|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:
A sheriff inciting unrest? Now we've seen it all this election cycle Unironically the same one saying BLM is out of control because of how they protest not having all of their constitutional rights. Fuckin torches... This guy... Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign.
What did she lie about the speeches?
|
On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457
What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else
|
On October 16 2016 06:36 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457 What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else
It was brought up during the primary so before Trump came into the picture. Bernie followers wanted them for 'she is a wall street supporter' stuff.
Donno what her reasoning was for not releasing them.
|
because if you give an inch people ask for a mile
|
On October 16 2016 06:36 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457 What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else
First she said she'll look into it. Then she decided she would release them when her opponents released theirs, they didn't have any transcripts so they've all been released, yet she never released hers.
The question is, if there's nothing in there, why didn't she just release them? If she'll hide nothing how wouldn't she hide much worse?
|
United States42009 Posts
On October 16 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Eh, it's not that odd or ill-advised for Trump to go to Maine. There's more than a few scenarios where winning that 2nd district (or wherever) is really pivotal for his path to 270.
Not so many. It's very unlikely to be the decider. Not when PA is still heavily blue. His most probable path to victory is FL, OH, NC, AZ, NV, IA, NH. The route he's aiming for is an allin on flipping PA while getting most of the list above. But neither is realistic and in neither is Maine important.
|
On October 16 2016 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
let us know if there's actually anything interesting in those speeches, will you If there's not it makes it even more weird for her to go out of her way to hide/lie about them.
Yeah. I don't fucking know, nothing I've heard from them makes any sense. Did way more damage to her to not release them.
|
On October 16 2016 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
let us know if there's actually anything interesting in those speeches, will you If there's not it makes it even more weird for her to go out of her way to hide/lie about them.
It took Obama 3 years to release his birth certificate. And end of the day he still only released it because he felt like it.
Sometimes it's not worth entertaining every accusation that comes your way.
|
One thing to note is that Clinton did release a bunch of her paid speech transcripts at one point or another. Which makes her decision not to release the ones Wikileaks is leaking all the more bizarre, because they're really no more or less damaging than the ones she already released thus far.
|
She probably didn't want to give her republican opponent months and months to pick through her speeches and then scurrilously quote them out of context. Which is what is happening right now. If you find something horrible in there be sure to let everyone know.
So far the speeches just make her look like a pragmatic wonk.
|
I believe that trump doesnt even try to win anymore. I think he is just trying to maximize the damage to everybody else. He knows he is going down and he wants to take down as many others with him as he can. This is how I read his most recent actions. A sore loser.
|
Oh look, more evidence of nothing. Her transcripts were the same thing as Obama's birth certificate. He had nothing to hide. Just didn't wanna give in to stupid bullshit. And as ticklish said, it eould have just led to asking for more.
|
On October 16 2016 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:36 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457 What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else First she said she'll look into it. Then she decided she would release them when her opponents released theirs, they didn't have any transcripts so they've all been released, yet she never released hers. The question is, if there's nothing in there, why didn't she just release them? If she'll hide nothing how wouldn't she hide much worse?
Just because there's nothing in there to hurt her in the current predicament doesn't mean it wouldn't have hurt her in the primary. You saw the attempt to use the 'basement dwellers' soundbite out of context, who's to say it wouldn't have done more damage in the primary than it did now?
And we're talking in hindsight, we've seen the reaction to the transcripts. Her campaign had to make an educated guess on which would hurt more, and they may have been wrong. That's vanilla cynicism as far as politics go, and I'm sure her campaign would hide 'something much worse' as you say if there was a choice in the matter. I don't think anyone is fooling themselves that Clinton is some champion of transparency.
Regardless, my problem with the speeches is not that they weren't made public or what she may or may not have said, it's that their existance. It just reeks of legal bribery that companies can pay people that are holding office millions to 'speak'. Let's be honest, the information in those speeches is pretty much worthless, the return on such an investment comes not from the words you see in those transcripts but from getting on the good side of whoever you just paid and possibly to invite clients/investors to these speeches to show 'look who we've got paying special attention to us' as a persuasion tool.
|
It's the paradoxe of wikileaks stuff. The diplomatic cables leak actually showed to anyone who paid attention the american diplomacy under a very good light. Those people were professional, reflected, pragmatic and very efficient. Now those transcript seem to actually simply disprove the theory that Clinton was a horrible double tongue.
It reveals two problems though
1- whatever the content if the leaks, uninformed people assume that leak = scandal and that's actually how wikileaks functions nowaday.
2- it reveals one more time that Clinton's taste for secrecy is her biggest ennemy. She could have released those stupid transcript months ago and we wouldn't have had a zillion posts of GH/xDaunt posts say that she is rotten to the core because transcripts.
|
^ninja'd by Biff
I didn't use to think badly of Wikileaks but releasing raw documents by themselves makes no sense. The whole point of releasing them to neutral press is that there are people to interpret the documents and speeches in question. All releasing the documents by themselves (while highlighting a bunch of lines in red?) is generate apathy from anyone who reads it and doesn't understand, or generate anger from people who don't read it and just want to raise their pitchforks.
|
On October 16 2016 07:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's the paradoxe of wikileaks stuff. The diplomatic cables leak actually showed to anyone who paid attention the american diplomacy under a very good light. Those people were professional, reflected, pragmatic and very efficient. Now those transcript seem to actually simply disprove the theory that Clinton was a horrible double tongue.
