HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » If Hillary wins, who want...

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:16 PM

 

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

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?

31 replies, 3046 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply If Hillary wins, who wants odds on how many Goldman Sachs execs are in White House (Original post)
revbones Feb 2016 OP
scscholar Feb 2016 #1
revbones Feb 2016 #2
yourpaljoey Feb 2016 #3
great white snark Feb 2016 #4
Herman4747 Feb 2016 #10
angrychair Feb 2016 #5
EndElectoral Feb 2016 #6
mmonk Feb 2016 #7
onecaliberal Feb 2016 #8
99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #9
revbones Feb 2016 #11
99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #12
revbones Feb 2016 #13
99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #15
seaotter Feb 2016 #16
NWCorona Feb 2016 #17
revbones Feb 2016 #19
seaotter Feb 2016 #14
Tarc Feb 2016 #18
revbones Feb 2016 #20
Tarc Feb 2016 #21
revbones Feb 2016 #22
Tarc Feb 2016 #23
revbones Feb 2016 #24
Tarc Feb 2016 #28
revbones Feb 2016 #29
Tarc Feb 2016 #30
revbones Feb 2016 #31
Avalux Feb 2016 #25
kennetha Feb 2016 #26
revbones Feb 2016 #27

Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:18 PM

1. And the FCC...

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:23 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:23 PM

3. Hillary will not win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:24 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:30 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:25 PM

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:27 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:28 PM

8. Obama has had a few already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:29 PM

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'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:34 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:35 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:39 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:40 PM

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

 

Pure bribes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:40 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:42 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:39 PM

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

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:42 PM

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

to a vanishingly small audience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:47 PM

21. Speaking to bank execs is not corruption

Dim, tired dog-whistle politics.

Congrats on all of 109 posts,.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:04 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:37 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:58 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:06 PM

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:05 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:07 PM

26. How many university presidents?

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

Were they buying influence too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread