MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 4 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- William K. Wolfrum (51)
- artappraiser (49)
- artappraiser (48)
- PeraclesPlease (47)
- artappraiser (36)
Here’s Why Hillary Won’t Allow Her Corporate Speeches to Be Published
By A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:13am |One speech in particular will be cited and quoted from as an example here, to show the type of thing that all of her corporate speeches contained, which she doesn’t want the general public to know about.
URL:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/heres-hillary-wont-allow-corporate-speeches-published.html#more-59024
- Add new comment
- 17989 reads
Comments
Your last news post implied Hillary was sending kill lists and $200 million to Honduran military assassins.
This one implies Hillary is getting rich by giving Monsanto federal money to poison us and the world with GMO.
The internet is great cuz it you can find always find 'stuff' to reinforce your warped views.
by NCD on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:42am
I didn't realize that the hardcore Sanders supporters were this delusional.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:45am
rmrd - you often throw insults out like "delusional," "fanatic," etc., to describe people who have a different political view than your own. I've noted before your unwillingness to acknowledge any flaws at all in your preferred candidate despite her long and ignoble history of dishonesty and race card playing as well as her neo-con foreign policy and pro-corporate stances.
So, is it possible when you insult Clinton's critics, you are engaging in psychological projection? Just sayin'.
by HSG on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 10:08pm
Q: Is it possible that I am engaging in psychological projection.
A: No.
Now answer my question. Doesn't the fact that Sanders cannot form multi-ethnic coalitions and is unable to deliver on single payer healthcare or free college disqualify Sanders from being a viable Presidential candidate?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:16pm
Here is an article on the delusion of stolen primaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-...
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:13pm
Well the fact that he didn't attract many African-American voters in the primaries is the reason he isn't the nominee so I guess the disqualification came at the ballot box.
Let's get back to my question. You say you aren't projecting your fanaticism and delusions on those who criticize your chosen candidate. If that is true, why do you always rebut all criticisms of Clinton by attacking Sanders and/or his critics? Why don't you ever address the substance of the criticism?
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 9:02am
Cut the crap
I addressed one poster who blogs the same data in different cut and paste form on the issue of Bill electioneering in Massachusetts. I noted that the AG found no criminal activity. I noted that a megaphone was at the polling place but that megaphone was brought there by the Mayor, and was more than the legal distance away from the polling place.
In the case of the posts of video rants from unknown individuals, I broke off communication because the posts were not rational. I saw no point in engaging in further conversation.
I addressed the posts. The posts were delusional.
Edit to add
Sanders was played for a fool by Donald Trump. Doesn't that show that Bernie is not ready for prime time?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 9:25am
Error. See below
by CVille Dem on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 3:25pm
Nice try. You've called me a fanatic and a true believer. Yet it is your refusal to criticize Clinton for anything that demonstrates your fanaticism right?
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 5:18pm
Hal,
You respond that not having African American voters lost him the primaries. That wasn't the question. The question posed was two-fold: (paraphrasing)
1. Since Bernie couldn't get anyone on board except a very specific demographic, and
2. Since he couldn't explain in a rational way, and had no ability in reality of achieving the cornerstones of his goals, (and having no history of ever even trying to accomplish even a scintilla of these things during his more than 2 decades in Congress).
Based on all of the above, why should anyone expect him to be a successful or even competent President?
But that's OK, Hal. He lost. Hillary won. I can't for the life of me understand why you need to continue to flog this dead horse, but I have a prediction of a headline:
2/10/2019: President Clinton Successfully Gets Minimum Wage to $13 an Hour; Increases US Insured by Another 8,000,000; Defeats GOP Efforts at Continuing to Protect Big Pharma and Allows All Agencies to Negotiate Drug Prices; Uses Income from Tax Rate Adjustments to 1950's Levels and Provides Windfall for Infrastructure Repair and Renewal Across Country; Her Signature "Hillary Hires" Jobs Bill has Brought Millions of Millenials Into the WorkPlace in Well-Paying Fields -- Hal Ginsberg Still Demands Transcripts of Goldman-Sachs Talks -- Says It Is The Only Way To Know Her True Motives!!
by CVille Dem on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 2:33pm
Thx
Sanders and his surrogates are successfully alienating women, blacks, and Latinos. The planned disruption in Philadelphia will finish off the BernieBros movement.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 3:57pm
The way Sanders is handling losing illustrates why he wouldn't be a good president. He's just not a team player. Passing legislation requires a team. His my way or the highway approach makes it difficult to form coalitions, as you have often pointed out.
