Sanders slams Clinton, Trump, Wall Street in speech at SIUE
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Regarding Clinton, whom Sanders is battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, he took a jab at her high-dollar contributions from Wall Street, and repeated his demand that she release the contents of paid speeches she has made to the corporate world.
“If you’re going to get paid $225,000 (for a speech), it must be a really terrific speech,” Sanders joked with the frenzied audience. “It’s surely a speech you want to share with the American people, right?”
He also tweaked GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, pointing to polls showing Sanders would defeat Trump by a wider margin than Clinton would in a general election.
“We will defeat Trump because in America, people understand that bringing our people together is more important than Trump’s divisiveness,” he said. “Love trumps hatred.”
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/sanders-slams-clinton-trump-wall-street-in-speech-at-siue/article_5dcb8663-4ee5-5f98-aa4e-cc92e6ff4897.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)Hillary if it comes down to that, but how can anyone not see the influence Wall STreet has on all of our politicians.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)There Bernie goes again...ignoring David Brock's command.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)??
riversedge
(70,242 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Clinton refusing to answer it and her supporters getting all bent out of shape about it even being requested does not make it Bernie's divisiveness.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And I can tell you that many other Democrats will not vote for her either.
I am 72. Bernie is the best candidate I have seen in my life.
The entire country will pay dearly for the failure of so many who call themselves Democrats and think they are "liberal" to see that the opportunity to vote for Bernie is a once in a century event.
The future of our country is at stake. This is not the time for partisan games and loyalties based on anything but merit.
Bernie is without question far better qualified for the presidency based on his experience and far better suited to lead our country based on his patient personality and his caring values.
It is a grave error to vote for Hillary.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)My sentiments exactly. Thanks.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... Seconded ...
... and Carried ...
OldArtilleryMan
(7 posts)In a very political aware family. We were fortunate enough to have a small radio. Could not afford a bigger one. When President Franklin Roosevelt would have one of his Fireside Chats the neighbors would gather in our house to listen.
He would be talking about the same things that Bernie is talking about now. how this nation had to change and he led us in to a change that was making things better for the middle class/working people until Ronald Reagan became president. Then it began to the wrong way again.
This is last opportunity we may have to make this the great nation that is once was for all. Not just the rich and powerful.
Bill Clinton was not a democrat in the way of Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. Bill Clinton sends my job and future overseas with his trade bills. In addition, Hillary is even less a real Democrat than he was.
I shall vote for Bernie Sanders as we need him to turn this nation in the direction it should be going.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)And welcome to DU.
colorado_ufo
(5,734 posts)
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)70 yr old woman here, and what I remember from the first half of my life is a prosperous country created by the New Deal--a country of expanding opportunity for all--and also a country where social and civil progress were growing exponentially.
Also a country where Republican President Eisenhower said that anyone who did NOT support the New Deal should NOT be participating in American politics! And where everyone, including Eisenhower, understood that a 90% tax on the rich was FAIR repayment for the opportunities we gave THEM. And where Eisenhower supported the "Fairness Doctrine" because he knew that broadcast media could be used to destroy democracy.
It has all been wrecked.
You said it:
"This is (the) last opportunity we may have to make this the great nation that (it) once was for all. Not just the rich and powerful."
Well said!
I do think it's going to be a long and difficult fight, even if we overcome current obstacles and get this man elected. You and I probably won't see the end of this struggle. I'm sure glad I'm still around for the beginning of it!
Never thought I would see this day--a presidential candidate calling for the end of Oligarchy, a man of such honesty and integrity, and simple and powerful HONOR--and with a real chance to win this round of the struggle!
But here we are, eh? It is happening!
So, maybe we should get ready for the Million-Wheelchair-March on Washington to save Social Security and back up our grandkids on getting an education!
That's what Bernie will be asking for, and we better get ready to do it!
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)welcome to du
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I can't support her at all.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
msongs
(67,413 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She needs to publish them. If she doesn't transcripts will come out during the general election -- and maybe not the real ones -- and they will hurt her then.
She needs to clear up the questions about her speeches.
Where are the transcripts?
Democratic voters have a right to see them.
In the interest of full disclosure to her supporters, she needs to publish them IN FULL.
The longer she waits, the more voters will suspect the worst.
The fact that she has not yet published them virtually incriminates her in my opinion. If they are not embarrassing, she should publish them right away.
It is fair to assume that if she does not, they are highly embarrassing to her.
Docreed2003
(16,862 posts)Seeing as how Sec Clinton had sole ownership of the content of those speeches per her own appearance contracts, only she knows what was said in those speeches. I'm sure a "transcript" will be released. Whether or not that "transcript" is true to what was said remains to be seen. This is Sec Clinton's 47% moment. The people deserve to know what positions were presented during those speeches. This issue will not go away and many potential supporters in the general will sit things out because of this blatant stonewalling. But I'm not suprised by this...I lived through the 90's and this is just more of the same. Sorry, but "trust me I'm in your corner" ain't cutting it in 2016
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)So, for the headline writer that quip constitutes a "demand"??
And, the rest of the quotes from the speach hardly sinks to the level of a "slam".
Please. Take a breath.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I don't want a trump style civil war within our party.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)same.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.
more
Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.
still more
The hazards of Mrs. Clinton, a presidential hopeful, earning more than $200,000 each for dozens of speeches to industry groups were clear from the start. Mrs. Clinton was making paid speeches when she hired consultants to vet her own background in preparation for a run. If they didn’t flag this, they weren’t doing their jobs.
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)eom
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Doesn't really stop them from being any less corrupt though.
They can give a speech on lasagna recipes for $250,000. The transaction is still the same and everybody knows what it is.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I'm sure Hill or Bill will chew it up and regurgitate for their followers soon.
Lunabell
(6,087 posts)That was a good one.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)out of her campaign funds, in spite of the fact her estimated net worth is $30 million. Yes, I know it was legal for her to do so, but it rubs me wrong. On top of this, she won't release transcripts of speeches she gave to Wall Street lizards, who subsequently said they would be 'comfortable' with a Clinton administration. One of the big reasons I'm for Sanders is that Wall Street WILL NOT be 'comfortable' during a Sanders administration.