It reveals two problems though
1- whatever the content if the leaks, uninformed people assume that leak = scandal and that's actually how wikileaks functions nowaday.
2- it reveals one more tile that Clinton's taste for secrecy is her biggest ennemy. She could have released thos stupid transcript months ago and we woukdn't have had a zillion posts of GH/xDaunt posts say that she is rotten to the core because transcripts.
If not the transcripts those people would have simply moved to another 'rotten' thing.
|
On October 16 2016 07:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2016 06:36 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457 What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else First she said she'll look into it. Then she decided she would release them when her opponents released theirs, they didn't have any transcripts so they've all been released, yet she never released hers. The question is, if there's nothing in there, why didn't she just release them? If she'll hide nothing how wouldn't she hide much worse? Just because there's nothing in there to hurt her in the current predicament doesn't mean it wouldn't have hurt her in the primary. You saw the attempt to use the 'basement dwellers' soundbite out of context, who's to say it wouldn't have done more damage in the primary than it did now? And we're talking in hindsight, we've seen the reaction to the transcripts. Her campaign had to make an educated guess on which would hurt more, and they may have been wrong. That's vanilla cynicism as far as politics go, and I'm sure her campaign would hide 'something much worse' as you say if there was a choice in the matter. I don't think anyone is fooling themselves that Clinton is some champion of transparency. Regardless, my problem with the speeches is not that they weren't made public or what she may or may not have said, it's that their existance. It just reeks of legal bribery that companies can pay people that are holding office millions to 'speak'. Let's be honest, the information in those speeches is pretty much worthless, the return on such an investment comes not from the words you see in those transcripts but from getting on the good side of whoever you just paid and possibly to invite clients/investors to these speeches to show 'look who we've got paying special attention to us' as a persuasion tool.
Of course that's the problem. But her supporters are so far from recognizing that, it's not even worth broaching. If they didn't type out a contract of quid per quo, it's just good politics by their metric at this point.
The idea that she thinks her presence and those words were worth $250k/hr, but $15/hr for women working their asses off, is too high a burden for the economy to handle, is the kind of thing that used to sit sour on the left.
|
On October 16 2016 07:27 Blisse wrote:
^ninja'd by Biff
I didn't use to think badly of Wikileaks but releasing raw documents by themselves makes no sense. The whole point of releasing them to neutral press is that there are people to interpret the documents and speeches in question. All releasing the documents by themselves (while highlighting a bunch of lines in red?) is generate apathy from anyone who reads it and doesn't understand, or generate anger from people who don't read it and just want to raise their pitchforks.
Well most people liked wl until they became goons of the kremlin with no other purpose than to make a lot of noise and do a lot of damage.
|
On October 16 2016 07:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Oh look, more evidence of nothing. Her transcripts were the same thing as Obama's birth certificate. He had nothing to hide. Just didn't wanna give in to stupid bullshit. And as ticklish said, it eould have just led to asking for more.
It is stupid bullshit to call Obama a muslim or a foreigner, and so it makes sense not to humor them.
It is not stupid to wonder whether a politician who says she will do things for you is actually beholden to the rich, which would diminish her capacity to deliver on these promises. And so it doesn't make sense not to humor them.
When you equate those two questions, you look ridiculous to everyone who is willing to think about this.
Given that Trump is obviously worse than Clinton, I've decided (today) to stop answering this type of stuff until she gets elected and the bigger threat is out of the way. Please don't make me go back on that with comments like this :/
|
On October 16 2016 07:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2016 06:36 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457 What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else First she said she'll look into it. Then she decided she would release them when her opponents released theirs, they didn't have any transcripts so they've all been released, yet she never released hers. The question is, if there's nothing in there, why didn't she just release them? If she'll hide nothing how wouldn't she hide much worse? Just because there's nothing in there to hurt her in the current predicament doesn't mean it wouldn't have hurt her in the primary. You saw the attempt to use the 'basement dwellers' soundbite out of context, who's to say it wouldn't have done more damage in the primary than it did now? And we're talking in hindsight, we've seen the reaction to the transcripts. Her campaign had to make an educated guess on which would hurt more, and they may have been wrong. That's vanilla cynicism as far as politics go, and I'm sure her campaign would hide 'something much worse' as you say if there was a choice in the matter. I don't think anyone is fooling themselves that Clinton is some champion of transparency. Regardless, my problem with the speeches is not that they weren't made public or what she may or may not have said, it's that their existance. It just reeks of legal bribery that companies can pay people that are holding office millions to 'speak'. Let's be honest, the information in those speeches is pretty much worthless, the return on such an investment comes not from the words you see in those transcripts but from getting on the good side of whoever you just paid and possibly to invite clients/investors to these speeches to show 'look who we've got paying special attention to us' as a persuasion tool.
it is troublesome; but it's also hard to assess value; and it's hard to police estimates of value if people are overpaying. also iirc they weren't done while she was in office.
And given the value of advertisement, it's hard to assess the value of the advertising boost they can get from such a talk.
What actions could we take to address the issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