He could have parleyed his support into a powerful movement within the democratic party to push for change. Many Hillary supporters would have supported such a movement just as many Hillary supporters support Elizabeth Warren. But rather than accepting his loss and being part of a team he decided to go it alone. With holding his endorsement of the winner means that Hillary supporters will not support him leading a movement within the party for change. And Sanders more pragmatic supporters are beginning to abandon him as they move to Hillary for the general. He will be left with only the leverage he can get from a small group of his most angry and recalcitrant supporters.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 4:18pm
No response to my points at all O-K. I wasn't defending Sanders and he's not the nominee. Your criticism of him is itherefore rrelevant to this thread. In any case, his failure to produce his tax returns is far less troubling than Clinton's refusal to divulge her speeches to G-S. Why? Because of Clinton's history of double-speak, parsing language, and cutting backroom deals. She tells us she's against the TPP but she also said she was against the Colombia Free Trade deal and then she cajoled Democrats to support it when she became Secretary of State. So, we have reason to believe she says one thing to average people and another to her financiers. Simply put, we have reason not to trust he based on her history of acceding to Wall Street demands. How exactly do you think Sanders' failure to produce his tax returns reflects a specific problem that may arise in his administration - if there were one?
Also, shouldn't your troubling history of refusing to acknowledge Clinton's obvious mistake when it comes to her email server cause you to question whether your political judgment may be failing you when it comes to her cause?
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 5:24pm
As I pointed out my critique was addressed to lulu. Your response as if it was addressed to you was a non sequitur. That's my response. I know you stated that Sanders should have released his tax returns. That's one of several reasons my critique wasn't addressed to you.
I'm not at all troubled by my posts nor am I troubled by a lack of posts. I've explained why. You of course are free to be troubled by any posts or lack of posts by me. You seem to have this notion that criticizing the candidate one supports makes ones arguments more worthy. It doesn't. I could not possibly care less whether you do or do not critique Sanders. If I criticize Hillary will it make my arguments on Glass/steagle or universal health care suddenly more convincing?
If you're still confused about my views on Hillary's email server and have a deep and abiding need for clarity I suggest you reread my posts on the subject. My views haven't changed.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 5:59pm
I expect a measure of intellectual honesty from people - especially those who comment seriously on important matters. If I get something wrong, I recognize my credibility is dependent on 1) acknowledging error and 2) figuring our how not to make the same mistake.
Sadly, this site has become polarized into the Clinton acolytes and the Clinton detractors. This is incredibly dispiriting to me because thedivision makes it impossible for us to work together to solve the very real problems our nation faces. Instead, most here insist not only on the justness of our position but on the moral failings of those who disagree.
This is the worst possible outcome. Instead, to bridge the gap, people of good will need to reach out to each other.
I have tried to do this repeatedly. By contrast, the Clinton people here have almost without exception refused to acknowledge either their specific mistakes or their candidate's and have at the same time insisted those who disagree are delusional, fanatics, mean-spirited, not worth listening to, etc. This is not the way to a better world folks.
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 5:58pm
I don't think I've been factually wrong and whether I've been subjectively wrong is a matter of opinion. I've often tried to acknowledge when I make purely subjective arguments. I've tried to back up my subjective opinions with strong arguments
Several people have called sync and wattree's arguments delusional with evidence to support that analysis. I've never called you delusional though perhaps others have. I don't keep score on your arguments with other people.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 6:08pm
Okay O-K. Perhaps you're right and I've harped overmuch on her email peccadillo. She's the nominee. I'm prepared to work with you and anybody else who is trying to push her to the left. I do not like the insults, personal slights, and motive questioning that goes on here far too often. I apologize for lumping you in wrongly with others.
