Hacked and leaked emails show Hillary having two positions on the economy --

Wordslinger wrote:She evidently has a public position and private one which favors Wall Street.  

Sal, can you defend this?

Sal wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:She evidently has a public position and private one which favors Wall Street.  

Sal, can you defend this?

I've looked over the wikileaks "revelations" and found nothing particularly surprising nor scandalous.

Why don't you tell me specifically what has tied your panties in a knot this time, snowflake?

Wordslinger wrote:Thanks, I guess it was too much a stretch to assume I'd get a real answer from the likes of you.

Sal wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Thanks, I guess it was too much a stretch to assume I'd get a real answer from the likes of you.

Why not just provide the specific leaked email to which you are referring?

Or, are you just blindly accepting the mischaracterizations of the rightwing echo chamber as gospel ...

... again.

Wordslinger wrote:From Time Magazine:  "Some of Clinton’s paid speeches were apparently revealed. An email to Podesta from January 2016 quoted sections of Clinton’s speeches; in one from 2013 Clinton conceded to needing a “public and a private position” in politics, and she said in 2014 she was aware of security concerns around using a BlackBerry at the State Department and that emails could be vulnerable to hacking. She also said she supported free trade and “open borders,” though it is unclear from the context exactly what she meant."  

The issue deals with her trustworthiness, and obviously that's a non-issue with you.  We get it.

Sal wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:She evidently has a public position and private one which favors Wall Street.  

Sal, can you defend this?

I've looked over the wikileaks "revelations" and found nothing particularly surprising nor scandalous.

Why don't you tell me specifically what has tied your panties in a knot this time, snowflake?

PkrBum wrote:
Lol... what they show is exactly what she and the leftist ruling elite think of you. Enjoy comrade.

We know... nothing matters.

Sal wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:From Time Magazine:  "Some of Clinton’s paid speeches were apparently revealed. An email to Podesta from January 2016 quoted sections of Clinton’s speeches; in one from 2013 Clinton conceded to needing a “public and a private position” in politics, and she said in 2014 she was aware of security concerns around using a BlackBerry at the State Department and that emails could be vulnerable to hacking. She also said she supported free trade and “open borders,” though it is unclear from the context exactly what she meant."  

The issue deals with her trustworthiness, and obviously that's a non-issue with you.  We get it.

And, now for some context ...

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to ― getting back to that word, “balance” ― how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But 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. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think ― I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

Soooo, ...

... what she's talking about here is the way politics works, ...

... the way it has always worked, the way it works now, and the way it shall always work in the future, ...

... and, she's talking about it in a smart, informed, and nuanced fashion.

Grow the fuck up, snowflake.

Wordslinger wrote:No matter how you read that crapola, it amounts to a politician taking a position that will work with one crowd, and taking the reverse position with another.  But I'll surely keep your childish, nonsensical advice about the need to be two-faced, in mind.

Sal wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:No matter how you read that crapola, it amounts to a politician taking a position that will work with one crowd, and taking the reverse position with another.  But I'll surely keep your childish, nonsensical advice about the need to be two-faced, in mind.

You'll have to point out where she said anything about "taking the reverse position", because I'm just not seeing it.

Of course, what she is talking about is pragmatism, regardless of your childish, nonsensical take on it.

Enjoy your time in your ivory tower, snowflake.

Wordslinger wrote:

Sal wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:From Time Magazine:  "Some of Clinton’s paid speeches were apparently revealed. An email to Podesta from January 2016 quoted sections of Clinton’s speeches; in one from 2013 Clinton conceded to needing a “public and a private position” in politics, and she said in 2014 she was aware of security concerns around using a BlackBerry at the State Department and that emails could be vulnerable to hacking. She also said she supported free trade and “open borders,” though it is unclear from the context exactly what she meant."  

The issue deals with her trustworthiness, and obviously that's a non-issue with you.  We get it.

And, now for some context ...

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to ― getting back to that word, “balance” ― how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But 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. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think ― I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

Soooo, ...

... what she's talking about here is the way politics works, ...

... the way it has always worked, the way it works now, and the way it shall always work in the future, ...

... and, she's talking about it in a smart, informed, and nuanced fashion.

Grow the fuck up, snowflake.

No matter how you read that crapola, it amounts to a politician taking a position that will work with one crowd, and taking the reverse position with another.  But I'll surely keep your childish, nonsensical advice about the need to be two-faced, in mind.  

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
Lol... what they show is exactly what she and the leftist ruling elite think of you. Enjoy comrade.

We know... nothing matters.

Sooooo, ....

.... you didn't bother reading through them before commenting either ....

.... can't say I blame you ....

.... they are intensely uninteresting and wholly uncontroversial.

boards of FL wrote:So can anyone tell me anything particularly damning from these hacked emails?  Quote whatever it is that you think is bad and tell me why it's bad.  

Can anyone do this?  

boards of FL wrote:So can anyone tell me anything particularly damning from these hacked emails?  Quote whatever it is that you think is bad and tell me why it's bad.  

Can anyone do this?  

boards of FL wrote:

boards of FL wrote:So can anyone tell me anything particularly damning from these hacked emails?  Quote whatever it is that you think is bad and tell me why it's bad.  

Can anyone do this?  

Going once...  

No one has anything?  Not even one point to be made?