Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[Guest]

What I see is a person who easily justifies and bifurcates what she does in private versus what she does in public when acting in a PUBLIC capacity.

Yes.  She is fundamentally not a steward of a Republic.  She is an oligarch, and this disqualified on the basis of these remarks.  

 

[timschochet]

There we go. You finally admitted it. That's what Hillary thinks too.

Finally admitted it? I've said it all along. Hillary can't say it. But I'm only too happy. 

Saints, I've been in this forum nearly 10 years now and I've attacked populism the whole time. What do you think I meant by that? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Finally admitted it? I've said it all along. Hillary can't say it. But I'm only too happy. 

Saints, I've been in this forum nearly 10 years now and I've attacked populism the whole time. What do you think I meant by that? 

The public's right to know what their public officials are doing not the same as populism. Astounding if you don't understand that.

 

[timschochet]

The public's right to know what their public officials are doing not the same as populism. Astounding if you don't understand that.

I wasn't referring to this. At all. 

 

[Gr00vus]

No. I'm talking about the excerpt that was actually hacked and released.  Which is why I mentioned the Teddy Roosevelt bit, because that was in the excerpt, but not in her debate answer.  I've read the excerpt.  Have you?

Yeah this:

You just have to sort of figure out how to … balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically … That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who … ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. … I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching … all of the back room discussions and the deals … then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position…

Given her audience, what sausage do you think she's talking about making there? What is it you think she's talking about making backroom deals for, making the people (i.e. the public) nervous about? I don't think she's talking about controversial educational reform or freeing slaves.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saying that all people in favor of transparency of public actions are populists is like an Edgar Hoover saying liberals are communists and not understanding the difference.

 

[The Commish]

But whose fault is this? I would argue its not hers. It's the fault of the public, who continues to demand simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Students can't afford college education? Let's not bother looking for the reasons why tuition is so costly. Let's just offer them a free ride! Jobs are lost due to free trade deals? Let's not examine why unions in this country have driven up labor costs beyond what the market should bear. Lets just end free trade deals! Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump offered easy answers to a public too lazy to look for hard solutions. Hillary felt she had to verbally offer the same in order to compete. But she was careful to point out all along that there are no cure-alls and that she's committed to look for the hard solutions, in the same way Obama was. This is not always the popular position, but it's best for the country. 

You are a seasoned pro Sir Tim....I'd pulled a hammy trying this move.  Well done  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wasn't referring to this. At all. 

Hillary was.

 

[The Commish]

Well, she tried to by taking his positions.  That doesn't get talked about a whole lot because most Sanders supporters are smart enough to observe her actions and ignore whatever comes spewing out of her mouth.  This is the primary reason those claiming she's a liberal were met with mockery over and over.  For the large elephants left in the room she's always been center right no matter what she's trying to say otherwise.  And I continue to be puzzled by why the GOP is fighting her so much.

Because the GOP is no longer center-right; they are waaaaay out on the extreme lunatic fringe these days.

good point

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least.

- HDR22

- That, to Hillary, is the problem.

 

[Guest]

I want Trump to lose.  But he missed two huge opportunities last night because he doesn't do his homework and wasn't armed with fact -- only generalities.  One was in not offering a chronology of immunities given, subpoenas issued, known communications between staff, and atypical behaviors of the DOJ and FBI. A polished 2 minute rundown would have been damaging, because it's true.  

The other was not making the simple point that Hillary is criticized for muddying lines between private and public life, has an extra burden of responsibility because of the Foundation and Teneo and simply cannot be trusted when she tells private interests that her public face is a facade.

Was really angry he couldn't drive home these two simple points -- because each is an inexcusable weakness of Clinton -- and areas where she's been caught in a multitude of lies.  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yeah this:

So when speaking to a roomful of security/financial executives - what sausage do you think she's talking about making there? What is it you think she's talking about making backroom deals for, making the people (i.e. the public) nervous about? I don't think she's talking about controversial educational reform.

The sausage is what she's willing to compromise on.  She's not going to get everything she wants.  She's not going to be able to treat every investment banker like a pariah.  So you publically adopt a position that is more confrontational than what you're willing to offer the people you need concessions from.  I'm a pretty starry-eyed liberal, but what is at all revelatory about that quote? 

I supported Sanders in the primary.  I thought it was right to push her to release the transcripts because it was probably relevant.  But if this is the smoking gun, it's just a wet squib.  I find nothing remotely controversial about those statements. 

 

[Guest]

You are a seasoned pro Sir Tim....I'd pulled a hammy trying this move.  Well done  

I'm smoking a cigarette.  Thanks for the pull, Commish.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it.

HDR22

- In which Hillary rewrites history or rather a movie about a historical event to tell a roomful of lobbyists and lobbyists' clients that gosh they really are patriotic heroes.

 

[Gr00vus]

She's not going to get everything she wants.  She's not going to be able to treat every investment banker like a pariah.

My concern isn't her ability to "get everything she wants." My concern is that she's lied to the public about what she truly wants. These excerpts at least confirm the notion that she's fully comfortable saying very, very different things about a given issue depending on what audience she's speaking to. How are we supposed to trust that such a person will represent our interests if we vote for them? You may be able to, as you say, but I can't, and frankly think it's difficult to understand why someone would.

 

[rodg12]

I want Trump to lose.  But he missed two huge opportunities last night because he doesn't do his homework and wasn't armed with fact -- only generalities.  One was in not offering a chronology of immunities given, subpoenas issued, known communications between staff, and atypical behaviors of the DOJ and FBI. A polished 2 minute rundown would have been damaging, because it's true.  

The other was not making the simple point that Hillary is criticized for muddying lines between private and public life, has an extra burden of responsibility because of the Foundation and Teneo and simply cannot be trusted when she tells private interests that her public face is a facade.

Was really angry he couldn't drive home these two simple points -- because each is an inexcusable weakness of Clinton -- and areas where she's been caught in a multitude of lies.  

Well, when she says she's going to put the Foundation in a blind trust she actually knows what that means and will do it, unlike Trump and his companies.  Trump would be a MORON to bring this up with all his personal entanglements and conflicts of interest.

 

[timschochet]

Saying that all people in favor of transparency of public actions are populists is like an Edgar Hoover saying liberals are communists and not understanding the difference.

You're changing the subject. I never wrote nor implied that argument, and neither did Hillary. 

 

[Gr00vus]

By the way, if you find yourself unable to hit the wikileaks material directly (as I am right now at work), here's a list of some of the interesting excerpts that seems more accessible.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You're changing the subject. I never wrote nor implied that argument, and neither did Hillary. 

I just quoted it for you, that's what Hillary was talking about, public knowledge of the backroom deals.

But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least.

She was not talking about populism for god's sake.

 

[Gr00vus]

One thing from last night that got my attention, and will make the nausea of putting my mark for her a little less, is when she said she wanted to overturn Citizens United during the debate last night. Is that a new tack for her? I don't remember her saying that before.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One thing from last night that got my attention, and will make the nausea of putting my mark for her a little less, is when she said she wanted to overturn Citizens United during the debate last night. Is that a new tack for her? I don't remember her saying that before.

Let's see: the case in which the government halted the distribution of a movie critical of Hillary and that was declared unconstitutional?

Yes, Hillary is in favor of overturning it. HTH.

 

[rodg12]

One thing from last night that got my attention, and will make the nausea of putting my mark for her a little less, is when she said she wanted to overturn Citizens United during the debate last night. Is that a new tack for her? I don't remember her saying that before.

Her campaign announced the plan at the end of July.

 

[CHEF]

One thing from last night that got my attention, and will make the nausea of putting my mark for her a little less, is when she said she wanted to overturn Citizens United during the debate last night. Is that a new tack for her? I don't remember her saying that before.




 

Hillary Clinton is committed to introducing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision within her first 30 days in office, if she’s elected president. I know she said this back in July. But, it could have been something she said earlier than that.

 

[Gr00vus]

Her campaign announced the plan at the end of July.

I hadn't heard her mention it herself. Saints has a point though, some personal interest there. I'll take it (even though I don't trust her) as a salve.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most -- or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry.

- HDR22

- Here Hillary admits she knew it was against the rules to have her blackberry.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

By the way, if you find yourself unable to hit the wikileaks material directly (as I am right now at work), here's a list of some of the interesting excerpts that seems more accessible.

Most of these do not seem bad to me.  Some contradictions?  Sure.  But mostly nothing to see.  No smoking gun.  She even calls on Wall Street to be held accountable and get their #### together.

 

[Koya]

Well, the last 8 days have sure been a doozy.  After the first quarter of ball (toward end of summer, before she got sick and deplored everyone), team Clinton was off to a huge lead. Possibly insurmountable.

But, when you go up 18 points in the first quarter, you KNOW the other team is going to have a run.  And they did... going into halftime team Trump nearly caught up.  But few thought they could sustain continued success.

Now, we are just about done with the third quarter, possibly going into the fourth.  Hillary is back to a a 15-20 point lead, with far less time on the clock.  I'd expect one last good run by Trump because the media and everyone wants a horserace (cause it's not like the outcome of this thing will actually matter or anything, right?), maybe he gets it down to 11 or 12 points.  A three point shot away from single digits... but alas, I don't see it getting closer than that.

 

[Gr00vus]

Most of these do not seem bad to me.  Some contradictions?  Sure.  But mostly nothing to see.  No smoking gun.  She even calls on Wall Street to be held accountable and get their #### together.

Agreed. I don't think they're all bad. I think the self patrolling wall street thing isn't so hot though. It's obvious they're not going to effectively regulate themselves, the government can't just leave them to their own devices and expect things to improve.

 

[CHEF]

These are not really anything bad.

I think she is saying a lot of the things that most people think or already know about politics, campaign finance and more. I don't see what is so shocking here. Everyone can't agree on everything. If this is the smoking gun Trump was looking for he better try again. 

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Agreed. I don't think they're all bad. I think the self patrolling wall street thing isn't so hot though. It's obvious they're not going to effectively regulate themselves, the government can't just leave them to their own devices and expect things to improve.

I didn't read it as letting them self-regulate, but that they need to check themselves if they want to avoid it.

 

[Gr00vus]

I didn't read it as letting them self-regulate, but that they need to check themselves if they want to avoid it.

“Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. … Today, there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that’s increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal.”

I'm not seeing even an implied threat of government intervention there. Are you talking about a different excerpt?

 

[renesauz]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think I read that.  She said internally Wall Street would need to reform itself. She said publicly that she will try to clean up Wall Street.  Both of those things can be true at the same time.

Opposite things said in separate places in separate times to separate audiences = a lie. You want to couch it, fine. By the way things people say in private is far more likely to be the truth.

Ya know, I think it's perfectly reasonable to call this a lie from Hillary. It really is. The problem is that if this is considered a lie, what happens when those same definations and standards are applied to Trump?

I mean, the guy has repeatedly stated "Nobody respects women more than I do". A simple statement that needs no background information and isn't open to interpretation or obfuscation. And yet, not one reasonable human on the planet could call this anything but a lie. Millions of men would never talk like he did, in a locker room or anywhere else, so millions, by any reasonable or objective measure, respect women more than he does.

Yet, Trump uses this kind of rhetoric ALMOST ALWAYS. There's no middle ground. "It's the WORST deal ever."

I have a hard time calling this a lie for HIllary, but accept that some can. What I can't accept is anyone calling these sorts of things lies without also being overwhelmed with revulsion at the constant exagerations and empty boasts spewing from Donald Trump. There is no logical consistency in such a position, only overwhelming bias.

 

[CHEF]

In remarks at Xerox in March 2014, Clinton was told that “long means thumbs up” and “short means thumbs down.” She was then asked the legalization of pot. Clinton responded: “Short in all senses of the word.”

If the Republicans ran a pro-marijuana agenda Trump would probably get elected. There are a lot of states voting for different pot initiatives which will bring out more voters than usual. I don't like that Clinton is not strongly for legalization. This could really sway the vote.

 

[Gr00vus]

In remarks at Xerox in March 2014, Clinton was told that “long means thumbs up” and “short means thumbs down.” She was then asked the legalization of pot. Clinton responded: “Short in all senses of the word.”

If the Republicans ran a pro-marijuana agenda Trump would probably get elected. There are a lot of states voting for different pot initiatives which will bring out more voters than usual. I don't like that Clinton is not strongly for legalization. This could really sway the vote.

I think there's a whole generation that still needs to die off before politicians will see legalization on a national level as more of a win than a loss. Neither one of these candidates is going to mess with that yet.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Chief of Staff for the Secretary of State drafting a memo here coordinating the lines of communication between Teneo, the Foundation and Bill Clinton.

Why the hell is the SOS's office doing this?

Btw Justin Cooper was the admin for Hillary's server.

because these people work for the Clinton's, to them it doesn't matter that Hillary is SoS and Bill is balls deep with Teneo and the Foundation...well it matters to them enough to figure out how to skirt FOIA requests but otherwise they are devoted to Clinton, Inc

 

[timschochet]

I just quoted it for you, that's what Hillary was talking about, public knowledge of the backroom deals.

She was not talking about populism for god's sake.

What she said is that sometimes its best the public not know about the details. I agree with her. But she never said that they didn't have a right to know. That's very different.

Personally, I believe the public has a right to know (though the FOIA is misused by partisans IMO and should be more regulated), but I'm glad they're not all that interested. And I believe that's exactly what Hillary was saying. 

 

[Joe Summer]

If the Republicans ran a pro-marijuana agenda Trump would probably get elected.

Yeah right.

Sincerely,

Just Say No and This Is Your Brain On Drugs

 

[The Commish]

I'm smoking a cigarette.  Thanks for the pull, Commish.  

 

 

[timschochet]

And I should add Saints, that the public's desire to know details of government is a facet of populism, and very dangerous IMO. Pluralism works when the public is only interested at specific times in specific cases. In a perfect society, 90% of the public would NEVER be interested in politics at all, because it wouldn't touch their lives. 

 

[cstu]

“Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. … Today, there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that’s increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal.”

What I love about her talking about TR is that it backs up the sneaking suspicion that her taking money from banks doesn't necessarily mean she's corrupted by it.

Here's the quote I've posted a couple of times:

Though TR accepted corporate contributions for his campaign of 1904, he ignored the donors’ requests for payback (Henry Clay Frick groused, “We bought the son of a #####, and then he didn’t stay bought”) and pushed through the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibited banks and corporations from contributing to political campaigns.

Once she gets what she's wanted her entire life (the Presidency) all bets are off what she does with it.

 

[timschochet]

What I love about her talking about TR is that it backs up the sneaking suspicion that her taking money from banks doesn't necessarily mean she's corrupted by it.

Here's the quote I've posted a couple of times:

Once she gets what she's wanted her entire life (the Presidency) all bets are off what she does with it.

I believe she will generally try to do what she's promised. And that includes attempting to regulate Wall Street. 

 

[CHEF]

What I love about her talking about TR is that it backs up the sneaking suspicion that her taking money from banks doesn't necessarily mean she's corrupted by it.

Here's the quote I've posted a couple of times:

Once she gets what she's wanted her entire life (the Presidency) all bets are off what she does with it.




 

I believe this is 100% correct. I think she wants to get dirty money out of politics and hopefully reform our long election process. Maybe she could work on term limits also. This is a bipartisan issue that everyone can agree on except those that make their living in politics. 

She repeated the sentiment in a January 6, 2014 speech to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting.

“So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. … Obviously… I would like it not to last as long because I think it’s very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. … In my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it’s so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that’s basically what we’re in for. So we’re kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it’s even harder now.”

 

[Guest]

I believe this is 100% correct. I think she wants to get dirty money out of politics and hopefully reform our long election process. Maybe she could work on term limits also. This is a bipartisan issue that everyone can agree on except those that make their living in politics. 

She repeated the sentiment in a January 6, 2014 speech to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting.

“So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. … Obviously… I would like it not to last as long because I think it’s very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. … In my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it’s so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that’s basically what we’re in for. So we’re kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it’s even harder now.”

Keep trusting blindly without any evidence to the contrary of your hope she'll pull a 180 from previous ethics lapses.

