Bernie Sanders has repeatedly warned his supporters that they are up against the biggest political machine in the country with the Clintons and expressly criticized Hillary Clinton for her PAC and association with “attack dog” David Brock. However, one of the biggest liabilities facing Clinton is her continuing refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street and other groups. One solution appears to be snare anyone searching Hillary Clinton’s speeches. An unknown group of Clinton supporters has created a clearly misleading site called “HillaryClintonspeeches” that comes up whenever someone tries to search the controversies. What they find is not a site on the speech controversy but a pro-Clinton site that directs them to glowing reviews of Clinton and campaign websites. The unknown hosts of this site may have a perfectly legitimate reason for its title but I fail to see how it is not knowingly misleading given the growing controversy over the speeches. If you put in “Hillary Clinton speeches” to search the current status on the release of the speeches, this site now pops up.
Rather than address the speeches, the site informs readers that “Clinton is intelligent, resourceful, successful, diplomatic, and controversial, and she would make a great president.” The site has the look of a false “hit” for those seeking various petition sites demanding the release of the transcripts which Clinton insisted on her hosts making (and contractually gave her total control over their release).
There is no information on the site as to who is behind it. However, the site insists that it is not part of the actual Clinton campaign. Yet, the site repeatedly encourages viewers to “support Hillary for America by donating and/or volunteering. Clinton is stressing a grassroots campaign, and she needs all of our support to win the White House in 2016.” The site includes pictures of the Clintons and glowing reviews. There is a pulldown on speeches, but it is not “those” speeches but rather campaign speeches. When you go to the “About” link, it is not “about” the site or its creators but a glowing account of Hillary Clinton.
So why call your site “Hillary Clinton Speeches” if it is not about her speeches and clearly will misdirect people researching the scandal? The group clearly anticipates the criticism by posting a disclaimer of a direct connection to the campaign despite its repeated links to the campaign. This will not help and will only reaffirm the view of many about the Clinton political machine. Whether done by surrogates or misguided followers, the Clinton campaign should disavow the site and call for the changing of its title. The site should also have the courage to publish its creators and staff.
What do you think?
I think I am qualified to be President. I write books. I lecture. But the problem is I was married to a Dick.
Karen S says “And here is a sobering thought – whomever we vote for to lead our country as President of the US will very likely have to respond to more terrorist attacks on our own soil,”
With Obama out of office there should be far fewer (false flag/fake) mass murder/terrorist attacks. Funny thing about Obama… Yes I know this was posted before but it’s apparent people aren’t getting it.
Ever Wonder Why the Most Mass Shootings Ever Have Happened Under Obama?
All of you glassy eyed Bernie supporters need a serious wake up call. Sanders is just another filled with ambition lying politician willing to do or say anything to get elected. Here’s some excerpts from an article I read today.:
“Bernie Sanders is no revolutionary
In New Hampshire last week, the Democratic presidential candidate put out an ad touting his endorsements giving the false impression that two local newspapers — the NASHUA TELEGRAPH and THE VALLEY NEWS — had endorsed him. An early version of the ad overtly claimed the papers had endorsed him. They had done no such thing.
Sanders did the same in Iowa, running a nearly identical ad — “He’s been endorsed for real change,” the narrator said — that left the strong and wrong impression the DES MOINES REGISTER was among those endorsing him. The paper had endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Also in Iowa, Sanders sent out campaign mailers that included the logos of THE LEAGUE OF CONSERVATIVE VOTERS and AARP according to Newsweek, even though AARP does not endorse and the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Clinton.
Officers of the AMERICAN LEGION were also unhappy that the Sanders campaign sent out a mailing in New Hampshire showing photos of Sanders with uniformed members of the legion without their permission, the Valley News reported; the nonpartisan group feared that the mailing gave the appearance of endorsement.
In Sanders’ 2006 campaign for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — heavily funded by Wall Street interests — helped his bid with about $200,000 in contributions and ads, CNN reported over the weekend.
{Also he hired] President Obama’s hands to do his social media and online fundraising, [and is] using a slogan “A FUTURE TO BELIEVE IN” that borrows from Obama’s 2008 “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN,” right down to the design and colors.
What this does mean is that Sanders and his aides are playing the game and working the system. They are not revolutionaries storming the establishment ramparts.
When he first kicked off his campaign, he said he wouldn’t officially declare himself a Democrat because “I’m an independent.” Then he said he would if necessary for ballot access. Last week he said, “Of course I am a Democrat.”