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 6:26pm
You overestimate your intellectual honesty, and that' the biggest hurdle in debating you, presuming you don't *actually* have short-term memory loss.
PS to add - I do believe you're *earnest*, but that's a different quality.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/29/2016 - 3:08am
I wasn't flogging any dead horses. I didn't insist that Bernie won or suggest it or argue that he should have won. RMRD brought up this topic when he asked me whether Sanders' failure to win suggests he shouldn't be the candidate. I agreed. He didn't win. Ergo, he shouldn't be the candidate. My question to you: Shouldn't you be criticizing RMRD for flogging dead horses?
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 5:27pm
Nice try Hal, your attempt to get us to go after each other did not work.
What you fail to realize is that for much of the country wage increases will have to be incremental. Hillary stating that the increase would be immediate would be a disaster for parts of the country, Sanders supporters want change now. That is not going to happen.There are reactionaries decimated to inertia. The can obstruct things. Sanders and some of his most ardent supporters are blind to this truth.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 6:53pm
To be such a nit-picker, you certainly missed the points I was making. You didn't answer the question that was asked. You are completely wrapped up in having people who are Clinton supporters "admit" that she has faults. What you don't get is that Clinton supporters are saying that, warts and all, Hillary (who voted with Bernie 93% of the time when she was a Senator) is someone who can get things done. She has experience on the world stage. She knows how to build a coalition and in fact has a great deal of loyalty from blacks, Latinos, women, and more generally, people who work for a living. A simple googling of her accomplishments would demonstrate that.
What difference does it make that you acknowledge that Bernie should have published his taxes, and that he shouldn't be an NRA shill if the very basic question is left unanswered-- What kind of President would Bernie be? Bernie is completely, totally, and obviously unable, unprepared, and incapable of being a successful or even competent President.
For what it's worth: I wish Hillary hadn't embellished her landing (sniper fire!). I am sorry that her private email server came to light. Did you get that? I am not sorry she had her own server! Why. Because unlike the State Dept ans FBI, they weren't hacked. All of her emails are now available, and I am sorry about that because it is yet one more double standard that she has to endure. Don't even get me started on the Benghazi Circus!
Now, as to your favorite bullshit demand, I am very glad that she will not give you or the GOP the satisfaction of succumbing to yet another double standard to put out transcripts of speeches she has given.
So what if you don't like two things that Sanders did or didn't do? So what if I admit a couple of things that H. Clinton did that in retrospect were mistakes, or even indications that she isn't perfect?
Who would be the best President? That is the effing bottom line!
-- Sanders, who has zero accomplishments under his belt, and cannot get endorsements from people who know him best, because they know he is incapable of getting things done? Sanders, who could have seen his great numbers of primary supporters as an opportunity to join the Democrats and transform the Party. He chose not to. He is a loner, and has no interest in working with the Party that he used to get access. He has done NOTHING for down-candidate Democrats because a) he is keeping his $$ for himself, and b) He isn't, and doesn't like Democrats.
-- Trump, no words necessary?
-- Clinton, who despite the fact that she is human, has well-thought out, and achievable goals that are realistic in this complicated world, and may be more likely, based on the fact that she is helping down-candidates get elected.
So, your continued demands to have Clinton supporters list the faults of our candidate who has won the nomination seem to me to be just pettiness in the face of what really matters.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 7:02pm
There has been plenty of criticism of Hillary from her supporters here. Most of us are worried she might be too hawkish. It's been discussed but not to the satisfaction of Sanders supporters. Some of us want a bit more involvement but are worried it will be a bit too much. Some while worrying find the argument that she's a neocon an exaggerated black white assessment. We're not "credited" with our critique since we're at the same time defending her from what we feel is an unwarranted and extreme critique.
Thing is I don't think any critique of Hillary by her supporters will be enough for Sanders supporters. The only critique that will satisfy them is one that ends with our acknowledgement that they're right, she's unqualified to be president, and that we're changing our vote to Sanders.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 7:17pm
Hal, we have seen repeated blogs explaining why Hillary should be convicted of some crime or why Hillary should withdraw. The blogs reshuffle the same cut and paste data and are presented as new. We have seen Davidson rants about Hillary posted in rapid sequence by another person.We have another who has focused on criticizing everybody because he has given up hope. When I say delusional, I am saying the content of the posts are not rational. That is my opinion.
