Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: There is no excuse for HRC to NOT release the transcripts. [View all]pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)16. In other words, you acknowledge that if she releases them she would lose.
It shows that you don't have much faith in her honesty, right?
Because you KNOW that there are things in there that would damage her, better go with secrecy and deflection.
She has a "trust" issue with voters shown in every poll. Seeing that she has so much Wall Street money personally, for the foundation and for her campaign. It is only common sense that people would want to know about her relationship with them. If there was no problem, there is no reason not to release them. Bernie released his the next day easy-peasy. No problemo.
All we get from non-trustworthy, non-transparent Hillary is crickets and/or deflection, excuses. Have we gotten to sexism yet?
Anyway, if you trusted her, if you knew there was nothing that would be a problem in them, you would not be deflecting. What's the problem as you see it? Anything? Or just the smug "we get it".
What is it that you get? You don't see any reason voters might want to know who they are electing? Might want to know about what she says to the people who have been her supporters for 10s of Millions of dollars throughout the years?
If you don't believe voters should be interested, then you are being disingenuous at the least.
Because you KNOW that there are things in there that would damage her, better go with secrecy and deflection.
She has a "trust" issue with voters shown in every poll. Seeing that she has so much Wall Street money personally, for the foundation and for her campaign. It is only common sense that people would want to know about her relationship with them. If there was no problem, there is no reason not to release them. Bernie released his the next day easy-peasy. No problemo.
All we get from non-trustworthy, non-transparent Hillary is crickets and/or deflection, excuses. Have we gotten to sexism yet?
Anyway, if you trusted her, if you knew there was nothing that would be a problem in them, you would not be deflecting. What's the problem as you see it? Anything? Or just the smug "we get it".
What is it that you get? You don't see any reason voters might want to know who they are electing? Might want to know about what she says to the people who have been her supporters for 10s of Millions of dollars throughout the years?
If you don't believe voters should be interested, then you are being disingenuous at the least.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Independents are now 40% of the electorate, and Sanders is winning them at the 70% level n/t
eridani
Mar 2016
#10
She doesn't need an "excuse". Nobody cares except some far-lefties on the internet.
DanTex
Mar 2016
#12
I beg to differ. Anyone who can't tell the huge difference between HRC and Trump is a far lefty.
DanTex
Mar 2016
#23
The people demanding release of the transcripts have no intention of voting for her
Kaleva
Mar 2016
#14
Like I said, the only people who care about this are those who won't vote for Hillary...
Kaleva
Mar 2016
#24
Sure there is. . . she will definitely lose if she releasese them. . . otherwise she might only lose
pdsimdars
Mar 2016
#15
Everyone knows how influential Lady Gaga and Jerry Seinfeld are in world politics.
frylock
Mar 2016
#35
Right, because secret promises to Wall Street are what we progressives demand of presidents. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2016
#34