is kidding themselves.

Noun

The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

Antonym:

Clinton.

BOOM!

!!!!!

Any doubt what lies she tells us about WHAT she says to her BFFs for hundreds of thousands of dollars?!

Untrustworthy!

But I'm sick to death of her supporters claiming theres no there, there. I have zero doubt that she's shit on the left over and over and over again. She just thinks we're to "foolish" to know.

but, our economy needs a strong Wall Street and banking systems. Not sure why people have trouble seeing what she is saying.

She says on the campaign trail, she owes them too much.

have been individual voters.

(a lot of which have come from individuals working in the financial sector, btw) but about money that went right into Hillary's pocket. She benefited personally from being all cozy with Goldman Sachs and their ilk and telling them what they wanted to hear in six-figure speeches. If you want to believe they paid her that kind of money for nothing more than a few nice friendly hour-long speeches full of warm fuzzies, go right ahead.

she claims she'll regulate.

in return for the $600,000+ they paid her in one year to make a few speeches?



And they make fun of Sanders supporters for believing in unicorns and "free stuff."

Believing the financial sector doesn't expect a quid pro quo from Hillary is a unicorn the size of a brontosaurus.

employees or investors at some gathering.

I will be happy if she does release the transcripts though. She shines in group settings.

I am quite confident none of them was paid anything close to $250,000 per speech. The question is how much is that "perk" worth? Say I'm some big shot executive and my company has hired a former high-ranking cabinet official to give a one-hour speech. So I go to this event; there are probably some nice hors d'oeuvres and wine; the speech is moderately interesting; and I might even get to meet this once-important person. But how has this event actually benefited my company to the tune of $250,000? Maybe it's not a lot of money in Goldman Sachs' world, but you can bet their auditor is going to ask questions. The answer is, it doesn't, really. It's a nice little gathering for the big shots but that's it.

Except that this former cabinet officer is going to be running for President.

Do you seriously think anybody who is completely retired from public life can command fees like that? I haven't heard that Goldman Sachs has offered Colin Powell or Condi Rice those huge bucks to give speeches. Why? Because they aren't in a position to do anything for GS or the other banksters in the future. They're private citizens, apparently intending to stay that way. I assume they occasionally give speeches here and there and are probably fairly well compensated, but not like Hillary.

Sorry, but the whole business reeks.

However, some people have a longer shelf life. Caitlyn Jenner, for example, supported her family for many many years as a speaker. There are many, many people registered with speakers bureaus making big bucks. Former athletes, politicians, motivational speakers. It's not out of the ordinary.

The only unusual thing about the amount of Hillary's payments, is that women as a rule don't make as much as men on the circuit, and she did. If you look at the list of where she spoke, it becomes clear that she was in demand from a wide variety of groups.

Some here list fees she received. Even the University of Buffalo paid 275k. It's not uncommon in those circles.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton

Bifurcated democracy: Al serfs will be treated equally as serfs. Cheer for the aristocracy or not, you don't get to join them.

An they need to go, but it isn't money that she was paid.

Are they doing because they want to be investigated? They want to be controlled? They want to go to jail?

Do tell.

The more it indicates that the speeches would piss off MILLIONS of voters.

Nixon tapes?

What got leaked to Politico is just the tip of the iceberg. No doubt.

47% moment for her if they were released, NO doubt.

...by studying the transcripts.

Push their agenda. Of course those speeches were all about kissing their asses.

She's right that hateful rhetoric around Wall Street is not going to fix anything. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but 55% of Americans own stock, much of it in retirement accounts. They can't afford rhetoric instead of solutions.

She's also right not to release transcripts. This is a perfect example of why. Because the smear mongers will do exactly this crap with it - take it out of context or turn it into some sort of smear like they typically do.

If we study our history, we see several examples of how Wall Street has damned our economy, on several occasions. Whether it's the crash/es of decades past, or the more recent recession, we can see, again and again, how financial speculation, shady dealing, insider trading, corporate/financial influence over our elections and politicians... we can see how this has screwed up the system.

True, hateful rhetoric in itself will solve nothing. However... the Wall Street bailout? Was a golden example of just how much this Country and it's elected officials are owned/controlled by the power of money. Politics for profit has failed. We can see this if we look at our crumbling infrastructure, if we look at our deeply flawed healthcare system, our hugely bloated Military industrial complex, the level of inequality between, say, a CEO for a big corporation - and someone who spends twelve hours a day working for one. We are number 1... in wealth inequality. Our minimum wage is a joke, workers rights and benefits in this Country, are severely lacking.

