Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

After Hillary Clinton spoke at a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday, I asked her if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. She laughed and turned away.

Clinton has recently been on the defensive about the speaking fees she and her husband have collected. Those fees total over $125 million since 2001.

Her rival Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, has raised concerns in particular over the $675,000 she made from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank that has regularly used its influence with government officials to win favorable policies.

When asked by the Des Moines Register on Thursday if she regretted her decision to make money from speaking to various interest groups, Clinton compared herself to President Barack Obama, noting that significant campaign donations from Wall Street did not stop him from passing the Dodd-Frank reform law.

Pwns wrote:

When asked by the Des Moines Register on Thursday if she regretted her decision to make money from speaking to various interest groups, Clinton compared herself to President Barack Obama, noting that significant campaign donations from Wall Street did not stop him from passing the Dodd-Frank reform law.

Dodd-Frank.

I'm sure Goldman Sachs and the megabucks were trembling over the Dodd-Frank Small bank and Credit Union reform bill.

Honestly, this is one reason I could consider voting for Sanders. He probably won't be able to get his tax increases or single payer health care plan through congress, but he might can get the big banks broken up and stop them from holding the economy hostage.

kalm wrote:Sure it's a gotcha question, but this short clip sums her up nicely.

This should be a bigger concern in the long run than the emails. Look at all the conks concerned about her connections!

After Hillary Clinton spoke at a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday, I asked her if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. She laughed and turned away.

Clinton has recently been on the defensive about the speaking fees she and her husband have collected. Those fees total over $125 million since 2001.

Her rival Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, has raised concerns in particular over the $675,000 she made from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank that has regularly used its influence with government officials to win favorable policies.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmV6slkQhEE[/youtube]


https://theintercept.com/2016/01/23/cli ... chs-laugh/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CID1990 wrote:

Her actions exposed HUMINT sources and that almost always hurts us in two ways: it gets real people killed (really) and it discourages others from working with us because even our most exalted leaders dont give a damn about protecting their identities.

Her sleazy dealings with big money are old news, and while reprehensible, at least she's currying favor with a domestic source. I'd be more interested in the quid pro quo deals with foreign entities.

Ivytalk wrote:"Cardinal [Lee] Fang, read the charges!" Great find!

I wonder if my old buddy Lloyd Blankfein thinks GS got its money's worth!

Burn her! BURN HER!!!

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

Her actions exposed HUMINT sources and that almost always hurts us in two ways: it gets real people killed (really) and it discourages others from working with us because even our most exalted leaders dont give a damn about protecting their identities.

Her sleazy dealings with big money are old news, and while reprehensible, at least she's currying favor with a domestic source. I'd be more interested in the quid pro quo deals with foreign entities.

See kalm...
CID thinks she's perfect for the President job

Ivytalk wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:"Cardinal [Lee] Fang, read the charges!" Great find!

I wonder if my old buddy Lloyd Blankfein thinks GS got its money's worth!

Burn her! BURN HER!!!

klam, I'm distressed: my post had TWO Monty Python references for your enjoyment!

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

Her actions exposed HUMINT sources and that almost always hurts us in two ways: it gets real people killed (really) and it discourages others from working with us because even our most exalted leaders dont give a damn about protecting their identities.

Her sleazy dealings with big money are old news, and while reprehensible, at least she's currying favor with a domestic source. I'd be more interested in the quid pro quo deals with foreign entities.

See kalm...
CID thinks she's typical for the President job

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:Sure it's a gotcha question, but this short clip sums her up nicely.

This should be a bigger concern in the long run than the emails. Look at all the conks concerned about her connections!



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmV6slkQhEE[/youtube]


https://theintercept.com/2016/01/23/cli ... chs-laugh/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, it isn't bigger than the emails.

Her actions exposed HUMINT sources and that almost always hurts us in two ways: it gets real people killed (really) and it discourages others from working with us because even our most exalted leaders dont give a damn about protecting their identities.

Her sleazy dealings with big money are old news, and while reprehensible, at least she's currying favor with a domestic source. I'd be more interested in the quid pro quo deals with foreign entities.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
No, it isn't bigger than the emails.

Her actions exposed HUMINT sources and that almost always hurts us in two ways: it gets real people killed (really) and it discourages others from working with us because even our most exalted leaders dont give a damn about protecting their identities.

Her sleazy dealings with big money are old news, and while reprehensible, at least she's currying favor with a domestic source. I'd be more interested in the quid pro quo deals with foreign entities.

Business as usual.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Business as usual.

Hardly.

PLEASE bring up Valerie Plame.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Hardly.

PLEASE bring up Valerie Plame.

You're speaking of the undercover CIA lady exposed by the Cheney admin in retaliation against her husband for not lying about the lack of Iraqi nuclear weapons?

What about her?

Wedgebuster wrote:BENGAZI!!!

Chizzang wrote:We're still sorting through all the arrests and indictments from that one...

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We're still sorting through all the arrests and indictments from that one...

If arrests and indictments are the indicator of a scandal why do people like kalm keep talking about the financial meltdown in 2008? You can count on one hand the number of people arrested and indicted as a result of that.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We're still sorting through all the arrests and indictments from that one...

If arrests and indictments are the indicator of a scandal why do people like kalm keep talking about the financial meltdown in 2008? You can count on one hand the number of people arrested and indicted as a result of that.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
If arrests and indictments are the indicator of a scandal why do people like kalm keep talking about the financial meltdown in 2008? You can count on one hand the number of people arrested and indicted as a result of that.

That was a conk president.