Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but then again that's because she hasn't fallen for the obvious HDS gotcha.

Why is it HDS to wonder whether what she's says privately is the same as what she says publicly? Chances are her remarks are inoffensive. Maybe she'd be open to criticism for not being tougher. But her smug, sanctimonious secrecy -- and the negative speculation it inspires -- make her look far worse than anything she is likely to have actually said, and that tells us a lot about how she would act as president.
 
Last edited:
Why is it HDS to wonder whether what she's says privately is the same as what she says publicly? Chances are her remarks are inoffensive. Maybe she'd be open to criticism for not being tougher. But her smug, sanctimonious secrecy -- and the negative speculation it inspires -- make her look far worse than anything she is likely to have actually said, and that tells us a lot about how she would act as president.

Why is it HDS to only obsess over Clinton's speeches, while ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate? Why is it HDS to assume that Clinton has "smug, sanctimonious secrecy" for not releasing transcripts of her speeches, yet not offer a peep of concern for any and every other candidate? Why is it HDS to assume that Clinton not releasing speeches makes her look far worse, and tells us a lot about how she would act as president, while not making the same demands or assumptions about any other candidate?

Do you understand what people mean by the term 'HDS'?
 
Why is it HDS to only obsess over Clinton's speeches, while ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate? Why is it HDS to assume that Clinton has "smug, sanctimonious secrecy" for not releasing transcripts of her speeches, yet not offer a peep of concern for any and every other candidate? Why is it HDS to assume that Clinton not releasing speeches makes her look far worse, and tells us a lot about how she would act as president, while not making the same demands or assumptions about any other candidate?

Do you understand what people mean by the term 'HDS'?

while ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate

:rolleyes:

Bernie Sanders has already made available all of his speeches, so that "any and every other candidate" is utter nonsense.

Talk about HDS....
 
Why is it HDS to only obsess over Clinton's speeches, while ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate? Why is it HDS to assume that Clinton has "smug, sanctimonious secrecy" for not releasing transcripts of her speeches, yet not offer a peep of concern for any and every other candidate?
.....

What other candidates do you mean? Sanders has never made paid speeches to Wall Street groups. The Republican candidates (except, surprisingly, Donald Trump) have never claimed to support tougher financial regulation, an end to carried interest, etc. Do you think Cruz or Rubio or Christie told Wall Street bankers privately "I'ma gonna kick your ass!" But the concern about Clinton results from the fact that she has promised to crack down on banking abuses at the same time her and Bill's vast personal wealth are derived in large part from an industry that she would be called on to regulate. That is reason enough to speculate about whether there might be a discrepancy between her public and private remarks. And when someone acts like he/she/they have something to hide, they often do. Clinton could choose to take the high road, release her (probably harmless) transcripts, and challenge all the other candidates to do the same. She'd come out way ahead. But that's not what she's doing, and it says something about her character and attitudes -- like the private email server in her basement -- entirely apart from anything she might have said.
 
while ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate

:rolleyes:

Bernie Sanders has already made available all of his speeches, so that "any and every other candidate" is utter nonsense.

Talk about HDS....
I'm aware that Sanders has made some of his speeches available, but not all. Even if he has, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich have not, nor are you calling for them to. Apparently, only the candidate you have spent years demonizing and would never vote for needs to jump through this hoop for you. This doesn't inspire confidence that this is a legitimate issue.
 
What other candidates do you mean? Sanders has never made paid speeches to Wall Street groups. The Republican candidates (except, surprisingly, Donald Trump) have never claimed to support tougher financial regulation, an end to carried interest, etc. Do you think Cruz or Rubio or Christie told Wall Street bankers privately "I'ma gonna kick your ass!" But the concern about Clinton results from the fact that she has promised to crack down on banking abuses at the same time her and Bill's vast personal wealth are derived in large part from an industry that she would be called on to regulate. That is reason enough to speculate about whether there might be a discrepancy between her public and private remarks. And when someone acts like he/she/they have something to hide, they often do. Clinton could choose to take the high road, release her (probably harmless) transcripts, and challenge all the other candidates to do the same. She'd come out way ahead. But that's not what she's doing, and it says something about her character and attitudes -- like the private email server in her basement -- entirely apart from anything she might have said.

Every other candidate. They have all made speeches, yet you don't seem concerned about the content of anyone's except for Clinton.

HDS seems to be the only reason anyone is speculating about (only) Clinton's speeches.
 
It sure does, and I think Trump probably has more to hide. But saying "Trump's as bad as Hillary" isn't much of a defense.
:sdl:

As bad as? Trump is a disaster waiting to happen, a CTer, mentally disturbed, a liar, a hypocrite to the nth degree.

No way have I said as bad as, Trump is so much worse than Clinton it's hard to adequately describe.
 
