I think the implication is that she told a big firm bank they have nothing to worry about in terms of major banking regulation with her future regime taking the White House, which she has flat out denied when confronted. She could be skirting the question using semantics that her transcript would counter. Its a bit tinfoily but not insane.



Interesting question. I guess that depends for me on how much support just that one "suggestion" got him. If a lot of people joined his side specifically for that policy its certainly a flip flop to them. And as its nearly as large of a part of his "platform" as the wall id say thats a large number.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 12 2016 11:58am

...do you realize you sound like most Sanders supporters ? I have witnessed Hillary's shenanigans for her entire public life ; I just have no emotional investment in the drama .

she's going to what, accomplish some petty vindication against her political opponents at the expense of obliterating her support among the liberal base and moderates by exposing herself as a spineless worm suckling at mammon's teat?
She doesn't win anything politically by putting out the transcripts at this point, and she hemorrhages votes by doing so. So uh, why would she possibly do that?
Hillary is going to try to brown nose her way into those same demographics, not spite them, because "blatant pandering" is every entry A-Z in hillary's campaign dictionary.

I don't care what I sound like. Sanders is out of the race. We are talking about Hillary Clinton, one of the two candidates in the race to be the president of our country.

the tl;dr I got from watching his interview in your link was 'if its not necessary anymore, of course we won't do it. and hopefully something changes between now and then so it isn't necessary'

Is that really a flip? I mean if so then call a spade a spade, it just seems like a rational response if the situation were to change.

..how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history ? ( btw , you actually do sound a tad angry )

Eh he said what he had to say to get the support and win the nomination. He could backtrack on a lot before his base would lose loyalty. Hate him or love him he has something which on a good day could be described as charisma. His supporters would walk right off the bridge with him. I would be curious to see the numbers but I would speculate the flip flopping is cumulatively resulting in higher numbers

This post was edited by Bazi on May 12 2016 12:06pm

She's already met her own standards to release the transcripts:

"If everyone agrees to do it — because there are speeches for money on the other side — let’s set the same standard for everybody,” she said in an April debate. “When everybody does it, OK, I’ll do it.”

There's one Republican candidate left. He has no Wall Street paid speeches. Bernie is still technically in the race, too. He has no sucj Wall Street speeches.

No one else left in the race has such transcripts. The standards that she has set out for herself have been met. Let's see if she keeps her own word (I'm not holding my breath.)

Feels curiously good. I'm glad at least that when I get completely mistaken in my predictions about a candidate, the entirety of modern politics bugs out at the unlikelihood of a trump nomination too.
As for him, he's as right as I was in saying Trump was a sideshow, after all, Sanders only path forward is if something like if Hillary's transcripts get leaked by a whistleblower and contain damning enough quotes to get her to step down

Are you defining being on the wrong side of history as supporting a candidate who lost a presidential primary?

Were 1976 Reagan supporters on the wrong side of history when he lost to Nixon?

Just checking to see your definition in this question.

And no, I'm not angry lol. I'm enjoying lunch right now. This is actually one of your weaker troll attempts.