RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Excerpts of Hillary Clinton's remarks during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and other groups were leaked online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)


Excerpts of Hillary Clinton's Paid Speeches to Goldman Sachs Finally Leaked

By Lee Fang, Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons and Naomi LaChance, Guardian UK

08 October 16

 

xcerpts of Hillary Clinton’s remarks during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and other groups were leaked online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks. Clinton, who was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech, earned more than $22 million on the paid speaking circuit after resigning as secretary of state.

The excerpts are revealed in an email from Tony Carrk, the research director of the Clinton campaign, to John Podesta, the campaign chairman, and other top campaign officials. Carrk, who did not respond to a request for comment, highlighted in the memo the most politically damaging quotes from each paid speech, under headers including “CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH,” “CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY,” and “CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE.”

The wealth Clinton accumulated was a topic at the paid events.

Discussing middle class economic anxieties, Clinton told a crowd at a Goldman Sachs-sponsored speech that she is now “kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.”

But the discussions were also an opportunity for Clinton to speak candidly about policy, politics, and her approach to governing.

Touching on her view of developing financial regulations, Clinton declared to a crowd of Goldman Sachs bankers that in order to “figure out what works,” the “people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”

At the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, Clinton responded to a question from chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, who quipped that you “go to Washington” to “make a small fortune.” Clinton agreed with the comment and complained about ethics rules that require officials to divest from certain assets before entering government. “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives,” Clinton said.

At a speech for Morgan Stanley on April 18, 2013, Clinton praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan — which would reduce corporate tax rates while raising the Social Security age. “But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula,” she said.

Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

The Intercept was the first media outlet to ask Clinton directly if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. When approached at an event in Manchester, New Hampshire, Clinton laughed off the question.

The issue was raised again during the Democratic primary debates and in other media events. In February of this year, the New York Times editorial board called for Clinton to release her speech transcripts, declaring that voters “have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups.”

According to reports, the campaign reviewed the speech transcripts but decided against releasing them out of fear that she would appear too friendly to banks and other donor interest groups.

But there are signs in the emails released by WikiLeaks that she also took a fairly progressive stance on certain topics, including health care reform.

During a talk in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 2013, Clinton praised the single-payer model for health care reform. “If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care,” she said, adding that there were some drawbacks. “They do impose things like waiting times, you know.”

But during the campaign this year, she dismissed the idea, declaring that single payer will “never, ever” happen in the U.S. Audio obtained by The Intercept last week showed Clinton dismissing the concept of free health care during another private event with donors.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+13 # tswhiskers 2016-10-08 09:08
Oh, God! This does sound like Clinton: You need to have a public and a private position on policy. Is she too friendly toward banks? It certainly appears so. Surely it's more than obvious by now that financial institutions CANNOT police themselves. I think the fears about Clinton may in part be realized. But I still say there is no one else to vote for.
 
 
+23 # jimallyn 2016-10-08 10:53
Yes, there is someone else to vote for: Jill Stein.
 
 
+3 # Polisage 2016-10-08 11:50
Are you saying Alan Greenspan was wrong?
 
 
+28 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-08 12:00
What a coincidence that the Trump "locker room" recording was immediately released after this Wikileaks disclosure.
All the MSM is talking about is the crude Trump remarks and this story has been buried.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-10-08 19:57
Quite right. It should be obvious that this 11 year old tape has been sitting in the Clinton Machine vault awaiting the perfect time for release. These Wikileaks communications were a perfect time.

But I must note that, even though the few articles on RSN about these latest HRC revelations have heavily soft-peddled how damning they are, I'm impressed that Marc and RSN have run any at all.
 
 
-2 # janla 2016-10-10 09:50
Quoting Radscal:
Quite right. It should be obvious that this 11 year old tape has been sitting in the Clinton Machine vault awaiting the perfect time for release. These Wikileaks communications were a perfect time.

But I must note that, even though the few articles on RSN about these latest HRC revelations have heavily soft-peddled how damning they are, I'm impressed that Marc and RSN have run any at all.