I'm aware that Sanders has made some of his speeches available, but not all. Even if he has, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich have not, nor are you calling for them to.


Donald Trump's high paid speeches at the 'Real Estate Wealth Expo' in 2006 were open to the public. In fact, they were selling tickets to anyone who wanted to attend ($19.95) -- similar to a rock concert.

Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs were private, behind closed doors.
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump's high paid speeches at the 'Real Estate Wealth Expo' in 2006 were open to the public. In fact, they were selling tickets to anyone who wanted to attend ($19.95) -- similar to a rock concert.

Hillary's speeches to Goldman Sachs were private, behind closed doors.
Claiming that they were selling tickets 10 years ago is not releasing transcripts, nor are those the only speeches Trump has ever given.
 
Every other candidate. They have all made speeches, yet you don't seem concerned about the content of anyone's except for Clinton.

HDS seems to be the only reason anyone is speculating about (only) Clinton's speeches.

Let's note that nobody is asking for all of Clinton's speeches, most of which -- as is true for the other candidates -- have probably been covered by reporters. The question on the table is what did she say privately to Goldman Sachs executives in exchange for $675,000? Were her remarks consistent with what she says publicly? Or different? For her to say something like "I'll release all my speeches when every other candidate releases all their speeches" is itself a diversion. The question remains "What did she say that she doesn't want voters to know?" And what will she conceal from us if she becomes President?
 
I'm aware that Sanders has made some of his speeches available, but not all. Even if he has, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich have not, nor are you calling for them to. Apparently, only the candidate you have spent years demonizing and would never vote for needs to jump through this hoop for you. This doesn't inspire confidence that this is a legitimate issue.

That did not take you that long to walk back your fabricated accusation that everyone is "ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate?" :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:

We know Hillary has transcripts of specific speeches to Goldman Sachs that she is refusing to release.

At this point any reasonable person would conclude that she is doing it because they make her look bad and like a hypocrite.

Prove me wrong, until then:

Hillary release the transcripts yet, lol
 
Let's note that nobody is asking for all of Clinton's speeches, most of which -- as is true for the other candidates -- have probably been covered by reporters. The question on the table is what did she say privately to Goldman Sachs executives in exchange for $675,000? Were her remarks consistent with what she says publicly? Or different? For her to say something like "I'll release all my speeches when every other candidate releases all their speeches" is itself a diversion. The question remains "What did she say that she doesn't want voters to know?" And what will she conceal from us if she becomes President?

I highlighted the rank, unfounded speculation that can be caused by HDS. Please note, if your news source/pundit is obsessing with these questions for one candidate only, they may be suffering from some sort of derangement syndrome.
 
That did not take you that long to walk back your fabricated accusation that everyone is "ignoring speeches made by any and every other candidate?" :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:

Your reading comprehension has let you down again. Please try rereading the conversation, as you have not understood it.

We know Hillary has transcripts of specific speeches to Goldman Sachs that she is refusing to release.

At this point any reasonable person would conclude that she is doing it because they make her look bad and like a hypocrite.

Prove me wrong, until then:

Hillary release the transcripts yet, lol

Prove you wrong that a reasonable person would come to the same conclusions as an HDS sufferer? Well, have you encountered any reasonable people who have? I certainly haven't.
 
HDS! Drink!

Accusing people of HDS seems to be some mystical talisman that automagically neutralizes obvious criticism of Hillary.

Leave Hillary alone!

lol
 
Let's just recap what has been said at this forum so far:

Trump has incredibly bad hair…
Trump has weird stumpy fingers…
Trump is a loud mouth bigot…
Trump is an ass-clown with a comb over…
Trump is a rapist…
Trump is a womanizer…
Trump is a fascist…
Trump is Hitler…
Trump is a fraud…
Trump is a racist…
Trump is a sexist…
Trump is a homophobe…
Trump is a xenophobe…
Trump is a closet KKK member…
Trump is a contemptible demagogue…
Trump is a lowlife scumbag…
Trump is a liar and a loon…

And it goes on and on; there are hundreds more.

But my mentioning Hillary's pantsuit should be cause for embarrassment? Right!
Aside from the hands and the combover, perhaps, none of the other criticisms of Trump are what I would consider sexist. Neither would I consider most criticisms of Hillary's character, performance in office, and honesty sexist, even if do not believe they are accurate. It is not sexist to call Hillary a liar and a scumbag and a bad person in all sorts of ways, but I think it is sexist to consider her taste in pantsuits a political issue.
 
I highlighted the rank, unfounded speculation that can be caused by HDS. Please note, if your news source/pundit is obsessing with these questions for one candidate only, they may be suffering from some sort of derangement syndrome.

And what explanation for her refusal to release the transcripts boils down to anything other than "None of your business?" HDS could also mean "Hillary Delusion Syndrome," afflicting those who believe that this veteran politico can do no wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom