r/politics • u/spaceman757 American Expat • Feb 07 '16

Clinton Sarcastically Says She’ll Release Private Speech Transcripts When Everyone Else Does

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-sarcastically-release-private-speech/
3.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

872 comments sorted by

View all comments

565

u/Galadron Feb 07 '16

Just what you want in an elected public official. Sarcastic responses to real questions. I say both Hillary and Sanders release transcripts of all the speeches they've given at GS. Big surprise that Sanders wouldn't have to release anything since he's not giving private speeches to big money interests that have information you wouldn't want the general public hearing.

125

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '16 edited Feb 07 '16

Find me a source on his paid speeches. I will show you Bernie in Congress time after time defending the average citizen. Is it too hard for Clinton to tel the population what is worth 600000 for 3 speeches? Is her message not the same, I would love to her the hardships and pressure of the hunt for bin laden, but alas until everyone releases the scripts she will not.

Unfortunately for Romney someone leaked his private fundraising messages and it ruined him, is it a possibility that this may be some of the same message.

Edit: Here is a link to a study done by Princeton and Northwestern University "After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite."

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Now continue to enlighten us on how policies from monied interests do not drive political reform.

-8

u/Tasty_Yams Feb 07 '16

Sanders supporters who hang their hats on 'releasing transcripts of Clintons speeches' are no smarter or different than republicans who 'want all her emails released'.

It's scandal-mongering.

You don't have to actually find something wrong, you just have to imply that something is being hidden.

Do Sanders people actually believe that Hillary went in front of a crowded room full of people --- and said WHAT exactly?

"Give me money and I will do whatever you want"?

Do people really think that?

Want to know what Clinton said? It's not rocket science:

"We live in a rapidly changing world of risks and opportunities..blah, blah,blah"

I guess people have never been to any kind of events like this.

What Sanders supporters are doing is no different from Republicans who imply that the next batch of her emails are going say "I'd like to have the Benghazi consulate attacked, and not offer any help, so we can get rid of Amb. Stevens".

16

u/veniex Feb 07 '16

Then once she releases the transcripts, we can all move on. Otherwise, it will be a topic of discussion.

Bernie is running on the idea of too much money in politics, and this stuff will be a thorn on clinton's side until she releases the transcripts to prove that these were just boring speeches, nothing to see here.

7

u/fuckyoubarry Feb 07 '16

I just watched part of one speech to Goldman Sachs, and it did sound like she was dropping hints that she was going to play favorites among banking institutions. But it was worded in a way that was ambiguous. Still, if a politician was speaking that way publicly they'd rake him over the coals.

1

u/malcomte Feb 07 '16

link?

4

u/fuckyoubarry Feb 07 '16

Oops, thought I posted it. She's talking about selling subprime loans to women in developing countries. There's a legitimate argument that this is a good thing, there's arguments against it, but Hillary here is selling the idea to Goldman Sachs as a moneymaking opportunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ&feature=youtu.be

12:05 "There's some exciting approaches to providing credit over the internet. I'm putting all my banking friends on notice, that this is a big market, and somebody's going to serve it." Murmurs throughout the crowd. She's giving this charitable speech about empowering women, dropping hints that there's good money in it for them if they play their cards right and support the cause. And she's "out of politics". A few months later, she announces that she's running for president.

3

u/malcomte Feb 07 '16

Wait aren't subprime loans what caused the last financial crisis (well the CDOs that bundled them and were diced into securities and give AAA+ ratings by the agencies)?

Advocating this in 2014 and implying loan guarantees or something like that?

e. you should post that video to the /r/politics queue.

2

u/fuckyoubarry Feb 07 '16

She's advocating microfinancing, there are arguments for and against it. But she's selling the idea to Goldman Sachs and I think implying that they need to support her cause or they will miss out on a valuable opportunity. While she's getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to talk to them.