What foresight on Hillary's part to know 11 years ago that she would one day be running against Donald Trump - and so to hoard those tapes in her private vault.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-10-10 16:45
What nonsense on your part to make a straw man argument devoid of relevance to my comment.

FWIW: Bill Clinton encouraged Drumpf to run for President, and gave him pointers, months before his escalator ride down to the depths of US politics.

The DNC leaks/hacks showed they had developed the entire campaign against Drump the year before he announced his campaign.

Many of the hacks/leaks show the close collaboration between HRC and the corporate media.

But if you prefer to believe in the Grand Coincidence Theory of history, well more power to ya.
 
 
+7 # A_Har 2016-10-09 11:52
Quoting tswhiskers:
Oh, God! This does sound like Clinton: You need to have a public and a private position on policy. Is she too friendly toward banks? It certainly appears so. Surely it's more than obvious by now that financial institutions CANNOT police themselves. I think the fears about Clinton may in part be realized. But I still say there is no one else to vote for.
In other words you surrender your rights and your best interests.

Smashing--I'd say, and pathetic.
 
 
-5 # John Escher 2016-10-08 09:10
These leaks are too little too late. Boo-hoo for Wikileaks, not to mention Hillary-haters. I've always thought Hillary-haters should listen to Hilary Hahn. Anyway, Donald Trump self-destructed before these leaks could get out.
 
 
+55 # jimallyn 2016-10-08 10:58
I don't know any Hillary-haters. I do, however, know lots of people who hate her policies, what she has done, and what she will do.
 
 
+6 # A_Har 2016-10-09 13:55
Quoting John Escher:
These leaks are too little too late. Boo-hoo for Wikileaks, not to mention Hillary-haters. I've always thought Hillary-haters should listen to Hilary Hahn. Anyway, Donald Trump self-destructed before these leaks could get out.
Says the guy in the front row of the TROLL peanut gallery.
 
 
+76 # RMDC 2016-10-08 09:17
This article is a white wash. I've read the Podesta memo and there are about 2000 more in which Podesta discusses Hillary's strategy with others in the campaign.

A few things are clear:

1. Hillary thinks all of us are schmucks and she wants to help bankers get away with what they've been doing and that is looting the people of the US.

2. Hillary wants banks to regulate themselves. She won't impose outsiders on them.

3. Hillary does not mean publically run or government run "single payer." She means private for profit single payer.

4. Clinton was pro-Keystone pipeline, pro-"free trade," pro-TPP. She's always clear that there is one things you can say to insiders and another thing you have to say to the public.

5. Clinton badly misunderstands Russia and China. She has very negative and stereotypical cold war views of these countries.

6. She'e totally ignorant about digital devices and computers.


In short, Hillary knows she's an operative for the corporate and capitalist class. She has no feelings for ordinary people. She is all about US aggression around the world. She has no compassion or understanding for other people, nations, or anything other than her small circle of Washington political operatives. She even says her world is very narrow and she's out of touch, as remarked above. But is a lot worse in her words and the words of her campaign staff.

Hillary comes off as Reagan --an arrogant and power-mad know nothing.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-10-08 11:37
"I've read the Podesta memo" -- Got a link, # RMDC?

Sounds like interesting reading matter.
 
 
+15 # RMDC 2016-10-08 12:14
The link is above. It is to the email by T. Carrk which summarizes and quotes from several speeches Clinton made to banks. It is an overview for Hillary's top campaign managers, esp. John Podesta, on what Hillary's "real positions" are regarding banks and big policy issues. There's the one thing the campaign has to say to voters and chumps like SAnders. And then there's the real things she says only to bankers and other insiders.

Here's the link to the one email from Carr to the staff. This is how he opens, "“Team, attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with policy." He addresses the campaign "team" and says that what Hillary has said to banks needs extra "scrubbing."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Here's the link to the trove of emails.

https://wikileaks.com/
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-10-09 00:01
Thanks.
 
