Goldman Saks did not give Hillary money to change her mind. This is why---

[stevebreeze]

They, and most other donors give money to candidates who agree with their positions. Or sometime to re-enforce their bond. This make the candidates of the wealthy class much more likly to be elected.

[BlueStreak]

1. Absolutely. When have the Clintons ever given anybody any reason to believe

they were not all for the 0.1% aristocrat class?

Yet another of our "lesser of evils" elections coming right up.

The American 2-party system is corrupt to the core. There is nothing like it anywhere else.

The closest thing to the American 2-party system is the 1-party systems in Russia, China, North Korea, Singapore, and many other countries, and those countries range from completely amoral to downright evil.

[stevebreeze]

5. the primaries is the time to vote for your perfered caandidate, the general election is when you

currently have to settle for the lessor of evils. Until we can get ranked voting or proportional representation less evil is still better then more evil.

[grasswire]

2. they gave her money to tell them the crash was OUR FAULT.

Seriously. We now know what she said to Goldman Sachs.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Ding! Ding! ^We Have a Winner^

[AzDar]

9. Her positions sure protect the Status Quo...leaving the 99% vulnerable to her predator Donors.

[Lucinda]

4. These companies bring in speakers that their employees find interesting

The event are often conferences.
A former FLOTUS, NY Senator, and SOS would certainly qualify as someone of interest.
Hillary's fees, and the events she was asked to speak at, are perfectly normal for someone of her experience.
The ONLY thing remarkable about the amount, was that she is one of the few women who is paid as much as the men.

[stevebreeze]

6. She would not be "interesting" if should told them the truth and the whole truth.

The financial industry has tripled in size since WWII and has contributed only a couple of middling and one giant recession to the economy. They suck money out of the economy and society as a whole gets nothing in return for much of it. The use campaign donations to change the rules in their own selfish favor. Because trading back-rubs with politicians is normal for them does not excuse the behaveure.

[Lucinda]

7. You have no idea what the content of her speeches were

She spoke to a wide variety of groups, and without knowing the focus of the official event you seem to be making huge assumptions about the subject matter of her speeches.

The only thing I have heard that she is actually supposed to have said, second hand, is that she told GS that the financial industry and the government (the "we" in her remarks) had made a mess, and would have to work together to clean it up. Seems like a reasonable point of view to me.


Bloomberg list of speeches:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton

[KentuckyWoman]

8. Hey I know.

Maybe Hillary could look into releasing transcripts of the speeches so we all know what she said.


If she did say "We" would have to clean it up then I have a problem with that. "We" didn't make the mess. "We" do not need to socialize the losses when "we" didn't socialize the profits.

And the government IS "we" (as in "the people&quot .

[thesquanderer]

10. Bingo! They don't pay her to change her positions...

...they pay her to NOT change her positions. She's already on their side.

So this whole defense of "show me any time I changed my vote" is meaningless. (Not that a quid pro quo is ever so obvious anyway.)

[stevebreeze]

11. quid pro quo or quo pro quid makes not difference.

The money is like behavioral training your dog. You give them a treat every time they move closer to your objective.