Bernie reminds everyone about the $600,000.00 Hillary got from Goldman Sachs for speeches!!!

by one lone idiot.

placed in the audience by the Clinton camp. So when Sanders owns her with a truth zinger that one person who booed can be used to suggest that Bernie's statement was flatly rejected by the universe because, "He got booed."

LOL!

was booing the fact that Hillary took that money.

hmmm I guess it's all up to interpretation huh? lol

I guess it could be interpreted the other way. Only the booer knows the real intent...

With apologies to the writers of The Simpsons.

Or, as previously stated, they could have been booing HILLARY for her actions.

I admire you for mostly being fair in most of your posts though.

....One moron in the crowd shouting.....probably a plant from the Clinton campaign. You are aware that Hillary has done this before?

Right, $250,000/hr is the typical going rate these days.

No one is.

A person's work is worth what others are willing to pay for it. Oh, I forgot; that concept is foreign to socialists.

For the uninitiated: http://boingboing.net/2016/01/16/late-stage-capitalism-is-t.html

You are my new hero. Just refer them to the purple map

house.

Make what you will of that, but this is all I'll ever need to know about this particular person.

If a persons work is what others are willing to pay for it, then drug dealers like El Chapo's work is worth how many million?

Many capitalists are unconcerned with law, morality, or ethics. Some capitalists are even willing to kill capitalism for a profit.

I'm talking about the "to big to fail banks".

By breaking those banks up, President Sanders will be saving capitalism from the capitalists.

Here's an important concept: borrowing money cost's money. Why then do both Democrats and Republicans borrow so much money - money they can't pay back? Could it be the revolving door between corporations and the three branches of government? Or the unlimited campaign contributions? Or the media consolidation ?

If these things were to change, it would be because a President was elected with a mandate to do them.

One suitcase + motivated buyers = $$$$

Capitalism ftw

That kinda $$$$ does not come without strings attached.... Ye Ole Quid Pro Quo...

As when I was offered Campaign CA$H by a lobbyist from BIG Pharma named Ken Freeman...as a Dem running for U.S. House back in 2006...

" If you're willing ot work with/play ball with the pharmaceutical industry we'll get you all the contributions ya need..." I did not take the offer...

In contrast...

CLINTON INC. Never says NO!

so please stop spreading it.

It is a part of his record.

Follow the money....

She did a closed door, no press, speech (contents have never been made public) to Goldsacs and got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and we are supposed to believe she will fight to control and limit Wall St financial institutions?

Hey, I have a bridge. It's actually a great deal.

Oh and some 'waterfront' land in Florida. You'll love it.

After they ran the treasury, I'm not comfortable with this anymore. She is clearly looking at keeping them in control.

I have a feeling the verdict won't be kind.

She knows more than anyone at Goldman Sachs? I don't buy it.

Just one example from last Thursday supporting Bernie's debate last night:

NEW YORK, January 14, 2016 — The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS) today announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the ongoing investigation of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group of the U.S. Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (RMBS Working Group).

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the firm will pay a $2.385 billion civil monetary penalty, make $875 million in cash payments and provide $1.8 billion in consumer relief. The consumer relief will be in the form of principal forgiveness for underwater homeowners and distressed borrowers; financing for construction, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing; and support for debt restructuring, foreclosure prevention and housing quality improvement programs, as well as land banks.

For helping to destroy our economy, they received over a $1B in interest free loans. Yet not one Banker went to jail?

Instead, Hillary is taking speaking fees from them. Is that our tax dollars being well-spent.

Money has corrupted our politicians.

Bernie exposed her tonight. And she exposed herself as a preservationist of the status quo.

the nomination....

Thanks for the thread, ViseGrip.

How much do you think he could get?

and he gives it all to charity.

Set up for if Bernie ever was paid to do a speech.

Didn't take long:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242740-bernie-sanders-2014-speaking-gigs-netted-less-than-2k

So you really think he wouldn't take more if offered?

Also...what fucking game?

or is it just wink-wink

They're did it because they think she's a great entertainer.

Or,....maybe....could be...that they do expect something in return if she becomes president.

Buy a government ain't as cheap as it used to be.

Exactly what is she getting paid to talk about ???

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology

Video: Hilary Clinton Endorses GMOs, Solution-Focused Crop Biotechnology

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed her support for genetically modified crops and crop biotechnology. In a 65-minute keynote appearance at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention in San Diego in late June, Clinton conversed with Jim Greenwood, BIO president, on a wide range of topics including GMOs.

“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record,” Clinton said, adding that biotech professionals need to continue to try to make the case for GMO-skeptics. “There is a big gap between what the facts are, and what the perceptions are.”

Clinton noted that there are unwarranted fears surrounding GMOs because many people do not understand science or biotechnology and are easily swayed by code words and misguided perceptions. “Genetically modified sounds ‘Frankensteinish’ – drought resistant sounds really like something you want,” she said.

