Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Benjamin, Apr 14, 2016.
...I love it!
Clinton: "If everybody agrees to do it [release transcripts of their speeches] I will do it. Let's set the same standard for everybody. When everybody does it, OK, I will do it."
Clinton blew it. She could have put the whole issue behind her by saying this. "If everybody agrees to do it, I will do it. In fact, I'll go one better and take the lead on this issue. I will release the transcripts of my speeches and I call on all other candidates, from both parties to do the same. This is called leadership and transparency, and I want to lead."
Although unintentionally, I thought Hillary was being very transparent toward her true character, a person who will weasel to no end rather than tell the truth.
Agreed. The moderators and even Bernie Sanders had to keep asking her the same question over and over because she never answered them.
Yep ,she clearly seemed busted. I wonder if this could give big momentum to Bernie. I also took note of where those kinds of tactics might leave her against Trump.
Question to Hillary: If there isn’t anything in those transcripts why not go ahead and release them?
Hillary: Restates her previous claim there isn’t an issue, then dodges, dodge, dodge, change subject, attack opponent, go off on another subject and cast suspicion on opponent, talk fast accusing opponent while moderator attempts to get her to actually answer a simple question.
When finally Hillary’s interrupted by the moderator and attention can be brought back to the question she goes off claiming it is a “NEW THING” (for her maybe to have to release something to reveal the truth, lol) to have transcripts released and AS IF the others have an issue of under the table large banker “transactions” and then she begins to suggest that IF everyone will release their NON-Existent transcripts showing highly paid loyalty affiliations and commitments (which by way differs from Trump in that he did the paying at one time but has not accepted any “bribes” and owes no one – and BTW, Trump would hang Hillary out to dry on these kinds of (paid loyalty) (issues!) to large banks she will also release hers. How very big of her!
Finally after that dodge she turns the subject again, this time toward tax returns, as she weasels in some kind of logic that somehow two wrongs would give her a right in holding back these transcripts, which is the subject that is “supposed” in question, she then makes an attempt to change the focus and proceeds to bargain that people can look at her tax returns instead while trying to cloud the issue and draw attention toward Trump’s tax returns.
The moderator wisely reminds her that the issue is about the Democratic voters who want to see those transcripts. Like a broken record she goes back to her stand-by argument about everybody doing “it” (meaning release their NON-existent transcripts of high paid loyalty commitments) AND says she’ll do it only if the same standard will go with tax returns (as if that is what the issue is).
Some, especially those with poor critical thinking skills, may accept these types of dodges but it appeared to me that a large number of her own party were on to her weaseling tactics.
Unbelievable, but I watched the whole thing. Overall, I thought Sanders "won" the debate. Clinton owned him on gun control and Israel but otherwise I thought Sanders would have looked better to me had I been a Democrat.