Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
What, at the speeches? Or in the emails?
The emails as I said before just wait out for the FBI to finish them. For the speeches...I am pretty sure you can find the title of what she was hired to do the speeches for if you can find out their dates online.
And Colin Powell was not? Condolezza Rice?
And I am not going to point out just at the republicans, really. Every political party of the U.S looks, to an outsider, as needlesly hawkish, I must say
edited 29th Jan '16 2:53:51 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
That would be because they are not hers. They are Goldman Sachs'
And even then you can see the titles
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/builders-and-innovators-2013-index.html
Is one, for example. It's just business bullshit speeches man. they happen all the time. And the speakers charge incredulously ludicrous fees. The wife of an expresident with a juris doctorate from a harvard university can easily rake that money in and it wasnt just goldman sachs, it was also a canadian bank, Deutsche banks and Bank of America sorta peeps.
They do it all the time, seriously. Why do you think there are so many big ass convention centers all over the U.S? it is business culture to make those things all the fucking time it is actually impressive.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:59:31 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
How would a speech Clinton ostensibly wrote herself belong to someone else? If she's the nominee, I look forward to seeing the tapes of these speeches anonymously dropped off at the RNC.
The link you provided shows no such speech titles or any mention of Clinton.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:02:59 PM by SolipsistOwl
I think the point that's being made here, as I understand it, is that the majority of the thread here consider the speeches irrelevant since they're just basic capitalism. She provided a service and got payment for said service. Just happens said service pays stupidly good.
The emails are haranguing her for something a majority of her accusers are just as guilty of in an attempt to weaken her candidacy and, if there is any true illegality that's for the FBI to work out.
Do I have the gist about right?
edited 29th Jan '16 3:10:23 PM by sgamer82
She has made speeches for people as varied as:
The American Camp Association of New York and New Jersey.
University of Buffalo
Goldman Sachs
Deutsche Bank
University of Minnesota
Several others and yes, many many banks
So, I dont get it. It is not related to her job as a state sec, and it is not related to her task as a candidate. Would be like demanding to scrutinize Trump's Taj Mahal emails because he bunked it so hard, but no one is making a stink of it
because as mentioned above, people getting paid for speeches, even ludicrous amount, is seriously common knowledge.
Seriously, hiring famous people for speeches is incredibly common.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:21:54 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesWhat don't you get? Clinton is the only candidate saying she'll "take-on" the big banks, Wall Street, etc., while also being the only candidate actively taking millions from those very interest groups. It's a conflict of interest.
She's even leaving the campaign trail in Iowa to do back-to-back finance industry fundraisers.
This one is co-hosted by Matt Mallow, a senior managing director and general counsel at Black Rock, the world’s largest asset management firm.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:22:18 PM by SolipsistOwl
The only one?
Hasnt sanders been known to speak about breaking the banks and whatnot as well?
And, yeah. That is basically her job. Would be stupid of her to say no to that money. heck if she doesnt want the job I will take it!
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesWhen mentioning Sanders, I am refering to the "take on" concept...
You said Hillary said she would "take on banks" and that she was the ONLY candidate that said so, but Ithought Sanders was the same.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesHmm, this is a dense one here. Look, if you don't like the fact that politicians get speaking fees from big companies, that's fine. That's a legitimate position to take. But to claim that it disqualifies someone from the Presidency, or is in any way unlawful, is just plain false. You sound like one of the people hate-posting on Krugman's blog because he dares to criticize Sanders' health care plan.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:28:17 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I never claimed that Clinton's speaking fees disqualify her from the presidency? It disqualifies her from my vote, sure. Don't put words in my mouth.
In 2005, Krugman wrote in favor of single-payer healthcare. Why did he change his mind?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/one-nation-uninsured.html
edited 29th Jan '16 3:32:41 PM by SolipsistOwl
And that's also false. Sanders' plan was scored by the CBO and it contains assumptions about future costs that are nowhere to be derived from the substance of the proposal itself. Look, we don't put up with this stuff on TV Tropes. With everything that comes out of your mouth, you are proving the criticisms of Sander's little hate squads true and helping to discredit him as a candidate. Chill out before you make things worse.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:32:26 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Either you edited the "while" after, or I did not notice it.
But either way, it still is hard to see "she is paid to do a job like everyone else in her station!"
Or Reagan, or Rudy Giuliani, Alan Greenspan, Sarah Palin...

Clinton was a hawk that escalated and radicalized the Middle East. Her tenure as Secretary of State is fair game to scrutinize.