Clinton’s full talk is available in the video embedded below. Her comments on biotechnology begin at approximately 29 minutes in.

and....
http://www.naturalnews.com/049755_Bride_of_Frankenfood_Hillary_Clinton_Monsanto.html

Bride of Frankenfood: Hillary Clinton pushes GMO agenda... hires Monsanto lobbyist... takes huge dollars from Monsanto

(NaturalNews) Democrats who had been programmed to blindly vote for Hillary Clinton are picking their jaws up off the floor after learning the truth about Hillary's ties to Monsanto. The ties run so deep that she's now being dubbed the "Bride of Frankenfood." (Tweet this story)

Shockingly, Hillary Clinton's ties to Monsanto are new information to her liberal support base. It drives home the important point that nearly everyone supporting Hillary Clinton has no idea who she really is, as evidenced by this stunning new video from Mark Dice and Luke Rudkowski.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton's ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto, and her advocacy for the industry's genetically modified crops, have environmentalists in Iowa calling her 'Bride of Frankenfood'" reports the Washington Times. "A large faction of women voiced strong support for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy until the GMO issue came up, prompting them to switch allegiances to Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a liberal stalwart challenging her for the Democratic nomination."

Oh my, how little they really know about the real Hillary Clinton... keep reading to find out more...



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049755_Bride_of_Frankenfood_Hillary_Clinton_Monsanto.html#ixzz3xc6Gpcvc

...showing where Sanders himself ever brought up Bill Clinton's sexual behavior, whether on the campaign trail or during a debate.

Waiting...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141308085

I said:

I'm sure you can provide a link showing where Sanders himself ever brought up Bill Clinton's sexual behavior, whether on the campaign trail or during a debate.

And this is from the very next paragraph in the article you cited:

Sanders' comments came after an Iowa town hall attendee raised Bill Clinton's affair in the White House and questioned if Hillary Clinton was qualified to be president, the Washington Post reported.

Bernie Sanders has never brought up the issue himself, not once. Even Hillary Clinton was nodding in agreement when he responded to whats-her-name's question on the subject at last night's debate.

Are you for real?Trying to be funny?Cuz that prior statement is really going below the belt_lol.
The press should be asking Hillary that question.
I am waiting for the "orgie island"question .What are they going to do ask Bernie like hes just in the campaign ,to field questions for Hillary?Bernies right ask Hillary ,ask Chelsea,ask Bill Clinton,Sen.Sanders has better things to do.

Most of the attendees were young. Only three of us above 45 I would guess.

The big issue, the issue that got the applause was campaign financing and the big money going to Hillary. People really don't like all that big money in politics. It is one of the many reasons that Bernie is doing so well, I think.

And it is an issue on which it is too late for Hillary to win. She has been trying to change the subject, but that money issue pops right back up.

What is so hard for Americans to accept is that Congress voted to bail out Wall Street, and yet Wall Street, instead of bailing out its own debtors, the homeowners who had lost their jobs and were defaulting on mortgages or those whose houses sunk under water as housing prices dropped, just gave itself big bonuses and continued business as usual.

Congress showed mercy to Wall Street, to AIG, to the big banks, and then Wall Street, AIG and the big banks continuing to buy and control Congress, pushed ordinary people out of their homes and showed no mercy at all to the people and businesses across America.

How could the financial sector, Wall Street, whatever you want to call it be so dumb as to think that the American people would not notice that moral double-cross, that exercise in total egotism, narcissism and contempt for hardworking people across the country (and in other countries).

The stupidity and brazenness of Wall Street (and I use that term to include others in the financial sector) is very hard for me to understand. Hillary represented and in the minds of voters continues to represent that segment of our population with all its utter insensitivity to the morality of fairness that prevails in our country outside the financial sector.

....PAC money, the money which Bernie refuses to take, will be required to have a chance of winning the general election. A politician can get through the nominating process without it, and even brag that he is receiving "dirty" money, but that won't fly in the general election.

Why? Because the present law allows it and in the GE Bernie will be foolish to unilaterally disarm. That would be equivalent of the US voluntarily destroying all of their nuclear weapons and delivery platforms in the middle of the cold war while the Soviets kept all of theirs. We would have been at their mercy

The Republicans will have hundreds of millions of dollars set up in PAC's such as the one belong to the Koch brothers to be spent however necessary to destroy Bernie and he will have no way to defend himself. Small campaign contributions made directly to Bernie will be totally inadequate.

I too hate big money, but until Citizens United is overturned and the PAC laws are changed we can't let the Republicans beat over the head with their PAC's until we are bloody.

It is the old principal verse pragmatism thing - pragmatism, not principals, wins elections, and if we don't win we can't apply our principals in a meaningful way. Principals left not applied are useless in the real world.

never get rid of it. Because the argument presented in your post will always persuade anxious candidates that they have to have it just to get elected.

It's like our candidates are addicted to that dirty money. Just have to have it.

Your post expresses a logical point, but sometimes you have to just say no to your cravings.

Dirty money is dirty. We have to stop allowing it in our election process.

The Adelmans and Kochs of this world will always have more of that dirty money than we ordinary people will.

There comes a time when you just say no and you prevail over the dirt. I think Bernie's election is that time.

And I think Mr. and Ms. Voter can get that a firm doesn't pay a politician over half a million dollars in one year while expecting nothing in return. Of course, Wall Street does owe Bill Clinton big time for Gramm, Leach, Blilely and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. But, they probably already paid for those.

Her manufactured outrage at Wall Street excesses last night was Hillaryous, though.