You still have not responded to my question of why a man who did nothing in Congress, cannot form a multi-ethnic coalition, lost the primary despite outspending Hillary, and being unable to explain how he will enact two major pillars of his campaign, is qualified to be President. Donald Trump played Sanders like a fiddle when the carrot of a debate was held out. Sanders is incapable of dealing with Piutin, Hussein, etc. Why do you think this lightweight should be President?
Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren appeared on stage in Ohio and electrified the crowd. Bernie is an afterthought. John Lewis is doing something. Chris Murphy is doing something. Sanders will come to Philadelphia With a bunch of mostly white BernieBros and look like an angry old man telling people to get off his lawn. Sanders and Trump were never fully vetted. They benefited from the MSM white guy bias. Obama had to produce a long form birth certificate. BernieBros are yelling about speech transcripts from Hillary. The same people who wanted a primary challenge to Obama in 2012 are opposing Hillary today. We know the game being played.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 8:05am
That’s not quite accurate but no need to fuss over details. The significant point of possible contention that you put in play here is whether or not The State Department under Hillary and Hillary herself did what the article claimed. If there was was not a coup in Honduras and if it was not helped and legitimized by Hillary and if there are not political murders and they are not done by forces trained by organizations descended from The School of the Americas, and if the U.S. is not sending millions to Honduras then you have evidence that I do indeed have warped views.
OK, I guess a little attention to detail is called for. Hillary got rich by giving speeches. Is that a false statement? As of yet I have seen no credible claim that she gave Monsanto anything more than an implied promise. That is all I see claimed in the article. That is all she was in a position to do. The article also said she suggested that liability protection would be subsidized and “good” press would be encouraged. Is that a distortion of her quoted words? Borderline, if not full on, propaganda supported and encouraged by the Federal government was suggested by her as ways that Monsanto might be helped. Maybe you support unlabeled GMO’s and Monsanto’s efforts and methods, that’s fine. The article analyzed her words. You can disagree, obviously and rather than offer counter-analysis you can just have a knee-jerk reaction, obviously.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 12:42pm
I think this is a good illustration why Hillary won't release transcripts of her speeches. Your link has about four sentences taken out of a 65 minute speech. It uses those four sentences for a several paragraph attack. You think that I couldn't listen to any 65 minute speech and find four out of context sentences to use to attack the speaker? I could do it you, or Sanders, or anyone.
Biotech is here to stay. Once science makes a discovery no one can ever put that genie back in the bottle. It's also the hardest issue to get accurate information on. Both sides, GMO companies and far left environmentalists, put out data that is super hyped and irrational. I want to stand with the environmentalists against the propaganda Monsanto puts out but I've caught the extreme environmentalists using fear tactics and lies as often as Monsanto.
We need to find a balanced approach because genetic research will continue. It's the new frontier of science and it won't be stopped.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:58pm
Yeah, they'd rather people in Africa starve than suffer the slings and arrows of genetically modified foods. The horror, the horror....
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 4:28pm
I agree completely and so did the author of the piece who put that same conclusion in his headline. And yes, I know that you could find something in any speech, or any comment as far as that goes, to object to. But the pertinent point remains the same as I stated before, IMO. Is the author’s analysis of the parts he quoted fair and accurate or not? Also, note that neither the author nor I condemned bio-tech research. I am right with Hillary there and I say so free of charge.
I am, like you, all for a balanced approach, both to analysis of science and its proper application and to analysis of political candidates. Things politicians say and who they say them to and who they try to keep those same things secret from are all elements of that analysis in the tricky human interaction realm of politics. If a politician hides from the voting public significant speeches to significantly powerful entities I think they can expect more than a little speculation as to why. Your mileage apparently differs.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 4:55pm
I don't know where Hillary stands on biotech and this article didn't help at all. I suspect I'd be less than happy since I want environmental protections far in excess than the public would tolerate. One sentence gives me no information at all. I'd at least have to see the whole paragraph. I could come up with a dozen links from just the last month where republicans took one sentence out of context to attack democrats with a false narrative, and in all fairness vice versa.
