• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What is Hillary hiding? She refuses to release transcripts to her Big bank Speeches.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hillary was an early socialist health care player. She's all sorts of messed up, as is Bernie Sanders.

-John
 
ivwshane said:
Where in the world did you get that she is against single payer? Because she said it's currently an unreachable goal? Is she wrong?
Click to expand...

How is that better than not wanting it? Even if it's impossible for Hillary to get it through, shouldn't she start the negotiations there, so we can get something more than we have or would otherwise get?
 
Last edited:
Hugo Drax said:
There are reason why she wants these transcripts out of the public eye.
Click to expand...



Ever consider this as a possibility?

In many instances, Clinton's contract prohibited her comments from being broadcast, transcribed or "otherwise reproduced," according a copy of one such agreement with the University of Buffalo.


Many organizations she addressed were reluctant to share details or even confirm her attendance, in part because contracts for those kinds of speakers typically prohibit sharing that information.
Click to expand...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...llions-remain-a-mystery/ar-BBpbwIH?li=BBnbfcQ


Naaa, I guess that thought never entered your mind.
 
Meghan54 said:
Ever consider this as a possibility?



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...llions-remain-a-mystery/ar-BBpbwIH?li=BBnbfcQ


Naaa, I guess that thought never entered your mind.
Click to expand...

Hardly surprising that the big dollar lobbyists would seek to prevent outsiders from knowing what goes on behind closed doors at there shindigs. The annual gatherings of the elite are generally off limits to cameras and the media and public are excluded.

Nothing to see here ... move along!


Brian
 
Meghan54 said:
Ever consider this as a possibility?



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...llions-remain-a-mystery/ar-BBpbwIH?li=BBnbfcQ


Naaa, I guess that thought never entered your mind.
Click to expand...
This is a total non-issue for me because people such as yourself would vote for her regardless of what was in the transcripts. You evidently take comfort and solace in her lies. That's fine, you're allowed. Whether she called the banking community out, coerced more money out of them with promises of political favors or related tall tales about videos or guys out for a walk one night doesn't matter to me.

But having said that, I get a kick out of you linking to a sympathetic media piece. A media that has been shielding and defending the outrageous actions of the Clinton crime family for decades. But the lies work for you, I get that.

Two terms of a compulsive liar who meets many of the criteria that define a sociopath and a pathological liar running to take his place. Special candidates that appeal to special people. Wear your devotion proudly. Pound your fist down while proudly declaring that she's your kind of Democrat! Hillary needs the kind of support that people like you can provide. That's a thought that I can tell has entered your mind.
 
boomerang said:
This is a total non-issue for me because people such as yourself would vote for her regardless of what was in the transcripts. You evidently take comfort and solace in her lies. That's fine, you're allowed. Whether she called the banking community out, coerced more money out of them with promises of political favors or related tall tales about videos or guys out for a walk one night doesn't matter to me.

But having said that, I get a kick out of you linking to a sympathetic media piece. A media that has been shielding and defending the outrageous actions of the Clinton crime family for decades. But the lies work for you, I get that.

Two terms of a compulsive liar who meets many of the criteria that define a sociopath and a pathological liar running to take his place. Special candidates that appeal to special people. Wear your devotion proudly. Pound your fist down while proudly declaring that she's your kind of Democrat! Hillary needs the kind of support that people like you can provide. That's a thought that I can tell has entered your mind.
Click to expand...

Clintons protected Wall Street. Bushes protected big oil and killed thousands of Americans doing it.
 
HomerJS said:
But there were speeches that were transcribed, those surely can be released. If it violated the terms of the contract transcripts would have never been created in the first place.
Click to expand...



Then ask the businesses/companies the speeches to whom they were given to release them...it's their product, after all.
 
Meghan54 said:
Then ask the businesses/companies the speeches to whom they were given to release them...it's their product, after all.
Click to expand...

That ultimately may save Hillary from this issue.

If you ask the company what do you get for your money paying any politician 600K for a single speech wonder what the answer is?

Is the economy so great companies can afford to piss away 600K?
 
HomerJS said:
That ultimately may save Hillary from this issue.

If you ask the company what do you get for your money paying any politician 600K for a single speech wonder what the answer is?

