I'm actually shocked that Hillary supporters aren't even mildly concerned with the content of the speeches she gave to the institutions that single-handedly destroyed our economy - which Democrats then bailed out with no strings attached.
Hillary said she would have no problems releasing those transcripts - so... let's hear them?
Why would Hillary, or any politician for that matter, give some kind of damning speech to a room full of employees? That shit'd be behind doors with specific people not at a venue with tons of people. Politicians may be shameless but they're generally not fucking stupid. I'm willing to bet the speeches themselves were totally acceptable.
And again, it's not just about outright bribery, we're talking influence. Influence is more nuanced and much harder to prove but it's probably more insidious.
Like, I understand the bailouts on a fundamental level, and to a degree I respect the decision overall. It's a tough sell to tell people to brace for a rough ride and watch the economy go to shit because some people fucked up, I get them wanting to minimize that. But if the influence of big business wasn't there do you think these companies would have gotten such a good deal? There's a ton of ways they could have handled the bailouts and they picked pretty much the way that benefitted those in power at those companies the most. Do you think it would have gone that way if most people in the government didn't have relationships with these people, weren't financially dependant on them? This is about psychology. I don't believe most who worked on the bailouts were outright bribed by the financial sector with specific donations in exchange for a bailout. Maybe a few key people were, maybe they weren't. But I do believe that almost everyone already relying on them financially and having already established relationships with many of them influenced their decision. And this type of influence is seen often, why is it that many times popular opinion loses to money'd interests? If our politicians were truly beholden to the people at large you'd think they'd happily move with the masses and yet that's not true is it? There are so many "contentious" issues like gun control or health care where there actually is a public opinion majority that gets fucking ignored. Now do you believe that the NRA is outright bribing politicians specifically to block new gun laws or is it more likely that their constant communication and money is subconsciously affecting the politicians? I actually believe the latter. I don't think that the majority of Congress is outright corrupt to the point they'd take de facto bribes. But I do think they're people, and when the people keeping them in office send people to discuss shit I think they subconsciously assign more weight to that than a letter they get from a constituent.
Simplest way to look at it is this: Say you hang out with a group of friends and they're all nice enough people and then a stranger comes up and asks for something that'd harm them all, would you harm your friends for this stranger? If someone accused your friends of a crime would you believe your friends first or the stranger?
Something I find funny is this: We're on a gaming forum, right? When game journalists win a prize at a publisher event a lot of people call foul, integrity in journalism they cry! When a person who loves Tomb Raider goes gaga over the Tomb Raider Reboot and then goes to work at Square Enix again everyone cries foul. When publishers fly journalists to a fancy review event and does cool stuff people wonder how they can remain objective. But when Hillary Clinton gets shit worth way more than any games journalist has ever received people handwave it away.
I wish we'd hold our politicians to the same standard we hold our fucking games journalists to.