I want to win. As I said in our last conversation, "climate change, abortion rights, civil rights for minorities, women, and LGBT, voters rights, gun control etc. are much more important to me the any ethical considerations about voting in an open republican primary to facilitate a democratic win." Before I consider Sanders and Trump's call for Hillary to release the speech transcripts I want them to match Hillary by releasing their tax returns. After that we can talk about the next step.
You know, it would be the same if Sanders had won. I'd support him and I'd want him to win even though I don't really like him much. I'd expect Sanders to do what is normal for presidential candidates, release his tax returns. I wouldn't want him to give extra oppo research to Trump for nothing. I'd respond to any call from Trump for additional information with "I've released my tax returns. Where are yours?"
Why is it you have nothing to say about Sanders and Trump's refusal to even meet the bare minimum standard for candidates disclosure, releasing tax returns? All the while constantly harping that Hillary must go above and beyond what her opponents are willing to do. I know you hate to hear it but the only explanation I can come up with is irrational Hillary hate.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:37pm
And I think if we let losing candidates, especially ones as completely unacceptable as Trump, set the standards of honesty and accountability we expect from our own chosen candidates we will end up only having the choice of whomever we decide is the lesser evil.
You are stuck on a bad idea. You probably wouldn’t remember me from TPMCAFE where I posted as RJB but I made exactly the same kinds of complaints about Bush that I have made here, especially on foreign policy but also domestic issues including political tactics, but of course then I got a lot or agreement. I have made much the same kinds of criticism about Obama that I now make about Hillary. It isn’t about “hating” Hillary. It IS about really not liking some of the things which are commonly, and correctly I think, despised about our country’s politics when the other side does it but are accepted as at least necessary and often touted as qualities when our side does it. I say “our side” because while I have changed my registration to independent I have always voted Democratic except for a couple strategic votes in places where the majority vote was absolutely predictable, and cannot imagine that I ever will vote for a Republican. I don’t credit defending some action by saying, “Hey, what’s wrong with that, the other guy does it too”.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 6:40pm
You might also accept, at some point, that Sanders is a losing candidate, and thus he also does not get to set standards. Or issue demands, for that matter. Or at least expect that demands he issues are to be taken seriously. (There is that matter of nearly 4 million more votes for Secretary Clinton.)
ETA: Where were his tax returns while he was demanding transcripts?
by Austin Train on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 6:57pm
And you might notice that the root news article is about Hillary who is the [presumptive] candidate. It is not about Sanders, who as you said is not going to be on the next ballot, and it is not about Trump. Sanders is presumptively not going to be the candidate and so what his views are will have very little affect if any on executive decisions that Hillary makes after the election. So, in that respect Sanders is now irrelevant as to what to expect from our next POTUS or CiC. It is those expectations which are my concern because my expectations are so much different that those of her strong supporters and I believe there is good evidence for what I expect. That is one reason that I didn’t mention Sanders except in relation to a side topic of what he said in Nicaragua about America’s dealings with their revolution.
I believe the millions of votes he did get from Democrats does give him a legitimate right to attempt to have some influence concerning demands he will try to make regarding the platform, primary rules, etc, going into the convention. I think that the Democratic establishment and the Clinton organization would be making a mistake politically but also just be wrong to dismiss him and thereby dismiss those millions that thought he would be a better choice than Hillary.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 8:44pm
Since Clinton has released her tax returns, and Trump has released nether tax returns nor transcripts of the speechs he's delivered to various organizations, I'd say she's well ahead in the transparency arena at the moment.
Am I a strong Clinton supporter? I have been since this primary season began - in fact, since before then. Does that mean I am unrealistic about her? Hardly. She'll probably do something now and again that benefits some person or group I don't particularly care for.
That's life. (That's what people say.)
It does, though, mean I'm capable of making my November decision on the basis of a realistic choice between someone who may on occasion disappoint me for some reason or another, and someone who amounts to an overt enemy of nearly everything I believe in.