Karen S. All of those families who saved the average of $2500 each promised under Obamacare will believe that an extra $1,000 in taxes annually will save $5,000 annually in healthcare costs (as claimed by Sanders and supporters).
I don’t see a tidal wave of voters falling for that line again, but who knows? I’ve stated before that I think Sanders has, and presents fairly consistent ideas and ideals, but policy-wise he’d be a disaster.
And here is a sobering thought – whomever we vote for to lead our country as President of the US will very likely have to respond to more terrorist attacks on our own soil, a nuclear armed Iran, a nuclear armed North Korea, a destabilized and rapidly devolving Middle East that shows a distressing desire for martyrdom, possibly a nuclear strike against Israel at some point, whatever natural disaster is due this cycle, Russia eyeing its neighbors with greed and us with disdain, and a military with poor tooth to tail ratio. And the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
So…not to put too much pressure on you, but please choose wisely this time. That last time the WH changed hands cost me thousands and thousands of dollars in increased healthcare cost annually thanks to Obamacare. Please don’t vote for someone who thinks a 90% tax rate is not too high and can’t possibly affect jobs. Or a crook who’s going to give the nuclear codes to her cleaning lady for convenience or use them as a coaster at a cocktail party for rich donors. (She had parties in her house with her unsecured server downstairs with SAP intel on it and had the cleaning people with zero security clearance dust it.)
Young voters may not remember a time when the economy was not in a recession, or when jobs were plentiful, or before we started importing entry level workers by the hundreds of thousands while exporting skilled labor and STEM jobs. To them, “let the government fix all your problems”, and even socialism, sounds like it might be a solution.
They are too young to remember that both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were involved, and even voted, for many of the policies that caused this mess. To hear them complain about the spiraling costs of health care and premiums, having voted for Obamacare, or the high costs of education, having charged universities hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches, or the lack of jobs, having voted for higher taxes and other job killers, is just ludicrous. Only the very young does not realize that the Establishment was very instrumental in getting us to this point. The phrase, “Here, let us fix it even more!” should send reasonable people running.
Here is some slime from Google:
Here’s what they had to say about Hillary in 1993. . .
With some justification, 1992 was billed as the “Year of the Woman”. There are more women senators and more women in executive-level positions of power than ever before. Riding the symbolic crest of it all, of course, is our own Hillary Rodham Clinton, taking the power and influence that a First Lady has always had, and acting as if she is entitled to exercise it.
Meanwhile, 1993 has been a historic year for lesbians, gay men and bisexual people. Bill Clinton declared his intentions to lift the military ban on homosexuals. Last April, the March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Rights drew anywhere from 300,000 to a million people (the numbers are much disputed). An openly gay man, David Mixner, was appointed to a Cabinet-level position. A lesbian activist, Roberta Achtenberg, was appointed to be an assistant secretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These gains have not been met with equal enthusiasm by all. Indeed “family values” conservatives have lashed back at both Hillary and gay people. And, in a strange merging of far-right nightmares, Hillary, and two almost equally powerful women, Department of Health and Human Services head Donna Shalala and Attorney General Janet Reno are imagined to be lesbians. To quite different ends, some gay activist groups have also played around with these rumors.
Four years ago, in 1989, a controversy erupted at the University of Wisconsin, Madison over whether the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) should be allowed on campus. A substantial portion of the university’s liberal community thought that it should be banned, because ROTC, like the rest of the U.S. military, discriminates against gay men, lesbians and bisexual people. Donna Shalala, then University Chancellor (now head of the Department of Health and Human Services), opposed ROTC’s exclusionary policy, but did not want to risk losing state funding by angering the conservative citizens of the state of Wisconsin.
Hillary Clinton’s High School Photo Collection
Exclusively on the Hillary Clinton Quarterly
Madison’s gay and lesbian activist groups were furious with her, particularly since she had long been rumored to be a lesbian. At an ACLU conference, activist Miriam Ben-Shalom called Shalala a lesbian. Ben-Shalom told the New Yorker, “I thought there was a great deal of hypocrisy in her position on the (ROTC) issue. I did not intentionally out her at the conference, but at the time I thought it was common knowledge that she was a lesbian, and I said that.”
