She is destroying whatever honor she has left, if any...

[JudyM]

Speeches?


(Crickets)


And yes, since whether she is inextricably aligned with Wall St / banks is a central issue to many voters in this campaign, so it is important.

So was it another one of her misstatements when she agreed to release them? Or was it another empty promise? Or...?

This deserves a full page ad in the national papers.

Can't wait for the lineup of vacuous "wise"crack responses about tax returns, as if they are of remotely equivalent import.

[MrMickeysMom]

1. WHERE ARE THE TRANSCRIPTS?

[silvershadow]

21. They were destroyed in the Great Chappaqua Fire of 2016...

Her prospects of using them for a ghost-written book dwindling, she burned them in her fire-pit.

[pkdu]

2. Tax returns have been a first hurdle ...yes , FIRST...since the 60s. What does the

failed College President family have to hide?...this week of all weeks?

[LaydeeBug]

26. ^^^ this ^^^ nt

[JaneyVee]

3. Doing Trumps dirty work for free. Progressives 2016.

[MrMickeysMom]

41. Gee... I wonder what your next story will be...

... you posts in this race so far shows your talent for aligning fantasy a corporate myth.

[timmymoff]

47. Yes, they should at least get paid for it

Just like Her Corporate Majesty does. How scandalous to not be a pay for play player like our Goldwater Girl.

[choie]

4. If she had any, it was pretty much destroyed

when she voted for the Iraq War..

[One Black Sheep]

5. +1

yup, Hillary will never live that down, monumental mistake.

[msongs]

16. bernie's cool with voting to support the MIC and the never ending killing but he gets a pass

[Human101948]

30. There is a difference between voting for defense and voting for an invasion...

which was an example of unprovoked aggression which under international law is a war crime.

But such distinctions don't seem to matter to many here.

Just as $300,000 in income is somehow more important than $28 million a year in corporate "speaking fees."

[Gavile]

31. When has he ever done that?

[Yurovsky]

6. Did she ever have any?

i don't see how you have any if you sell out to Goldman Sachs...

[840high]

20. I used to think she

did. Her actions and words turned me off.

[CrowCityDem]

7. Bernie is all about authenticity. Why is he hiding Jane's golden parachute?

[jillan]

18. Do you really want to go after the spouses. Fine lets go.

Google Bill Clinton + Epstein + underaged girls.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Better ...

Google: Donald Trump + Talking Points

[Human101948]

32. Don't worry, Bill's dalliances with young women will be out front once Trump really gets going...

and it will distract immensely from whatever great programs Hillary is trying to put forward.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Which makes it all the more "interesting" that it shows up here on DU. No?

[Human101948]

35. No, it is actually very intelligent to anticipate what your opponent will use against you...

and I am sure Hillary will handle this one. I suspect Bill might have been giving counseling to those young women who were being exploited by Mr. Epstein.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Do you really think that post was/is an example of ...

anticipation of what our opponent will use against us? Or, simply, the pushing/introduction of a negative narrative?

I suspect it's the latter.

[JudyM]

55. Facts is facts. She is going to have to face the music, and so is he. They have been protected

And that is changing as we speak.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. So, this is the new narrative? Bernie is losing so "Democrats" ...

promote trump talking points ... ahead of trump launching the talking points?

[Human101948]

38. By the way, what do you think he was doing on the "Lolita Express?"

Not once but about a dozen different times. I was all for Bill in the Monica Lewinsky episode but I find this one really hard to defend. Even if he was doing nothing with underage girls, why would he associate with such a sleazebag?

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I have no idea.

[Human101948]

49. Nor do I...

but it sure doesn't look good.

[timmymoff]

48. don't worry

Hillary has been vetted. She is tough, so there is nothing anybody's talking points could do to harm her. All scandals are rw smears. Even the fact that she won't release her transcripts. She is pure as new fallen snow, and that is why her negatives are so high. I love a center right democratic platform. The fact that the American people have vetted her speaks volumes to her negatives. Good luck in November, you'll need it.

[Human101948]

50. If she is so resilient why are her negatives so high?

Do you really think that they won't go any higher as the Republicans begin to dredge up more muck?

[timmymoff]

51. How much more muck

can a muck pit muck if a muck pit could pit muck.

[onecaliberal]

8. She destroyed it long ago

[QC]

9. That happened when she defended a child rapist by accusing his victim

of wantin' it.