Given the real-world binary nature of American electoral politics, where third parties are and will remain curiosities, only occasionally rising to the spoiler level, I don't find that a particularly difficult decision.
And further given that binary nature, why exactly are you so bent on weakening the side that remains a bulwark against something somewhere on the scale between catastrophe and existential threat?
A couple simple declarative sentences ought to suffice.
by Austin Train on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 11:28am
I don’t credit defending some action by saying, “Hey, what’s wrong with that, the other guy does it too”.
But you feel great saying I don't even care that the other candidates won't even do the bare minimum, I want Hillary and Hillary alone to go far beyond what every other candidate does. I have no interest in holding Sanders or Trump accountable. All I care about is Hillary.
And then you think I should take your complaints seriously. Well lulu, I don't. And I don't think I'm stuck on a bad idea. I think I've hit the heart of the matter. The more you post the more I'm convinced I'm right.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:23pm
Have a nice night O-Kat.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 8:58pm
Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what OceanKat wrote. He never said or implied that "others do it so it's ok." Never did he say or imply that Trump was the standard-bearer for honesty or compatibility; only that he gets away with stone-walling his taxes while Hillary gets pilloried for not complying with an out-of-left-field demand that no other candidate has ever had to do.
You wrote a bunch of stuff as a response, but never responded to what he said. But OK, I get it that you also criticized Obama as well as Hillary. But not Bernie. And not Trump. OK I get it.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:29pm
He said, “Before I consider Sanders and Trump's call for Hillary to release the speech transcripts I want them to match Hillary by releasing their tax returns. After that we can talk about the next step”.
That is clearly saying that I/we should not consider asking her to meet a higher standard in this instance than either Sanders, who does not meet OC's standards, or than Trump who has absolutely indefensible standards. He also said; “All the while constantly harping that Hillary must go above and beyond what her opponents are willing to do” as if it is wrong to ask more of her than we expect from a very bad candidate. How can you read that in any way except that he doesn’t think we should ask or expect any better from Hillary than what we get from Trump. I don’t harp on what Hillary must do, what I harp on is what I think she WILL do and what I think she SHOULD do. I very rarely bother to comment on Trump one way or the other because no one here is defending everything he says or has ever done.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 8:56pm
That is a pathetic and disingenuous response. Trump and Sanders haven't done the minimum. Hillary has done what was expected. Demanding her to assist in an inappropriate GOP fishing expedition is not "setting a higher standard" for her. It is an insulting double standard.
And BTW, Sanders still considers himself a candidate, even if he isn't really. So he has no excuse for not putting his taxes out, unless it is HE who considers Trump's refusal to be the standard he follows.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 9:17pm
Well I guess "pathetic" and "what was expected" are in the eye of the beholder. I'm very seriously troubled by the excessive power and influence wielded by Goldman Sachs as well as the other big banks and multi-national corporations that turned the Clintons $10 million debt when they left office (remember they were broke) into over $100 million combined net worth. So I'm curious about what exactly she told them in return for all that money. Why do you think you aren't?
by HSG on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 10:09pm
No, you're not curious unless you're an idiot. They didn't come to her and say, "come tell us what you'll give us if you're elected prez in 3 years", they said, "can you speak at our event on Feb 24, and what's your fee", and this was done by oil companies, planned parenthood, civic organizations, defense orhganizations, women in business/rotary club, health coops and more pharma-like orgs, etc. Some she charged full fee, some she gave discounts, some she did for free. I'm sure she tailored her speech to her audience, but she didnt itemize a list of personal handouts. In the one Wall Street speech with transcript she did note bankers'responsibility for the mess they'd made, but it was still done with a political touch, as adults don't take money for a speech and then tell their audience they're evil shitheads. It's very similar to the standard uplifting Bill Clinton speech, though Bill's more likely to hit them up for a donation to the *$400 million* charitable Clinton Foundation if they're inspired too much.
PS - candidates have heen releasing tax records since nigh on forever. It's not a special standard. Until this year. When releasing tax returns is too much for some while birth certificates and transcripts are not enough. OceanKat certainly didn't create this nonsense, and Hillary's always subject to an extra dose of shoulda coulda beyond what the rest do.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:56pm
We disagree about what the lecture circuit is about. I get that. You think it's quid quo pro I think it's a perk for elites.
