People want to look at Hillary speeches so they can attack her for being pro-wall street, I mean what the heck is she going to say to a bunch of bankers? That half the country sucks? She's not Mitt. No political candidate has released a private speech they gave for money. Every presidential candidate since Bigtexxx has been alive has released their taxes up until Trump. Drop the Mic.
(pics up mike and wipes off spittle with bar towel) Um, bigtexxx, do you support Donald Trump for President of the United States?
[Educational Post] There were no speeches delivered by Hillary to Wall Street crowds in several circumstances. The payments made to her were characterized as "speaking fees" because calling them "bribes" would have triggered outrage. The Clintons are a filthy duo, unscrupulous and dishonest at their core. It's time for America to turn the page on this dark era of political history. GOOD DAY
It's called the "art" of the deal. Should we take his words and actions any more serious than those of an artist like lil Wayne?
It's not the details of the content, it's that the speeches themselves were basically a legal way to pay bribes to the Clintons. They earned $153 million for speeches since 2001. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE ****ING MILLION DOLLARS! I'd imagine that if the transcripts got out it would be beyond obvious that they were just back end payments. There is probably nothing of substance in those speeches at all. It's just part of the corruption that is our system, unfortunately. Unless her speeches were curing cancer or reversing aging, I think the Clintons were being paid for services rendered. <edit> forgot the link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
That's a significant accusation. Why wouldn't they just give them the money directly then? They could use the Clinton Global Initiative or a PAC? Why the need to have a cover with the speeches? Also, HRC took a bit over $21 million for 92 speeches. Her speeches were not while she was in office. So what was the bribe? I don't like politicians collection $200k for a speech to wall street, but honestly, it's not all that much given her stature compared with what other high profile individuals charge. Also, how do you not get upset at the billions of lobbying money that go to elected officials - are those not bribes? Why aren't you more upset about that? I smell a lot of double standard and biased rage here from you.
That's pretty good. Asakusa will give you the feel of the traditional Tokyo which is really nice - especially if you want to avoid Starbucks & McDonalds. Go check out Senso-ji temple!
The bribe is to repay the Clintons for help given either in the past (when it would have been illegal to) or for future help in the future. If you can't see why people would do that you are hopelessly naive.
Trump has the best screamers and it isn't even close. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E4CKvT0g1cc?rel=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I don't know how he finds these people but he has an army of them and deploys them to scream at people when he needs them.
What help in the past or in the future are you specifically referring to? Sounds like you are just inventing a narrative without much facts.
i watched that thing this morning and i kept wondering how come the press does not ask those vets if they agree with trump that POW's are not heroic b/c they were captured? if he is going to use vets as props than its worth repeating that the republican nominee for president said POW's are not heroic b/c they were captured.
Hopelessly naive is what I tend to call hard money morons who promise hyperinflation for a decade even though it never happens.
Good luck. Not only did Trump just admit he paid the guy off with hundreds of thousands of dollars, Trump is making the treatment of vets an election issue. So that guy is all aboard the Trump Train and you will never win a war of words with that 1st Sgt.
I really do not understand why the media continues to give Trump so much play. Every day I go into my google news feed, Trump has like 2 or 3 stories which are mostly just garbage with Trump repeating himself over and over again about how great he is, about how someone's a loser, and how the media is unfair to him. Jesus Christ it's aggravating as ****. We need a return to real news and not this horse crap version of it. It's just sickening and ridiculous.
Generally, candidates do make an effort to do the things they promised. Sometimes the fail, sometimes exigencies lead them down a different path. But, generally they intend to do the things when they are promising. If Trump has even half the follow-through of a typical president, he'll be a disaster in energy policy (and in every other way). Now, I expect half the things he's promised he's not even empowered to do anyway. But, I worry about this rationalization approach you've taken, saying 'he doesn't really mean it' and 'he's saying something stupid now, but I'm sure he'll make a really smart decision when the chips are down.' The speech shows where Trump's head is at: 1. Ready to flush the environment down the toilet for some crappy coal mining jobs 2. Looking to roll back much of the progress the EPA has won 3. A climate denier 4. Doesn't believe in international diplomacy And that's just thinking about his energy policy and ignoring all the dumb ideas he has about foreign relations, trade, immigration, security, etc. $153m, but over 15 years. Average pay of $211k for a speech. If you were a big shot organization like Goldman Sachs, and you wanted to reinforce to your employees that you are a big shot by bringing in the biggest luminaries to give speeches -- rare luminaries like ex-Presidents -- would you pay $211,000 for the cachet? Hmmm, maybe. I see some plausible deniability there. I also suspect it's true, though, that some quid pro quo going here. You play nice with the Establishment and they'll play nice with you. Maybe a politician doesn't want to regulate them quite so hard because maybe they won't want to pay you $211k for a speech after you retire if you do. So, I guess I mostly agree. I'm not impressed by the $153m. I am impressed that despite the 2008 crisis, we still don't have regulation that would protect us from a repeat. And, at this point it's not even about what the Clintons might have been paid since they haven't been running the country. But why is it that Obama and the Congress are unwilling to take any decisive action. Is it because they want to get their $153m also?
Given that Trump's own employees are stating that Trump U was a scam, it seems that would disqualify him to run for Prez. Surprised that isn't being discussed more.
Lobbyists disgust me. Those are absolutely bribes as well, and probably worse that Clinton's speech money. I hate the fact that politicians often switch to being lobbyists once they are set up to make a ton of money or are voted out of office. I think it's one of the many horrible problems with our system. I can be disgusted by lobbyists at the same time that I am disgusted with the Clinton money making machine. Don't make assumptions about my views (I think this is the first mention of lobbyists in this thread). If it were up to me, we'd have publicly funded elections and fundraising wouldn't be part of the job.
Reagan-Trump comparisons are pretty apt--Reagan's policies set America back 20 years. Trump would have to fight a bit harder to get to that level of harm.