When Shalala was named to Clinton’s cabinet last December, Queer Nation, a direct activist group, tried to out her at the press. According to Michael Petrelis of Queer Nation/Nation Capital, “We in the gay community need visibility. Closet cases like Shalala send the message that there is something shameful about being a lesbian.” Shalala told the Associated Press: “Have I lived an alternative lifestyle? The answer is no.” Her friends concur. Journalist Molly Ivins, a close friend of Shalala, told the New Yorker, “Donna’s interested in men. She’s very aware of what you have to give up to get ahead when you’re a woman.”
Despite these denials, not everyone is quite convinced. She has a review blurb on the back of the paperback edition of Rita Mae Brown’s lesbian coming-out, coming-of-age classic, Rubyfruit Jungle, That book is only famous because it is about lesbians. Either she is a lesbian, or she actively wants to be mistaken for one.
Rumors of Shalala’s lesbian leanings, for the most part, originated from gay activists, who acted out for some combination of presumed evidence, a very real need for lesbian visibility, and political anger over the ROTC issue. Similar rumors about our own Hillary and Attorney General Janet Reno, however, eliciting the playful curiosity of the gay community, have been far more zealously pursued by conservatives.
Janet Reno is one of the butchest individuals in Washington. In Florida she was known for her hog-punching, alligator wrestling nonconformity. She spearheaded wars on drugs for Dade County, one of the most crime ridden counties in the country. As U.S. Attorney General she has already dealt with tough issues like the World Trade Center bombing and the Waco, Texas crisis with an almost hawkish machismo.
The lesbian rumors started in Florida, when Reno was Dade County State Attorney. Jack Thompson, the one man Morals Squad who is best known for his campaign against rap group 2 Live Crew, has actively promulgated the notion, never providing any evidence or sources. Miami talk-show host Mike Thompson (no relation to Jack) has called Reno a lesbian on several air times. Right wing watchdogs Accuracy in Media (AIM) have declared their intent to further investigate Ms. Reno’s sexuality, an objective based solely on the fact that she is “a 54 year old spinster” and that there has been “an abundance of rumors.”
Women who act in male roles are threatening to many men, and are thus frequently labeled as lesbians. Donald Suggs, media director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) told HCQ “any woman who is powerful is supposed to be a castrating bitch, who hates men, therefore a lesbian. Of course, the ironic thing is that it’s lesbians who can afford to get along with men, they don’t really have to deal with them. If you want to talk about hatred of men, you should talk to straight women.”
My guess is that she doesn’t want the speeches to be released, not because of the actual content, but because of how she addresses certain (vilified) executives of companies and other people she publicly tries to claim being against. I can’t imagine the content is all that earthshattering or enlightening, but imagine the field day Bernies team would have with her opening up the speeches with long gushes about how *fill in the blank* CEO is her long time close friend whom she’s shared vacations with etc. etc….
to Six………Hillary may have been paid for presenting a seminar to the Golden Sachs commodities trading unit.
Anyone who can turn a c.10,000 % profit in a short period of time on risky commodity trades (Cattlegate) is probably in demand to instruct/coach even the largest firms’ commodity experts.
I looked it up on Google. Bernie is 73 or so and Hillary is 68 or so. Maybe my math is wrong. But Hillary’s politics are older. Her pals are old. Like Gloria and whatshername. Maybe I am just prejudiced against an old female telling me what to do. It would be like having wife, grandma and aunt Doe Doe telling me what to do and what to think. I would rather have a grandpa tell me sort of what I might do.
tnash
Unfortunately, you seem to have cherry-picked a few damning facts from the article that I included if all that you remembered was that Sanders simply “used” or benefited from DNC campaign funds. That is not all that the above-referenced article claims. Not by a long shot. Certainly you skipped over the part that explained, in great detail, that Bernie wasn’t merely a recipient of the DNC funds; he was also actively involved, FOR YEARS, in precisely the behavior that he now, conveniently, deems to be so repugnant and evil. Did you conveniently miss that part? Here, I’ll refresh your memory:
____________________________________________________________________________________
In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s retreats for the “Majority Trust” — an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year — at Martha’s Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.
The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system — and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors.
He is indeed. At the last Dem debate, he admitted that he had considered setting up a SuperPAC. Despite his rants about SuperPACs. (But then again Obama claimed to hate SuperPACs until he literally became one.)
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector — and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
“At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don’t recall him ever giving a speech attacking us,” the donor said. “While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
And, then, of course, there’s this:
____________________________________________________________________________________
But Sanders maintains that members of Congress now spend far too much time making calls seeking campaign contributions — or “dialing for dollars,” he said during a speech at the New England Council’s “Politics and Eggs” event Friday morning.
“That’s what they do. And not only should members who are elected be working for the people, not raising money — if you think you could simply divide your brain in half, if you’re working on unemployment or health care and think, now I’ve gotta go out and raise money, it affects your entire being,” he said.
Yeah, it diverts Bernie Sanders from the two of the three bills he actually cosponsored that got passed, to rename Vermont post offices. But really the fake authenticity that Bernie Sanders brings to the table aids the fundraising.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, said Sanders has “raised more money for the Senate Democrats than almost any other member of the Senate Democratic caucus” because he sees helping the party regain the majority as critical.
So the Independent thing is also a scam.
Bambam ( hopefully less typos now that I’m not using the “smartphone”) I DID read what you posted ” Bernie admitted that he CONSIDERED setting up a SuperPac”, and your question to me about the appropriate amount Hillary and Sanders should have received for speaking fees.
You stated that “The question one must ask is whether Bernie did, or did not, accept speaking fees for these engagements”. I will repeat that attempting to somehow equate accepting $1875 for speaking engagements to the enormous fees the Clintons have been given (no strings attached, I’m sure) is a farfetched, specious, ” defense” of the Clintons.
I won’t name an amount, but I’ll restate the obvious……..a self-avowed reformer/progressive has more credibility taking $1875 from speaking engagements for “personal enrichment” than the opponent who has achieved great personal wealth via the speech-making racquet. I don’t think her claim that “I am a woman, therefore I must be consider a progressive” makes that problem go away for her, or for Slick Willy, or for the Clinton Foundation.
You can easily track the funds raised by/for Hillary’s superpac v/ the funds raised by the nonexistent Sanders superpac he CONSIDERED setting up.
The fundraising activities you cite as black marks against Sanders’ record have invariably been related to general fundraisers for Sanders like-minded Democratic colleagues for use in their campaigns. The massive amounts of payoffs/”speaking fees” the Clintons have raked in lifted them out of the “dead broke” poverty Hillary claims they suffered when they left the White House.
If you have evidence that Sanders has been personally enriched by profiteering from his political career (beyond the est.$500,000 net worth v. The Clinton’s mega millions), present it.
when that very college was in. . .
Well, tnash, it’s like claiming that you are a little bit pregnant. It’s only a matter of degree. The question that one must ask is whether Bernie did, or did not, accept fees for those speaking engagements? What amount would’ve been acceptable to you? Name a price. Do you have one? Did Bernie only fail to rake in the astronomical fees that Hillary garnered simply because the groups, before whom both appeared, valued Hillary and her influence more than that perceived belonging to an old, washed-up Socialist? Do you actually believe that The Bern actively refused large sums of money, offered to him, when he accepted these engagements, thereby, shunning greater compensation and insisting to be paid a more modest amount? Lol! You’ve got to be joking. Did he shun the $165,000-$175,000 per year salary that he received in office, declaring it to be so far beyond what the average Joe in this country earns in any given year and demanding to be paid less and more in line with the common man? Where is his Socialist backbone? Did his rotund wife, who worked as a president of at least a couple of colleges, refuse a $200,000 payout upon her exit from the last school, when that very from a college was in financial trouble? These liars live a life which is contrary to the one that they wish to impose upon the rest of us. Nothing new.
Really, tnash–you question his politics, not his integrity? Well, think again. Sanders is as duplicitous as is Clinton–actually, even more so. I can’t blame you or the rest of the general public for not knowing the facts, as the MSM dares not question its golden boy about his past or even raise these relevant past indulgences. You won’t find this information widely disseminated, and you have to ask yourself, why? Any journalist, with an ounce of integrity or honesty, would’ve mentioned some of the issues discussed below and, at the very least, questioned Bernie about them. He courted these evil donors, and I can promise you that he received more than $27 from each individual contributor. Why isn’t someone holding his feet to the fire over these obvious contradictions?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bernie Sanders Really Hated All That Fundraising w/Big Banks He Used to Do
Bernie Sanders 2016: There’s a Socialist sucker born every minute.
February 8, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
If you listen to one of Bernie Sanders’ rants about campaign finance, you get the idea that he’s just a little guy raising money from ordinary people. As he likes to yell, “$27 dollars”, who is a world away from the high finance world of campaign fundraising and big donors, and wants to tear it all down. But Bernie’s authenticity is a scam. Politicians cultivate a particular image. Bernie Sanders is a successful politician who cultivates the image of an eccentric grass roots politician who has nothing to do with big time fundraising. The truth is he has always been a big part of that world.
