2016 Postmortem

Merryland

(1,134 posts)

59. what OTHER candidates have gotten humongous sums of money from Wall Street

Reply to COLGATE4 (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:10 AM

Apr 2016

for speeches? NONE.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Hillary's Transcripts Don't Matter. [View all] retrowire Apr 2016 OP

Perhaps because nobody but Bernie supporters COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #1

thats not a very logical answer... retrowire Apr 2016 #3

Why would it? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #5

because it pertains to her private business with some of retrowire Apr 2016 #9

Probably because, like any other person's speeches they are COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #13

gotcha. retrowire Apr 2016 #15

No, I'm neither enjoying or not enjoying it. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #29

i know you dont care, carry on. nt retrowire Apr 2016 #31

That's what I plan to do. Thanks. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #39

First clue: Anyone who doesn't care about this, obviously is financially invested 2banon Apr 2016 #73

There's a reason you're not "fixated", and it's clear for all to see. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #138

Great question Retrowire. haikugal Apr 2016 #33

"Its her turn" jack_krass Apr 2016 #68

Transparency sucks! AgingAmerican Apr 2016 #17

Please point me to all the examples of other COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #26

deflectionnnn retrowire Apr 2016 #30

Deflection for asking to see where this sudden COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #41

its unique for a politician to be demanded to release retrowire Apr 2016 #49

Taxes and medical checks have been standard for multiple elections mythology Apr 2016 #85

maybe it shouldn't end. retrowire Apr 2016 #86

again, its who she talked to and for what. retrowire Apr 2016 #96

Because asking Presidential candidates to release their COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #95

Hillary created this all on her own. Cassiopeia Apr 2016 #57

I prefer to judge people by their actions, rather than their COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #94

so speaking privately to crooks and accepting their money retrowire Apr 2016 #97

Please point me toward the people she spoke to who were convicted COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #111

goldman sachs just paid how big of a fine? thank you very much. nt retrowire Apr 2016 #122

What is it they were fined for? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #126

They were fined for doing something not bad? retrowire Apr 2016 #133

Old, old stuff with nothing to do with COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #136

what OTHER candidates have gotten humongous sums of money from Wall Street Merryland Apr 2016 #59

Are you sure about Mitt? What about Shrub in his second campaign? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #90

we know the republicans are bought and paid for retrowire Apr 2016 #98

Even on DU tarring and feathering members of the opposition COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #109

its still bad, either way. nt retrowire Apr 2016 #110

She is the first AgingAmerican Apr 2016 #74

Probably because no GOP candidate was worth it. nt COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #89

Please point me to all the examples of other hootinholler Apr 2016 #80

So it's not the speeches, it's the fees she earned??? That clarifies. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #88

its both to me nt retrowire Apr 2016 #99

Got it. Maybe we should establish a 'minimum wage' for giving COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #108

Same as it always was... hootinholler Apr 2016 #135

She's tried to co-opt one of Bernie's themes, Wall Street regulation bigbrother05 Apr 2016 #91

No, it's not 'assessing her viability'. It's deciding if YOU COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #114

Are tax retu also private? mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #70

We have expected - and received Tax returns from our COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #124

Nope. They're no longer "Private Property" as a Public Servant. 2banon Apr 2016 #71

Tell me how she was a 'public servant'??? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #93

There ya go. "Perfectly Legal". 2banon Apr 2016 #132

Nice try at creating a new category of people that never COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #137

I seem to remember that Romney surrogates said about the same thing in 2010... blackspade Apr 2016 #72

Yep. I didn't give a shit about his speeches/donors then COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #92

Really.... Interesting. blackspade Apr 2016 #131

The people who paid to hear those speeches cared a lot. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #4

I very much doubt it. They paid for a "name", and a chance COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #14

The republicans will make it an issue katsy Apr 2016 #112

And you believe they won't if she releases them? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #121

They will. The uncertainty & secrecy katsy Apr 2016 #129

I defer to her and her advisors as to when is the COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #139

If that is the case this country is in worse condition than any jwirr Apr 2016 #116

Corruption in elections". How dramatic. Also how incorrect. Elections COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #119

Read How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State jwirr Apr 2016 #123

I think i read this some time back COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #125

LOL It has been on line for a while and 17 states who did not jwirr Apr 2016 #128

I'll be anxiously awaiting that moment. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #141

I also read that 33 states have not yet COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #142

Honestly metroins Apr 2016 #2

then why does she refuse to release them? retrowire Apr 2016 #8

if "It really doesn't matter what she said"...then what's the big deal in releasing them? EndElectoral Apr 2016 #10

I'm curious to see the "fluff"...If it's really iunnocuous she should just reassure people Armstead Apr 2016 #11

exactly retrowire Apr 2016 #18

She doesn't have to earn anyone's vote..it's in the bag and it's her turn. haikugal Apr 2016 #36

If this were in any way true Cassiopeia Apr 2016 #60

Add to that: a chance to get a powerful politician to "owe them a favor" jack_krass Apr 2016 #66

Intergrity is what you do when no one is watching. She thought when she took that money, no one was thereismore Apr 2016 #6

Hillary gave $300k speeches to many of the people she would need to regulate... DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #7

They're probably being paid /not/ to understand. nt VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #23

I think Bernie has made it clear enough that anyone who heard this will understand it. DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #27

I certainly hope so. Otherwise when the decision comes down to board me, I'm writing my congressmen VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #28

I understand... DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #35

They don't care! haikugal Apr 2016 #43

I would be surprised if anything was said at all during most of them. LiberalArkie Apr 2016 #12

I would like to believe that these speeches were just easy money for Clinton... Orsino Apr 2016 #20

If there were no strings attached BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #44

Oh, I believe they expect something for the money they gave her, but speeches were just LiberalArkie Apr 2016 #115

"That would be like a restaurant . . ." Mike__M Apr 2016 #101

Here is why. athena Apr 2016 #16

read it retrowire Apr 2016 #21

The article responds to the question you asked. athena Apr 2016 #22

lol i changed no question retrowire Apr 2016 #24

Your original question was why Hillary's transcripts don't matter to her supporters. athena Apr 2016 #42

i would love to have evidence about her speeches! retrowire Apr 2016 #46

Ok, release the videotape then :) jack_krass Apr 2016 #69

They don't care. She voted for the Iraq War FFS Broward Apr 2016 #19

They do mater if you want to know what Hillary is promising to give to her Wallstreet friends awake Apr 2016 #25

Followers don't question. polichick Apr 2016 #32

She was a private citizen at the time griffi94 Apr 2016 #34

That's very bright of you... DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #37

Right griffi94 Apr 2016 #45

Some of the people that will be needed to vote to win a general election... DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #50

man, i thought an apathetic voter was one who didnt care to vote retrowire Apr 2016 #52

I don't have to think about it griffi94 Apr 2016 #53

Well thank you for proving our point. DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #55

I certainly don't care about griffi94 Apr 2016 #58

I heard about that new machine learning system that malfunctioned... DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #64

And it's ridiculous why? griffi94 Apr 2016 #65

Blip DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #67

...? retrowire Apr 2016 #38

Exactly griffi94 Apr 2016 #47

we know. :) nt retrowire Apr 2016 #51

Well you asked. griffi94 Apr 2016 #54

thanks for answering. :) nt retrowire Apr 2016 #56

Because her supporters don't care and will vote for her anyway ... KPN Apr 2016 #40

Ethics matter. It's a massive conflict of interest. rachacha Apr 2016 #48

i come at this from a different perspective elana i am Apr 2016 #61

this is true retrowire Apr 2016 #62

because Hillary said so! What more reason do you need? DebDoo Apr 2016 #63

americans need the full videos, not just transcripts 4ricksren Apr 2016 #75

Jerry Seinfeld and Lady Gaga also gave speeches to GS for the same amounts. randome Apr 2016 #76

are jerry seinfeld or lady gaga retrowire Apr 2016 #78

So suspicion is all you're going with, then. randome Apr 2016 #82

lol no retrowire Apr 2016 #83

We are accustomed to this. HassleCat Apr 2016 #77

I guess none of this matter either... ChisolmTrailDem Apr 2016 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow Apr 2016 #81

It wouldn't matter what answer anyone gives you. LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #84

thats what you think! ;) retrowire Apr 2016 #87

Because as bad as it is for her not releasing them... Mudcat Apr 2016 #100

Her opponents on both the left and right would pick it apart to score points. randome Apr 2016 #103

They already have the ammunition katsy Apr 2016 #120

i think youre right. hmmm nt retrowire Apr 2016 #105

The responses from her supporters are fucking amazing..not in a good way. n/t Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #102

yeah so far ive got retrowire Apr 2016 #104

Corruption, its only a Republican thing. lol Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #107

Because... Mike Nelson Apr 2016 #106

I'm guessing this issue is so low on the priority list that it doesn't matter. LonePirate Apr 2016 #113

I think the transcripts will be significantly insignificant. immoderate Apr 2016 #117

I don't need to see the transcripts. $20million in speeches, cashing in on her public service Dems to Win Apr 2016 #118

The cost to hear a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State speak is going to be high. ecstatic Apr 2016 #127

Wait, you've established that the Clinton's never gave special treatment to banks or wall st? nt retrowire Apr 2016 #134

Quick question: was she under protection of the Secret Service at the time? Fritz Walter Apr 2016 #130

Shell companies in Delaware. Octafish Apr 2016 #140

Does anyone really think there isn't a cell phone recording of these somewhere? Bob41213 Apr 2016 #143