Discussion for article #244807
So far Goldman Sachs has loaned Cruz a million and paid HRC 200K for a speech.
But I’m sure that they expect nothing in return for the money.
6 Likes
Pretty sure Cruz needed that loan a lot more than Hillary needed that speaking fee.
But she wasn’t running for president when she took the money. I am not sure that is such a great argument. You can take their money and not necessarily give them special favors. It doesn’t have to work that way. There are a lot of democrats on Wall Street and a lot of them supported Obama. I am glad they did
5 Likes
Meanwhile, doctors can’t even accept pens from drug reps because that would just be too enticing.
I’m okay with that, but it’s ludicrous to pretend politicians are somehow above that conflict of interest.
5 Likes
Last night with John Oliver went over how drug reps influence doctors, take a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I
3 Likes
In America, he who pays the piper calls the tune. That means, who a candidate takes money from is more important than what they say. In essence, you aren’t voting for a candidate, you are voting for their doners.
Just in 2013, as an example, Hillary took about $3 million from the BigBanksters in personal remuneration, $750k from Goldman Sachs alone. This is before accounting for her campaign contributions.
If what my first paragraph is anywhere close to being truth, voting for Hillary is really voting for Goldman Sachs for President.
2 Likes
I did some consulting work for a big pharma company once upon a time. The sales reps were outstandingly pretty and I believe somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of them had been cheerleaders in college. And no, I am not making that up. They were getting big into off market drugs sales…including a drug that was used for schizophrenia being pushed for everything from slight depression to sleeplessness. They called it a mood enhancer and didn’t take kind to my characterization when I said…“So, when my brother is barking like a dog in the back yard, I don’t have to tell people he is schizophrenic anymore, I can just say he is having a mood?”
1 Like
I would argue what they do is what matters more. Do you have some evidence of how Hillary voted, legislated, lobbied or otherwise provided benefit in exchange for the campaign donations she received in her senate run or in 2013 when she was a private citizen? Everyone puts those donations and speaking fees up as proof something, but they always leave out the proof.
3 Likes
as noted, the article doesn’t prove illegality; just the usual sliminess surrounding so many of the clinton dealings:
1 Like
Putting apples and oranges in the same basket doesn’t make them related to each other. This article does nothing more than that, it picks two disparate issues and makes an entirely baseless claim/assumption they’re related.
So give me some proof there’s a connection. Give me some proof that supports your “sliminess” claim. Give me some proof that this “sliminess” happens often (due to your use of the word “usual”).
3 Likes
I keep seeing this repeated over and over like it was some unusual exception. Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, etc. are regarded as crucial allies in the never-ending GWOT and in opposing Iran (despite the fact that all but Algeria do very little with all their fancy equipment) and have been sent arms constantly over the years. It’s not like these deals were given special approval under Clinton or would have been blocked if they hadn’t greased the wheels.
ETA: in my view, to take this in the worst possible light would be that she wheedled money out of them in exchange for “favors” that were not favors at all because she would have done them anyway. You may look down on that kind of thing, but unless you subscribe to the Republican conspiracy that the CF is just a slush fund, moving money from over-rich Arabs to charitable causes is a good thing.
3 Likes
This was by FAR my favorite moment of the debate.
2 Likes
she opposes reimplementing glass-steagall.
if she wins the primary i will vote for her but i find that disturbing.
6 Likes
Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Circuit Payday: $5 Million (and Counting)
All the while she was “mulling” this 2016 run for President. I can’t help but think that there’s a connection between the money and her, shall we say, less than aggressive stance regarding the regulation of financial institutions and upper-bracket tax increases.
2 Likes
More specifically, in 2013 Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $225,000 for each of three speeches. $675,00 total.
3 Likes
Hillary Clinton took $675,000 from Goldman Sachs in 2013 (three speeches, $225,000 each).
1 Like
Thanks for filling that in.
$675 K seems like it’d buy a fair amount of “access”, doncha think?
2 Likes
Yes. If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I won’t be surprised if some of the top officials in her administration revolve from Goldman Sachs.
3 Likes
Sometimes, maybe most of the time, the payoff to a donor is in what the candidate doesn’t do.
2 Likes