In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s retreats for the “Majority Trust” — an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year — at Martha’s Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.
The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system — and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors.
He is indeed. At the last Dem debate, he admitted that he had considered setting up a SuperPAC. Despite his rants about SuperPACs. (But then again Obama claimed to hate SuperPACs until he literally became one.)
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector — and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
“At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don’t recall him ever giving a speech attacking us,” the donor said. “While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators.”
Of course he did. Bernie Sanders doesn’t speak truth to power. He speaks applause lines to audiences. And his wife has certainly benefited from certain financial arrangements back in Vermont.
Sanders’ political leanings were well known by the donors who attended the retreats. “Nobody was more surprised that Bernie was there than the donors were,” said another Democrat who attended the retreats.
Bernie Gotta Eat.
But Sanders maintains that members of Congress now spend far too much time making calls seeking campaign contributions — or “dialing for dollars,” he said during a speech at the New England Council’s “Politics and Eggs” event Friday morning.
“That’s what they do. And not only should members who are elected be working for the people, not raising money — if you think you could simply divide your brain in half, if you’re working on unemployment or health care and think, now I’ve gotta go out and raise money, it affects your entire being,” he said.
Yeah, it diverts Bernie Sanders from the two of the three bills he actually cosponsored that got passed, to rename Vermont post offices. But really the fake authenticity that Bernie Sanders brings to the table aids the fundraising.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, said Sanders has “raised more money for the Senate Democrats than almost any other member of the Senate Democratic caucus” because he sees helping the party regain the majority as critical.
So the Independent thing is also a scam.
In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party’s Senate candidates.
The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party — which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.
Among the DSCC’s top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.
Sanders was among the senators who met with Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Legacy Circle” donors who had given the legal maximum to the DSCC five years in a row or $500,000 over their lifetimes.
He paid dues to the DSCC, too, with his Progressive Voters of America political action committee cutting checks for $30,000 to the group during the 2014 election cycle.
Oh tell us more.
The 2007 Martha’s Vineyard fundraiser guest list included professional lobbyists, corporate executives, trade association heads, labor union brass and wealthy individual donors.
Some are government relations executives directly employed by corporations such as the financial firms Blackrock and Prudential Financial, or the defense contractor Raytheon. Others represent large Washington law and lobbying firms, such as DLA Piper, Patton Boggs, and Akin Gump.
Some names stand out, like John Breaux, the former Democratic senator from Louisiana turned mega-lobbyist who has worked for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, Chevron, ExxonMobil and more. Then there’s former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, who has represented many petrochemical and pipeline companies as well as Stanford Financial, the now defunct financial firm felled by an alleged Ponzi scheme.
Other guests included a lobbyist for the private equity firm Blackstone Group as well as those who have represented pipeline company Kinder Morgan, the American Petroleum Institute, pharmaceutical giants such as Merck and Allergan (now involved in a controversial inversion deal), and the pharmaceutical trade association, among others.
Translation, every word you hear coming out of the Bernie Sanders liehole is a lie. He’s not some independent insurgent who is outside the system. He’s what the system was built on. And he’s lying to his supporters while pumping them for money, telling them what they want to hear, exactly the way he told the big donors what they wanted to hear while pumping them for cash.
Bernie Sanders 2016. Because there’s a Socialist sucker born every minute.
Hillary The 8th is kind of a complainer. I do not want to have to watch a complainer on tv every night on the news shows. I want some person more positive. Maybe someone younger. Bernie seems younger. How old is he? Anyone know?
Bambam….actually, the MSM has started to oeck away at the Sanders facade.
Like pointing out that he, too, took nearly $1900 in speaking fees, putting him on a par with the 153,000,000 Hillary raked in.
So maybe, if you lean your thumbs heavily enough on the scales, you can continue to put them in the same league.
It’s a real long shot, and IMO it takes a LOT of excuses on behalf of Hillary do try to balance those scales.
She’s in a league of her own.
Bambam……..I’ve read that the Sanders’ net worth is c. $500,000. One could stack that up against the gteat PERSONAL wealth the Clintons have stacked up, make a farfetched comparison, and say “see, they both profited from politics”.
I think it is a matter of proportion, and I can’t see that the “little bit pregnant” false comparison holds up”.
