If Hillary wins, who wants odds on how many Goldman Sachs execs are in White House

[revbones]

I keep hearing from Hillary supporters that the $675k money given directly to her for 3 speeches and $2.5million to her super-PAC aren't bribes and there are no expectations with them.

It was just due to her celebrity status. It was because other speakers are paid highly too. One person even said Trump is highly paid so she should be too.

I'm calling it right now. Who thinks there'll be a Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary? What about the SEC?

[scscholar]

1. And the FCC...

to block net neutrality since GS has invested in so many cable monopolies.

[revbones]

2. Oooh! Good one. Didn't think about that.

She said she would enforce strong net neutrality in an op-ed. If not Goldman, then I'm betting she appoints a Comcast exec but should probably check her "donors" list wagering too much money.

[yourpaljoey]

3. Hillary will not win

[great white snark]

4. Why as many as your mind can imagine.

Since this bribery and cronyism is nothing but speculation then only your imagination can limit you.

[Herman4747]

10. Of course, the "speculation" can be dispensed with at once...

...if Hillary just showed the world what precisely she told Goldman Sachs, something said that was so momentous she was paid $675,000. But she refuses to do that. Leading to this speculation: SHE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE.

[angrychair]

5. No doubt

Every financial and economic position is a Wall St insider.
I mean that seriously.
Look at her staff now, all insiders. Its not that hard a bet.

Her attempts to "regulate" will be smoke and mirrors and percieved as the 'cost of doing business'.

Citizens United and her SuperPACs are going nowhere ("she needs them to 'level' the playing field&quot .

[EndElectoral]

6. Goldman's already been ensconced in the WH. Ask Mark Patterson.

[mmonk]

7. Them or Citigroup.

The biggest problem we have is the GE I think. I don't see enough independents going our way. I may be wrong and hope I am but the public is more angry now than even 2008 I think. We'll see and deal with what we can.

[onecaliberal]

8. Obama has had a few already.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Well, since GS even made into "Hope & Change" Obama's WH

I'd say the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of GS becoming a permanent fixture in
the Goldman Girl's 'inner-circle'

[revbones]

11. Hillary has even said that Obama's campaign took more Wall St money than she has

It was expected and we saw the results with the austerity and no CEO's in jail.

[99th_Monkey]

12. If only Hillary would release the transcripts, I'm sure it would lay all these worries to rest.

[revbones]

13. I bet they were accidentally deleted with those 30,000 emails that got scrubbed nt

[99th_Monkey]

15. You mean like ... with a cloth? nt

[seaotter]

16. Millions in HER pocket, not even pretend campaign donations.

Pure bribes.

[NWCorona]

17. When she says that she says in 2008

Does that mean in more in 2008 or is that the record and Obama still ahead?
Hillary is the master at that kind of stuff.

[revbones]

19. Excellent point. I bet it was 2008 since it was a widely known talking point nt

[seaotter]

14. Well, seems at least one. Sitting in the Oval Office.

Bribes, payroll, "speaking fees", little difference .

[Tarc]

18. "GOLDMAN SACHS" is the tired drum that just keeps on beating

to a vanishingly small audience.

[revbones]

20. Well I know you Hillary supporters all have your fingers in your ears and

are going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..." but facts are facts.

Corruption is corruption.

To admit that you think the corruption of your candidate is a "tired drum" while not disputing the facts is galling.

[Tarc]

21. Speaking to bank execs is not corruption

Dim, tired dog-whistle politics.

Congrats on all of 109 posts,.

[revbones]

22. Good response. Really speaks volumes.

No, but if there's no problem, then why won't she release the transcripts?

And you know, in your heart of hearts, that if she wins that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and others will own that administration.

[Tarc]

23. Let's do a breakdown of the "People Who Care"

The Abundance of Care: Sanders supporters
The Absence of Care: everyone else

Since "Everyone Else" is going to hand Clinton 10, possibly 11, victories tomorrow, and many more primaries down the road, releasing transcripts has no tangible benefit.

[revbones]

24. And that speaks volumes about you

and other Hillary supporters. Just like Trump supporters, you are immune to facts in regard to your candidate possibly having flaws.

I realize you guys got callouses built up because of right-wing smears over the years, but to be this willfully ignorant of facts is beyond comprehension.

[Tarc]

28. This is the typical Sanders camp caterwauling

that the rest of us find so tiresome. Your candidate is a single-issue campaign; "banks banks banks banks banks".

We're looking for a more well-rounded, viable candidate, and we have found her.

[revbones]

29. Good response! Really proved any facts incorrect!

Nothing you've said indicates that you believe anything other than what was implied in this thread and that she will just appoint Goldman Sachs execs and continue the corruption

[Tarc]

30. You don't have facts, you have a logical fallacy

Goldman Sachs is a bank.
All banks are corrupt.
Goldman Sachs endorses Clinton.
Clinton is corrupt.

[revbones]

31. Yep. You got me. But really it's more like:

Politicians that take bribes from Goldman Sachs are probably corrupt
Politicians that make speeches that won't release the transcripts are probably corrupt.
Politicians that lie about their opponent in debates are probably corrupt.
Politicians that violate the proper handling of classified materials and delete over 30,000 emails are probably corrupt

Clinton is corrupt.

[Avalux]

25. The government and big money corps are becoming one entity.

If Clinton gets to the White House it will seal the deal. She will wage war and pretend to care while they steal what's left from us.

[kennetha]

26. How many university presidents?

She gave 8 speeches to Universities for the same basic fee.

Were they buying influence too?

[revbones]

27. Yes.

Many were but not for what you are saying. There is a lot of litigation going on currently with for-profit universities. There is also a lot of campaigning about "tuition free" or "debt free" college. The climate is right for actions that will affect those universities and they need a stake in to control how those things will play out.