Not much point in thinking about honor anymore once a person has gone there.

[Recursion]

10. Umm... tax returns are a lot more important than keynote speeches

Nobody cares what vapid focus-grouped nonsense she said to a group of bored executives. Literally. Nobody. You don't actually care (she makes the most boring speeches in the world, and you know that), you just like to feel outraged about this.

I do actually care about the Sanders's tax returns, and I think we deserve to see more than one year. Personally.

[JudyM]

12. What a pompous, arrogant and ignorant, tone-deaf response.

[Recursion]

13. Whatever. You've heard her speak, right? She gives awful speeches.

They're boring. They're vapid. They're pablum that's been focus-grouped to the point of losing all grammar. You know this, as does everybody else, which is why nobody actually cares what was said, though some people are pissed off that she got honoraria consistent with somebody as famous as she is.

[JudyM]

14. Again, you presume to declare how I feel and could not be more incorrect. Peddle your falsely

inflated sense of wise insight somewhere else.

[LaydeeBug]

42. where are his tax returns then? nt

[CobaltBlue]

23. Recursion—We do care. We want to know how, specifically, Hillary Clinton is connected to them.

[Recursion]

24. Connected to whom? And how would a speech tell you that?

It's a speech. She droned on about opportunity and equality and development and women's empowerment, and managed to make them boring. Just like every speech she's ever given.

[CobaltBlue]

27. Recursion—No!

[grasswire]

11. honor? nt

[NanceGreggs]

15. "Can't wait for the lineup of vacuous ...

... wise crack responses about tax returns, as if they are of remotely equivalent import."

You're right - they are NOT of "remotely equivalent import". There is a long-standing precedent of POTUS candidates producing multiple years of tax returns. There is NO precedent whatsoever of POTUS candidates producing speech transcripts.

But it's just another case of whining that precedent should be ignored, if it doesn't favour Bernie. Just like the primary rules in every state should be changed to accommodate Bernie. The order that states hold their primary contests should have been changed so Hillary's southern sweep didn't hurt Bernie. All primaries should have allowed Indys and Republicans to vote, because closed primaries hurt Bernie. The debates should have been scheduled to Bernie's advantage.

Exactly how many accommodations should have been made to help poor Bernie? Apparently he was incapable of winning the nomination - but let's blame it on the Party's and the states' adherence to long-standing rules and procedures, because it couldn't possibly be that more Democrats want HRC as their nominee.

And now we're down to Bernie shouldn't have to release his tax returns like everyone else usually does - that's just not fair. But asking that HRC do something no other candidate has ever been asked to do is perfectly reasonable.

Hillary's alleged alignment with "Wall St / banks is a central issue to many voters in this campaign". Well, given how far ahead she is in votes and delegates, apparently its NOT an issue at all.

[MrMickeysMom]

43. "There is NO precedent whatsoever of POTUS candidates producing speech transcripts. "...

That is because has NEVER been a precedent where corporately driven media, and financial institutions have had as many positions of power over the electorate. Unless you have a pair of blinders on, you see it every day.

Here's another one:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=372203

In this election, we have the equivalence of a years' worth of salary (disclosed on Sander's tax records) in payment to Hillary Clinton for a speech she made to Goldman Sachs... Goldman Sachs, who almost single-handedly brought this country into one of the DEEPEST recessions, costing the American tax payer bail-out of $700 BILLION.

But, we're supposed to not care to ask why the largest participant in this historic financial failure paid Clinton that much money for one speech? What was it now - The American voter is now whining?

Don't get your facts incorrect on the matter. Hillary's alignment with Wall Street IS an issue of socializing the debt of corporate windfalls through fraud. You didn't just fall off a turnip truck, yet you see this one as one every voter should SIDE STEP?

The hell we will.

[NanceGreggs]

57. The fact remains ...

... that no POTUS candidate has ever been asked to produce speech transcripts - and whether you think they should or not carries no weight whatsoever.

The ONLY people interested in those transcripts are BS supporters, hoping for a "gotcha" statement that will turn the tide against her. In case you haven't noticed, it's too late for that anyway. The nomination is hers.

What's amazing is that BS supporters don't see the irony in whining that HRC should do something NO OTHER CANDIDATE has ever been asked to do - while defending Bernie's failure to do what EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE is expected to do by releasing full and complete tax returns for multiple years.

If Hillary's failure to release those transcripts is the BIG ISSUE you claim it is, how do you explain why MILLIONS more voters have voted for her than for Bernie? Looks like it's really not an issue to anyone but BS supporters, who realize that he couldn't win the nomination on his own merits, and have to cling to some fantasy "issue" that no one cares about but them.

[MrMickeysMom]

58. There are thousands of ways to explain the states where Hillary has acquired more votes...

You're smart enough to figure it out, so don't feign ignorance on open versus closed primaries (look at KY tonight, where she would surely loose if it was open). Don't leave out the total media black-out, look at CNN, MSNBC (a.k.a. MSHRC) and how the state delegation was unfairly run. I'm not going to post the video for you, as I've already posted it at least 4 other places here.

Face it, Nance, the lame excuses you site for how much the Goldman Sachs transcripts should not carry any weight is the exact reason their content worries the same entities who block out the media so well.

How's the Kool Aid taste thus far?

[NanceGreggs]

59. There's just no end to the excuses ...

... as to why Bernie lost, is there?

The states that have closed primaries didn't just close them because Bernie arrived on the scene. They've always been closed - and if BS can't win the DEMOCRATIC nomination when only DEMOCRATS vote, that's too fuckin' bad. He should have considered that before he asked to run on the Dem ticket.

It doesn't matter what I think about the GS transcripts. What matters is what voters think - and it's pretty apparent that the voters are voting for HRC, and don't give a flyin' fuck about them.

How does the kool-aid taste in a world where primary rules and precedents set all should have been changed to accommodate Bernie? Let's just throw out that long-standing precedent of states choosing to have closed primaries. Let's throw out the precedent of candidates releasing tax returns. Let's just throw out anything and everything that doesn't give Bernie as advantage.

[MrMickeysMom]

60. You COMPLETELY missed that point, Nance...

Now, you are NOT a stupid woman. Come to think of it, neither am I...

Setting aside that both YOU and I know that the primary states of today have "always been closed" (actually, that's not quite true, but for the sake of the argument, I'll agree that they've been pretty static as many of us slept), how do you suppose this phenomena of who is and isn't a Democrat has changed over time?

What is the logic behind the change in party for MANY Democrats residing in the "closed primary states" over the last 15 to 20 years? I can tell you that these voters (CLOSE TO HALF OF THE ELECTORATE) have moved away from the Democratic party. And, it doesn't just happen by accident. Unless you are one of those true believers who think that the Democrats previously elected kept on giving their electorate love, you will see that their movement OUT of our party happened with reason. Coupled with gerrymandering to help the Republicans, they left because they saw (and still see) that the party left us. They now have lessened the chance of inclusion unless the state allows them to. They STILL hold the long-forgotten Democratic party's values. THEY HAVE NO PLACE, unless they change parties just to have a primary vote. Depending on where they are, they can. And, when they do, they do it because they see a candidate WHO NEVER FORGOT THOSE VALUES.

Your problem is one of over-simplicity when no longer looking at people who are fed up with corporately owned members of our party. You pretend they don't exist. They do.

The rules of governance aren't supposed to change to serve Bernie Sanders. They're supposed to serve US. Too bad you can't remove the filter and see it.

[NanceGreggs]

61. I posted an OP a few weeks ago ...

... asking for links to posts from the 2008 primary where people complained about closed primaries being unfair.

No one could come up with a single post.

The closed primary only became an issue when it was realized that open primaries gave Bernie an advantage. Before Bernie entered the race, no one cared - and it's just another example of how BS supporters think long-standing rules and precedents should be changed to accommodate him.

I, for one, believe that ALL primaries should be closed. It is a process whereby Democrats elect their nominee, not the nominee that Indies or Republicans want.

The only "filter" I see being applied here is the one whereby Bernie should be catered-to with respect to primary rules, the number of debates and when they are scheduled, super-delegates being free to vote their choice, etc.

And now we have income tax returns DON'T matter if Bernie fails to produce them, despite long-standing precedent, while transcripts of speeches suddenly DO matter, despite there being NO precedent for producing them.

[MrMickeysMom]

62. Too bad I couldn't weigh in based on 2008...

But, at the time I was a newcomer running for municipal council seat that I served for five years, beginning in a special election. Meanwhile, all the Obama/Clinton primary history was being formed and little battles being waged on this discussion forum. Now, who had the more REAL experience of learning why people were leaving our party? DU in it's primary warfare or the actual streets I walked, persons I dealt with daily for 5 years after I learned from running, serving, and personally seeing the Democratic party change before my eyes? I saw the voters rolls changing locally (forming more and more Independents, based on what I already explained). I interacted. You guys had a retroactive recall of posts on DU.

It's very interesting to hear Bernie Sanders as being "catered to", since the incept of his run was largely ignored, seen as "fringe" UNTIL it began to draw huge crowds and people were energized... many of whom ALSO left this party because their elected R AND D officials didn't cater to anyone who didn't offer large amounts of MONEY to sustain them in office. That was a model flourishing under the DNC.

So, now this laughable item... more tax returns from Bernie Sanders are over-due. Over-due for WHAT? It seems that one year isn't enough. So, what is the matter with the constant whine to understanding year to year earnings of a candidate who submitted tax returns already? What is the continued infatuation of someone who was working in earnest, rather than on the lecture circuit, willing to give a talk to any Wall Street corporation to earn, in the long run, well over a million dollars from this conversation.

Somehow THAT'S not the issue? Bull Fucking Shit. HORSE MANURE.

It's really important to hear about Sander's tax returns, but not the content that earned Clinton in total over a MILLION dollars? That is a distraction from the real issue.

It's fruitless to get you to see Democrats who have left as people who looked for the same principles you once had. How awful to not be able to use math that way. 46 FUCKING PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE. Furthermore, the real problem is the corporate nature of what has happened in this election. It's playing out now.

[NanceGreggs]

66. I'm out.

You insist on changing the subject, and then going off on little rants.

This discussion started with my noting the irony of BS supporters demanding transcripts - again, NO precedent at all, and NO CANDIDATE has ever been asked other than HRC - while at the same time defending Bernie for NOT producing full and complete tax returns for multiple years.

Just more of the ol' IOIBDI (It's Okay If Bernie Does It) that's been prevalent here for months.

[MrMickeysMom]

67. Because you could never answer that question, then I changed subjects...

Sure.... You're out.

[Tarc]

17. Yes, let's talk about transcripts while Bernie fans run over Nevada like Mongols

They can bring a party meeting to the brink of a riot, harass the Nevada party chair by phone with threats of violence and intimidation, vandalize the buildings on their way out.

But hey guy, put all that on hold. Because, transcripts.

[JudyM]

19. Separate issue, Tarc, but if you want to equate them , yes, they are both about FRAUD.

Most of us can discuss more than one issue on a discussion board. Try to keep up.

[Tarc]

22. Sanders fans, trying to throw shade. So cute

I believe the point is that there are major issues and minor issues. Yours barely qualifies as "minor".

[Katashi_itto]

25. Its a Clintonista.

[Tarc]

28. "It's"

[Matt_in_STL]

36. Still waiting on that video.

All those people and not one person got video of the alleged chair throwing and vandalism? No pictures?

Meanwhile, it's only a matter of time before video of the high profile Hillary supporter beating up a woman comes out. Not much to say about that, huh?

[Tarc]

37. I love the smell of desperation in Camp Sanders, as the delegate math piles higher & higher

I'll miss you guys.

[MrMickeysMom]

44. Yes... because of the TRANSCRIPTS

You like dancing around this issue with a bunch of eyeballs while apparently not bothering to see what has been election fraud?

Harassment? Apparently you didn't see this: http://thebenjamindixonshow.com/live-broadcast-monday-thursday-9pm-est/

[nc4bo]

34. The opposition's candidate does not wear the colors of The People.

The opposition's candidate wears the colors of her corporate "sponsors".

[MrMickeysMom]

45. They sure do...

And, they get the usual mocking-birds to sound off here, don't they?

I think everyone should get themselves a copy of the book, "1984" riiiiight about now.

[yourpaljoey]

46. By the time this is over she will be a national disgrace

and Billy too... well, he's already there... so there's that.

[timmymoff]

52. She never posessed a nickel's worth of honor

and what class that she has is all low.

[islandmkl]

54. well...Bill lowered the bar for her, so....you'll have that...

nothing has changed in the past 25 years for the Clintons....well, not counting their amassing of wealth and further trappings of the moneyed-powerful...

'honor' hasn't been a public issue for either of them since the Arkansas days...

[timmymoff]

63. You can't destroy what you never had.

[JudyM]

64. Well, surely she had some... She was a senator and SOS.

[timmymoff]

65. Integrity and honor is what she never possessed.