuous (though the same might not be said for some Republican speeches!).

That is breathtakingly ludicrous on every possible level.

Only by being able to compare her speeches to those made by other politicians can we evaluate them

How about we compare them to what Hillary says on the campaign trail? How is that for "context"?

The best part? Of course this is unacceptable to the partisans, because they don't want people to see that they are lying and Hillary's speeches were actually quite innocuous

You are flat out accusing people of lying while at the same time suggesting that "Hillary's speeches were actually quite innocuous," DESPITE THE FACT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM.

That is utterly remarkable.

 

[Cleon]

Perspective time!

Since 2013, Goldman Sachs and its employees have paid/donated $730,000 to Hillary Clinton.

Since 2013, Goldman Sachs and its employees have paid/donated $534.58 to Donald Trump.

If you are not curious about what Hillary told the bankers at GS in those highly compensated meetings, do the rest of us a favor and don't vote.

Out of curiosity, when did you start becoming concerned about GS' money in politics?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

suggesting that "Hillary's speeches were actually quite innocuous," DESPITE THE FACT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM.

That is utterly remarkable.

You are right of course. Just because I have seen the contents of some of Hillary's speeches doesn't mean that I know what she said to Goldman-Sachs. I can make a pretty good guess though. Here are a few possibilities:-

1. Congratulating them on their service to the Illuminati, and laying out her plans for World domination!

2. Letting them in on all those top secret projects she oversaw - the alien abduction program, chemtrails, 9/11 false flag operation, Hollywood moon landing scam, JFK assassination, gold missing from Fort Knox...

3. The same speech she made to all the others, tweaked to suit the venue.

And you? What are your reasons for suspecting her speech was anything but innocuous?

 

[The Big Dog]

Out of curiosity, when did you start becoming concerned about GS' money in politics?

Oh gee, yet another post ignoring the Salon/WaPo/NYT articles I have linked and instead making it all about 16.5.

Oh well, you are curious about me, then, and asked me a question? Sure, I will answer it "if everybody does it — and that includes the Republicans. So you know what, if people are going to ask for things, everybody should be on a level playing field.”

See what I just did there?

 

[Cleon]

Oh gee, yet another post ignoring the Salon/WaPo/NYT articles I have linked and instead making it all about 16.5.

Oh well, you are curious about me, then, and asked me a question? Sure, I will answer it "if everybody does it — and that includes the Republicans. So you know what, if people are going to ask for things, everybody should be on a level playing field.”

See what I just did there?

Well, ok then. Thanks for sharing your insight.

 

[The Big Dog]

And you? What are your reasons for suspecting her speech was anything but innocuous?

Oh dear, you really have not read any of the article I have posted have you?

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz41gHWOZCT

Plus she has lied about what she actually told the banks, from the Salon article, today:

Second, Clinton states there is “no question” she has a record “that already demonstrates my willingness to take on Wall Street and other financial institutions,” because “I did it before the ’08 Crash. I went to Wall Street before the Great Recession. I called them out. I said what they are doing in the mortgage market was going to cause serious problems.”

This recounting of her ’07 speech is strikingly divergent from reality.

Numerous reports describe how Clinton “gave a shout-out to her ‘wonderful donors,’” “praised Wall Street for its role in creating the nation’s wealth,” and assured the banks they were not the main reason for the churning economic instability, “not by a long shot,” but that “homeowners should have known they were getting in over their heads.”

Clinton did not, as she put it last night, “call them out,” but cheerily released the financial executives from blame, only saying she would “consider legislation” if they did not voluntarily change their risky lending behavior.

Spoiler alert: they didn’t, and, soon after she spoke with them, the economy crashed.

All previously posted in this thread, and ignored by the incurious....

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yikes, I will assume that your unhinged personal attack on me

Nope, just stating the facts.

you have no basis at all to challenge the FACTS regarding the Goldman Sachs investment in Hillary.

I have yet to see these 'facts' that prove you aren't just a partisan hack trying to smear Hillary. What FACTS do you have that are so damaging?

The incurious attitude of the Shillaries, oh well.

On the contrary, my curiosity has uncovered numerous facts that the partisans don't want us to see. The more I find out about Hillary, the more I discover that I have been lied to. If I seem incurious about one particular speech it's because the stench of those lies has become so strong that I can't be bothered turning over another stone just to find more of it.

your last two posts back to back might be the finest example of hypocrisy I have ever seen

Hypocrisy? - I don't think you know what that word means...

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, ok then. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Oh, ordinarily that type of flippant sarcasm would work, but what I did was quote Hillary's unilateral and arbitrary condition for releasing her Goldman Sachs transcripts.

I am perfectly willing to stipulate that I became concerned about it no later than the time that Hillary's fans STOPPED BEING concerned about GS' money in politics.

 

[Cleon]

I am perfectly willing to stipulate that I became concerned about it no later than the time that Hillary's fans STOPPED BEING concerned about GS' money in politics.

