Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[The Commish]

I'm sick of people blaming the Parties - the saying 'we get the government we deserve is absolutely correct'.

How many of you knew who Bernie was a year ago? I sure didn't - and that's the problem. If we want things to change it means we need to be pro-active in supporting the candidates we want instead of letting the Party machine push their favorite candidate through.

Now that I look back it's truly incredible that Obama was able to defeat Hillary in 2008.  Unfortunately, someone with the total package like him is unlikely to come around again soon.

I'm not blaming the parties.  They are doing the minimum to get by.  That's human nature.  I'm not sure how people didn't know about Bernie.  I didn't have an intimate knowledge of all his positions, but I knew who he was and what he was about several years ago.  What seems absolutely absurd is the notion that we can't be upset with the process the parties have created to ensure we can't effectively do the bold.  Ultimately, the parties get to pick who they want.  The primary voting events are window dressing.  In the end they don't have to go with what primary voters say.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Looking fwd to you guys attacking Kristof:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

 

[Henry Ford]

Looking fwd to you guys attacking Kristof:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

I think that's a pretty reasonable take on Clinton.  He says she's scheming, unprincipled, evasive, hawkish, probably had her own email server to avoid FOIA requests.  He acknowledges that big checks are written to campaigns for access and influence, and says she's thin-skinned, controlling, and self-inflicts media damage with evasion and half-truths and says we should denounce her judgment and policy positions. 

I just don't really agree with "well, sure, but she's a politician, so it's not important."

 

[squistion]

I'm not blaming the parties.  They are doing the minimum to get by.  That's human nature.  I'm not sure how people didn't know about Bernie.  I didn't have an intimate knowledge of all his positions, but I knew who he was and what he was about several years ago.  What seems absolutely absurd is the notion that we can't be upset with the process the parties have created to ensure we can't effectively do the bold.  Ultimately, the parties get to pick who they want.  The primary voting events are window dressing.  In the end they don't have to go with what primary voters say.

No, they don't have to...but if that were really true, that they get to pick who they want, then Obama would not have won the nomination in 2008. Hillary was, as she is now, the establishment candidate. Yes, in theory, the super delegates could override the popular vote and delegate count from the primaries/caucuses, but that didn't happen in 2008 and since the current rules regarding super delegates were adopted in 1984, they have not ever decided the Democratic Party nominee.  

If Bernie somehow pulls off a miracle and wins 59% of the remaining delegates and goes into the convention with more votes/delegates than Hillary, I doubt the Democratic Party would deny him the nomination with the super delegates. It would cost Hillary the election. The same holds true for Trump and the GOP if he is close to the majority threshold.

 

[rockaction]

Why would you ever listen to a GD album?  There is so much access to their live catalog.

American Beauty is such a solid album and sound recording, front to back, that it's impossible for me to see it as anything but something to be experienced as a sound recording. I know, I never really got the Dead and jam bands in general, but that recording is just excellent. It doesn't need improvement. 

As far as listening to it for stress relief, Box Of Rain is about terminal cancer, which tim well knows, so that's kind of an astute comment and an interesting one. Stress relief by listening to Box of Rain. Yow.  

eta* Also, the radio promo for American Beauty is something else. Warner Bros. did a Mad Men bang-up job on it. One of the greatest ads I've ever heard.  Promo

"I'd like to tell you that Tricia heard the Grateful Dead and left home and joined Fanny and now can be seen skinny dipping at the Tropicana motor hotel pool in your town, but you're no fool. You'd complain, we'd get in trouble, and Jerry Garcia would probably get busted again."

 

[Guest]

Looking fwd to you guys attacking Kristof:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

He says she's a liar, just that the narrative may be out of whack when comparing to other politicians.  She still lies 50% of the time on the campaign trail.  So yes, she's fundamentally a liar.  And her history of lies has expanded from exaggerated positions.  She has lied as she set up a political influence peddling machine with her husband that has included taking outright bribes, as well as implicit ones.  She's not to be trusted, and this at least mildly corroborates.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not blaming the parties.  They are doing the minimum to get by.  That's human nature.  I'm not sure how people didn't know about Bernie.  I didn't have an intimate knowledge of all his positions, but I knew who he was and what he was about several years ago.  What seems absolutely absurd is the notion that we can't be upset with the process the parties have created to ensure we can't effectively do the bold.  Ultimately, the parties get to pick who they want.  The primary voting events are window dressing.  In the end they don't have to go with what primary voters say.

