2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI Found One of Hillary Clinton's Paid Goldman Sachs Speeches
Ff to 3:45 for HRC
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)has EVER talked this way about women's issues. Hillary is a champion for girls and women and if she wins, I expect a sea change for women around the world. I can't wait!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Seems that's the focus of Hillary supporters
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)for women only. The hell with the rest of us.
That's nice.
So what if she is corrupt as long as a woman becomes president! I will tell you one thing men and women in power act the exact same way. Just look at women who have become leaders, prime ministers, presidents, etc. Look Thacher, Golda Meir, I Gandhi. Or women in high positions in business, Look at Fiorina, Mayer, etc. They all act and behave the same.
Look at the history of powerful women or women leaders. Mary 1st, . Mary the 1st was notorious for executing people. Queen Elizabeth had her share of blood on her hands. Pharoah Hatshepsut, Empress Theodora, Isabella I of Castile, Empress Wu Zetian, Ranavalona I
So don't expect just because a women becomes president that she will automatically become a much different leader than a man.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)For having blood on their hands?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Angela Merkel, Maggie thatcher and Dilma Rouseff brought about?
kennetha
(3,666 posts)That's a speech at a Clinton Forum on 10,000 women. Goldman Sachs was a participant in that initiative, but that's not a speech to clients of Goldman Sachs.
She gave a paid speech to two Goldman Sachs sponsored conferences -- one I think called the innovators and builders conference or something like that in 2013:
http://www.cnbc.com/2013/10/29/innovators-and-builders-gather-at-goldman-summit.html
And another for financial advisors -- not Sachs employees or investors, but Sachs clients. Can't find a link to that one at present.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)the podium clearly stating the Clinton Foundation would give pause to one believing this was a Goldman Sachs crowd. And wouldn't Clinton have provided this already if her speeches were so innocent?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)no biggie, right? Or maybe she knows this type of speech is not what we are kvetching about.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Nothing will ever satisfy the conspiracy crowd. You give them an inch they want a mile. They did it to Obama too. "Release the birth certificate!" They still think its fake. "You lie!". They still think undocumented are covered by Obamacare. Never satisfied.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)Obama being born in Kenya will not affect anyone's bank account...there is a reason for our concerns. I don't recall the NYT asking for Obama's birth certificate as they are asking for the person they endorsed to release her transcripts. But we know why she won't release them. It's okay for her though, as the American public seems to have forgotten the devastation from 2008 and who caused it. No worries, your candidate's safe.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I remember when liberals didnt give a shit what candidates did in their private lives as long as it wasnt illegal. Did anyone give a shit how much money John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore had?
ejbr
(5,856 posts)an assumed presidential candidate gives a private speech to one of the banks that helped ruin the economy for an exorbitant amount of money. None of the culprits were tried for their crimes and we have Hillary giving $200K speeches that she thinks are unimportant, even if she could have made clear during these speeches that her presidency would not go after them as she is claiming she will do on the campaign trail. This signal to them within these speeches could give them license to screw us one more time should she become president. We have a right to know if she is speaking out of both sides of her mouth before she gets into office if we are going to avoid another financial catastrophe that will require us to bail out her friends with our money.
No, it is not illegal, just questionable in that we are left to wonder whose side she is on. And no, we don't give a shit about people's private lives if they will not affect us. This, my dear, may darn well affect not only us, but the entire world economy. So you and your fellow Hillary supporters can continue to be obtuse, but even those who support her candidacy are flummoxed as to how she could have made the decision to speak to this politically influential group BEFORE running for office.
Lastly, when Trump starts hounding and hounding and hounding and tweeting that she release the transcripts, how do you think the MSM will respond? Move along, nothing to see here? Not likely.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Now that you say that I feel so much better.
Seriously. No snark. I honestly want to know what you are basing this statement on.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Yeah, a whole 50 jobs coming our way. Hopefully Hillary will be trying to kick her way out of jail.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Just askin.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)out of context, say it's been edited, blah blah blah. They really think she's going to get in front of hundreds of investors, including Democrats, and scheme to take everything the poor and middle class, have and smile at all the recorders, cameras, etc.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,154 posts)people value what she has to say.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)You mean it's not because she is a corporatist, turd way shill?????
revbones
(3,660 posts)I've got a bridge for sale if you're interested.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Documentation and details:
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
Total Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92
Groups with giant lobbying budgets gave Clinton big speaking fees ahead of 2016 presidential campaign
Philip Elliott @Philip_Elliott May 19, 2015http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/
Of course I doubt if Jimmy understands the issue as well as you, but here is what he has to say:
The 39th president said the 'Citizens United' ruling 'violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system'
Former President Jimmy Carter had some harsh words to say about the current state of America's electoral process, calling the country "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" resulting in "nominations for president or to elect the president." When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling "violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system."
The 39th president also voiced concerns that the limitless flow of campaign cash severely favors those already in office. "The same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members," Carter said. "So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over."
Carter's comments come as the 2016 presidential race tops 20 candidates, most of them Republicans. "The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves," Carter said. "Somebodys who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger."...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=1375644
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Like how is she going to help them avoid going to jail and still keeping all that money.
TM99
(8,352 posts)That is not a Goldman's Sachs speech.
That is the Clinton Forum on 10,000 women. GS was a sponsor but this is not equivalent to what is being asked for.
I suspect you know this, and that is why you are pushing a falsehood.
Its posted on Goldman Sachs page. This is exactly the type of speeches she gives. My cousin works for GS and attended a speech, it was 30 minutes of talking about solving global poverty in areas with no access to capital. He said it was very wonkish and well rounded.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It was about human rights, and completely awesome. She's a great speaker.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)The idea that she would use a speech in front of hundreds of attendees to say something super-sensitive and/or incendiary is one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I've heard in a while. And that's saying something.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'll say it, ambitious, politician would say anything remotely damning in a speech that would likely be made public, is beyond amazing.
I think her refusal to release the transcripts is a big "Screw You" to the folks that run around from one "scandal" to the next.
I applaud her decision and laugh at the outrage.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's conspiracy theory material. Bernie looks desperate trying to use it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"enthusiastic" fans.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Or at least that's what I saw reported.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Like I said ... Red Meat for his fans.
It is not the same. GS was one of several sponsors. This was an open event. The types we are referring to are private, directly paid to her speeches, for which transcripts have not been made public.
To pretend they are the same is the falsehood.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)You just watched this video, heard an account from my cousin, plus one from another poster about her speeches, and you think after giving this speech she somehow turns around in a different speech and exclaims "screw those 10000 women and the American people, lets destroy America!"?
She has pivoted, flip flopped, and lied about a lot of things in her 30 years in the public eye.
Of course, I don't trust her. It is sad that so many are duped into trusting her.
But, on edit, nice try with this deflection. The point is that this speech is not the same as the speeches in question with regards to the transcripts being withheld. So yes, you posted a falsehood and are doubling down on it. Bravo!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Wow. I cant believe you are exactly the same person now as you were 30 years ago.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Pathological liars are not to be trusted.
One can change positions and even their minds without having to lie and pander. Only narcissists do that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And he just looks desperate at this point. I guess that's because he is desperate.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)It was debunked the 1st 20 times it was falsely presented as one of the Goldman speeches. Why do you persist?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)I like it!
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)He'll want to read this explosive, damning speech.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Pause your video at :03 and take a goooood hard look.
So you're telling us that Hillary Clinton got PAID TO SPEAK at a Clinton Global Initiative dinner sponsored by Goldman Sachs.
Fucking A WOW. Good find. You should post that once a day.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And she took their money?
I think a better thing to do would have been to donate it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Which means the Clinton Global Initiative paid Hillary to speak, right? If they were partners in this?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Is there anything in her speech you disagree with?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)You thought she's greedy and this confirms it for you somehow? How?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Hillary took money to speak at it. Hillary Clinton was paid to speak at an event her own "Global Initiative" put on.
Yes. I call that fucking greedy. Too greedy to speak for NINE MINUTES without getting paid for it, and at HER OWN EVENT.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Applying the whitewash to their rapaciousness with a few good works. Look at the Bird,. Look at the Bird.
revbones
(3,660 posts)This was public, it's not one of the ones she was paid $225k for.
merrily
(45,251 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)reason to hide the real Goldman Sachs speeches. Let us all bask in the wisdom, perhaps it will change some Bernie supporters' minds. More the merrier!!!!!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Global Initiative on it. This is a program CGI has pushed, this is great, a wonderful program and a tremendous speech. She is a grew speaker.
Thanks for sharing the link, Goldman Sachs would not be able to provide a like because of her contract with them. This shows her caring for others which is different than the image some claim.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Just for kicks and giggles and to see just what other political skeletons are out there for the GOP to shine the light of day on should he get the nomination.
K & R
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Plus I don't think he was paid a small fortune for his thoughts and talked to regular folks like us, not the greedy rich class.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Don't need video, just transcripts, transcripts, transcripts, transcripts, transcripts ............
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)NowSam
(1,252 posts)Her partners at Goldman Sachs didn't pay her the money for this one.
Oh well, someday we'll find out what she said to her sponsors.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)She was addressing the 24th annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative outfit.
The meeting was organized by the Clintons, not Wall Street and not Goldman Sachs.
And I don't think her organization paid her a few hundred thousand bucks to address her organization!
Did you know that?
snort
(2,334 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)are nothing to be concerned seem less convincing, and more clearly partisan in nature.