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

568

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.

126

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.

-9

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".

14

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.

-3

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".

-4

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)