We’ve been witnessning the same thing in the atea of Hillary’s unsecuried, or poorly secured, private email system mishandling hundreds of classified documents, some of which contained the highest level of sensitive information.
It has been published that “Sec. Powell did the same thing”. This, after the revelation that 2 of the emails he handled on his private email account contained some level of classified material.
Powell contents that those two should items should never have been classified, that they could be published in the oress today with no adverse consequences, other than to clear him.
Hillary apologists have stretched that “a little bit pregnant” argument into “well, Sec. Powell did the same thing”.
They were not remotely similar, any more than the Clintons’ profiteering and ties to establishment benefactors are the same as Sander’s use of DNC campaign funds to run his election campaigns.
What joy to read butt hurt comments from Hillary sycophants…
Ban both major parties for all national elections, till at least 2065.
tnash
I was the one who mentioned that Hillary isn’t the first politician to tailor her speeches to fit her audience. I mentioned that because it’s the truth, not because it’s an excuse or an explanation for hiding the content of those speeches. Of course, people want to know what she said in those speeches, but, it light of the other much more sinister, and, yes, purportedly criminal behavior, in which it is alleged that she engaged, why would anyone allow himself to become a pawn and be used in an attempt to divert attention away from the truly relevant issues surrounding Hillary? By focusing in on this tidbit, one misses the major concerns, which is precisely what she wants.
By the way, Bernie, your hero, is no better. Yeah, I know, that carefully scripted persona, which he has worked hard to manufacture, is nothing more than a scam. He courted the same folks, in the past, that he now claims to despise and demonize. He is nothing more than a fraud, who has obviously duped many people.
I have big, fundamental policy differences with Sanders.
I question his policies, not his integrity. I would not vote for him.
When Hillary claims to bs “an anti-establishment candidate”, she MAKES it a real issue. So I think it’s reasonable to question whether she (as in other areas) has an ounce of credibility in making that claim.
$153 million in speaking fees, massive big donor contributions from megadonors, etc. do not support her claimed “anti-establishment” history.
So given the battle between her and Sanders on this issue, she comes looks ridiculous making that claim.
Even ABSENT that claim, massive, unprecented speaking fees and campaign contributions from the megadonors do raise questions about her ties/ obligations to these donors.
So I think it is a “real issue”….trying to make it go away by claiming that she’s a aoman, therefore anti-establishment, was pretty lame on her part.
It was pointed out in a comment above that Hillary isn’t the first politician to tailor her speeches to a particular audience.
Fair enough. But she may be the first politician to rake in $225,000 each for three speeches to Goldman Sacks, and rake in millions more from “Wall Street” entities in speaking fees and campaign contributions.
The concealment of the content of those speeches, and the “energetic” attempt to direct attention away from her history with megadonors, does not enhance her claimed credentials as an “anti-establishment” candidate.
I wouldn’t be surprized if Hillary supporters now claim that the c.$1800-1900 Sanders earned for soeeches prove that he “does it too”, as though there were some sort of equivilency.
It takes a lot of prepackaged and very partisan “defenses” from committed Hillary backers to try to gloss over her activities and her record.
It’s a bit like Trump supporters still backing him even if he “shot somebody on 5th Avenue”.
That “so what” mentality on the part of extreme partisans, the “True Believers”, enables, encourages, and overlooks slimeball behaviour.
To a large degree, I think we have the candidates we deserve.
Shhhh! This ‘speeches’ shiny object is to draw attention away from her supernova-like illegal and FBI investigating email practices. And it’s working.
Or course it could matter what she said in those speeches.
Steve,
Ours being a republic is only half of the equation; the other half, which Sanders or any President takes an oath to is “constitutional” as in constitutional republic. That this form of government only legitimately exists to secure the unalienable rights of the people is of paramount importance. Progressivism has plowed under that purpose and grown in its place this monstrous bureaucracy that has been allowed to qualify what lives matter, what liberty is allowable and what property belongs to the State. That has erased ‘unalienable’ from the minds of a large percentage of our electorate. This is no where near the original intent and vision described in our Declaration of Independence.
Sanders and Cruz (Trump is as untrustworthy as Clinton) are those anti-establishment candidates that would appear to want to take us to that 4th self-evident truth; “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Both of these men will bring us to that “house divided” decision to “shi* or get off the pot”. We have reached that point where we as a nation have to decide whether we want to hand everything over to the State or restore our government to its original purpose.