General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama's Goldman Sachs Joke At The WHCD
it was funny because of the element of truth in it was Clinton's Wall Street/Corporate payday after being SOS.
"If this material goes well, I'll use it at Goldman Sachs next year. Earn me some serious Tubman's."
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/30/11547858/barack-obama-dinner-speech-jokes
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)They hit people hard there, Hillary was hit multiple times, but the media was beated down.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)by his declaration that she would be the president attending the WHCD next year.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)You'll notice Obama said nothing about Sanders that in any way implied he would be the next president, not even in a joking manner.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)That's why he said that. It wasn't a subtle endorsement or jab at Bernie or his supporters. 
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Why Hillary Clinton's Goldman-Sachs speeches matter.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/
Can a tax payer sue Clinton for release of those speeches to Goldman-Sachs? If Goldman-Sachs tax deducted those speeches as an "expense", then it would be interesting to find out if a regular taxpayer has "standing" to sue. This would be based on the "regular" taxpayer paying more in taxes or getting less in services because of the lost revenue to the government due to the $675,000 tax deduction.
This situation is why she stands at between 57% and 59% disapproval rate. Her lack of perceived "honesty" makes her a VERY flawed candidate. Frankly, if she were to get elected, if Republicans retain control of the Senate and House, they will file impeachment charges on day one, and there will a transaction by transaction investigations of her and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
There are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to the and Bill's actions. Is it true they registered corporations in Delaware? If they did, the only reason one does that unless they live in Delaware is to evade and/or avoid something.
There are not only current potential indictments that we know about but there may be some we don't know about. There may be a transaction by transaction investigations of her's and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.
Both Clintons have made millions of dollars for themselves and their "Foundation" and the only thing they had to sell was "access" for either past decisions and/or actions and potential future decisions and/or actions.
The bottom line is there are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to her's and Bill's actions.
I covered Watergate and the Impeachment for a network of radio stations. I was in the White House press room when Nixon gave his resignation speech and I was in the room when the three articles of impeachment were voted. I pointed out what is being pointed out above in an earlier post in which someone was claiming Clinton could get things done compared to Sanders. Now we also have news due to a withheld email from Clinton's private server in a FOIA lawsuit, that challenges her testimony regarding when certain events occurred. In other words, not only is she a flawed candidate with legal challenges but she may be so flawed even if elected, she won't be able to have enough legitimacy to govern. Better make sure who will be the VP and what they stand for due to this situation.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)Hillary Clinton = the most-admired woman in the USA for the 20th time per the Gallup poll.
Hillary Clinton - 20% of Rs ready to vote for her if Trump is the R nominee
Hillary Clinton - 75%+ of Sanders voters ready to vote for her in the GE
Hillary Clinton - has very high favorables among millennials when compared to voting for Trump
Hillary Clinton - extremely high favorables among registered Ds
Hillary Clinton - 25 years of RW attacks and she's still standing. Never indicted. Never prosecuted. Never found guilt of any of the supposed scandals.
I'll take that "flawed" candidate over the disastrous "communist, deadbeat, back-bencher, socialist, tax-raising, class-warfare-instigating*" candidate named Bernie Sanders any day of the week.
* = obvious RW attack on Sanders were he ever to win the nomination...which he won't.
Laser102
(816 posts)Just like Hillary. Private citizens have the right to do what they want, earn what they will. I hope he continues to be a very successful man. I wish women had that same right.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)And if you think that Hillary's wall street problems are gender related, then you are really missing the point. When we say "she's a corporatist", the emphasis isn't on the "she" part.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)President of the United States Barack Obama is no longer in government, nor obligated to anyone?
Huh. I've always kind of considered the office of the President to be, well, extremely government. Like... well, it would be hard to pick out any other person in the entire government of the country who was more 'in government' than the President.
Go figure.
And, funny thing - every single President of the United States was a 'private citizen' (I assume that means not currently an officer or employee of a government entity) at some point before becoming President. I've always examined the non-government business activities of candidates for that office for information about whether I would vote for them or not. Was that wrong?
I mean, Hillary Clinton stated that she had every intention to seek the office of the Presidency in 2016 as far back as 2012. And, with this intention, she solicited millions of dollars from large multinational corporations in a brief, but very, very profitable interim 'private citizen' period of just over one year before openly declaring her candidacy. The DNC was very busy organizing the planned rapid path to her nomination while she was raking in those millions. Oh, and at the same time, her husband was selling consulting services to foreign governments.
Maybe it's just my naivety, but that sort of thing doesn't strike me as be business activity conducted by a 'private citizens.' It seems like a massive blitz of opportunities to pay for future influence.
You're right, of course. If it was a man doing that, I would consider it perfectly legi... I mean, a guy's gotta make his way in the world the best he can, even if it means soliciting preemptive bribe... Um... hm.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd have to say that it be even remotely relevant to me whether the person doing it had a penis or vagina. In fact, um..., I don't think I would consider the distinction at all.
It must be really difficult to hold males and females to the same standards of conduct when evaluating their candidacies for public office. Obviously I'm not doing it, because I see things like what you've written clearly indicating that Hillary Clinton is being held to different standards than male candidates. And I'm a man, so, obviously, my judgement about whether I'm doing something like that must be impaired. I suppose only women are qualified to determine whether female candidates are soliciting bribes or not, because when they do it, it's being done in a female way.
What I wouldn't give for a bit of time with women who are experts on the distinctions between how female and male politicians solicit bribery and engage in political corruption.
thebeautifulstruggle
(95 posts)
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)because that is exactly how mundane and innocuous a speech at Goldman Sachs for "serious Tubman's" would be!
"Leader of the free world" doesn't pay all that well compared to the private sector.
This year he does speeches for free. Next year he can do the same speech for huge sums of money! 
Of course, nobody will give a shit - he'll have no one running against him! 
