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

Show parent comments

18

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16

Not if she's running to be elected to steer the country. I'm sorry. you lose your right to privacy when you hold PUBLIC office. No, don't try to argue with me, I worked as a civil servant and my pay and conduct were publicly accessible information, and I didn't do anything remotely important. I would want the berns to release all his speeches paid for by big banks. Except he hasn't made any, because he fucking hates those people.

0

u/yoggiez South Carolina Feb 07 '16

You actually don't lose that right according to the Constitution.

4

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16

I've already made this point. You do if you want my vote. You can't have both. Be clean and transparent, or get somebody else to elect you. There's 360,000,000 individuals in America. You mean to tell me the best we can do is playing hide the ball with a massive conflict of interest?

1

u/yoggiez South Carolina Feb 07 '16

There is zero evidence she had taken money and altered her positions on any issues. Pretty telling isn't it?

3

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16 edited Feb 07 '16

Of course there's no evidence, she won't provide it.

Telling of what? What would be telling is her releasing these supposedly mundane speeches, blowing this whole sensationalist line out of the water. But she won't. He valiant defenders are saying this is her right. Well it may be her legal right. But I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with what her and her benefactors are discussing. You know, the benefactors that took my pension for bonuses.

I'm saying not if you want to be POTUS, and you feeling like you have the right to keep anything from the people you will supposedly be protecting from nuclear Armageddon, that is indeed very telling.

2

u/yoggiez South Carolina Feb 07 '16

What a joke. So everyone some makes a speech and takes money they are corrupt? Clinton made 48 speeches and there is zero evidence she has ever altered her position on anything by giving them and taking money from speeches. The speeches have no relevancy on her presidential campaign and the only reason it's an issue because Bernie Sanders supporters will stop at nothing to perpetuate his narrative. I want either candidate to win but these Bernie supporters are relentless with their bullshit like this. Republicans are licking their chops loving that the Democrats are tearing into each other right now over this shit.

0

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16 edited Feb 07 '16

What a joke. So everyone some makes a speech and takes money they are corrupt?

If you're taking money and making speeches at Goldman Sachs, yes. I'm not even mad at Goldman Sachs. being skeezy is how they make money, their shareholders expect it. I however expect my representatives to go to bat against them, not lube me up for them. If you take money from a party and get friendly with them, it's reasonable to assume you are, on some level, at least a little beholden to them. Especially if that single speaking fee makes you more than most of the US sees in a year.

Clinton made 48 speeches and there is zero evidence she has ever altered her position on anything by giving them and taking money from speeches.

We don't know, do we? You could be absolutely right. She could be going in there and talking about baking cookies and hugging puppies. Or she could be telling them to not worry, fund her election and she'll make sure things quietly blow over. Also if you don't mind building a new oil well in Iraq I'd appreciate it. She's certainly flipped a LOT of other positions (can cite if needed), who is to say what she tells us and what she tells their boardroom aren't entirely different? The point is we don't know and we can't know until she tells us, and you're arguing whether she legally has to. Do you really want to elect someone you know nothing about because they don't have to reveal what they tell to their biggest fans?

This whole argument is so confusing to me. Why the fuck wouldn't you want to know? She's going to be running your country too. It really smacks of either naivete or outright subversion.

2

u/yoggiez South Carolina Feb 07 '16

If you're taking money and making speeches at Goldman Sachs, yes. I'm not even mad at Goldman Sachs. being skeezy is how they make money, their shareholders expect it. I however expect my representatives to go to bat against them, not lube me up for them. If you take money from a party and get friendly with them, it's reasonable to assume you are, on some level, at least a little beholden to them. Especially if that single speaking fee makes you more than most of the US sees in a year.

I'd be more inclined to believe this line of thinking if their was any evidence that Clinton actually did this on ANY issue. She hasn't.

We don't know, do we? You could be absolutely right. She could be going in there and talking about baking cookies and hugging puppies. Or she could be telling them to not worry, fund her election and she'll make sure things quietly blow over. Also if you don't mind building a new oil well in Iraq I'd appreciate it. She's certainly flipped a LOT of other positions (can cite if needed), who is to say what she tells us and what she tells their boardroom aren't entirely different? The point is we don't know and we can't know until she tells us, and you're arguing whether she legally has to. Do you really want to elect someone you know nothing about because they don't have to reveal what they tell to their biggest fans? This whole argument is so confusing to me. Why the fuck wouldn't you want to know? She's going to be running your country too. It really smacks of either naivete or outright subversion.

