The G-S speeches are a red herring.

Post #408,242 by Another Scott 2/22/16 3:51:03 PM 2/22/16 3:51:03 PM Reply	The G-S speeches are a red herring. She made over $10M by 2005 just from book royalties. 3 speeches at $200k or so a piece aren't going to buy her. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/ All told, the Clintons have made their tax returns public for every year dating back to 1977. There's no there there. Why should she release transcripts of her speeches to private groups? She wasn't in office then. Do you *really* think that she sold her soul for $600k? She was in no position to promise them anything, and why should she even if she wanted to? Why would she say something out of character to some big industry gathering? Tape recorders, video recorders, etc., weren't invented last week. She's not stupid. If she did release the transcripts, they would just demand something else from her - nothing she does ever satisfies the insane critics. This G-S speeches stuff is right up there with her "killing Vince Foster". We're not electing a all-powerful monarch. We're electing a president who can only sign bills that pass the Congress, who can only appoint people to Treasury and State that are approved by the Senate, who can only spend money that the Congress appropriates. Sure, who's in the White House matters - it matters a lot. But they aren't going to somehow "reward Wall Street" or whatever all by their lonesome. Maybe she will release the transcripts. If she does, I'm sure that people digging into it will find something to accuse her of. It's what they do. “It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.” Yeah, funny how that works, isn't it? :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #408,244 by mmoffitt 2/22/16 5:00:34 PM 2/22/16 5:00:34 PM Reply	Now tell me the one about how she "told them to cut that out." Puhleeze. You're right about one thing, though. We aren't electing an all-powerful monarch. We are electing (just as we did in 2008) a tool of the oligarchs on that little island between the East and Hudson Rivers. For example, just as then, she wants to continue and strengthen the profit for Wall Street of our medical system. From FDR to Carter a single payer healthcare system was part and parcel of the Democratic Party's platform. With the new DNC (who recently rescinded the no-Lobbyist donation rule - guess which one of the two candidates has called for that rule's re-instatement? Hint: it ain't the oligarch's tool with two X chromosomes) you have to be a half-crazed Socialist to want that today according to DNC establishment. The Clintons are the poster children for all that is wrong with our body politic dating back to 1980. I think it is very worthy of noting that Obama's "Signature Legislation" was the neo-fascist ACA that requires every single American to pay a profit to a private corporation for merely daring to draw breath in this vaunted "Land of the Free." Mussolini would be so proud. But, fine. If this is what you want, then Trump's got my vote. At least with him, I'm not certain he'll be entirely beholding to the criminals on Wall Street. In contrast with Hillary, he has called for new taxes on hedge fund managers. That's more Progressive policy than you'll ever see out of a Clinton. The transcripts are important because I believe they will show her sentiment toward the criminals on Wall Street who evaded jail and any real responsibility for the destruction of pensions, foreclosures of homes and personal bankruptcies they created and exploited to make themselves even more obscenely wealthy than they already were. She's their cheerleader. That's damning enough. Nothing further need be understood about the Bankster's Tart.
Post #408,245 by Another Scott 2/22/16 5:21:43 PM 2/22/16 5:21:43 PM Reply	You need to review your Marxist-Leninist tracts. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/03.htm The term compromise in politics implies the surrender of certain demands, the renunciation of part of one’s demands, by agreement with another party. The usual idea the man in the.street has about the Bolsheviks, an idea encouraged by a press which slanders them, is that the Bolsheviks will never agree to a compromise with anybody. The idea is flattering to us as the party of the revolutionary proletariat, for it proves that even our enemies are compelled to admit our loyalty to the fundamental principles of socialism and revolution. Nevertheless, we must say that this idea is wrong. Engels was right when, in his criticism of the Manifesto of the Blanquist Communists[1] (1873), he ridiculed their declaration: “No compromises!”[2] This, he said, was an empty phrase, for compromises are often unavoidably forced upon a fighting party by circumstances, and it is absurd to refuse once and for all to accept “payments on account”[3] The task of a truly revolutionary party is not to declare that it is impossible to renounce all compromises, but to be able, through all compromises, when they are unavoidable, to remain true to its principles, to its class, to its revolutionary purpose, to its task of paving the way for revolution and educating the mass of the people for victory in the revolution. [...] You're going to be very, very lonely waiting for the Pure Revolution™ to come. ;-) If you want Bernie to win - fine. Good, even. But if he doesn't win, if she beats him, maybe it's because more people think she's better than him. Maybe it's as simple as that. Screaming about how horrible she is when anyone with eyes can see that she's actually quite talented, accomplished, strong, principled, and pragmatic *especially compared to the troglodytes on the other side* is missing the big picture. Governing is all about compromise. Cheers, Scott.
Post #408,260 by mmoffitt 2/23/16 8:32:44 AM 2/23/16 8:32:44 AM Reply	Re: because more people think she's better than him. No one ever lost any money betting on the stupidity of the Murican Peeple.