 
+9 # Aaron Tovish 2016-10-09 10:26
I found this passage from the memo particularly interesting:
"Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal."
I am an admirer of TR, but I find it telling that Clinton refers to him rather than to FDR when it comes to fixing broken economies. TR's fixes worked for about two decades, but did nothing to ward of the Great Depression. FDR's fixes lasted a lot longer, indeed until politicians began to undo them.
So, why not refer to FDR? Two possible answers:
-- Many on Wall Street still consider him "class traitor" #1;
-- Clinton believes FDR went too far and wants to distance herself from critics such a Sanders who uphold FDR's policies.
Or maybe the event was organized around the theme of TR? Not likely by a German bank!
 
 
+4 # Caliban 2016-10-09 12:04
Wall Streeters already believe themselves miserably oppressed by the populist FDR mentality among regulators.

But in the sphere of historical image-making and preservation, TR retains the "fighter" image because of the "Rough Riders" and San Juan Hill -- despite FDR's having been the greatest presidential Commander in Chief in US history.
 
 
+25 # Jim Rocket 2016-10-08 09:25
This kind of talk to bankers wouldn't be concerning in recent previous generations when bankers took ethics seriously but now when they're engaged in criminal practices on a large scale and the fines are merely protection money to the government it's quite different.

Whiskers is right. There's a lot wrong with Hillary but she's the only acceptable play on the table. Get her in, let Bernie and Elizabeth push her left ie. back towards the center, appoint sane, competent people to SCOTUS and repeal Citizens United...for a start.

I know Hillary is crap but Trump is explosive diarrhea. There are good people on Hillary's side and the worst of the worst on his side. But, hey, vote your conscience.
 
 
+13 # fletch1165 2016-10-08 09:58
You still think your vote counts? Wow. Green is the only vote anyway. Has been all along. Trump and Hillary are the same. None will do anything for average Americans. Voting for either candidate shows you emnbrace the machine and corporate domination. They will never let Trump win. Get real. Its a rigged election and this is just more proof who the annointed one is.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-10-08 18:36
She is not acceptable except to those who agree with her "private positions". Unfortunately, she is running against a pig who has just been exposed for what he is and will win anyway.

Assange shot himself and the world in the foot by not releasing these in time to keep her off the ticket in the first place. Damn!
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-10-08 20:15
I don't have a clue what is Assange's goal (other than staying alive).

The story we're told is that he didn't start getting these leaked or hacked documents until a week or two before the Convention, and he and his staff started releasing them as soon as they'd ensured their validity and scrubbed credit card numbers and such (despite the HRC Team lies that they did release such info).

Same with whomever were his sources. Why did they wait to start giving them to Wikileaks or releasing them on their own until so late that they didn't prevent HRC from snagging the nomination?

But I sure do share your frustration.
 
 
+7 # Douglas Jack 2016-10-08 21:45
Radscal, Assange is locked up inside an embassy all these years. What he has accomplished is amazing. Our responsibility is not to be passive observers, but to take this much deeper than the timing of revelations.

The truth, which we have concerning Hillary's duplicity on behalf of Goldman Sachs et al, murder of 350,000 people in Libya, as many in Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Guatemala, Honduras & much more would be enough to convict anyone if we have a true democracy. We have never had democracy in our colonial lives of trickle down participation in extraction & exploitation of the resources & people of the world.

Finance-Media-Education-Military-Industrial-Legislative-Complex oligarch staged coronation of puppet figures to act in their theatre of war, theft, genocide, extraction & exploitation is much deeper than Hillary, Bill or Donald.

Our task is to unite locally in our multihome-dwell ing-complexes, neighbourhoods & communities to work & invest together in MUTUAL-AID beyond individuality through cultural power to economically welcome & include each other. The Great Law of Peace of all humanity's 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') ancestors is based in 1) multihome 2) inclusive economy of the stringshell (eg. Wampum) as a tool for accounting human values in the specialized Production Societies. 'Indigenous' peoples worldwide lived in interactive proximity of Longhouse, Pueblo, Mound-city etc. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-10-09 01:26
Based on the down votes, I assume a wave of Hil-Bots must have passed through.

Yeah, I'm hip. Just trying to explore lfeuille's frustration that these documents weren't released earlier, and why that might be.
 
