Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches

[FA_Q2]

Nutbags never learn.

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

Of course. My not wanting to waste a ton of time defending against another ridiculous accusation without merit is me being a nutbag.

Here is what will happen. Assholes will clamor for the release of these privately delivered remarks.....all the while making wild guesses about what criminal or otherwise horrible things Hillary Clinton said. It will become a major story as "news" agencies give the noise air time in the interest of ratings. News anchors will innocently remark that "it's a legitimate question"....blah.....blah.....blah.

Clinton will either ignore the calls and have to absorb yet another round of bullshit character assassination......or she will release them. If she does, there will be nothing in them that incriminates her. The nutbags won't ever accept that, though. And....there will be another seed of doubt sown.

Awesome.

What makes you one of those nutbags is the absolute need to dismiss anything that is asked of Clinton even when it is blatantly obvious why such questions are being asked or what they mean in the current political landscape. This really is not an issue for the right tbh, they don't like Clinton no matter what. This IS an issue for the left however where Sanders is really taking Clinton to task as a bought politician.

Clinton wants to be seen as an outsider - someone that is not from the political class or controlled by wall street. Sanders not only fits that bill but the people in general believe it. Clinton does not fit that bill but has been trying to paint herself in that manner and something like this is damaging to that image.

Do I think that the transcripts matter? No, I really do not. Do I think that it will be dropped when they surface? Depends on what is actually in them but I doubt that there is much 'red meat' for the media to continue on this road once they are. What is effective though is speculating and using it to attach her as an insider in wall street's pocket. I think that simply releasing them from the get go would run this out of steam very fast. I have no idea why politicians have a tendency to conceal things like this that have no impact on those that are not going to vote for them yet cast doubts on those that are.

Do you really think that she is able to win over people voting for or leaning towards Sanders with secrecy?

I am for Sanders. You lose.

I don't blame her one bit for the secrecy. She's been under constant attack for two and a half decades.

And you wonder why you look like a nut bag.

Look through the various threads for the terms 'you lose' or 'I win' and see who posts them. You will likely see a lot of the people you consider nut bags.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

will Bill ever release that list of every woman he has slept with since he married the beast?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutbags never learn.

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

Of course. My not wanting to waste a ton of time defending against another ridiculous accusation without merit is me being a nutbag.

Here is what will happen. Assholes will clamor for the release of these privately delivered remarks.....all the while making wild guesses about what criminal or otherwise horrible things Hillary Clinton said. It will become a major story as "news" agencies give the noise air time in the interest of ratings. News anchors will innocently remark that "it's a legitimate question"....blah.....blah.....blah.

Clinton will either ignore the calls and have to absorb yet another round of bullshit character assassination......or she will release them. If she does, there will be nothing in them that incriminates her. The nutbags won't ever accept that, though. And....there will be another seed of doubt sown.

Awesome.

What makes you one of those nutbags is the absolute need to dismiss anything that is asked of Clinton even when it is blatantly obvious why such questions are being asked or what they mean in the current political landscape. This really is not an issue for the right tbh, they don't like Clinton no matter what. This IS an issue for the left however where Sanders is really taking Clinton to task as a bought politician.

Clinton wants to be seen as an outsider - someone that is not from the political class or controlled by wall street. Sanders not only fits that bill but the people in general believe it. Clinton does not fit that bill but has been trying to paint herself in that manner and something like this is damaging to that image.

Do I think that the transcripts matter? No, I really do not. Do I think that it will be dropped when they surface? Depends on what is actually in them but I doubt that there is much 'red meat' for the media to continue on this road once they are. What is effective though is speculating and using it to attach her as an insider in wall street's pocket. I think that simply releasing them from the get go would run this out of steam very fast. I have no idea why politicians have a tendency to conceal things like this that have no impact on those that are not going to vote for them yet cast doubts on those that are.

Do you really think that she is able to win over people voting for or leaning towards Sanders with secrecy?

I am for Sanders. You lose.

I don't blame her one bit for the secrecy. She's been under constant attack for two and a half decades.

And you wonder why you look like a nut bag.

Look through the various threads for the terms 'you lose' or 'I win' and see who posts them. You will likely see a lot of the people you consider nut bags.

You lost the point, junior. You ASSumed you knew something about me and went on a rant using that assumption as a foundation. Get it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

Because she doesn't have to. Simple answer.

 

[Siete]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

the text of the speeches belong to the organization that PAID her to speak.