No, they don't have to...but if that were really true, that they get to pick who they want, then Obama would not have won the nomination in 2008. Hillary was, as she is now, the establishment candidate. Yes, in theory, the super delegates could override the popular vote and delegate count from the primaries/caucuses, but that didn't happen in 2008 and since the current rules regarding super delegates were adopted in 1984, they have not ever decided the Democratic Party nominee.  

If Bernie somehow pulls off a miracle and wins 59% of the remaining delegates and goes into the convention with more votes/delegates than Hillary, I doubt the Democratic Party would deny him the nomination with the super delegates. It would cost Hillary the election. The same holds true for Trump and the GOP if he is close to the majority threshold.

No idea where you're going with this, but ok?

None of what you post changes anything I posted and the fact that they didn't override the electorate in 2008 has nothing to do with the fact they have the ability to do so if they want to which is my point.  There's no question in my mind that if things got to a point they didn't like or that wasn't in their best interests they'd not hesitate to override the wishes of the masses.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Looking fwd to you guys attacking Kristof:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

I've hit my limit of free NYT articles this month. Yet I can get to this by clicking the link from RealClear - if anyone else is in the same boat.

Anyhoo: Loved this article. Appearing to be a defense of Hillary, it's in fact a pretty nice catalog of her fundamental underlying character flaws that simply surface in individual issues/scandals/investigations, etc. "PolitiFact rates her statements at 50% as true or mostly true"  LOL nice, I'm guessing the other 50% are merely misunderstood. "Is she scheming and unprincipled? Perhaps but "pragmatic" is a better synonym. It goes on and on. Great read - thanks for the link. 

 

[The Commish]

I've hit my limit of free NYT articles this month. Yet I can get to this by clicking the link from RealClear - if anyone else is in the same boat.

Anyhoo: Loved this article. Appearing to be a defense of Hillary, it's in fact a pretty nice catalog of her fundamental underlying character flaws that simply surface in individual issues/scandals/investigations, etc. "PolitiFact rates her statements at 50% as true or mostly true"  LOL nice, I'm guessing the other 50% are merely misunderstood. "Is she scheming and unprincipled? Perhaps but "pragmatic" is a better synonym. It goes on and on. Great read - thanks for the link. 

  and so it begins.

 

[rockaction]

  and so it begins.

What begins, in all earnestness? The NYT defending her over any Republican candidate?   

 

[timschochet]

Of course this is directed at you.  So, have you recently read any independent analysis of the cattle futures issue, or the pardons issue, or even the fracking articles I've posted, or are your conclusions still based on the opinion pieces you read ages ago but only vaguely remember?  Tell you what, prove to me that you've actually read up on the pardons.  In your own words, who got pardoned, what were the accusations, and how were they false?  Ditto for cattle futures...

Tell you what: no. 

Im not really a big fan of having to prove myself to you or anybody around here. You think I'm lying about having read those articles? Fine. You want to take me at my word? Also fine. 

 

[squistion]

No idea where you're going with this, but ok?

None of what you post changes anything I posted and the fact that they didn't override the electorate in 2008 has nothing to do with the fact they have the ability to do so if they want to which is my point.  There's no question in my mind that if things got to a point they didn't like or that wasn't in their best interests they'd not hesitate to override the wishes of the masses.

Then that should have happened in 2008, but it didn't.  Yes, they have the ability to do so and have had that ability since 1984, but it has never come into play. Won't happen this time either if Bernie has more votes/delegates going into the convention over Hillary.

I could envision a scenario where multiple candidates go into the convention, none with a majority and a fringe candidate leading the field with a 25% plurality. Then yes, the super delegates could step in a decide the nominee.  But the bottom line is that if Bernie leads Hillary in votes and delegates from the primaries/caucuses going into the convention, he will not be denied the nomination (which would be overriding the wishes of the masses).

 

[Guest]

Me:  [bring flowers to my wife]:  It's not all bad, honey.  Politifact says that 50% of what I say is true -- or at least mostly true.  Who was that guy who murdered his wife there...  With the knife?

Wife:  Where are you going with this?

Me:  Forget his name...  But he was only 9% true or mostly true.  So, see, I'm better.  And I brought you flowers!  I bought them myself and didn't even steal them off a grave...  Don't think it's true!  Tell you what, we'll let math and science settle this!  Let's flip a coin.

