Sadly, I can’t take credit.
That’s from a ~15 year old beer commercial.
6 Likes
A interesting development in the 2016 presidential election campaign.
Mark Cuban would consider being Hillary’s VP! 
Could this be the beginning of “Independents for Hillary”
Just what we need, an Ayn Rand acolyte in the white house.
12 Likes
10 Likes
You wish.
3 Likes
You posted:
“You wish.”
Yes I do, the same for many supporters of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
We wish! 
Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton
Because she is qualified, resilient, a fighter–and has started the important task of defining Donald John Trump, in the eyes and minds of the voting electorate in the 2016 presidential general election.
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-income-tax-returns
“And yet he goes around talking about make America great. You know, that means paying for our military. That means paying for our roads. That means paying for the VA,” she said. “If you’ve got someone running for president whose afraid to release his tax returns because it will expose the fact that he pays no federal income tax. I think that’s a big problem.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-nra/
Sabrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, invited Clinton to speak. Trayvon Martin was the 17-year-old Floridian killed in 2012 by former neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s acquittal sparked protests across the country.
Fulton is a vocal Clinton supporter and has campaigned with her throughout the country.
“The reason why I stand with her is because she first stood for me,” Fulton said. “Not only did she stand for me, she stood for the others as well.”
Clinton met with dozens of mothers affected by gun violence before the speech. Afterward, she told the audience that each mother presented her with a letter about the child they lost.
Clinton cannot credibly run against Trump on either of these issues. If she brings up gun control Trump’s people will bring up all of her ads from 2008 in which she attacked Obama as being anti-gun, which will make her look to voters like a liar or a flip-flopper or a hypocrite. Every time she mentions Trump’s tax returns even her friends make jokes about them being in the same secret vault as her Goldman-Sachs speeches.
4 Likes
What would you say would be Clinton’s most serious weaknesses as a candidate?
4 Likes
The Wall Street speeches are a sexist and unprecedented request, that should apply to all presidential candidates; and include any paid speeches that have been given, including Wall Street speeches.
Tax returns are something that all presidential candidates have released since the 1970’s. A presidential candidate not releasing his tax returns is unprecedented–and means he is hiding something that is damaging to his campaign.
What definitely and definitively did not work is: Bernie Sanders and MSNBC’s Chuck Todd’s (who in an unprecedented fashion, made the request by injecting himself into a presidential debate in favor of Bernie) call for Hillary Clinton to release her Wall Street speeches. It did not work for Bernie, witnessed by him losing the democratic presidential nomination; which has for all purposes been over for a month.
Bernie also failed to realize how hypocritical it is for him to have asked for Hillary’s paid speeches, while he did not release his paid speeches, not Wall Street speeches, but any paid speeches he gave.
Then there is Bernie failing to release his tax returns covering numerous years. One year is a joke. Like Trump Bernie is hiding something he does not want the public to know, because like Trump it would reveal something that is damaging.
The overwhelming majority of Americans including gun owners support sensible gun control legislation. Hillary is going to clean Trumps clock on gun control.Trump wants to abolish gun free zones, and the hypocrite has gun free zones around his hotels and other properties–where he makes money.
Why sexist?
2 Likes
Don’t be absurd, they are only “unprecedented” because other candidates haven’t given secret speeches to organizations that broke the world economy. If they have, then these speeches should be made public. In any event, my main point here is that Clinton’s attacks on Trump’s tax returns won’t work precisely because it looks hypocritical, and no amount of “here’s why these speeches are secret” will change that, it will only make her look worse. The fact that natural Clinton allies like The Daily Show have already poked fun at her over this should tell her campaign people that this is not an aspect of the campaign she should pursue.
Bringing up Sanders is irrelevant, we’re talking about Clinton v. Trump here.
So did Obama, and Clinton campaigned against him from the right on the issue in 2008. Unless she finds a way to obliterate the written record (and her 2008 campaign committee’s really rather offensive ads on this) she again can’t really say anything without putting her foot in it.
She has to find things to campaign on where (a) she doesn’t disagree with herself from a few years ago, and (b) she holds the moral high ground over Trump. Can you think of any? If not, she is in serious trouble.
6 Likes
You are right it is absurd that no other candidate has ever been asked for transcripts of Wall Street speeches, or as I have stated “any paid speeches.”
You are right it is absurd that the same unprecedented request to release “any paid speeches” was not made to the male presidential candidates, only the female presidential candidate to release Wall Street speeches. Releasing paid speeches is unprecedented, while releasing numerous years of tax returns “is precedented.” 
You are right it is absurd that there are no examples of Hillary ever being corrupted by Wall Street when she served as First Lady, a U.S. Senator or as Secretary of State-- yet Bernie Sanders and his supporters continue to make ridiculous and fallacious claims that Hillary is corrupted by Wall Street.
All the time while Bernie Sanders refuses to release numerous years of his tax returns, which has the potential to expose where he has made his money–and what entities he has invested in and profited from. Which of course would expose Bernie as a hypocrite, if it were revealed he has profited of Wall Street entities and investments.
Forget about Bernie, I am sure that would be politically convenient. However, Bernie is still running and holding to the delusion of winning the democratic presidential nomination–and Bernie and Trump are linked as “soul brothers, who in unprecedented fashion refuse to release and conceal their tax returns covering numerous years.”
What is Bernie and Donald Trump hiding? Hillary has released numerous years of her tax returns and there is nothing which reveals she has ever profited, been compromised or corrupted by Wall Street.
Where is Bernie and Donald’s tax returns covering numerous years?–There is a reason why both have “in unprecedented fashion”-- refused to release their tax returns covering numerous years–because they are both hiding something damaging!
Which other candidate are you thinking of who was being paid handsomely by Wall Street to deliver speeches, but is now getting a pass? Be specific.
So you’re concerned about Bernie’s tax documents, presumably because you’d like to know about his financial interests and relationships, but the content of Clinton’s paid speeches which would help assure the voters about her financial interests and relationship with Goldman Sachs (a remarkably corrupt Wall St. firms) isn’t notable?
You should assume that at some point these are going to be released by some means, isn’t it better to just get it out now rather than wait until closer to the election? If she wins the primary (which is likely), I’d much prefer she have a solid chance in the general, and refusing to release the speeches isn’t going to help her there, but rather solidify her appearance as owned by Wall Street and hurt her chances.
7 Likes
You have no evidence that Hillary Clinton has ever used her position as First Lady, a U.S. Senator or Secretary of State to pass or champion legislation that financially benefited Wall Street, to the extent that it was illegal or corrupt.
The suggestion because Hillary gave a paid speech on Wall Street, means she is and can be corrupt–is simply presumptive, speculative and characteristic of what Hillary labeled “a artful smear.”
We know from Hillary Clinton’s tax returns from numerous years–that there is nothing in her tax returns that show she is “on and under” the financial take, dole and command of Wall Street.
We do not know what is in the tax returns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, covering numerous years–and whether their tax returns reveal they are “on and under” the financial take, dole and command of Wall Street.
After all it was not Hillary Clinton who voted to deregulate Wall Street, it was Bernie Sanders. It is also a fact that Hillary’s plan to reign in Wall Street is tougher and more punitive than Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (who to my knowledge has no plan).
4 Likes
“You have no evidence that…” is a very poor reason to deny a request for information. “You have no evidence of wrongdoing, so why would I give you evidence of wrongdoing?”
As a non-American I honestly don’t understand the tax return thing. I get that at this point it is tradition and not doing it looks sketchy, but I have no idea why presidential candidates would be expected to reveal their tax returns.
What was said in paid, private speeches, on the other hand, I’d be very interested in. I’d like to know if a candidate I am voting for is saying one thing to me while saying another to wealthy donors in a private room. I don’t think I have a right to demand that information from them. On the other hand, they don’t have a right to my vote.
I can’t think of a reason not to release transcripts of the speeches aside from them containing things that would make me not want to vote for the person, so I’m left to simply assume that’s what the speeches are - private promises that don’t agree with public promises.
The reason no other Candidate is being asked for private speeches is because Sanders doesn’t do quarter-million dollar private speeches to financiers, and the other candidates are all Republican. It’s Democrats who care if their politicians are corrupted by big money. Republicans swallowed the koolaid on that issue a long time ago.
10 Likes
A legally presented $250,0000 speech isn’t illegal, and maybe isn’t corrupt. Knowing what it was about would help clarify.
Right, we don’t know, so we speculate. If we knew what she was talking about that could help to end the speculation.
We don’t know this from tax returns. We do know she reported millions in gifts to her charitable foundations from Wall Street, and hundreds of thousands in speaking fees from Goldman.
Clinton wasn’t in office when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed, so she couldn’t have voted one way or another. We do know Bill Clinton supported it, signed it, and said “the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate,” and I don’t see any reason to think she wouldn’t have voted for it were she in any position to have done so.
You use the word “fact” strangely.
6 Likes
Like everyone else is saying, she wants us to support her. If people have some concerns there (which seems reasonable), the best thing is to release the transcripts to show us that she says the same things in paid speeches to financial institutions that she does in public, and there’s no 47% style comments. If she doesn’t, many people will just assume that she did say things like that and make their voting decisions on those assumptions.
Trump’s tax returns I couldn’t care less about. I assume he’s worth a lot less than he says he is, and paying a lot less tax and donating a lot less to charity than he says he does. But as he’s a horrible trash fire of a candidate, I really don’t care.
Sanders’ returns? Again, he probably should release them just to stop the criticism, although I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect there’s anything of interest (but a la Clinton, if he doesn’t, people might draw their own conclusions and vote accordingly).
Anyway.
6 Likes
