Support NeoGAF

[Ogrekiller]

Sanders will lose because of the ignorance of the general public and their kneejerk reactions to tax increases and the word socialism. It will not be because of exposing his shadyness or scandal or special interest pandering.

I know it gets tiring hearing about how Sanders is different, but he is authentic and unbought in a way none of the other candidates are (well I guess Trump but fuck that guy). And that makes the souls of Clinton fans burn ever so slowly whenever they have wade through the latest round of Benghazi/emails/chemtrails nonsense. Clinton is a very strong politician, but where she is weak, to whatever degree she is weak, they are the same weaknesses of a typical politician.

If you don't think the Republicans would pounce and drag out even the slightest whiff that Sanders might have messed up, dragging it out months on end while trying to sink his favorability ratings then you have a much more charitable view of them then I do.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Where would Bernie Sanders do the most good for the American public? Someone said Hilary would consider nominating Obama to the supreme court. Could Bernie also be in the supreme court?


Also, why does a Vice President not do anything? People say Elizabeth Warren would be a bad VP because they don't do much. What does that mean?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Where would Bernie Sanders do the most good for the American public? Someone said Hilary would consider nominating Obama to the supreme court. Could Bernie also be in the supreme court?

Is he even a lawyer? He has no chance of being on the supreme court if not. I could see him maybe be in some sort of an advisory position but I still highly doubt it.

 

[The Technomancer]

If you don't think the Republicans would pounce and drag out even the slightest whiff that Sanders might have messed up, dragging it out months on end while trying to sink his favorability ratings then you have a much more charitable view of them then I do.

People have made the mistake of thinking that because there hasn't been a public inquisition of Bernie that means there's nothing to find. The GOP wants him to get the nomination

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Where would Bernie Sanders do the most good for the American public?

If he losses he would stay in the senate and thats probably where he can do the most good.

 

[Ogrekiller]

People have made the mistake of thinking that because there hasn't been a public inquisition of Bernie that means there's nothing to find. The GOP wants him to get the nomination

That in itself is crystal clear. Since the Republican field is crumbling under its own weight the next best option is to tar the Democratic side.

 

[sphagnum]

Also, why does a Vice President not do anything? People say Elizabeth Warren would be a bad VP because they don't do much. What does that mean?

The Vice President has almost no constitutional powers. It's mostly a ceremonial job where you give speeches and do photo-ops and hope that the president doesn't die.

 

[Slackerish]

Is he even a lawyer? He has no chance of being on the supreme court if not. I could see him maybe be in some sort of an advisory position but I still highly doubt it.

You don't have to a be lawyer, just trained in the law.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

People have made the mistake of thinking that because there hasn't been a public inquisition of Bernie that means there's nothing to find. The GOP wants him to get the nomination

They have already showed their hand as to their attack on Bernie Sanders. Call him a socialist and hope that people dont know what it means.

 

[B-Dubs]

They have already showed their hand as to their attack on Bernie Sanders. Call him a socialist and hope that people dont know what it means.

They haven't even started yet. The only attack they've run against him so far is the one where they tried to pull a McCaskill. Kerry, a war hero, got his record tarnished and lied about almost nightly. If you think you've even seen where they'll start you don't know the GOP.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You don't have to a be lawyer, just trained in the law.

By Google's definition that makes them a lawyer. I don't know if it's accurate, don't really care, I was using lawyer to just mean studied/formally educated in law. Which I don't believe Bernie is, but could be wrong.

 

[Ogrekiller]

They have already showed their hand as to their attack on Bernie Sanders. Call him a socialist and hope that people dont know what it means.

That's not even a hand. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

Just look at what they are doing to each other to get a sense of what they would do even against one of their own. Then look at Clinton.

Socialism is simply the bluntest, most obvious vector of attack. Expect a thorough combing of every action he has taken over the course of his political life for a potential weapon to be used against him.

 

[B-Dubs]

That's not even a hand. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

Just look at what they are doing to each other to get a sense of what they would do even against one of their own. Then look at Clinton.

Socialism is simply the bluntest, most obvious vector of attack. Expect a thorough combing of every action he has taken over the course of his political life for a potential weapon to be used against him.

