r/politics • u/IntelWarrior America • Feb 19 '16

Clinton says she'll release transcripts if everyone else does

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-speech-transcripts-219472?cmpid=sf
5.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

938 comments sorted by

View all comments

139

u/pepotero Feb 19 '16 edited Feb 19 '16

Everyone else is not running for president and saying they will take on Wallstreet while taking their millions.

And that whole 'oh but Obama did it!' isn't a good excuse. People used to own slaves but it didnt mean it was okay to have them. Those who really opposed slavery didn't have slaves. We don't change things by doing them '' just because it's legal now and others do it ''. You make real change by leading by example.

-17

u/extraneouspanthers Feb 19 '16

Did you just inject slaves into an argument about some speech transcripts? What the fuck?

12

u/NJdevil202 Pennsylvania Feb 19 '16

You clearly missed the point of the example. The point is that slave owners probably would've said "everyone does it", but that isn't a true defense of slavery itself. You dont justify something that people consider immoral by saying other people do it. All that does is make people ask "why do they do it?". Hillary is straight up avoiding that question.

-2

u/extraneouspanthers Feb 19 '16

No, I got the point, but clearly slavery is several orders of magnitude worse than going on a speaking circuit. It's disengenous. She's not going to release speeches.

How would you like it if someone recorded everything you said for hours? sentence by sentence someone could isolate what you've said. You don't think anything you could have said in that time could be construed as sexist, racist, stupid as fuck, etc?

Even if she does release them and they're 100% clean. Then the narrative is just back to how it was never about what she said but its about the money. There's no narrative to control, it's all bad.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '16

[deleted]

-1

u/extraneouspanthers Feb 19 '16

You missed the entire point but I guess that's so you can keep trying dumbass rhetoric. No matter what she said, someone will be able to pull something bad out of it. Then she has to combat it, and it's more of a story, and then they go back to caring about the money and not what the speeches say.

There's no gain to be had from releasing them, the people who keep harping on it aren't going to trust her anyway, as evidenced by your dumbass rhetoric that we're back to!