OK, well, when you start actually being concerned about GS' money in politics for its own sake instead of using it as a convenience tool against Hillary supporters, maybe people will start paying attention to your links.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Plus she has lied about what she actually told the banks, from the Salon article, today:

Nope. Just lots of spin, cherry picking and innuendo. From the article:-

Clinton went on to cite how, in 2007, she “called for ending the loophole that lets hedge fund managers get a lower tax rate.”

It most certainly is true that, while running for president in 2007, Clinton made campaign speeches attacking the tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — one of the infamous loopholes that allows rich people to pay way less in taxes than they’re supposed to.

However, not only did Clinton hold no leadership position in the movement to close this loophole,

Pure spin. Even when the facts are in direct opposition to their narrative, they still try to spin it the other way.

 

[Belz...]

Perspective time!

Since 2013, Goldman Sachs and its employees have paid/donated $730,000 to Hillary Clinton.

Since 2013, Goldman Sachs and its employees have paid/donated $534.58 to Donald Trump.

If you are not curious about what Hillary told the bankers at GS in those highly compensated meetings, do the rest of us a favor and don't vote.

I think it's pretty clear what she told them. And it's not "cut it out, ya hear!"

 

[Trakar]

Really? Most people would have their lives "dramatically" affected if Sanders loses the primary?...

Do you understand how much impact 6-8ºC global average temperature increase will have upon the planet, western civilization (not to mention our nation) over the next 8-10 decades?

It isn't that electing Sanders will prevent this, it is that he is the only US politician who was seriously proposing policy of the scale that would have allowed us a real opportunity to make positive, significant, gains. It is too late for small incremental and relatively cheap changes to make any difference of significance.

 

[bruto]

well, after all the hoopla the primary came and my wife got sick and we had to go to the clinic and wait while the polls closed, so I was unable to make any difference either way in the predictably large victory. I suspect Hillary will be the nominee anyway, but we do like our Bernie up here.

However, with relation to this thread, I think bagging Vermont's ten delegates will probably not right the "done" bell for Hillary.

 

[Trakar]

That's because in their system every issue is categorized as either economic or social...

Which in and of itself speaks to the quality and character of the assessment.

...Seems you don't pay attention to anything a candidate says if it might question your cherished beliefs.

It has nothing to do with cherished beliefs, it has to do with the character and history of the candidate.

 

[Trakar]

Clearly, but that doesn't mean I'm equally as wrong as you are.

I would agree with that statement.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you understand how much impact 6-8ºC global average temperature increase will have upon the planet, western civilization (not to mention our nation) over the next 8-10 decades?

It isn't that electing Sanders will prevent this, it is that he is the only US politician who was seriously proposing policy of the scale that would have allowed us a real opportunity to make positive, significant, gains. It is too late for small incremental and relatively cheap changes to make any difference of significance.

You realise that most models are predicting a 2C average. 6-8 would result in Earth becoming Venus.

 

[Trakar]

You realise that most models are predicting a 2C average. 6-8 would result in Earth becoming Venus.

Neither of these claims are accurate or in accord with the best available science.

The last time the Earth had its current levels of atmospheric CO2 Sea levels were more than 90 feet higher than they are now, and surface temperatures were a globally averages 4^o C higher than they are now. The planet climate equilibrates more slowly to the rapid CO2 infusion we are forcing into our active carbon cycle.

We are currently hovering at close to 400ppm CO2, best estimates given current emission levels and surface reservoir releases, place the atmospheric CO2 level at between 750 -1000 ppm around the turn of the century (and it doesn't magically stop increasing at the turn of the century) if we don't make dramatic changes in how we generate energy and start actually pulling significant portions of the atmospheric CO2 back out of the atmosphere and securely sequestering it long term. The last time atmospheric CO2 was this high (the Eocene) sea levels were 300 feet higher than the current level, and globally averaged temperature was 6-8^o C warmer than they are now (Antarctica was a pine forest and crocodiles lived in the Arctic swamps that covered Ellesmere Island).

The transition won't be instantaneous, but the climate disruptions, storms and rising seas (which are already impacting millions of lives each year and adding an environmental tax onto every aspect of the global economy, will continue to increase as the effects intensify over the coming centuries. The window for effective and affordable action to correct this problem is nearly shut, and the expense is multiplying with every year of inaction, and incremental/superficial addressment.

Hillary says the right words acknowledging the climate problems but she isn't proposing any policies that even come close to realistically and significantly addressing this issue.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Neither of these claims are accurate or in accord with the best available science.

Looking it up, it does seem that estimates have changed... to 4C with a 10% chance of hitting 6, still well below your 6-8. And yes it does look like the believed Runaway Greenhouse caused by AGW has been shown to be wrong. It's been a while since I bothered checking. 2C is the danger point still though.