You know that for the republicans, and Sanders too, they want those transcripts just for a fishing expedition for something to hurt Hillary. They hope for a smoking gun but something can always be found in or out of context to hurt Hillary.
You know, and we know too, that if Sanders had released his tax returns and Hillary didn't you'd be screaming that she should release them, wondering what she was hiding, and speculating she had the worst most nefarious reasons. During the primary you didn't want to hold Sanders accountable and you wanted to hurt Hillary. You wanted to win. I get that too. I posted a dozen times here on several different issues that I want to win.
But Sanders lost and you still want to hurt Hillary. And now it's Trump you don't want to hold accountable.
Hillary is moderately good on climate change. Trump denies it exists. What it looks like to me is you want to hurt Hillary more than you want to try to save the planet.
Hillary has always been good on abortion rights. Trump will appoint justices that will overturn roe v wade. What it looks like to me is you want to hurt Hillary more than protecting a women's right to choose.
Hillary will attempt to raise taxes on the rich. Hillary will attempt to raise the minimum wage. Trump will cut taxes for the rich. He's said the he doesn't think there should be a minimum wage and that wages are too high for us to compete. What it looks like to me is you want to hurt Hillary more than see even small steps made to reduce inequality.
I could go on. The differences between a republican, especially Trump, and a democrat, even Hillary, are stark. What it looks like to me is you want to hurt Hillary more than you want any changes to make things better. How am I supposed to interpret that?
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 5:06am
I think Sanders should have released his tax returns and have been saying so for months. I find his position on guns so execrable that I wrote a column about it. In fact, I noted that under very different economic and social circumstances than the ones currently obtaining, I might consider voting for Clinton because Sanders is so wrong on firearms. I admit to cutting him some slack because he comes from a gun-owning low crime state.
You claim the only reason I am calling for Clinton to release the G-S transcripts is in hopes of finding something to use against her. Yet I have been far more even-handed in criticizing both candidates than you which suggests that my motive is not the sinister one you claim.
By contrast, when have you ever criticized Clinton for anything? When have you even acknowledged she was wrong on any issue?
For over a year, you argued Clinton didn't break federal rules when it came to her use of a private email server at State and failure to maintain her government records there. After the IG's report confirmed, nearly word for word, what I wrote here in March 2015, you have avoided this topic like the plague.
Not once have you written something like: "I guess I shouldn't have gone to the mattresses for Hillary on servergate. In the future, I am going to be more skeptical of what she says and also question my apparently over-the-top support for her."
Regarding the speeches, I have stated very clearly why I believe Clinton should release the texts of her 225K chats with the economic hitmen at Goldman Sachs. Your response is she was just getting a perk from the G-S boys. Why exactly would they want to give her a perk? What did they think was in it for them do you think? Are they just kind-hearted fellows? Does their business record reflect kindness and generosity of human spirit or do they strike you as the type of men (and a few women) who never part with a nickel unless they're damn sure they'll get a dime back?
Given her (and your) track record, don't you think it's time to stop giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her long-time cozy relationship with the Shylocks ?
by HSG on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 9:30am
I think the argument has been that Hillary did not break the law regarding servers.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-...
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 9:52am
If you follow the tier you'll discover my post was a reply to lulu who I think is a somewhat less crazy version of sync and wattree. I think you're different.
I never have to say, "I guess I shouldn't have gone to the mattresses for Hillary" because I never go to the mattress for anyone. I don't spin or lie because I don't think we at dagblog have any influence on the election. I'm just here to have fun discussing the news and spinning and lying isn't fun for me. But I don't necessarily feel any need to write critical posts about the person I support during an election. I don't feel any pressure to prove some hypothetical lack of bias, my arguments stand or fall on their quality not my reputation. If I can't defend someone without spin on some issue I may simply remain silent on that issue. I've never challenged or asked you to criticize Sanders though others here might have. I just let people choose the topics they want to weigh in on, as I chose which ones I weigh in on.