 

[squistion]

Me:  [bring flowers to my wife]:  It's not all bad, honey.  Politifact says that 50% of what I say is true -- or at least mostly true.  Who was that guy who murdered his wife there...  With the knife?

Wife:  Where are you going with this?

Me:  Forget his name...  But he was only 9% true or mostly true.  So, see, I'm better.  And I brought you flowers!  I bought them myself and didn't even steal them off a grave...  Don't think it's true!  Tell you what, we'll let math and science settle this!  Let's flip a coin.

Great analogy. Yes, let's compare Hillary to O.J.  

 

[The Commish]

No idea where you're going with this, but ok?

None of what you post changes anything I posted and the fact that they didn't override the electorate in 2008 has nothing to do with the fact they have the ability to do so if they want to which is my point.  There's no question in my mind that if things got to a point they didn't like or that wasn't in their best interests they'd not hesitate to override the wishes of the masses.

Then that should have happened in 2008, but it didn't.  Yes, they have the ability to do so and have had that ability since 1984, but it has never come into play. Won't happen this time either if Bernie has more votes/delegates going into the convention over Hillary.

I could envision a scenario where multiple candidates go into the convention, none with a majority and a fringe candidate leading the field with a 25% plurality. Then yes, the super delegates could step in a decide the nominee.  But the bottom line is that if Bernie leads Hillary in votes and delegates from the primaries/caucuses going into the convention, he will not be denied the nomination (which would be overriding the wishes of the masses).

Why should it have?  They weren't all that different policy wise.  Hell, she's campaigning on being Obama's third term.  There wasn't a significant difference between them.  Are we suppose to pretend that wasn't the case in order to try and make some sort of point?

 

[Sand]

Now isn't the time to leak them.

A TMZ or Breitbart wouldn't hold on to these.  They'd be out there.

 

[squistion]

Why should it have?  They weren't all that different policy wise.  Hell, she's campaigning on being Obama's third term.  There wasn't a significant difference between them.  Are we suppose to pretend that wasn't the case in order to try and make some sort of point?

:sigh:

Yes, in retrospect but that is revisionist history with 20/20 hindsight. But, If you want to believe that Democrats saw no difference at the time, you are entitled to your opinion.

However, in 2008, it was seen by those in the Democratic Party that there were indeed significant differences between the two candidates.  It turns out Obama was more of a centrist and governed closer to what Hillary would have done, but that was not the perception, hope and change included change from the establishment (which was Hillary) or at least that was the belief. And there were serious doubts even among Democrats that America was ready in 2008 to elected a black man as President. The safe choice would have resulted in the establishment super delegates overriding the will of the masses. Didn't happen then, won't happen now.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

A TMZ or Breitbart wouldn't hold on to these.  They'd be out there.

What difference would it make? They probably would just confirm what everyone already knows - she pandered to her audience and it would appear she's in the back pocket of Goldman and Wall Street.

Those who don't support Hillary would say "I knew it!" and those who support her would simply ignore it all.

 

[timschochet]

What difference would it make? They probably would just confirm what everyone already knows - she pandered to her audience and it would appear she's in the back pocket of Goldman and Wall Street.

Those who don't support Hillary would say "I knew it!" and those who support her would simply ignore it all.

I doubt it. 

My guess is that the speeches don't touch on Wall Street at all other than a few kind words in the beginning (which would be used to embarrass her I'm sure). I think the speeches were mostly devoted to foreign policy issues. 

 

[timschochet]

He says she's a liar, just that the narrative may be out of whack when comparing to other politicians.  She still lies 50% of the time on the campaign trail.  So yes, she's fundamentally a liar.  And her history of lies has expanded from exaggerated positions.  She has lied as she set up a political influence peddling machine with her husband that has included taking outright bribes, as well as implicit ones.  She's not to be trusted, and this at least mildly corroborates.

This post cracks me up. 

As you correctly point out, what the article  says is that Hillary's honesty is typical for a politician, something which I've been arguing for months.

Yet in this thread you have been accusing her of grave crimes of corruption for which you have continually predicted her indictment. That would be well beyond other politicians. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I doubt it. 

My guess is that the speeches don't touch on Wall Street at all other than a few kind words in the beginning (which would be used to embarrass her I'm sure). I think the speeches were mostly devoted to foreign policy issues. 

Maybe. That doesn't really dispute what I wrote. It would be truly bizarre for her to fight releasing them and taking yet another hit on the questions of her character if they really were foreign policy speeches. 