 

[The Commish]

And I should add Saints, that the public's desire to know details of government is a facet of populism, and very dangerous IMO. Pluralism works when the public is only interested at specific times in specific cases. In a perfect society, 90% of the public would NEVER be interested in politics at all, because it wouldn't touch their lives. 

Wouldn't touch or wouldn't negatively affect?  

I've never understood the "too much government" perspective.  I don't really care how much government there is as long as it's not impacting us in a negative fashion.  For example, our federal government could be out of our lives in every facet except for one and if that one is impacting us negatively, I'm going to have a problem.  Conversely, they could be in every facet of our lives and if it was done so well that it wasn't impacting us negatively, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  For me, it's not quantity of government, it's impact of government.  They've been doing it wrong for a while now.

 

[CHEF]

Keep trusting blindly without any evidence to the contrary of your hope she'll pull a 180 from previous ethics lapses.

Trusting any politician is fools gold. She sure is better than the alternative choice or a wasted vote.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And I should add Saints, that the public's desire to know details of government is a facet of populism,...

I'm going to try to not go overboard with criticizing you but this is really ****'d up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

because these people work for the Clinton's, to them it doesn't matter that Hillary is SoS and Bill is balls deep with Teneo and the Foundation...well it matters to them enough to figure out how to skirt FOIA requests but otherwise they are devoted to Clinton, Inc

Thanks for the response.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ya know, I think it's perfectly reasonable to call this a lie from Hillary. It really is. The problem is that if this is considered a lie, what happens when those same definations and standards are applied to Trump?

I mean, the guy has repeatedly stated "Nobody respects women more than I do". A simple statement that needs no background information and isn't open to interpretation or obfuscation. And yet, not one reasonable human on the planet could call this anything but a lie. Millions of men would never talk like he did, in a locker room or anywhere else, so millions, by any reasonable or objective measure, respect women more than he does.

Yet, Trump uses this kind of rhetoric ALMOST ALWAYS. There's no middle ground. "It's the WORST deal ever."

I have a hard time calling this a lie for HIllary, but accept that some can. What I can't accept is anyone calling these sorts of things lies without also being overwhelmed with revulsion at the constant exagerations and empty boasts spewing from Donald Trump. There is no logical consistency in such a position, only overwhelming bias.

Ha, yeah, like everything else Trump corrodes every issue he is involved in. If you drag Trump in, then yeah Hillary wins every policy based Hillary vs Trump argument, no disagreement there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From:mharris@hillaryclinton.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com

Date: 2016-01-05 17:00

Subject: Re: Twitterstorm Tuesday - January 5

thanks
 
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:52 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >
From: *Adrienne Elrod* <aelrod@hillaryclinton.com> > Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 > Subject: Fwd: Twitterstorm Tuesday - January 5 > To: Donna Brazile <donna@brazileassociates.com> > Cc: "kfinney@hillaryclinton.com" <kfinney@hillaryclinton.com>, " > jferguson@hillaryclinton.com" <jferguson@hillaryclinton.com>, Jennifer > Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>, "mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com" < > mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>, Minyon Moore <Minyon.Moore@deweysquare.com>, > "john.podesta@gmail.com" <john.podesta@gmail.com> > > >
 
Thank you for the heads up on this Donna
 
> > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:54 PM, Donna Brazile <donna@brazileassociates.com> > wrote: > >
FYI
> > Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile > > >
 
Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Sarah Ford <sarahford@berniesanders.com> >
*Date:* January 4, 2016 at 10:26:47 PM EST
> *To:* undisclosed-recipients:; >
*Subject:* *Twitterstorm Tuesday - January 5* > >
Hello All, ...

 
 
Here DNC Vice Chairman Donna Brazeale forwards an email from the Sanders campaign, giving the Hillary campaign a 'heads up' on a forthcoming Twitter strategy.
 

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to try to not go overboard with criticizing you but this is really ****'d up.

I think you keep missing the distinction between right to know and desire to know. I want the public to have the right to know details but I would prefer it if most of them didn't exercise that right, because the less input the general public has on actual decision making, the better. Hope that helps.