 
+1 # SusanT136 2016-10-11 07:37
Quoting Radscal:
Just trying to explore lfeuille's frustration that these documents weren't released earlier, and why that might be.


I too am extremely frustrated by the timing. I'm wondering if these emails were not made available to Wikileaks until just now, therefore dictating the timing of the release. Otherwise I can't understand why Assange would sit on them, when Hillary has been part of an administration that has the worst record EVER of persecuting whistleblowers, especially since Bernie is a pretty honest guy who supports open government.

If these were released during the primary it could have had an effect. Instead, the DNC pushed for an extremely flawed candidate and now they're scuffling to save the election. If Trump wasn't such a racist, misogyinst, nuke loving, narcissistic buffoon Hillary wouldn't have a chance.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-10-08 18:37
These kind of talk would never have happened if our bankers were actually ethical. She knew she would have a receptive audience for her corruption.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-10-08 20:08
Jim, when was that bygone era when banksters "took ethics seriously?"

Was it when the Savings and Loan ripoff stole the pensions of millions of regular people?

Was it when they crashed the Western world's economies starting in 1929?

Was it when they invested in both the Nazi and Anglo-American war machines in WW II? Or when they did the same in WW I?

Was it when they crashed the British economy by conning investors into believing Napoleon had won Waterloo?

Or do you mean way back when the Knights Templar invented international banking?

Or are you conflating a very entertaining, traditional Christmas time Frank Capra film with reality?
 
 
+39 # RMDC 2016-10-08 09:35
What is truly amazing is that yesterday before these leaked emails even hit the web, Obama made comments about Russia meddling in US elections and he threatened Russia. So we can see that Hillary's defense will be to change the issue to Russia's hacking of the Hillary campaign and Russia's support for Trump. All of this is totally false. The true thing is that the Obama regime is in full defensive mode for the Clinton campaign which has now been exposed to the light of day. She make's Nixon's dirty tricks campaign look like child's play.

We all knew that the two hegemonic parties with their terrible candidates --Trump and Clinton -- would self-destruct. Now they are. Hillary's emails are showing her to be an enemy of the people and an operative for banks. Trumps video comments about wanting to have affairs but being turned down and prompting calls from republicans for him to withdraw. So maybe both Hillary and Donald will withdraw in embarassment.

Thank god I'm a GREEN. My candidates don't act like this. How can anyone of good conscience and political concern be a democrat or republican. How can anyone who hopes for a decent society and world vote for corrupt Hillary and sleazy Donald.
 
 
-13 # Salburger 2016-10-08 11:04
Trump is in debt to/in bed with Putin's tame oligarchs--of course Putin want him to become President and is backing his campaign with cash and black ops Suddenly the people who usually claim conspiracies are in denial about a real one.
 
 
+27 # RMDC 2016-10-08 12:10
Salburger -- the emails released by Wikileaks show the opposite. Clinton used her position as Sec. of State to get an approval for a Russian Oligarch to buy much of the US uranium industry. The Oligarch simulteneously made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation. This is sort of the textbook definition of "being in bed withe the oligarchs." I took out Putin because the Russian oligarchs hate Putin. He's trying to bring them under control and in some cases taking their businesses away from them - i.e., Khordokovsky. The Russian oligarchs are aligned with the US and Irael, not with Russia or Putin.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-10-08 20:19
And the largest bank in Russia (part of the supra-national banking cartel) gave Bill $500,000 (plus all 4-star expenses) for a half hour speech.
 
 
+20 # fletch1165 2016-10-08 10:01
Why does she use "you know" in every other sentence of a speech? She is the opposite of an intellectual. That much is crystal clear. Her speeches are juvenille at best. She and Trump are both little kids easily manipulated by the forces that own them. Americans that embrace school children to be President will of course reap painful outcomes. And the rest of us will suffer the consequences too.
 
 
+17 # RMDC 2016-10-08 11:15
I wondered, too, why she says "you know" so often. She does not do that in her speeches or debate comments. I guess it is just the nervous ticks that some people get when they have to talk to their bosses. Clearly her style suggests she's intimidated by these people whom she serves so humbly.
 