Every time she's been asked about the transcripts she's deflected by bringing up Bernie's tax returns. He's now released them and she's left looking like she's hiding something.

 

[cobalt_27]

I doubt it. 

My guess is that the speeches don't touch on Wall Street at all other than a few kind words in the beginning (which would be used to embarrass her I'm sure). I think the speeches were mostly devoted to foreign policy issues. 

Interesting fantasy and wishful thinking.  If this were true, she would have released them.  

Pas with everything, if the content benefits her, she releases them.  If the content is potentially damaging, she tucks them away.  I know you have a pony in the race and want to excuse everything she has ever done, but don't insult our intelligence here and act like you truly believe this.

 

[The Commish]

Why should it have?  They weren't all that different policy wise.  Hell, she's campaigning on being Obama's third term.  There wasn't a significant difference between them.  Are we suppose to pretend that wasn't the case in order to try and make some sort of point?

:sigh:

Yes, in retrospect but that is revisionist history with 20/20 hindsight. But, If you want to believe that Democrats saw no difference at the time, you are entitled to your opinion.

However, in 2008, it was seen by those in the Democratic Party that there were indeed significant differences between the two candidates.  It turns out Obama was more of a centrist and governed closer to what Hillary would have done, but that was not the perception, hope and change included change from the establishment (which was Hillary) or at least that was the belief. And there were serious doubts even among Democrats that America was ready in 2008 to elected a black man as President. The safe choice would have resulted in the establishment super delegates overriding the will of the masses. Didn't happen then, won't happen now.

Sigh as you wish

I'm the first to admit, I have really had no reason to pay attention to the knowledge makeup of either party.  I wasn't aware they were that easily duped.  From what I remember early on the "hope and change" shtick was catchy, but the battle was always going to be who got the black votes.  It was pretty clear to most of us after a period of time, their platforms weren't all that different (that is, if you were to believe what Hillary was saying at the time).  She allowed Obama to drag her left too.  The question then became how much would he actually get accomplished and how much was just   So if one is to believe, as you state, there was that much fear about Obama, the media did a pretty good job covering it up because I don't remember any sort of talk like we hare having with the GOP group today.  From where I stand, people seemed just fine with him and I use the evidence of the super delegates willingly jumping behind him without brokered conventions or attempts to change rules etc.

 

[timschochet]

IMO she hasn't released them because there's something embarrassing- maybe a foreign policy notion that could be used against her somehow, or maybe, as I wrote, a kind word or two for Goldman that doesn't fit with the current narrative. 

But I doubt there's any smoking gun. Hillary is overly secretive which is an unfortunate personality trait she's always had. But it doesn't prove corruption and in fact I don't think she is corrupt. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

IMO she hasn't released them because there's something embarrassing- maybe a foreign policy notion that could be used against her somehow, or maybe, as I wrote, a kind word or two for Goldman that doesn't fit with the current narrative. 

But I doubt there's any smoking gun. Hillary is overly secretive which is an unfortunate personality trait she's always had. But it doesn't prove corruption and in fact I don't think she is corrupt. 

The server is an actual smoking gun. It's a tangible thing allegedly used in a crime which law enforcement have seized.

Also see Jill Stein's comment further up.

 

[cobalt_27]

IMO she hasn't released them because there's something embarrassing- maybe a foreign policy notion that could be used against her somehow, or maybe, as I wrote, a kind word or two for Goldman that doesn't fit with the current narrative. 

But I doubt there's any smoking gun. Hillary is overly secretive which is an unfortunate personality trait she's always had. But it doesn't prove corruption and in fact I don't think she is corrupt. 

Yes, we are all well aware you don't think she is corrupt.  You go through all sorts of mental gymnastics--such as this latest pet theory--to do anything to absolve her of wrong-doing.  It's a pattern, and everyone will probably keep pointing it out so long as you continue to engage in it.

 

[squistion]

IMO she hasn't released them because there's something embarrassing- maybe a foreign policy notion that could be used against her somehow, or maybe, as I wrote, a kind word or two for Goldman that doesn't fit with the current narrative. 

But I doubt there's any smoking gun. Hillary is overly secretive which is an unfortunate personality trait she's always had. But it doesn't prove corruption and in fact I don't think she is corrupt. 

It is simpler than that. Hillary's opposition has never missed any opportunity to take what she says out of context and use it against her to mean something different than what was intended (see What difference does it make? or We didn't lose a single person in Libya)  The transcripts would be a treasure trove of potentially misleading speech snippets that could be used in attack ads against her and she would end up discussing that instead of the real issues in the campaign. It would be silly to give the opposition that ammunition, which is why the GOP candidates have also been silent on this, as they don't want to go there either.

