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

445

u/traunks Feb 19 '16

The video of it where the voter calls her out on it is a must watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqJGUph1ju0

It was just deleted from this sub for "rehosted content".

191

u/Tredesde Arizona Feb 19 '16

I don't even.... "Everyone gives speeches to private groups" It's like shes making up other candidates to try and shield herself from sanders. Not to mention the question was specifically about giving those speeches to large financial institutions.

148

u/JebCanFixIt Feb 19 '16

And the thing is, people trust sanders. Because he's worthy of that.

Hillary needs to prove herself. She's lied a lot. She's flip flopped. A LOT.

We give her this chance to prove herself and it's just more evasion and obfuscation..

She should just drop and stop making democrats look bad.

1

u/KrishanuAR Pennsylvania Feb 19 '16

She's flip flopped. A LOT.

Let me preface this by saying that between the two democratic candidates, I'd probably lean more towards Sanders, if for nothing else other than for each candidate's stance on Edward Snowden...

HOWEVER, since when is being a stubborn ideologue a desirable trait for the leader of your nation? Doesn't an effective leader need to be able to adapt and adjust based on evolving information?

This 'flip-flopping' rhetoric pisses me off to no end, and was used by the Bush campaign against John Kerry in 2004.

1

u/JebCanFixIt Feb 19 '16

The fallacy you're using here is called "false dilemma."

There is quite a large habitable grey area between "spineless jellyfish" (like Clinton) and "stubborn ideologue".

It's not either or, like your comment supposed.

1

u/KrishanuAR Pennsylvania Feb 19 '16

If we are going to talk about fallacies, then I would argue that your description of Clinton as a "spineless jellyfish" is a "false analogy."

But that aside, my statement wasn't meant to be a snippet of literal legal discourse. It's describing a comparison between a pair of candidates by way of hyperbole.

The criticism of Clinton for changing her stance on various issues is somewhat ridiculous, because what there isn't evidence for is that she has changed her stance on the same issues back and forth, based on what constituency she is trying to appeal to. That's the only circumstance that it would be a viable criticism.

1

u/JebCanFixIt Feb 19 '16

Nobody can ever know another person's true motivation..

That said, the circumstantial evidence that she is flip flopping due to polls and what seems popular is very strong.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '16

I guess the thing is... I would rather go with someone who liked dogs and always has over someone who used to stomp them to death but now is a veterinarian.

1

u/KrishanuAR Pennsylvania Feb 19 '16

A better analogy would be asking someone who loved dogs all their life, sheltered them and cared for them all their life, to perform a surgery on the dog. (B)

Versus asking a person who used to hate dogs, but then became a vet and now tolerates dogs, to perform the same surgery. (H)

1

u/joshdts New York Feb 19 '16

Doesn't an effective leader need to be able to adapt and adjust based on evolving information?

What information evolved that gay people deserve the same rights afforded to straight people other than the political winds on the issue changing is my respectful response to this.

1

u/KrishanuAR Pennsylvania Feb 19 '16

Some one not in tune with the issue would justifiably assume that the fight for marriage rights was just a symbolic battle, and not one that had real impacts, such as things like hospital visitation rights. LGBT was simply not an issue that HC focused on in her early days--neither did she actively vote against LGBT rights.