Maddow Performs Poetry Reading Of GOP Anti-Trump Anguish

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Her viewers share her condescending and patronizing view towards the world. 

She hasn't even made condescending remarks towards anyone other than Republicans.

The Young Turks however are remarkably intelligent and eloquent and have not been patronizing and condescending towards anything in the party.

Please. Continue to expose yourself.

[brendablethyn 536]

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I wish the news would go ahead and hound Hillary for the transcripts of her paid speeches. No one is left in the race that has paid speeches. I'd love to know what these companies got for $225,000.

Whatever is in those would sink her and give Bernie the nomination. She has known that all along. 

[FATCAT 60,888]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Because she's against you.

The Young Turks however are remarkably intelligent and eloquent and have not been patronizing and condescending towards anything in the party.

Please. Continue to expose yourself.

You can be respectful, and still against something. Maddow is not respectful.

Please. Continue to try to "expose" me.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

I wish the news would go ahead and hound Hillary for the transcripts of her paid speeches. No one is left in the race that has paid speeches. I'd love to know what these companies got for $225,000.

Do you just throw the same arguments over and over again?

Here's my response to the same exact issue 30 times over

------

It's because it's a slippery slope. If she doesn't release them, she's untrustworthy. If she releases them, someone will try to find something and blow it out of proportion, especially when speeches often contain praises to the hosts as a matter of courtesy. It's simply better to let people believe what they want.

Furthermore, I detest the notion that she should be compelled to release these records when they were made as a private citizen (she was not in an elected body at the time) to a private institution at a private event. This is such a broad breach of privacy that it's unthinkable that an American would endorse it. 

Hillary is right. She should not release the transcripts unless everyone else does. Even if Sanders doesn't have any speeches in particular, that does not put him in the place to dictate what should be released and who should release them.

What stops Hillary from accusing Sanders of making corrupt deals on the phone and demanding he release his phone records? 

What stops Trump from accusing Hillary of engaging in sexual proclivities on Tinder and demand that she release her Tinder records?

The combination if it being a double standard being imposed on her, as well as the fact that people will want to find something bad if they're so inclined, makes it unfair and even outrageous that she's being put in this position.

----

One question. Would YOU be comfortable if Hillary (or the GOP) asked Sanders to reveal all his documentation from his earlier days in USSR Russia?

You're so readily assuming she's been bought when she has never actually legislated any bills or done anything that constitutes "returning the favor".

[FATCAT 60,888]

Just now, brendablethyn said:

Whatever is in those would sink her and give Bernie the nomination. She has known that all along. 

Problem is, when Trump asks to see those speeches, she has no defense. If she grabs the nom, he'll have her in the palm of her hand. It's why Republicans want to run against Hillary, it's so easy to use her past and present against her.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

You can be respectful, and still against something. Maddow is not respectful.

Please. Continue to try to "expose" me.

...

LOL I don't even. You seriously talking about respect when your and Sanders' entire stance revolves around demonizing anything that is part of a political party, calling it an establishment that is out to get you?
Quit being a hypocrite. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Problem is, when Trump asks to see those speeches, she has no defense. If she grabs the nom, he'll have her in the palm of her hand. It's why Republicans want to run against Hillary, it's so easy to use her past and present against her.

The people are inoculated when it comes to Hillary. They've played all their cards. There's nothing left except rehash the past.

In fact that's the reason Democrats are confident she'll be OK. 

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Do you just throw the same arguments over and over again?

Here's my response to the same exact issue 30 times over

------

It's because it's a slippery slope. If she doesn't release them, she's untrustworthy. If she releases them, someone will try to find something and blow it out of proportion, especially when speeches often contain praises to the hosts as a matter of courtesy. It's simply better to let people believe what they want.

Furthermore, I detest the notion that she should be compelled to release these records when they were made as a private citizen (she was not in an elected body at the time) to a private institution at a private event. This is such a broad breach of privacy that it's unthinkable that an American would endorse it. 

Hillary is right. She should not release the transcripts unless everyone else does. Even if Sanders doesn't have any speeches in particular, that does not put him in the place to dictate what should be released and who should release them.

What stops Hillary from accusing Sanders of making corrupt deals on the phone and demanding he release his phone records? 

What stops Trump from accusing Hillary of engaging in sexual proclivities on Tinder and demand that she release her Tinder records?

The combination if it being a double standard being imposed on her, as well as the fact that people will want to find something bad if they're so inclined, makes it unfair and even outrageous that she's being put in this position.

----

One question. Would YOU be comfortable if Hillary (or the GOP) asked Sanders to reveal all his documentation from his earlier days in USSR Russia?

You're so readily assuming she's been bought when she has never actually legislated any bills or done anything that constitutes "returning the favor".

What. In. The. Hell.

She's telling everyone she's a transparent candidate, while giving paid speeches behind closed doors. If she said something in those speeches, that's her problem. Either accept that she's not transparent, or release the transcripts. It's not some double standard, it's her protecting herself from her own words. She's despicable.

[brendablethyn 536]

Just now, FATCAT said:

Problem is, when Trump asks to see those speeches, she has no defense. If she grabs the nom, he'll have her in the palm of her hand. It's why Republicans want to run against Hillary, it's so easy to use her past and present against her.

Exactly. Trump knows how to zone in on a candidate's weakness. He will probably spend the next 6 months demanding she release them, and the fact that she doesn't will play into his hands as "Corrupt Hillary" becomes her moniker. Secret emails, secret speeches, it's going to be very hard for her to fight back. She needs to release them.

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

The people are inoculated when it comes to Hillary. They've played all their cards. There's nothing left except rehash the past.

In fact that's the reason Democrats are confident she'll be OK. 

These transcripts are important to the present, and Trump could easily make them a lot more important than her past.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

What. In. The. Hell.

She's telling everyone she's a transparent candidate, while giving paid speeches behind closed doors. If she said something in those speeches, that's her problem. Either accept that she's not transparent, or release the transcripts. It's not some double standard, it's her protecting herself from her own words. She's despicable.

No the double standard is picking and choosing what constitutes transparency. Who the hell does Sanders think he is? 

She has been completely transparent in matters relevant to the election. She has the right to retain her privacy as a private citizen (not in elected office) at a private event. That you have grievances about the implications of being PAID to do your job is your own bias at work.

Should we now ask all candidates to release transcripts of their phone calls?

How is THAT not transparency? 

That's all you want. Keep showing your bias.

 

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, brendablethyn said:

Exactly. Trump knows how to zone in on a candidate's weakness. He will probably spend the next 6 months demanding she release them, and the fact that she doesn't will play into his hands as "Corrupt Hillary" becomes her moniker. Secret emails, secret speeches, it's going to be very hard for her to fight back. She needs to release them.

Thing is, most of her supporters think us asking her to release them is to benefit Bernie, but in reality it is to save her from Trump in the GE. It may help Bernie if they're terrible or downright controversial, but if she's getting the nom, she'll get it either way.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Exactly. Trump knows how to zone in on a candidate's weakness. He will probably spend the next 6 months demanding she release them, and the fact that she doesn't will play into his hands as "Corrupt Hillary" becomes her moniker. Secret emails, secret speeches, it's going to be very hard for her to fight back. She needs to release them.

LOL "Corrupt Hillary" pales in comparison to Xenophobic, Bigoted, Misogynistic Trump that even the GOP have shunned him.

Keep trying. You continue to fail and show inconsistency in your own subjective echo chamber.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

Thing is, most of her supporters think us asking her to release them is to benefit Bernie, but in reality it is to save her from Trump in the GE. It may help Bernie if they're terrible or downright controversial, but if she's getting the nom, she'll get it either way.

Trump just hired an ex-Goldman Sachs with heavy ties to Wall Street to be his campaign finance manager.

So cut the concern troll act. He can't bring them up without risk of being fired back on.

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

No the double standard is picking and choosing what constitutes transparency. Who the hell does Sanders think he is? 

She has been completely transparent in matters relevant to the election. She has the right to retain her privacy as a private citizen (not in elected office) at a private event. That you have grievances about the implications of being PAID to do your job is your own bias at work.

Should we now ask all candidates to release transcripts of their phone calls?

How is THAT not transparency? 

That's all you want. Keep showing your bias.

 

I don't want her to release her phone records, why do you keep insisting that people want more and more from her? She was paid over $21,000,000 for speeches that she made up until March 2015. That was only A FU*KING MONTH before she announced her candidacy. Those transcripts hold her views up until she wanted to run again, and that's important. Bernie would release his speeches if he had any, he's already releasing his transcripts. 

Who the hell does HILLARY think she is?