 

[Guest]

A TMZ or Breitbart wouldn't hold on to these.  They'd be out there.

Most likely holder would be Republican opposition research firms who spend much more time and money on this kind of effort.

 

[timschochet]

The server is an actual smoking gun. It's a tangible thing allegedly used in a crime which law enforcement have seized.

Also see Jill Stein's comment further up.

No it isn't. 

No it wasn't. 

 

[timschochet]

It is simpler than that. Hillary's opposition has never missed any opportunity to take what she says out of context and use it against her to mean something different than what was intended (see What difference does it make? or We didn't lose a single person in Libya)  The transcripts would be a treasure trove of potentially misleading speech snippets that could be used in attack ads against her and she would end up discussing that instead of the real issues in the campaign. It would be silly to give the opposition that ammunition, which is why the GOP candidates have also been silent on this, as they don't want to go there either.

Exactly. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Also, your idea that Hillary was talking to Goldman about foreign policy is kind of hilarious when you think about it.  Why not make up a theory she was talking about baseball or the best nursery rhymes of all time?  Not only does that make no sense, it is contrary to what she said in the debates was the content, which was that she let them have it and chewed them out a new one.  

Foreign policy speech to Goldman.

 

[Guest]

This post cracks me up. 

As you correctly point out, what the article  says is that Hillary's honesty is typical for a politician, something which I've been arguing for months.

Yet in this thread you have been accusing her of grave crimes of corruption for which you have continually predicted her indictment. That would be well beyond other politicians. 

Yes.  You're right.  She has committed crimes.  What's funny is the best Hillary supporters can muster to defend her is someone who comes forth to say, yeah she's a big fat liar, but...  Pretty shaky ground to build say a white house on.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It is simpler than that. Hillary's opposition has never missed any opportunity to take what she says out of context and use it against her to mean something different than what was intended (see What difference does it make? or We didn't lose a single person in Libya)  The transcripts would be a treasure trove of potentially misleading speech snippets that could be used in attack ads against her and she would end up discussing that instead of the real issues in the campaign. It would be silly to give the opposition that ammunition, which is why the GOP candidates have also been silent on this, as they don't want to go there either.

Yeah, poor Hillary. It only happens to her. Good thing it's only the GOP that takes things out of context for political advantage.  Democrats never do that.  ever.

 

[timschochet]

Also, your idea that Hillary was talking to Goldman about foreign policy is kind of hilarious when you think about it.  Why not make up a theory she was talking about baseball or the best nursery rhymes of all time?  Not only does that make no sense, it is contrary to what she said in the debates was the content, which was that she let them have it and chewed them out a new one.  

Foreign policy speech to Goldman.

Pretty funny right? Silly to suppose that someone who just quit being the Secretary of State would be talking about foreign policy. Absurd! 

 

[timschochet]

Also Cobalt you're confusing two sets of speeches there. The scolding came when she was a senator. The paid speeches came in 2013. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

Pretty funny right? Silly to suppose that someone who just quit being the Secretary of State would be talking about foreign policy. Absurd! 

No that's not silly at all.  I just wouldn't expect people to take her seriously since she wasn't any good at it.

 

[cobalt_27]

The concern about Hillary's words being misinterpreted and used against her is dumb.  That is a dumb, lazy argument.

How many speeches has Hillary given over the years?  It's certainly in the thousands, but more likely tens of thousands.  She, like any seasoned politician, is well-versed on managing the "context" issue when she truly believes in what she's saying.  The Clintons, after all, know how to spin what the definition of is is.  But, suddenly, she's all concerned about innocuous statements being mis-represented?  Be serious.  

The only logical reason the transcripts aren't coming out is because what she said--or didn't say--is viewed by her camp as damaging.  She has already gone on record and said she gave them hell for the mortgage crisis and CEO compensations, among other things...and she probably never said any of those things...probably other stuff they know will damage her integrity. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

The concern about Hillary's words being misinterpreted and used against her is dumb.  That is a dumb, lazy argument.

How many speeches has Hillary given over the years?  It's certainly in the thousands, but more likely tens of thousands.  She, like any seasoned politician, is well-versed on managing the "context" issue when she truly believes in what she's saying.  The Clintons, after all, know how to spin what the definition of is is.  But, suddenly, she's all concerned about innocuous statements being mis-represented?  Be serious.  

The only logical reason the transcripts aren't coming out is because what she said--or didn't say--is viewed by her camp as damaging.  She has already gone on record and said she gave them hell for the mortgage crisis and CEO compensations, among other things...and she probably never said any of those things...probably other stuff they know will damage her integrity. 

So, you're saying she probably lied about this?  Weird, because usually when you think of honesty and trust, Hillary is the first one to come to mind.

All kidding aside, Hillary's reputation is well-earned. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No it isn't. 

No it wasn't. 

Tim the FBI seized her server. That's what the police do with guns in shootings. It's an actual metaphorical "smoking gun".

 

[cobalt_27]

Also Cobalt you're confusing two sets of speeches there. The scolding came when she was a senator. The paid speeches came in 2013. 

Ah, I see.  So, is the implication that she was all cool with Wall Street practices by 2013?

 

[cobalt_27]

Pretty funny right? Silly to suppose that someone who just quit being the Secretary of State would be talking about foreign policy. Absurd! 

I guess, in true Clintonian fashion, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "foreign policy" is.  Of course, you can't talk about big money without referencing global economic interests.  So, if that's what you're calling foreign policy, party on.  What Goldman Sachs did not do is pay her $250k per speech to talk policy shop without it coming back to investments, generating wealth, etc.  

 

[timschochet]

I guess, in true Clintonian fashion, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "foreign policy" is.  Of course, you can't talk about big money without referencing global economic interests.  So, if that's what you're calling foreign policy, party on.  What Goldman Sachs did not do is pay her $250k per speech to talk policy shop without it coming back to investments, generating wealth, etc.  

Investments? Sure, in a broad sort of way. Something like, "these are the markets that are going to be ripe for US investment in the next few decades. Here are the consumers that will be purchasing American products, etc." 

I'm really not sure what sort of secret talk you're anticipating. 

 

[Guest]

History has shown that you get the worst essence of the leader you elect as a defining part of their legacy.  Nixon was a crook. GW Bush was a puppet for big money.  Reagan was an elitist.  Clinton was a philanderer.  Obama was a community organizer wired to compromise and not lead.  

These traits were in evidence well before the elections, and served as predictors of failures and injustices.

These traits are not rules without exception, but you better damn well believe that Hillary as a corrupt liar will be in full force as part of her legacy, if elected...  Just as Trump as the maniacal shoot first tyrant will be.

 

[The Commish]

It's funny to me that the person that is supposedly the most fit to lead the entire free world has such trouble saying what she means.  Of course, I'm sure it's just the other guy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Ah, I see.  So, is the implication that she was all cool with Wall Street practices by 2013?

I noticed that to.  According to Hillary, she was really hard on Wall Street firms, but once they started paying her, she lightened up all of the sudden.  It's almost as if the act of accepting their money influenced her point of view.  But of course that can't really be the case, because Hillary's integrity and intellectual consistency are both unimpeachable.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim the FBI seized her server. That's what the police do with guns in shootings. It's an actual metaphorical "smoking gun".

@timschochet

 

[Guest]

May seem like a dumb question, but what animal would you associate Trump and Clinton with?  (There's a reason I'm asking). 

 

[cobalt_27]

Investments? Sure, in a broad sort of way. Something like, "these are the markets that are going to be ripe for US investment in the next few decades. Here are the consumers that will be purchasing American products, etc." 

I'm really not sure what sort of secret talk you're anticipating. 

That's my point.  And, again, manipulate semantics all you want, but Goldman wasn't interested in any foreign policy speech if it wasn't about investments and growth.  In that respect, it's hardly a foreign policy speech, as you're trying to frame it now.

I'm not anticipating anything.  Hillary is clearly uncomfortable with disclosing the content of what she was paid a phenomenal amount of money to say.  In the spirit of transparency and secrecy, that concerns me--and millions of others--a great deal.

 

[cobalt_27]

I noticed that to.  According to Hillary, she was really hard on Wall Street firms, but once they started paying her, she lightened up all of the sudden.  It's almost as if the act of accepting their money influenced her point of view.  But of course that can't really be the case, because Hillary's integrity and intellectual consistency are both unimpeachable.  

Precisely.  

 

[The Commish]

May seem like a dumb question, but what animal would you associate Trump and Clinton with?  (There's a reason I'm asking). 

Trump would be a gnat

Hillary would be a chameleon