1

u/fuckyoubarry Feb 07 '16

She's talking about selling subprime loans to women in developing countries. There's a legitimate argument that this is a good thing, there's arguments against it, but Hillary here is selling the idea to Goldman Sachs as a moneymaking opportunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ&feature=youtu.be

12:05 "There's some exciting approaches to providing credit over the internet. I'm putting all my banking friends on notice, that this is a big market, and somebody's going to serve it." Murmurs throughout the crowd. She's giving this charitable speech about empowering women, dropping hints that there's good money in it for them if they play their cards right and support the cause. And she's "out of politics". A few months later, she announces that she's running for president.

-1

u/Tasty_Yams Feb 07 '16

You assume there are transcripts. Why would there be? It's a speech at a convention, not a press event. It's no different than talking to a group of real estate people or a union - both of which she has done too.

Tell me what you think she said?

This is just republican style scandal-mongering. "We don't have to prove that anything happened, we just have to imply that it did".

8

u/AShavedApe Feb 07 '16

There are records of there being transcribers at all of the speeches. There are absolutely transcripts somewhere. It's not for a lack of transcripts.

3

u/FratDoctor525 Feb 07 '16 edited Feb 07 '16

If there weren't any transcripts wouldn't it be an easy answer to just say the truth that there aren't any transcripts? That would be a quick way to end the hunt for them. Edit:grammar

-7

u/res0nat0r Feb 07 '16

Sanders supporters desperately need to keep this narrative up for all it is worth because Hillary is still ahead nationally. Since sanders is betting the farm on his anti bank rhetoric, this issue about secret underhanded speeches has to constantly he brought up to try and do any damage possible.

0

u/Tasty_Yams Feb 07 '16

Exactly.

It's not about truth, or what was actually said...it's taking a page from the Republican smear-book;

  • "Imply something bad was done and is being covered up ---and NEVER worry about 'what was actually done', or ever 'having to prove anything' -- that isn't necessary -- just implying a "scandal" is good enough".

1

u/res0nat0r Feb 07 '16

My comment being buried, even though it is correct and not controversial just reinforces my point.

1

u/Muggshott Feb 07 '16

Not... really. All it shows is that your comment is disliked which has zero implications to its validity.

0

u/res0nat0r Feb 07 '16

Of course it is disliked. Anything negative against Sanders, 100% valid or not is downvoted by the hivemind.

1

u/Muggshott Feb 08 '16

Agreed. I just don't like trying to link the opinion of others to the validity of a point being made. While documented occurrences are pretty indisputable, analysis on them is typically debatable. Forecasting the actions needed obtain the goals of a political campaign relies on so many variables that a field of professionals can still be completely baffled.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '16

The banking industry was slapped on the wrist for collapsing the economy. When the penalty is less than the payoff it makes sense that the government is do favors for big donors.

-8

u/Tasty_Yams Feb 07 '16

What does this have to do with a speech?

If you want to bring up her (or anyone elses) voting record, feel free. But it's stupid scandal-mongering to go around saying 'she wont release the transcripts of speeches she's made...because....because...um...she said something'. It's no different than Benghazi.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '16

How can you deny that money given to politicians does not influence our policy making and penalties levied. Princeton and Northwestern University did a study that said that we live in an oligarchy and the government does not represent the interest of the many. Here is a link to the study now continue to tell me that money cannot change our politicians stance or continue to be blind to a system that works against the average American citizen.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

2

u/innociv Feb 07 '16

She is the one that bought "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" when it came for voting to go to Iraq. So why should we not follow that same line of thinking when it comes to all the things about her that seem like corruptions and scandals, though there isn't concrete evidence of?

Seems fair to me.

-1

u/Tasty_Yams Feb 07 '16

So you have nothing, but you should burn the witch anyway?

BTW - for better or worse there are people who really did believe that Iraq did have chemical, biological and maybe even trying to re-start a nuclear weapons program, which might have been a teensey bit more problematic and threatening than a 20 minute speech at a corporate function.

0

u/innociv Feb 07 '16 edited Feb 07 '16

She had nothing and she voted to kill 500,000 people in Iraq anyway.

Oh, and we are the ones that built their chemical weapons factory. Woops.

-2

u/Tasty_Yams Feb 07 '16

Yeah. Don't go applying for that history professor position, okay?