 
+13 # Scott Galindez 2016-10-08 11:47
"You know" provides a few more seconds to think out your response...Trum p says "believe mr" when he is lying...
 
 
+7 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-08 12:05
So are you saying that every time she says "you know' that she is lying?
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2016-10-08 18:37
I think he is. But that's a lot of lying.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2016-10-09 12:09
I suspect that #Scott Galindez is saying that that HRC is thinking of a better way to express a truth, while The Donald is thinking up a better way to tell a lie.
 
 
-15 # Polisage 2016-10-08 11:54
We could have had Colin Powell on the ballot. Too bad he fell on his sword for Bush. He could have been another Eisenhower.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-10-08 18:43
What we need is another FDR, not another Eisenhower. He is better than the current of Republicans, but mediocre is the larger scheme of things.
 
 
+17 # Radscal 2016-10-08 20:25
Colin Powell is a lifelong war criminal.

In his autobiography, he admits personally lighting up peasants' humble thatch homes with his Zippo.

He also, as a young up-and-coming Major, buried the reports about the My Lai massacre (which had it not been for a brave whistleblower, he would have succeeded in keeping secret along with all the other heinous war crimes which he oversaw in Vietnam).

He was in charge of the illegal invasion of Panama, which killed thousands of innocent civilians and served as a test for a whole range of new weapons.

He ordered the war crime of slaughtering fleeing soldiers and civilians as they left Kuwait.

And that was all before his masterful lying performance at the UN, which helped prevent the world from stopping the US from once again illegally invading a sovereign nation.
 
 
+34 # jimmyjames 2016-10-08 11:58
Excuse my "french", but isn't it a god damn shame that the best our country has to offer is Clinton and Trump? The citizens of the USA should be hiding our faces in shame....
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-10-08 18:45
It is absolutely infuriating. We should not be hiding we should be screaming at the Jackasses that put is in this position.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-10-08 20:27
We have better in Stein/Baraka.
 
 
-7 # Caliban 2016-10-08 23:48
"Hiding our faces in shame"? Why? As US citizens we voted in party primaries and caucuses, and we chose Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our major party candidates.

Additionally, there are at least two viable "third" party candidates emerged for those who feel the need to get outside the traditional major party figures.

By any objective standard, the majors did what they were supposed to do, and the Greens and Libertarians did what they were expected to do.

Now it's time for citizens to debate these choices and cast the most thoughtful ballot we can.

In short, it's just like it always is, and there is no reason for anybody to be ashamed of this outcome.
 
 
+7 # CL38 2016-10-09 14:09
""Hiding our faces in shame"? Why? As US citizens we voted in party primaries and caucuses, and we chose Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our major party candidates."

Numerous primaries were stolen by the DNC/Clinton conglomerate and their early rigging of the election, as you well know but choose to ignore.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2016-10-10 01:25
No proof, no "theft".
 
 
+11 # Moxa 2016-10-08 12:05
Hillary will probably win. Then we'll know in a few days if she is even remotely serious about progressive policies. Check out whom she picks for her top economic posts. If she picks Wall Street insiders, there's your answer. That's what Obama did and everything was predictable after that. His progressive campaign rhetoric was pure bull. Hillary is already off to a bad start with her V.P. pick. I'm not expecting any surprises.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-10-08 18:47
We've already seen who she picked for VP and for her transition team. Warren has issued an implicit threat about appoint wall street lackeys, but if Hillary thinks she's got it in the bag, she may just ignore the threat.
 
 
-6 # Activista 2016-10-08 12:52
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/07/russia-did-it-u-s-says-blames-senior-most-russian-officials-for-wikileaks-dcleaks-email-hacks/
link from the article -
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who’s flaunted a curious bromance with Russian leader Vladimir Putin this election, has sworn up and down the campaign trail that Russia did not commit the hack. But that didn’t stop the candidate from inviting Russian hackers to find his rival’s missing emails.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said at a press conference in July.
...... nothing interesting in the hack - she told the audience "was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech" as a private person - what they wanted to hear. I would not do it, but most of the people here - money, money, money would do it.
 