Is the economy so great companies can afford to piss away 600K?
Click to expand...

The only way anybody can be saved from right wing innuendo is for other people to recognize it for what it is.

It doesn't matter what she does in the minds of bullshit believers. Any plausible bit of innuendo is instantly declared to be true because it confirms & affirms existing bias.
When it turns out to be groundless, again, they maintain the same bias & compartmentalize the rest. They lack the intellectual courage to consider the idea that they may have been wrong.

Eternal hope & short memories dovetail perfectly.

Repub operatives are so good at what they do that they've even succeeded in manipulating progressive Dems-

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/america-rising-hillary-clinton-trolling

Follow up on that has come in the form of the Bernie Bros.
 
Last edited:
HomerJS said:
That ultimately may save Hillary from this issue.

If you ask the company what do you get for your money paying any politician 600K for a single speech wonder what the answer is?

Is the economy so great companies can afford to piss away 600K?
Click to expand...

Hillary was not paid $600k for a single speech.
 
Last edited:
I like how this is being framed as a right winged conspiracy. The left is who is looking for answers from the Democratic establishment candidate about what she said to the banks. You think the right wing cares if Hillary is in bed with the banks?

Her response to the issue is pretty bad though. She didnt claim she wont release them due to NDA. Instead "I will do it others do it" response. That comes off as being a weasel and slime ball. It is interesting how she is trying to run from her own experience in this campaign. Something that should be a strength is now a weakness.
 
mysticjbyrd said:
Hillary slaps back at paid speech critics: I’ll release my transcripts when everyone else releases theirs


Classic Hillary... After she gets backed into a corner with a question she can't weasel out of, she just goes off on a hysterical rant about being a victim of unfair scrutiny. Then we are all supposed to just forgive and forget....

TYT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ0Ew3kEgZA
Click to expand...

Here you go Hillary, I've posted my speeches to Wall St. below.








And I'm not even running for president. Maybe I should... :hmm:
 
cubby1223 said:
Hillary was not paid $600k for a single speech.
Click to expand...

She got 675K for 3 speeches from Goldman-Sachs. I stand corrected. I don't know how companies justify this kind of money to stockholders. Her speaking fees were up to 225K for a single speech.

This is part of that dirty political cycle. Elected to office, leave office either take huge speaking fees, huge lobbying fees or huge salaries for positions on various boards.
 
HomerJS said:
She got 675K for 3 speeches from Goldman-Sachs. I stand corrected. I don't know how companies justify this kind of money to stockholders. Her speaking fees were up to 225K for a single speech.

This is part of that dirty political cycle. Elected to office, leave office either take huge speaking fees, huge lobbying fees or huge salaries for positions on various boards.
Click to expand...

Because they weren't JUST paying her to speak. You know it. I know it. GS and Hillary know it.

The Clintons have made tens of millions of dollars per year to speak a handful of times. There's nobody who's worth much just to hear give a short speech. That's buying influence.

B-b-but Bernie Bros! Misogyny! Vast right wing conspiracy!

Hillary is scum, but a lot Democrats are too far up their own asses to realize how she's exactly like the Republicans they hate.
 
BoberFett said:
Because they weren't JUST paying her to speak. You know it. I know it. GS and Hillary know it.

The Clintons have made tens of millions of dollars per year to speak a handful of times. There's nobody who's worth much just to hear give a short speech. That's buying influence.

B-b-but Bernie Bros! Misogyny! Vast right wing conspiracy!

Hillary is scum, but a lot Democrats are too far up their own asses to realize how she's exactly like the Republicans they hate.
Click to expand...

More innuendo, of course.

It's obviously more than a handful of speeches, but you need to make that part of the accusation, apparently. They probably had more offers than they cared to accept.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton...n-from-speeches-since-january-2014-1431730968

I put the right link in my last post, above, as well.
 
Cozarkian said:
Did you ever consider that it is Clinton who insists in this contractual term to protect herself? Nothing in the article says the University of Buffalo wanted to prohibit Clinton from transcribing or broadcasting her intellectual property.
Click to expand...

Highly contorted logic. It's their speech now. She sold it to them & they paid for it.

There's nothing in the article to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top