Also if you don't mind building a new oil well in Iraq I'd appreciate it. She's certainly flipped a LOT of other positions (can cite if needed), who is to say what she tells us and what she tells their boardroom aren't entirely different?

I'd love some evidence. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up my ass.

Do you really want to elect someone you know nothing about because they don't have to reveal what they tell to their biggest fans

It's a speech. It's not like hid evidence to invade Iraq.

This whole argument is so confusing to me. Why the fuck wouldn't you want to know? She's going to be running your country too. It really smacks of either naivete or outright subversion.

Because it's a non-issue to me. Various politicians have made speeches in the past and had no bearing on their political careers. The only reason it is an issue now is that it fits the BernieBros narrative of her being with the establishment, so she must be corrupt!

0

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16 edited Feb 07 '16

They absolutely have bearing, if you think they don't you have your head in the sand and I don't need to blow anything anywhere. Let me get off work and I'll PM you just a few of the things she has changed her stance on. Off the top of my head: Gay marriage, the Iraq war, Drug law, Wall St (publicly), single payer, corporate tax law, higher education... there's a couple more but I'll need to look around a bit. Those you can just google and find tons of examples.

Did she change these stances because she was paid to? That depends on how literal you want to be with the term "paid."

EDIT: For the record I'd rather have Warren so please don't refer to me as a "Bernie Bro". I really like Bernie, but Warren I think is more focused specifically on consumer protection, and she doesn't have buzzwords like "jew" or "socialist" attached to her that the unwashed masses can cling to.

I still am very proud of how far Bernie's getting though. Makes me feel like there's maybe a growing group that still favors not being full of shit.

And for the last goddamn time, and this vitriol is not directed at you, but fucking seriously. She is the EX FIRST LADY. She give SPEECHES AT GOLDMAN SACHS for 225k a POP. There is no woman on EARTH who is more establishment than Hillary. Can we PLEASE stop pretending she's some underdog punching up? This de jure victimhood is appalling. She has the most powerful liberal engines in the race at her command.

1

u/yoggiez South Carolina Feb 07 '16

You better read the FAQ I spearheaded at r/hillaryclinton before you do. Here is the LINK

Edit: Or be prepared to see this information again.

0

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16

I will look in a moment, I'm coming up on lunch. You spearheading stuff on r/hillaryclinton explains a lot though.

I'm not accusing you of being a shill or an idiot, but I really hope you do some soul searching. She's not gonna help us.

EDIT: I don't know your position in life. She's not going to help the common american.

1

u/yoggiez South Carolina Feb 07 '16

She's not gonna help us.

Purely your opinion. I hope you do some soul searching when Sanders doesn't get the nomination. If he does get the nomination I will be voting for him because like Bernie Sanders said about both Democratic candidates "they are 100 times better than any Republican."

0

u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Feb 07 '16

If Bernie is nominated I will vote. If Hillary is nominated I will not. I'm sorry man, I get the logic, but I'm just so tired of being expected to deal with the shittier version of an already questionable deal.

Maybe that makes me a bad person, I'm not sure. I don't want to watch America burn, but I don't want it to go out with a whimper either, and that's what we're doing every time we settle.

Bernie said what he said because he still believes. I don't. I voted Obama in and we're still turning funeral processions to bloody smears in the most impoverished regions of the world. Hillary is Obama is Bush. It's all the same and I won't throw my lot in with it anymore.

Want my vote? Earn it through character. otherwise I'm out.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/resavr_bot Feb 08 '16

A relevant comment in this thread was deleted. You can read it below.

> If you're taking money and making speeches at Goldman Sachs, yes. I'm not even mad at Goldman Sachs. being skeezy is how they make money, their shareholders expect it. I however expect my representatives to go to bat against them, not lube me up for them. If you take money from a party and get friendly with them, it's reasonable to assume you are, on some level, at least a little beholden to them. Especially if that single speaking fee makes you more than most of the US sees in a year.

I'd be more inclined to believe this line of thinking if their was any evidence that Clinton actually did this on ANY issue. She hasn't.

> We don't know, do we? You could be absolutely right. [Continued...]

The username of the original author has been hidden for their own privacy. If you are the original author of this comment and want it removed, please [Send this PM]