Post #408,262 by Another Scott 2/23/16 9:21:08 AM 2/23/16 9:21:08 AM Reply	So only "good enough" people should vote then? ;-p
Post #408,265 by mmoffitt 2/23/16 11:14:10 AM 2/23/16 11:14:10 AM Reply	I was in a hurry. You might also like... On the one hand we must ruthlessly suppress* the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with "state capitalism" or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism", who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people. In this case also we must look truth in the face. We stlll have too little of that ruthlessness which is indispensable for the success of socialism, and we have too little not because we lack determination. We have sufficient determination. What we do lack is the ablllty to catch quickly enough a sufficient number of proflteers, racketeers and capitalists -- the people who infringe the measures passed by the Soviets. The "ability" to do this can only be acquired by establishing accounting and control! Another thing is that the courts are not sufficiently firm. Instead of sentencing people who take bribes to be shot, they sentence them to six months' imprisonment. These two defects have the same social root: the influence of the petty-bourgeois element, its flabbiness. ,,, Bukharin is an extremely well-read Marxist economist. He therefore remembered that Marx was profoundly right when he taught the workers the importance of preserving the organisation of large-scale production, precisely for the purpose of facilitating the transition to socialism. Marx taught that (as an exception, and Britain was then an exception) the idea was conceivable of paying the capitalists well, of buying them off, if the circumstances were such as to compel the capitalists to submit peacefully and to come over to socialism in a cultured and organised fashion, provided they were paid. http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC18.html Illych was talking about "compromising" with capitalists who were willing to embrace "state capitalism"* and I sure as heck don't see any of those kinds of capitalists around here. I see the other kind. The kind that must be "ruthlessly suppressed." The "more people might think ..." argument doesn't move me. More people thought Ronald Reagan was the better candidate, more people thought Dick Nixon was the better candidate, more people thought George W. was the better candidate (second term). You're talking about a population that includes a non-trivial number of folks who parade signs reading, "Government Hands Off My Medicare!" I don't follow the herd and you'll never convince me to believe anything based upon "how many people think this." Eight in ten Americans think angels are real. 'Nough said.
Post #408,266 by Another Scott 2/23/16 11:21:28 AM 2/23/16 11:21:28 AM Reply	Fair enough. People make mistakes. Film at 11. ;-)
Post #408,246 by boxley 2/22/16 7:38:58 PM 2/22/16 7:38:58 PM Reply	yeah, 10mil for selling < 2k books, I would likle that deal always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #408,248 by Another Scott 2/22/16 9:52:16 PM 2/22/16 9:52:16 PM Reply	Really? HuffPo: By comparison, Clinton's 2003 book, Living History, sold six times as many volumes in its first week and eventually 1.4 million worldwide in hardback. Wikipedia: In January 1996, Clinton went on a ten-city book tour and made numerous television appearances to promote the [It takes a village] book,[1] although she was frequently hit with questions about her involvement in the Whitewater and Travelgate controversies.[2][3] Her efforts were rewarded; the book spent 18 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller List during 1996 including three weeks at number one.[4] By 2000 it had sold 450,000 copies in hardcover and another 200,000 in paperback.[5] Those aren't her only books. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #408,251 by boxley 2/22/16 10:17:06 PM 2/22/16 10:17:06 PM Reply	you dont know how that scam works? how many copies do you have of her books? Donors buy them in job lots then donate them to goodwill and other charities as well as libraries. They get a charitable write off and the pol looks like they sold a bunch of books. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #408,252 by Another Scott 2/22/16 10:33:55 PM 2/22/16 10:33:55 PM Reply	Just because some people do that doesn't mean her sales were. HTH.
Post #408,255 by boxley 2/22/16 11:15:55 PM 2/22/16 11:15:55 PM Reply	so how many of her titles do you own purchased new? always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #408,256 by Another Scott 2/22/16 11:18:31 PM 2/22/16 11:18:31 PM Reply	0. There are lots of peoples' books I haven't bought. Doesn't mean they don't sell. ;-)
Post #408,257 by boxley 2/22/16 11:45:48 PM 2/22/16 11:45:48 PM Reply	and you are a fan :-) scam sales always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #408,259 by Another Scott 2/23/16 12:26:43 AM 2/23/16 12:26:43 AM Reply	She has a lot of fans. She did get around 18 million of votes against Obama in 2008 after all. ;-) I'll probably vote for her (unless Bernie somehow shows he can win the base of the Democratic party and fleshes out his fantastical proposals in a sensible way), but I'm not really a "fan". I think she's far more liberal than MM, and J, and many critics give her credit for, but I worry about her inclinations in the Middle East. I worry about her defensive mode in thinking about how to counter unfair criticism warping her judgment in times of stress. I worry about some of the people she may have around her. But I'm a worrier. ;-) We'll see. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!