 
+31 # Billy Bob 2016-10-08 12:53
This basically proves what us Bernie supporters were saying all along.

WE TOLD YA SO.
 
 
+8 # RMDC 2016-10-08 14:54
Is Bernie going to get the message? Will he now abandon Hillary? I hope he does. His principles that we all admired require him to leave her campaign. The emails show that what she's saying to the voters is a lie.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-10-08 19:30
I wonder too.

I have no idea. But if Hillary remains the Democratic candidate, I will have no choice available but Jill Stein.

As far as I'm concerned, the only "thrown away" votes are the ones for Trump or Clinton (or Johnson, I guess).
 
 
0 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-09 08:43
@BB,
F^ckin' A, BB. Although, y'all were ahead of me re: the speeches cause I was worried about other things regarding her candidacy. Simply hadn't gotten to that yet. (But someone during a primary season webinar.)

@RMDC,
Bernie dump Hill? Who knows? This whole thing's a . ..well we know what it is. Damn. Bernie, should I write you in or stick with Stein? I've never "done" Repubs. I don't "do" Clintons. Not anymore.
 
 
+11 # markovchhaney 2016-10-08 14:31
It's impossible to even feign being shocked. Makes me wonder if it's even vaguely possible for a POTUS to be MOSTLY honest with the public about domestic or foreign policy. Does even asking such a question make one irredeemably naive?
 
 
-2 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-09 08:56
@markovchaney,
Naive or wholesomely idealistic? Maybe a tad of the former, but countered by more of the latter? I'm going with (more of) the latter. Which is why I'm an activist-tree hugger who's still voting in Nov. For someone other than the two creatures in the oligarch backed parties. ;-)
 
 
+5 # guomashi 2016-10-08 17:37
The worst part
It is not at all depressing that a US presidential candidate would lie,
would actively pontificate on the need to lie
would actively disdain the people whose votes she courts,
would explicitly enjoin corruption,
would deflect blame by demonizing a foreign country,
would advocate obliteration of foreign nations,
etc., etc., etc..
After all, this has been US political life for the past 50 years at least.

What is depressing is that even when demonstrated to be the case in the most direct bald-faced terms that anyone would still support her.

Truly, US deserves no better.
Let them rot in their own hell-sewer.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-10-08 18:50
As you know, it not just the us that will suffer. The world does not deserve either one of them.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-10-08 20:45
I don't know how many USians are really willing to support HRC.

I've been posting links to HRC events with very little attendance, in one case, even after she had busloads of high schoolers brought in on a field trip.

Here's one that shows the turnout she got at a black church in Arkansas with just 30 days to go before the election. She couldn't even fill the stage, let alone the pews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTUTz88991c

Yeah, "The Black Child" comes at this from an Illuminati/Free mason critique, but whatever the truth is on that, there's no denying that HRC supporters are mostly invisible until they magically appear in computer voting machines.
 
 
0 # Ralph 2016-10-08 19:02
Pence is going to mop the floor with her. What a rotten war criminal she is.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-10-08 23:54
"Pence" is Brit colloquial for "Penny". And that is about how much impact "Penny"/Pence will have on this election.
 
 
0 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-09 08:59
Quoting guomashi:
The worst part
It is not at all depressing that a US presidential candidate would lie,
would actively pontificate on the need to lie
would actively disdain the people whose votes she courts,
would explicitly enjoin corruption,
would deflect blame by demonizing a foreign country,
would advocate obliteration of foreign nations,
etc., etc., etc..
After all, this has been US political life for the past 50 years at least.

What is depressing is that even when demonstrated to be the case in the most direct bald-faced terms that anyone would still support her.

Truly, US deserves no better.
Let them rot in their own hell-sewer.



Oh Guo!!!
 
 
-1 # Capn Canard 2016-10-11 07:18
This 2016 American election look like a contest between two questionable candidates who will do their best to represent the Wealthy. Your choice:

1. BAD
and
2. WORSE

.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN