2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
if there is nothing in these speeches, realese the transcripts.

That is the pushback.
Click to expand...

It's a ruse to embarrass her imo. The transcripts likely won't have anything other than material that makes her look too chummy with corporations, which Bernie would then use to run ads against her. She knows this and is using the somewhat pathetic "I'll do it when everyone else does" talking point, which will obviously never happen.
 
Raoul said:
It's a ruse to embarrass her imo. The transcripts likely won't have anything other than material that makes her look too chummy with corporations, which Bernie would then use to run ads against her. She knows this and is using the somewhat pathetic "I'll do it when everyone else does" talking point, which will obviously never happen.
Click to expand...

I think whatever she says will go directly against what she says on her campaigns. "She stands up to special interests." This is the vetting process we need for all candidates.
 
Reported fees of some others:

Tim Geithner - 200k
Ben Bernanke - 200k-400k
Al Gore - 175k
Condoleeza Rice - 150k
Katie Couric - 110k

Whisper it, but it may just be the case that large organisations have far too much money to spend on speakers. Feck, look at some of the money United spends without thinking twice.
 
Red Dreams said:
I think whatever she says will go directly against what she says on her campaigns. "She stands up to special interests." This is the vetting process we need for all candidates.
Click to expand...

I don't think its a vetting process. Its a well known fact that politicians target their speeches to appeal to the audience that is before them. This is a somewhat poorly strategized cul-de-sac from the Bernie campaign, as the only thing that would come out is embarrassment for HIllary, which would then be used to generate negative ads or damage her prior to the Gen. election. I suspect we won't hear much more about this as Bernie's chances begin to evaporate over the coming weeks.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think its a vetting process. Its a well known fact that politicians target their speeches to appeal to the audience that is before them. This is a somewhat poorly strategized cul-de-sac from the Bernie campaign, as the only thing that would come out is embarrassment for HIllary, which would then be used to generate negative ads or damage her prior to the Gen. election. I suspect we won't here much more about this as Bernie's chances begin to evaporate over the coming weeks.
Click to expand...

Trump will come at her much harder on this you can be sure.
 
Raoul said:
It's a ruse to embarrass her imo. The transcripts likely won't have anything other than material that makes her look too chummy with corporations, which Bernie would then use to run ads against her. She knows this and is using the somewhat pathetic "I'll do it when everyone else does" talking point, which will obviously never happen.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And why it's jarring, have people forgot Hilary Clinton is a member of the Clinton family, they finds it incredibly hard(Also impossible) to turn down money
from anyone.
 
Red Dreams said:
Trump will come at her much harder on this you can be sure.
Click to expand...

He will, but his core voter base are already sold on being anti-Hillary and her core constituents are pretty galvanized in the anti-Trump camp, so in essence, his negative schtick will only serve to help him among Republicans.
 
Raoul said:
He will, but his core voter base are already sold on being anti-Hillary and her core constituents are pretty galvanized in the anti-Trump camp, so in essence, his negative schtick will only serve to help him among Republicans.
Click to expand...

Lindsey Graham, bless his self-hating soul, summed it up quite succinctly: dishonest beats crazy.
 
Ubik said:
You've got the wrong timeline there - Clinton during her time at and after she left the state department was very popular. Regularly scored over +30 with Gallup. She's only been in negative figures since May last year. And she was doing the speeches before any of the email stuff came up.

Essentially, they hired one of the most famous women in the world, someone who'd been in the White House for eight years as First Lady, went head to head with the current President in 08, was in the situation room when Bin Laden was killed, was Secretary of State during the Arab Spring, and was still the first woman with a genuine change of becoming the first President of the US. To suggest that they'd only want her to speak in order to bribe her just in case she did get to the Oval Office is pushing it a little.
Click to expand...

InfiniteBoredom said:
At the time of those speeches, she had just finished her Sec State tenure with near- lifetime high public approval rating, was the most admired woman in the world like ten years running, so yeah, sounds quite attractive to me.

Goldman Sachs invited Yao Ming to speak this year. Let that sink in. For someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, 225k is actually on the low end of the pay. By all means, rail against the obscene gulf of wealth between the haves and have-nots, but to think simply that that amount can sway her is actually doing her a disservice even if you are going by the notion that the woman is a greedy feck, she's worth 150m ffs.

From my experience, politicians do absolutely look more favorable on corporations who wine and dine them, that's not up for debate. However, the extent to which they choose to bestow their favors varied wildly between individuals, circumstances and political blowback (yes, there's such a thing in a one-party communist country). No one is going to argue that the Clintons aren't cozy with big businesses, but unlike the Republicans, their coziness very rarely compromise the wellbeing of the common man, the economic prosperity under Bill and even the recovery post-09 by Obama is proof of it.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I've got the FBI indictment timeline wrong so apologies for that, but lets look at a list of the speeches here:

Hillary%20Clinton%20Speeches%202013-2015_1.jpg

She made $1million in speeches within a month before her official announcement.

She started hiring staff for her presidential campaign as early as March 2015 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-hiring-2016-campaign-staff-in-new-hampshire/).

She claims she didn't know she was going to run for president at the time, but let's be real here - it was the worst kept secret that she was going to be the main Dem candidate from as early as years ago - she knew, these companies that paid her knew, everyone knew.
 
Its a good thing she made all that money as she won't be making much in the White House, nor will Bill.
 
@Kaos Everyone knew she was going to run after Obama's reelection, doesn't detract from the fact that by her past experiences alone she's an immensely attractive hire.

Also, the fact that she'd run is by itself no foregone conclusion that she'd win, so they might as well throw their money into the toilet if that's the reasoning.
 
Raoul said:
Its a good thing she made all that money as she won't be making much in the White House, nor will Bill.
Click to expand...

Yeap.

There's a good to fair chance one or both of them won't make it past the next 8 years, especially her, what with the fall and blood clot . The notion that they are going for the WH to line their pocket is strange to say the least
 
Red Dreams said:
Important she selects a solid VP then
Click to expand...
Indeed, Castro would be a mistake in that regard. Saw some suggestions the other day that he could be seen as a replacement for Kaine in Virginia, which wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
Ubik said:
To me, it kind of blows the whole argument out of the water. If health charities are able to afford it, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, then I'm pretty sure the likes of Goldman see it as a drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...


Then why not release the transcripts? If it meant nothing to either of them...?
 
Raoul said:
I think Hillary would be best off going with Evan Bayh, Tim Kaine, or Mark Warner and avoid Castro as he's way to inexperienced and it would be perceived as a cynical attempt at getting the Latino vote (which she'll get anyway with or without him).

BTW....an interesting piece about whether she could choose Bill as VP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/18/bill-clinton-for-vice-president/
Click to expand...

And to think you lot where worried about being ruled by king and queens. It's strange how much weight political families have in the US.
 
Raoul said:
Its a good thing she made all that money as she won't be making much in the White House, nor will Bill.
Click to expand...

just like she didn´t make any money while being secretary of state?

InfiniteBoredom said:
At the time of those speeches, she had just finished her Sec State tenure with near- lifetime high public approval rating, was the most admired woman in the world like ten years running, so yeah, sounds quite attractive to me.

Goldman Sachs invited Yao Ming to speak this year. Let that sink in. For someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, 225k is actually on the low end of the pay. By all means, rail against the obscene gulf of wealth between the haves and have-nots, but to think simply that that amount can sway her is actually doing her a disservice even if you are going by the notion that the woman is a greedy feck, she's worth 150m ffs.

From my experience, politicians do absolutely look more favorable on corporations who wine and dine them, that's not up for debate. However, the extent to which they choose to bestow their favors varied wildly between individuals, circumstances and political blowback (yes, there's such a thing in a one-party communist country). No one is going to argue that the Clintons aren't cozy with big businesses, but unlike the Republicans, their coziness very rarely compromise the wellbeing of the common man, the economic prosperity under Bill and even the recovery post-09 by Obama is proof of it.
Click to expand...

I am sure, that the Saudis and the Qataries, Kuweitis, the guys from the UAE and various other vile dictators just gave her foundation money, because they care about people. After all, we all know how much they care about the well-being of their citizens. Just like the weapon manufacturers, who donated money to her campaigns. Boeing didn´t benefit at all from her interventions, while paying her handsomely. That was just an act "to look good".
 
Raoul said:
I'm sure Bill made all the money during that time.
Click to expand...
so you don´t see any problems when foreign countries donate huge amounts of money to the foundation of your secretary of state, who allowed record weapon deals to many of those countries? Fair enough, but don´t be surprised when most reasonable people see it for what it is.
 
berbatrick said:
Then why not release the transcripts? If it meant nothing to either of them...?
Click to expand...
@Raoul and others have already addressed that multiple times. You don't actively seek political awkwardness unless you have to, and Sanders didn't succeed in making it a do or die issue.
 
PedroMendez said:
so you don´t see any problems when foreign countries donate huge amounts of money to the foundation of your secretary of state, who allowed record weapon deals to many of those countries? Fair enough, but don´t be surprised when most reasonable people see it for what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the issue would be prosecuted if there was any wrong doing. Also, its not her policy as SecState, its Obama's.
 
Ubik said:
"The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, a fundraising group for cutting-edge heart medicine, paid Clinton $275,000 for a speech in Washington in September 2014."

Presumably this means she's going to be corruptly funding heart-disease research as well if she wins. What a bitch.
Click to expand...

It's disgusting that they would piss away so much money on a speech, and that she would accept it.
 
Red Dreams said:
yeah..how about donating to the poor who cannot afford such health care.
Click to expand...
How do you know she didn't? Tax returns from last year showed the Clintons gave away about $15m over the previous 8 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.