Shit, they'll use his choice of honeymoon destination to nail him to the wall. It's not even something they'll wait to use, it'll be one of the first ads.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Her male husband was as or more scrutinized and attacked than she is, but he is more likable, more charming, and a better speaker, and so has weathered the attacks better. With Obama, I absolutely buy that race was a not insubstantial portion of the acrimony he drew, but I don't buy that sexism is a significant part of what is driving the backlash against Clinton. Maybe 5% of it, but it's mostly the fact that she and her husband played a significant part in shifting the Democratic party to the right and playing the political game that big money donors want to play. As long as people like her continue to get elected, the big banks, the shadow banks, and the corporations having their way with the global economy and planetary resources know that the opposition to them will be token, at best. You can argue that's just political reality, but expecting people not to fight it is foolish. Change has to start somewhere, and most young people seem to think that Bernie and his scorched-earth rhetoric is a better opening salvo than the incrementalism of a Clinton.

Clinton's donor pool is 50 years old. It all started in the 1970s with Bill Clinton. They admire the pro-growth democrats. They are smart, and they know they will do well under the Clintons.

Let's take your accusation a little further. They're beholden to banks. So what? What does that mean? That Hillary will pass legislation that will unfairly benefit banks? What does it mean to unfairly benefit? Oh, you mean the wall street reform we need won't happen? But banks are the ones who lost the most money during the collapse and most banks want to decrease risk, not increase it. So why wouldn't they be for sensible banking reforms?

And there it is. The transcripts don't matter, she's dishonest anyway simply by accepting the dollars.

Yup. The BernieBros are blind.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-di...g-those-speeches-cookies-cars-camp-1437613102

You're putting words in my mouth. As stump said why don't we allow businesses to just give infinite money to politicians?

If you see a pharmaceutical company rep buying treating doctors to expensive dinner do you just go "oh yeah, they're just accepting the dinner, not what he's selling" which is total bullshit because many studies show that gifts make people lose their objectivity. If you heard Bernie Sanders was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Russia to give speeches you think that would be fine? What if a politician was paid by the KKK to give speeches? Still fine? Where do we draw the line?

Goldman Sachs is not an evil assembly of people fighting to lynch black people. Nor is it a heavily armed country supporting a dictatorship in Syria and an ethnic revolt in Ukraine.

 

[Blader]

Where would Bernie Sanders do the most good for the American public? Someone said Hilary would consider nominating Obama to the supreme court. Could Bernie also be in the supreme court?

He would be deeply unqualified for the job, and would be better able to serve just staying in the Senate. Even if by some weird turn of fate that Hillary did successfully get Bernie into SCOTUS, he may not even be alive by the time an opportunity to overturn Citizens United came back around.

Also, why does a Vice President not do anything? People say Elizabeth Warren would be a bad VP because they don't do much. What does that mean?

The issues that are most important to Warren are best handled in the Senate, as legislation. But VPs aren't totally toothless, either. Biden has been an effective VP because he's a good negotiator and is able to cut deals in a way that Obama isn't (the benefit of decades of experience on the hill). Warren would be a bad VP because she just doesn't have near that kind of clout.

 

[Mad Season]

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

Where would Bernie Sanders do the most good for the American public? Someone said Hilary would consider nominating Obama to the supreme court. Could Bernie also be in the supreme court?

Bernie is not a good choice for Supreme Court Justice, he's 74.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bernie is not a good choice for Supreme Court Justice, he's 74.

He also has none of the background required to be a justice. Obama was a professor of constitutional law at Harvard.

 

[SamVimes]

Goldman Sachs is not an evil assembly of people fighting to lynch black people. Nor is it a heavily armed country supporting a dictatorship in Syria and an ethnic revolt in Ukraine.

So? I mean they're just giving a speech, they don't owe anything to them.
Also if banks wanted to decrease risk they would do decrease risk. There is no law that forces them to risk too much.

 

[GetLucky]

So? I mean they're just giving a speech, they don't owe anything to them.

Someone pokes holes in your argument? Resort to snark. Good work, SamVimes.

 

[noshten]

I think it's pretty clear what concerns I have about the millions of dollars Hillary and Bill have received for speeches. It's another point of vulnerability which will be used in a GE. You cannot seriously be certain that Hillary wasn't sure she'd be running for President in 2016. It was a bad idea to do it in the lead up to trying to 2016
For such an experienced campaigner she continues to make similar mistakes which lead to the narrative that people find her untrustworthy - it's the main reason I think she is failing to drum up enthusiasm.
I know people like to dismiss such concerns, but I find them as serious as the "socialist raising your taxes" attack angle that would be used by the GOP against Sanders in a GE.
Both things can be overcome, but I find this would be especially vulnerable area for Clinton if Trump gets the nomination.

