Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical

I trust that Hillary was speaking the truth when she said she was going to tax Wall Street to pay for everything she intends to do......I trust her because they panned over Terry McAuliffe when she said it and he wasn't on his cell phone telling the bankers not to worry, it was all a ruse......
 
cawacko said:
Matt Taibai is a favorite of many liberals. What did he call Goldman in his RS article? A giant squid or something to that extent.

It would be like Carson going to speak to Plan Parenthood and then saying he's still going to work to shut them down
Click to expand...

Giant Vampire Squid!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that won't include GS......just their competitors who didn't have Hillary speak to them........
Click to expand...

You mean the way Bush allowed Paulson (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) to destroy Lehman Bros. (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) but when Goldman Sachs was threatened (Where coincidentally Neil Bush was employed)
They were "too big to fail"?
 
Rune said:
You mean the way Bush allowed Paulson (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) to destroy Lehman Bros. (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) but when Goldman Sachs was threatened (Where coincidentally Neil Bush was employed)
They were "too big to fail"?
Click to expand...

you must be confused......Goldman Sachs worked for Obama.......
 
cawacko said:
If you can't see the difference why I don't know what to tell you. It was liberals attacking Hillary. If you don't see the difference speaking to Goldman Sachs while calling them evil and talking to the YPO while supporting them then again I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...

It's not only me who doesn't see it, it's also the author of the piece. And it's not just liberals attacking her, not by a long shot. "That’s partly why Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton quit giving paid speeches before announcing her run in April. The fees she commanded, which often ran into six figures, brought intense questions, especially from Republicans, about potential ethical conflicts."
 
cawacko said:
Matt Taibai is a favorite of many liberals. What did he call Goldman in his RS article? A giant squid or something to that extent.

It would be like Carson going to speak to Plan Parenthood and then saying he's still going to work to shut them down
Click to expand...

If Carson were prez he'd be overseeing the Dept. of Education yet he's against the public school system.
 
christiefan915 said:
The fracas about Hillary Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism. Both the political left and right are enraged over news that Hillary Clinton accepted six-figure fees for talks she gave after leaving the Obama administration. Even worse than the amount of money she amassed, say her critics, are the sources of those speaking fees: Goldman Sachs GS -1.07% , GoldenTree Asset Management, and other tony Wall Street firms. Doesn’t this pose a grave conflict of interest to her presidential aspirations? Won’t she be partial to the financial sector if she is elected Commander in Chief? No, and not necessarily. Here’s why.

One Law to Rule Them All
Clinton was able to command $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs because the company wanted to hear what she had to say. A former elected official has “insight and perspective that others do not,” says Stacy Tetschner, CEO of the National Speakers Association. This knowledge, he adds, “is now that person’s intellectual property, and he or she has a right to share it.”
Besides, Clinton had already left office by that point, so she wasn’t in violation of ethics laws that prohibit government officials from being paid to speak.

The Hannibal Lecter Syndrome
...Lecter won’t help Clarice unless she reveals something of herself to him. “Quid pro quo, Clarice,” Lecter says. “I tell you things, you tell me things.” [If ]it’s wrong for a Democratic presidential candidate to take money from deep-pocketed American businesses, why is it okay for a Republican Super PAC to be funded by such organizations? The only way to completely eliminate the influence of corporations in politics is through the kind of campaign finance reform that many Republicans and Democrats alike are loath to bring about. Politicians can’t have it both ways. Either big money is off-limits, or it’s not.

Beyond “All or None”
... there’s a big difference between running a political campaign that’s funded significantly by Fortune 500 companies and a former civil servant who gives talks for big bucks. In the former scenario, the potential for abuse is both significant and real. It is Congress that passes laws, and it is members of Congress who, as a whole, stand to be unduly swayed by large financial contributions. Former elected officials who choose to run for president are much less likely to have the power to influence legislation because of speaking fees they were paid in the years before they ran for office. The U.S. President may be among the most powerful people in the world, but Congress is the nation’s most powerful entity.

The fracas about Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/


Trump for Prison 2016
Click to expand...

And the House of Saud and the UAE? The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund.
 
christiefan915 said:
It's not only me who doesn't see it, it's also the author of the piece. And it's not just liberals attacking her, not by a long shot. "That’s partly why Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton quit giving paid speeches before announcing her run in April. The fees she commanded, which often ran into six figures, brought intense questions, especially from Republicans, about potential ethical conflicts."
Click to expand...
if she quit, even she could see it......
 
anatta said:
??
Click to expand...

Ben Carson on Education

Q: What is the one thing you would do to improve schools?
A: Provide vouchers, so that they would have choice in terms of the schools that they go to. We know that the best education is homeschool, the next is private schools, the next is charter schools, the next is public schools. If we want to change that dynamic we've got to offer some real competition to the public schools. We do everything we can to facilitate school choice, a voucher system. Incentivize the states to enact voucher systems.

In a 2014 YouTube video, Carson said, "The great divide in our nation right now is education. We have to do everything we can to bring it back to the level that it used to be in this country. We used to have the best public education system in the world. Now we have the best propaganda system in the world. We just have to change that."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Education.htm


Trump for Prison 2016
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top