No, the hateful rhetoric won't solve anything, but people have many very good reasons to hate wall street. Even the majority of the 55% that own stock, I suspect, have their own contempt for wall street. I have no issues with legalized gambling, I suppose, but let's not pretend it's something grand or noble.

As for the transcripts... Sanders is an open book here, he has no issues with revealing his history, things he has said and done, speeches he has given. Why can't Clinton do the same? Is it possible, perhaps, that we may see a revealing comment much like Romney's "Takers"?

I think it likely. Pointing out simple facts, or what candidates have actually said... that is not smearing. Things can be taken out of context, but only so far. Some comments, regardless of what context they are in, are quite revealing.

But hating them isn't going to solve anything. Exactly what she said.

I know plenty of people who have money invested in the stock market. It would be ignorant of me to hate them for this. No, what I despise, is, rather, the income inequality between Wall Street and Main Street. What gets my blood boiling, is how many wealthy individuals and/or corporations stash their money in offshore accounts, or play the system in such a way that they end up paying 0 dollars in taxes... actually getting tax relief (there are examples of this, such as General Electric, throughout our recent history).

How is it that someone who works 80 hours a week, doing back-breaking manual labor... earns so much less than say, a member of congress? How is it that our educational system is so poorly funded, yet we can spend billions of dollars on failed military projects? Why is it that, in our society, profit seems to be the means AND the end? Healthcare for profit, Education for profit (specifically, universities - higher education), politics for profit, war for profit, weapons for profit. The list goes on and on.

What our system of economy and ultimately government amounts to, then, is legalized bribery, winks to cheating and stealing, elephants in every sector, comfortably swept under the carpet by the wealthy elite.

Do you want to live in a caste system? Profit for it's own sake... it's not just immoral, it is ultimately a meaningless, self-defeating concept that will lead us further into ruin, rather than progress. For example, the massive subsidies received by the fossil fuel industries, the enormous tax relief being gained by companies that already are making record profits. These same companies fund political campaigns. These same companies and their elite members (executive officers, board members, etc.) frequently somehow make it into Presidential cabinets. Investment bankers, lobbyists, etc. Again, this money isn't free, there is most certainly a quid pro quo (subsidies, bailouts, etc.). Is it rational, reasonable... even remotely wise to continue to subsidize the industries which are in part responsible for the effects of, say, climate change? Or, in regards to fracking, poisoning our water? Earth quakes? When do we say... enough is enough? Past time I think, to support policies and/or candidates that promote, even demand progressive change. It's not just a matter of corrupt financial influence... it's the vicious power of such that is destroying our economy, causing untold suffering among our people and the people of the world... and leading us in a direction that could very well end in the extinction of our race.

No, hating isn't going to solve anything. However, only be recognizing and admitting the damning truth can we begin to do something about our broken system. Legalized gambling (the stock market) is one thing, legalized bribery though? That's something else, something we should be wary of...

>>whoosh>>>> > > >

But that has zero to do with this issue.

And that one qoute laid bare his true feelings. Even though we knew it already.

Whether you like it or not. The similarities are there.

The Bernie supporter strategy seems to be "if something isn't work just do more of it." Whatever.

Bottom line is that Bernie is not going to win the nomination. All that is really left is to watch the meltdown.

Hillary is a Wall St Democratic trying come off as a progressive and those transcripts will prove it.

Sorry.

Otherwise, "smear-mongers" might twist her words. In fact, none of the candidates ought to speak in public. Really, their ideas are none of our business!



And though rhetoric in and of itself may not fix anything, it can lead to action. Looking at Wall Street and seeing little that needs fixing is certainly not going to lead to any changes.

so many are asking for the release of the transcripts
also why so many don't trust her

because you got richer does not mean the economy is doing just fine. It is no longer the 90s and what is happening in our nation today has little to do with the rich and everything to do with why so many of us are poorer. Why the economy is not working for us.

She's stuck in the 90s when neoliberalism sounded good on paper and the full corrosive effects on the working class did not fully evolve yet, and the focus-group technocratic machine still reigned supreme.

Behind it all is an "I got this" condescention, or more acurrately, a de-facto "Who ELSE you gonna' vote for you lumpen rubes....republicans?....Ha ha ha ha".

Too bad for her she's unaware of predator in the tall grass.

you.

There it is; what she said.

the problem by alienating the people you think caused the problem.

of when the powerful gave up power because they were asked nicely.