Has this been posted yet?

Here's a video Hillary Clinton gave for Goldman Sachs back in 2014. The subject: Supporting Women in Business.

"The event featured a keynote address from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the business case for empowering women to ensure future economic growth."

Oh no! Hillary so evil! Clearly in the pocket of the banks omg.

This speech is for the Clinton foundation and sponsored by Goldman Sachs it's not one of the paid speeches in question it even says it in the description.

On September 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women hosted its annual dinner at the Clinton Global Initiative.

 

[SamVimes]

Someone pokes holes in your argument? Resort to snark. Good work, SamVimes.

What holes? The argument is that getting money for speeches doesn't reflect on their decision making, so giving speeches for anyone shouldn't be a problem, right?

Also great work, junior.

 

[royalan]

This speech is for the Clinton foundation and sponsored by Goldman Sachs it's not one of the paid speeches in question it even says it in the description.

Well obviously. Nobody would be calling for Hillary to release the speech transcripts if they were right there on YouTube.

I think posting that speech is important because it gives you an idea of the types of things Hillary would likely speak about with Goldmann Sachs.

 

[Ogrekiller]

What holes? The argument is that getting money for speeches doesn't reflect on their decision making, so giving speeches for anyone shouldn't be a problem, right?

Also great work, junior.

It doesn't because Goldman Sachs wanted her to speak. She didn't go to them. She was the one with the leverage there. If that looks bad to you, so be it.

When you give you money to any banking institution, does it reflect on their decision making? Maybe. Or just maybe it's just a business transaction with no ulterior motive behind it.

But let's say a politician is outright sponsored to go to another country and his host bends over to accommodate him, then yes, maybe there IS some influence there. Maybe.

 

[televator]

Fucking lol!

 

[noshten]

Well obviously. Nobody would be calling for Hillary to release the speech transcripts if they were right there on YouTube.

I think posting that speech is important because it gives you an idea of the types of things Hillary would likely speak about with Goldmann Sachs.

The paid speeches include a QA - which is a pretty different situation than giving a short 10 minute speech. I don't doubt that's what interests people - very much like an interview might interest some. It gives you an idea about why they wanted her to give the speech and how she communicates with this particularly rich constituency. Much like the very important 47% Romney speech, a few comments made in private speech where media is not present can be pretty concerning if they make the news in the lead up to a GE.

 

[Livingskeletons]

LOL who originally posted this?

 

[AlphaDump]

I think it's pretty clear what concerns I have about the millions of dollars Hillary and Bill have received for speeches. It's another point of vulnerability which will be used in a GE. You cannot seriously be certain that Hillary wasn't sure she'd be running for President in 2016. It was a bad idea to do it in the lead up to trying to 2016
For such an experienced campaigner she continues to make similar mistakes which lead to the narrative that people find her untrustworthy - it's the main reason I think she is failing to drum up enthusiasm.
I know people like to dismiss such concerns,
.

you sound very concerned.

but I find them as serious as the "socialist raising your taxes" attack angle that would be used by the GOP against Sanders in a GE.

the difference is I can easily prove that bernie sander's is in fact running as a self-proclaimed socialist, and he will in fact raise taxes on everyone because he released his plan already. He has also explicitly said both in debates.

 

[gutter_trash]

you guys going on about her speeches are pathetic; like Rubio pathetic

 

[SamVimes]

It doesn't because Goldman Sachs wanted her to speak. She didn't go to them. She was the one with the leverage there. If that looks bad to you, so be it.
When you give you money to any banking institution, does it reflect on their decision making? Maybe. Or just maybe it's just a business transaction with no ulterior motive behind it.

I don't really understand your point here. This is not a business transaction, this is pumping money into a politician.

But let's say a politician is outright sponsored to go to another country and his host bends over to accommodate him, then yes, maybe there IS some influence there. Maybe.

Uhm ok. I support the sandinistas so that's not really a problem to me.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

But banks are the ones who lost the most money during the collapse and most banks want to decrease risk, not increase it. So why wouldn't they be for sensible banking reforms?

Source? I've never heard one bank official run down to the OCC and lobby for them to enforce individual minimum capital ratios on their business.

 

[Ogrekiller]

I don't really understand your point here. This is not a business transaction, this is pumping money into a politician.

Uhm ok. I support the sandinistas so that's not really a problem to me.

So money isn't the problem- it's where the money is coming from. Banks= bad, other sworn enemies of the US at the time= good. Gotcha.

And it IS a business transaction. She got paid to do a speech- she gave the speech. Is there really anything more to that? Do you really think GS comes in years after the fact and go "I need a favor" like the Godfather?

 

[SamVimes]

So money isn't the problem- it's where the money is coming from. Banks= bad, other sworn enemies of the US at the time= good. Gotcha.

And it IS a business transaction. She got paid to do a speech- she gave the speech. Is there really anything more to that? Do you really think GS comes in years after the fact and go "I need a favor" like the Godfather?

No i think people are full of biases and they're influenced in ways they don't even realize when they're given a lot of money and gifts. As an already rich and incredibly well known politician she shouldn't put herself in that position.

Also I don't care if it was a sworn enemy of the US, i don't owe any allegiance to the US and i certainly don't owe any allegiance to the US barbaric foreign policy. Do I have to support Pinochet for example?

 

[Paskil]

After watching last nights Republican debate, I would be curious to see how Sanders would do against Christie in a debate. My gut feeling is that Sanders would be eviscerated.

 

[Ogrekiller]

No i think people are full of biases and they're influenced in ways they don't even realize when they're given a lot of money and gifts.

Also I don't care if it was a sworn enemy of the US, i don't owe any allegiance to the US and i certainly don't owe any allegiance to the US barbaric foreign policy. Do I have to support Pinochet for example?

Since you brought him up, if Pinochet was the one sponsoring Sanders on a trip to Chile, would you say Sanders is being influenced by a man that might not have good intentions then?

 

[SamVimes]

Since you brought him up, if Pinochet was the one sponsoring Sanders on a trip to Chile, would you say Sanders is being influenced by a man that might not have good intentions then?

Yes?

 

[Prodigal Son]

After watching last nights Republican debate, I would be curious to see how Sanders would do against Christie in a debate. My gut feeling is that Sanders would be eviscerated.

Christie will never be anywhere near the whitehouse.

IMO people are giving Christie way too much credit. Rubio was just an easy target.

 

[gutter_trash]

Christie will never be anywhere near the whitehouse.

IMO people are giving Christie way too much credit. Rubio was just an easy target.

Christie is secretly on #TeamTrump, notice that the two never blast each other

 

[Ogrekiller]

Yes?

And would you still support Sanders under such circumstances?

 

[SamVimes]

And would you still support Sanders under such circumstances?

Probably not.
I would also probably still find both him and Clinton better than the opposition.


Worth noting that a Sanders who visits a fascist dictator planted by the US would not be the Sanders we know now.

 

[Neuromancer]

you guys going on about her speeches are pathetic; like Rubio pathetic

Can we discuss this without name calling?

 

[jerry113]

This is too well done.

 

[Shaffield]

Oh, I have no doubt they liked what they heard, I just believe that the individuals at Goldmann Sachs are capable of liking something other than, "As President, I will sacrifice babies in your honor and gift you the combined wealth of the poor." Big banks in a whole lot of ways need to be reigned in and broken up, but jesus we're not talking about The Empire here. A lot of good has been accomplished by working with them. Case in point: that speech I linked to.

In that speech, Hillary makes several references to her "banking friends", which to a Bernie progressive probably sounds awful. But look at what she's doing. She's using the sum of her political clout to get her "banking friends" to support the cause of...elevating women in business and the global economy. So awful.

I think that highlights a major difference between Bernie and Hillary. Hillary isn't not critical of big banks and financial institutions, but she's willing to work within these systems to achieve her goals. And I see a whole lot more good being accomplished through that than the crazy idea that Bernie's actually going to be able to break up every major bank within the first year of his presidency.

the thing is, to many Bernie progressives, this is the biggest issue in the election. I support Clinton on most issues, but reforming campaign finance, breaking up big banks and corporations, and taxing speculation revenue are top issues for myself and many other voters. I don't think that she is involved in running a shadow government to kill babies, but I do think that she will not piss off the banks.

obviously the President cannot whip up some executive order to reinstate Glass-Steagal on Day 1, but if this progressive "revolution" comes about and we elect anti-establishment progressives to Congress who can pass these reforms, we will need Bernie Sanders in the White House to sign it, and I don't think that Hilary Clinton would.

 

[TarNaru33]

Clinton's donor pool is 50 years old. It all started in the 1970s with Bill Clinton. They admire the pro-growth democrats. They are smart, and they know they will do well under the Clintons.

Let's take your accusation a little further. They're beholden to banks. So what? What does that mean? That Hillary will pass legislation that will unfairly benefit banks? What does it mean to unfairly benefit? Oh, you mean the wall street reform we need won't happen? But banks are the ones who lost the most money during the collapse and most banks want to decrease risk, not increase it. So why wouldn't they be for sensible banking reforms?

Yup. The BernieBros are blind.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-di...g-those-speeches-cookies-cars-camp-1437613102
Goldman Sachs is not an evil assembly of people fighting to lynch black people. Nor is it a heavily armed country supporting a dictatorship in Syria and an ethnic revolt in Ukraine.

I can understand there being debate on the influence of money in politics in terms of campaign contributions (as long as people are willing to admit that politicians across both sides have accepted money from big donors, and this isn't a unique at all to Hillary on any level), but the attack on the speeches doesn't apply here. Hillary was paid to give a speech. The access that money bought was in Hillary Clinton showing up and giving said speech. The "debt" is paid. This is nothing like a campaign contribution, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, and ignores the incredible power and demand Hillary wields not just as a politician, but as a celebrity. Nobody's paying big money for O'Malley and Sanders to give speeches, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with their perceived "political purity". It's because they're no-names on national level. Well, Bernie could probably command a sizable speaking fee these days.

Oh, I have no doubt they liked what they heard, I just believe that the individuals at Goldmann Sachs are capable of liking something other than, "As President, I will sacrifice babies in your honor and gift you the combined wealth of the poor." Big banks in a whole lot of ways need to be reigned in and broken up, but jesus we're not talking about The Empire here. A lot of good has been accomplished by working with them. Case in point: that speech I linked to.

In that speech, Hillary makes several references to her "banking friends", which to a Bernie progressive probably sounds awful. But look at what she's doing. She's using the sum of her political clout to get her "banking friends" to support the cause of...elevating women in business and the global economy. So awful.

I think that highlights a major difference between Bernie and Hillary. Hillary isn't not critical of big banks and financial institutions, but she's willing to work within these systems to achieve her goals. And I see a whole lot more good being accomplished through that than the crazy idea that Bernie's actually going to be able to break up every major bank within the first year of his presidency.

All these posts above are quite naive and it is really annoying how everyone is exaggerating what the Bernie supporters are saying about the speeches. It isn't the speeches alone, it is the vast amount of money she is getting from those she claims she will be against. As one guy put it, you all denying this, would change tune if it was Russia financing Bernie or some other candidate.

I mean come on, I know each side has their bias, but it isn't hard to understand why this would be something those on the Bernie side (actually ALL AMERICANS) is worried about. Reason why nothing is done is because U.S citizens feel like there is nothing that can be done.

 

[royalan]

All these posts above are quite naive and it is really annoying how everyone is exaggerating what the Bernie supporters are saying about the speeches. It isn't the speeches alone, it is the vast amount of money she is getting from those she claims she will be against. As one guy put it, you all denying this, would change tune if it was Russia financing Bernie or some other candidate.

I mean come on, I know each side has their bias, but it isn't hard to understand why this would be something those on the Bernie side (actually ALL AMERICANS) is worried about. Reason why nothing is done is because U.S citizens feel like there is nothing that can be done.

Care to explain to me how and why Goldmann Sachs paying Hillary Clinton to give a speech gives them more access to her than the...well, the speech that she gave?

 

[gutter_trash]

Can we discuss this without name calling?

what is there to discuss? accusing the next President of something non-important a naseua

 

[Overlee]

Care to explain to me how and why Goldmann Sachs paying Hillary Clinton to give a speech gives them more access to her than the...well, the speech that she gave?

Campaign finance reform at its heart is about removing the influence and distortion that money has on politicians. It's not so much about an exchange of favors as it is about obscuring true opinion on issues.

You tend to cater to those in your sphere of influence whoever that may be (unions, environmental groups, oil lobbies, banks, etc). Money gives you the ability to pay for those "connections" or lobbyist who are connected to the who's who in Washington. Basically bringing your issues to the to the forefront of a legislative queue. This causes a distortion on democracy.