I bet anyone who really wants one can buy a copy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

the text of the speeches belong to the organization that PAID her to speak.

I bet anyone who really wants one can buy a copy.

Right, I'm sure it's that easy which is why they didn't even think about doing that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

the text of the speeches belong to the organization that PAID her to speak.

I bet anyone who really wants one can buy a copy.

I doubt that.

 

[Siete]

all the wanters should have bought a ticket to the show

 

[Rozman]

Hillary says they were on the server but has no idea why she can't find them... Heh heh heh..

 

[g5000]

Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches

Those "paid speeches" cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you want them for free?

What are you, a communist?

 

[Seawytch]

Why isn't anyone demanding the transcripts of Bush or Carson's paid speeches?

 

[Siete]

Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches

Those "paid speeches" cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you want them for free?

What are you, a communist?

yes.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

the text of the speeches belong to the organization that PAID her to speak.

I bet anyone who really wants one can buy a copy.

False. You need to do your homework. Clinton stated in her speech contracts that all her speeches were her intellectual property. Sorry....try again.

 

[Siete]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

the text of the speeches belong to the organization that PAID her to speak.

I bet anyone who really wants one can buy a copy.

False. You need to do your homework. Clinton stated in her speech contracts that all her speeches were her intellectual property. Sorry....try again.

link

 

[FA_Q2]

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

Of course. My not wanting to waste a ton of time defending against another ridiculous accusation without merit is me being a nutbag.

Here is what will happen. Assholes will clamor for the release of these privately delivered remarks.....all the while making wild guesses about what criminal or otherwise horrible things Hillary Clinton said. It will become a major story as "news" agencies give the noise air time in the interest of ratings. News anchors will innocently remark that "it's a legitimate question"....blah.....blah.....blah.

Clinton will either ignore the calls and have to absorb yet another round of bullshit character assassination......or she will release them. If she does, there will be nothing in them that incriminates her. The nutbags won't ever accept that, though. And....there will be another seed of doubt sown.

Awesome.

What makes you one of those nutbags is the absolute need to dismiss anything that is asked of Clinton even when it is blatantly obvious why such questions are being asked or what they mean in the current political landscape. This really is not an issue for the right tbh, they don't like Clinton no matter what. This IS an issue for the left however where Sanders is really taking Clinton to task as a bought politician.

Clinton wants to be seen as an outsider - someone that is not from the political class or controlled by wall street. Sanders not only fits that bill but the people in general believe it. Clinton does not fit that bill but has been trying to paint herself in that manner and something like this is damaging to that image.

Do I think that the transcripts matter? No, I really do not. Do I think that it will be dropped when they surface? Depends on what is actually in them but I doubt that there is much 'red meat' for the media to continue on this road once they are. What is effective though is speculating and using it to attach her as an insider in wall street's pocket. I think that simply releasing them from the get go would run this out of steam very fast. I have no idea why politicians have a tendency to conceal things like this that have no impact on those that are not going to vote for them yet cast doubts on those that are.

Do you really think that she is able to win over people voting for or leaning towards Sanders with secrecy?

I am for Sanders. You lose.

I don't blame her one bit for the secrecy. She's been under constant attack for two and a half decades.

And you wonder why you look like a nut bag.

Look through the various threads for the terms 'you lose' or 'I win' and see who posts them. You will likely see a lot of the people you consider nut bags.

You lost the point, junior. You ASSumed you knew something about me and went on a rant using that assumption as a foundation. Get it.

Point to the assumption that you are going to vote for or support Hillary.

Go on, if you have mot made an ASSumtion it should be easy.

Yes - nut bag is getting more fitting with every post here.

 

[FA_Q2]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

Why won't she release them...simple question?

the text of the speeches belong to the organization that PAID her to speak.

I bet anyone who really wants one can buy a copy.

False. You need to do your homework. Clinton stated in her speech contracts that all her speeches were her intellectual property. Sorry....try again.

link

Look back in the thread - they were already provided.

 

[amrchaos]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

probably to write a book.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't see why she don't just do it. Why is it a big deal? Even Democrats wonder about it.
All of these "scandals" surround her and she always just nods them off. Or blame the republicans even though they don't control the fuckin FBI.
Corrupt fuckin bitch

 

[Theowl32]

The only thing more nauseating and more pathetic than that lying sack of kuuuunt shit are her fucking voters.