Though we've talked it to death you still misunderstand my, and other's, view of the lecture circuit. It's not designed to be a perk for the lecturers. It's a perk for the attendees. Just as elite colleges pay crazy amounts of money to famous people to give a lecture as a perk for their elite students so do other organizations pay lecturers as a perk for their employees. Maiello gave some of the clearest explanations of what and why the lecture circuit exists. I suggest you reread his posts on the subject if you want to understand our position on the issue.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 1:48pm
Given your track record, no one's surprised you believe Clinton's up to no good.
That stipulated, don't you think it's time someone comes up with evidence of wrongdoing, somewhere, on something? The only person your constant harping on Clinton's speeches makes appear dubious is named Hal.
by Austin Train on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 1:30pm
Here are some other reasons Hillary won't release her "Corporate" speeches:
- No other candidate has ever been asked to do that before, so why Hillary?
Rudy Giuliani gave many speeches to Wall Street; he also ran for President.
Donald Trump has also given speeches to Wall Street events; nada.
Bernie hasn't been asked for the texts of speeches he gave in Anti-America rallies in Cuba or Nicaragua
- Neither Trump nor Sanders have released the typical 10 years of tax forms, and they both are getting away with it. She has released 30 years of hers. Why should she do something never before required when the other two don't do what every candidate (except Romney) has done for decades.
- No other candidate had been asked to show his college transcripts. Obama was. He didn't do it.
- No other candidate had been asked to show his birth certificate. Obama was. Once shown, the ante increased to showing the "long form" birth certificate. I honestly think he did that to serve the coup de grace to Donald that was coming at the WH Correspondent's Dinner.
- So Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are being asked to prove themselves in ways no white guy has ever had to do. I am glad she is hanging tough on this.
Edited for clarity
by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 6:23pm
The double standard that Obama and Hillary face is ignored by the MSM.
CNN just hired the fired Trump campaign manager who hates the press. The man is under a non-disclosure agreement with Trump. How can he be considered a reliable employee at CNN?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:48pm
I first traveled to Nicaragua to see for myself about the same time Sanders did. I haven't looked for his speeches there and only know what has popped up in places I have seen lately on the internet. I haven't seen any statement about Nicaragua or about America's dealing with Nicaragua made by Sanders that was not absolutely correct, IMO. I think you are smart enough to know that criticism of American [U.S. that is, Nicaragua is in America too] policies is not at all the same as being anti-American or anti-U.S. Maybe you should edit your comment one more time for clarity. That is, unless I am mistaken.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 6:52pm
I agree that it is OK to criticize our country. I think it is healthy. It depends a bit on where you are when you do it, and also (if you are running for President); the actual words you choose. I think it would really be hard on him in the general as he would have tried to convince people skeptical of a socialist, that he would not be someone to fear. Trump would paint him as an unapologetic communist, and it would likely stick.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:21pm
You too are smart enough to know republicans would not be looking at Sanders speeches in Cuba or Nicaragua to see if his critique of America was fair or valid. They would look for any sentence in or out of context that would hurt him with the general public and especially with the low information voter. And you think he should just give it to the republicans even though Trump will not even let the public see his tax returns.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:30pm
It's amazing to watch the limbo like contortions some people will go through to defend HCR from her own words. We already know Trump supports the banksters and depends on them for his businesses so what he said to them wouldn't be news.
HRC on the other hand is trying to pretend to be on the side of the little people and has even used some strong sounding rhetoric aimed at these vultures so what she said to her paying audiences would be news informing the little people what she will actually do if elected, help them or throw them under the bus to appease her paying bankster friends.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:42pm
No, she will give a polite and uplifting and somewhat engaging speech on something, and her detractors will pick through any transcript to parlay an innocent comment into a "superpredator" or "brought to heel" comment which can be turned from "it's a fantasy" to equal "racistly impugning her opponent". Even carrying hot sauce will turn into a hyped up issue somehow.
In 2000 Gore brought up in a debate a comment he made to the head of FEMA, and he he was labeled a "liar" because the comment wasn't on that trip but another. There is no good will or intention here - folks are looking for a long enough piece of twine, vine or string to hang her with, and they don't care if it's a fit or not - any slander/libel will do if it'll get repeated.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 12:07am