Hilary herself admits it is dangerous to the fabric of our democracy

Americans are understandably cynical about a political system that has been hijacked by billionaires and special interests who will spend whatever it takes to crowd out the voices of everyday Americans. And with the rise of unlimited, secret spending in our political process, it is virtually impossible for anyone to really know who or what is influencing our elected officials. On issues from climate change to equal pay and immigration reform, voters won’t believe Washington will work for them unless we take on the power and stranglehold that wealthy interests have over our political system.

Hillary Clinton has made revitalization of our democracy a key pillar of her campaign. She will fight to ensure that our democracy works for everyday Americans and leads to government of, by, and for the people, not just the wealthy and well-connected. Her proposals will curb the outsized influence of big money in American politics, bring sunshine to secret spending, and institute real reform to raise the voices of regular voters.

One of Hilary and the DNC's most outspoken enemies is the Koch brothers who we agree have had a strong hand in influencing their agenda to Tea Party members in Congress

The Senate majority leader went to the floor on Thursday — following a Democrat’s loss in a Florida special election in which Obamacare was a major issue — to call out the Koch’s “radical” agenda, using that word 17 times. Reid has put a permanent target on the Kochs’ backs on the Senate floor, just as he did with Romney in 2012.

Barely a day passes that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee doesn’t mention the Kochs’ influence in its fundraising solicitations. And outside groups like Senate Majority PAC and Americans United For Change are questioning both the veracity of the ads and who is paying for them.

“The American people don’t want to have their elections bought by just a few people. I think it’s very important that people know who’s paying for these ads,” said DSCC Chairman Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

So if we can all agree that money has an influence on our elected officials, why is it only the Koch Brothers that wield that influence? Do they have more money than the largest banks in the world? Do they only prey on the feeble and untrue?

It's not hard to see why one might question her sincerity when she says she's going to be tough on the very same people that have funded her political career. And why that conflict of interest might be crucial to solving or preventing the next housing collapse, market crash, reptilian invasion, etc.

 

[royalan]

Campaign finance reform at its heart is about removing the influence and distortion that money has on politicians. It's not so much about an exchange of favors as it is about obscuring true opinion on issues.

You tend to cater to those in your sphere of influence whoever that may be (unions, environmental groups, oil lobbies, banks, etc). Money gives you the ability to pay for those "connections" or lobbyist who are connected to the who's who in Washington. Basically bringing your issues to the to the forefront of a legislative queue. This causes a distortion on democracy.

Hilary herself admits it is dangerous to the fabric of our democracy



One of Hilary and the DNC's most outspoken enemies is the Koch brothers who we agree have had a strong hand in influencing their agenda to Tea Party members in Congress



So if we can all agree that money has an influence on our elected officials, why is it only the Koch Brothers that wield that influence? Do they have more money than the largest banks in the world? Do they only prey on the feeble and untrue?

It's not hard to see why one might question her sincerity when she says she's going to be tough on the very same people that have funded her political career. And why that conflict of interest might be crucial to solving or preventing the next housing collapse, market crash, reptilian invasion, etc.

Thank you for taking the time to post this, but I understand all of this, and it doesn't answer my question. I specifically talking the speeches that Goldmann Sachs paid Hillary for. What's the argument that those speeches bought them more access from Hillary than what they got when she delivered said speeches.

 

[Trojita]

Thank you for taking the time to post this, but I understand all of this, and it doesn't answer my question. I specifically talking the speeches that Goldmann Sachs paid Hillary for. What's the argument that those speeches bought them more access from Hillary than what they got when she delivered said speeches.

I don't even understand what you are asking at this point.

 

[royalan]

I don't even understand what you are asking at this point.

It's right here in the earlier post of mine:

I can understand there being debate on the influence of money in politics in terms of campaign contributions (as long as people are willing to admit that politicians across both sides have accepted money from big donors, and this isn't a unique at all to Hillary on any level), but the attack on the speeches doesn't apply here. Hillary was paid to give a speech. The access that money bought was in Hillary Clinton showing up and giving said speech. The "debt" is paid. This is nothing like a campaign contribution, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, and ignores the incredible power and demand Hillary wields not just as a politician, but as a celebrity. Nobody's paying big money for O'Malley and Sanders to give speeches, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with their perceived "political purity". It's because they're no-names on national level. Well, Bernie could probably command a sizable speaking fee these days.

People keep going back to campaign contributions (which I admit is a separate discussion), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the speeches, since people are demanding transcripts of them and implying that Goldmann Sachs somehow bought influence with Hillary Clinton by paying her to give a speech.