2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBack to those pesky transcripts again...
So you're applying for a job and the employer wants to know something about you that will have a direct effect on how you would perform the job you're being interviewed for. You reassure him or her that there's no there there and that you will not be revealing certain information to him or her. So, do you think you'll get the job? The Presidency is a job and we are the employers. We have a right to know things about our prospective employee that will have a direct bearing on her performance of said job.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)What benefit is there, other than in picking a nominee, in doing this?
If you mean you want Hillary people to hear her speech in hopes she will say something so they will change to Bernie, fine.
That is reasonable.
Otherwise, once the nominee is chosen...
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)whom they'll be employing and where her priorities lie.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Oh the salivating over those transcripts
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Neutrality, unions , the epa, on person one vote , etc....
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)laruemtt
(3,992 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,203 posts)But as the potential employer, I have EVERY right to consider the refusal to produce them as part of my evaluation process.
That said, I doubt there's any smoking gun in there. And I'm not really interested in a recital of her favorite recipe for spinach souffle, which is probably what they amount to.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Vote for trump by voting for him or by not voting
Buns_of_Fire
(17,203 posts)To me, it's not necessarily a deal breaker. Just something to be considered. That's why we get the big bucks.
840high
(17,196 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)laruemtt
(3,992 posts)is not just their private life. Nice try.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You haven't shown why those speech transcripts are so darned important. For myself I don't find it even slightly remarkable that a Wall Street Bank would pay a world-famous political figure some fat money to do a few speeches. Speechifying is a well-established way for famous people to get paid even more money, because even bland tropes about leadership, persistence and success sound more interesting when offered up by a famous person with unusual personal anecdotes to share.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Fear-mongering and extortion are lame excuses. Try separating yourself from your peers with something original for a change. You folks are like carbon copies of each other.
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)5-4 scotus rulings in the cons favor?. Like saying "I'm sticking my head in the lion's cage don't try to stop me with your unoriginal fear mongering.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)In return for $$$$
onecaliberal
(32,950 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Unions, but at least you'll win right to work
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)A non-vote at the top will not make a difference. I will vote down ticket. Nice scare tactics though, some of us are smarter than falling for that, lol.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Here's another one saying " I'm sticking my head in the lion's cage don't even try to stop me with your scare tactics"
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)He is an asshole
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)laruemtt
(3,992 posts)hmm, a wild guess here - access, that's pretty darned troubling.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)she wasn't in office at the time so anyone can give you money for any reason.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Maybe, but if that were the case I'd think she'd just make up a bunch of "Cut it out, Wall St." quotes
to prove that she really isn't beholden to the banksters for all that payola they've thrown at her.
IMO she spoke there and if she doesn't release them that looks so bad. Or they could be leaked if we're lucky.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)hoping it goes away till she gets in the WH
gordianot
(15,249 posts)Be certain Republicans will use them for revenge for the recording exposure of Rmoney's making his asinine 47% slam.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)she wants to represent.
gordianot
(15,249 posts)The beauty is all that is needed to do damage is release them stand back and watch.
Remember Christie's wife worked Goldman Sachs.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)?itok=o-pSGbXf
&w=1484%22
Corporate666
(587 posts)Anyone who thinks Hillary stands up and gives a heartfelt speech where she describes her inner feelings and private thoughts on capitalism or wall street or the banking industry is, quite frankly, either an idiot or suffering extreme confirmation bias.
Hillary has been in the game a long time. She knew long before she ever gave any speech that some of the people in that room don't like her and would like to see her fail. She isn't going to say anything controversial either about herself or about the company she's speaking too.
And anyone who thinks the speech has any bearing on the election is just too biased to see reality. Let's face it - there's nobody out there that agrees with her platform and thinks she is the best candidate, but just wants to see those speeches and if not, won't vote for her. The people whining about the speeches are those that don't want her to win and they were intellectually honest, they would agree that they want to comb through the speeches looking for something to attack Clinton with. And when no admissions of felonies were found, they would take words out of context and post meme pics all over the internet with those words.
There is absolutely NOTHING in it for Clinton. She stands to gain nothing at all - so why would she ever release the transcripts? It's not gonna happen.
Now what about Bernie's tax returns? Referring to Clinton's refusal to release transcripts isn't an answer as to why Bernie has refused to release his tax returns. Conflating the two is stupid. Furthermore, it's standard for Presidential candidates to release tax returns, yet he refuses to do so. Clearly there is something in those returns he doesn't want people to see. Given that tax returns are factual accounts of one's finances and they are legally binding and it's criminal to falsify them, and given that a speech transcript has no such restrictions or veracity about it - anyone who isn't being dishonest must agree that Sanders' tax returns are more relevant than Clinton's speeches. If he were to fulfill his promise and release his returns, it would give him a basis to criticize Clinton for transcripts. But the skeleton in his own closet is much more serious and damning than the one he says may be in hers.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Of the aca . The Reason for doing it , they said, was to make sure all the cons had a chance to vote for it (the repeal of the aca)
Tarc
(10,478 posts)The problem for you is, the majority of "the employers" do not see this as an important issue.
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)and starts showing her loyalties.
beaglelover
(3,496 posts)Deal.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)of Reddit.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)After Nov. 8 he and the Chief should get their own show on Fox.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)because they got nothing.