Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
You think big money doesn't come with strings? And which of us is stupid?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money
Click to expand...
Grow up.

What is stupid is this crap: Clinton: "I want to work with you so any new regulations won't put a dent in your profits and your bonuses!"

I don't know what you think you are supporting with your links, but it's not this inane claim.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Grow up.

What is stupid is this crap: Clinton: "I want to work with you so any new regulations won't put a dent in your profits and your bonuses!"

I don't know what you think you are supporting with your links, but it's not this inane claim.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

hillary release the transcripts yet? lol
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I get it now. You don't actually have any evidence ... you just decided that what they were doing.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

His claim is falsifiable... Are there any examples of a correcting-the-record post or comment that self identifies?

(Not to imply that it's incumbent upon you to disprove it. It'd just be a nice way to move the conversation forward)
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Trump must really be beholden to those that were paying him over a Million Dollars a speech....
Click to expand...


"Donald Trump earned a staggering $1.5 million per speech at The Learning Annex's real estate expo in 2006 and 2007", according to Forbes.

"The publicity around his $1.5 million fee for a speech at a Learning Annex Real Estate Wealth Expo was probably the best advertisement for this night's event: a two-hour workshop on how to become a Learning Annex speaker.

"The $19.95 workshop, in the ballroom at the New Yorker Hotel, is a bit of a feint; it is actually a promotion for a daylong seminar that costs $395.

"In recent years, the Learning Annex has concentrated its efforts on large-scale expos featuring notable speakers such as Donald Trump, Robert Kiyosaki and Anthony Robbins. Other high-profile speakers include Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Greenspan, George Foreman, Julius Erving, David Bach, Joe Montana, Bill Walsh, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Richard Branson, Suze Orman, Russell Simmons, Barbara Corcoran, and John Demartini."

Read more:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Learning_Annex
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E0DC1530F93BA35752C0A9609C8B63
 
Beeyon said:
Yeah. Fair enough. Thanks

Found this too... seems like this is the specific CTR project that is accused of astroturfing: https://twitter.com/nobarriers2016.
Click to expand...

but ...

This is a resource for those that proudly say #ImWithHer because #ShesWithUs Project of @correctrecord

is that new ?

Honestly, I don't care that much, btw. I just wanted to understand the thought process when there seemed to be no real evidence presented.
 
Bob001 said:
That's not entirely true. The FBI will say an investigation has closed or ended, and if it doesn't say "so and so is clean," it will say something like it found no basis for prosecution.

Just Google "FBI closes:"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-fbi-formally-closes-anthrax-case/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-closes-probe-into-vanished-cruise-ship-honeymooner/
www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/mayor-fbi-closes-investigation-into-hammond-police-taser-incident/article_d22fa60a-5969-5ea8-ae6f-e65fef062ca6.html
http://www.tampabay.com/features/hu...neals-lynching-without-naming-killers/2191344

What's most significant about the FBI investigation is that at least one person who worked for HC has been granted immunity. That means that FBI and his lawyers think he has information about real misconduct.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
Click to expand...

My point being that people who have Hillary convicted in their mind until the FBI holds a press conference to say she's not a criminal have set themselves up to never change their mind.

Skeptic Ginger said:
There is one. She talked about working with banks instead of demonizing them.But you can bet that will be distorted into working for the banks instead of resolving issues. And the report is how the attendee paraphrased the talk so it might have been quite different.

I doubt there are many Sanders supporters among the higher ranking financial institution employees, socialism vs capitalism and all.
Click to expand...

It's always been my contention that what she was afraid of was just the fact that she had promised to work with them. And for many that sounds like she's going to just be their marionette.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Trump must really be beholden to those that were paying him over a Million Dollars a speech....
Click to expand...

Trump's primary business is licensing his name to be used by other developers and businesses. But he's never been a public official with impact on regulatory and legislative matters, as opposed to a former Senator and Secretary of State with long-term presidential aspirations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-can...eal-estate-lawsuits-over-failed-developments/
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/the-8-billion-dollar-man/

But considering the shady things Trump's been involved in, particularly including his "university" scam, I wouldn't put it past him to sell influence any way he could. Are you saying Clinton's no worse than Trump? That's not much of a defense.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...des-trump-university-case-going-to-trial.html
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
It's always been my contention that what she was afraid of was just the fact that she had promised to work with them. And for many that sounds like she's going to just be their marionette.
Click to expand...


The Goldman Sachs transcripts must contain some painfully embarrassing statements, otherwise Hillary would just release them and be done with it.

The fact that she is willing to endure a relentless barrage of scathing criticism is a very good indication that the content of the transcripts could, and would, be used against her by way of attack ads from both the Sanders and Trump camps.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
The Goldman Sachs transcripts must contain some painfully embarrassing statements, otherwise Hillary would just release them and be done with it.

The fact that she is willing to endure a relentless barrage of scathing criticism is a very good indication that the content of the transcripts could, and would, be used against her by way of attack ads from both the Sanders and Trump camps.
Click to expand...

But there is a flip side to that. If it was that embarrassing, an attendee would have greater incentive to leak something, like Romney's 47% comments.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
The Goldman Sachs transcripts must contain some painfully embarrassing statements, otherwise Hillary would just release them and be done with it.

The fact that she is willing to endure a relentless barrage of scathing criticism is a very good indication that the content of the transcripts could, and would, be used against her by way of attack ads from both the Sanders and Trump camps.
Click to expand...
That's horrible logic.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
jhunter1163 said:
As someone said upthread, she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, and she has chosen "doesn't". Can't say I blame her really; why hand the opposition more stuff that can be taken out of put into context and used against her?
Click to expand...

FTFY. Not that it would bother me. I suspect I would approve of her comments to Goldman Sachs.
 
jhunter1163 said:
As someone said upthread, she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, and she has chosen "doesn't". Can't say I blame her really; why hand the opposition more stuff that can be taken out of context and used against her?
Click to expand...

that is silly, and just another feeble excuse.

The context was her speeches to Goldman Sachs, was there some larger context you were imagining?

release the transcripts.
 
jhunter1163 said:
As someone said upthread, she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, and she has chosen "doesn't". Can't say I blame her really; why hand the opposition more stuff that can be taken out of context and used against her?
Click to expand...

Because the endless speculation about what she might have said is damaging in itself. Chances are that she gives pretty much the same canned speech to everybody, and that it's carefully drafted to offend nobody. I suspect a transcript would put us to sleep. But if she's saying things privately that conflict with her public positions, or if she's making claims about herself that conflict with her previous claims or the established facts, the voters are entitled to know. She has a history of dissembling and "misremembering," whether it's about non-existent sniper fire or about the Reagans' enlightened support for AIDs victims.

And her penchant for sneaky secrecy is Nixonian, even when it works against her. How many different stories has she told about her email server? The fact that she doesn't want us to know what she's telling her private, paying audiences tells us more about her than the content itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom