Politics Chelsea Clinton-$65,000 speaking fee.For what????

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Woof, Apr 28, 2016.

  1. Woof

    Woof Liver Shots? VIP

    Reputations:
    14,620
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    3,477
  2. slab0meat

    slab0meat negative creep

    Reputations:
    13,684
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    3,421
  3. Ingens

    Ingens VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    28,053
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    6,940
    She following in her parents' corrupt footsteps with pay to play schemes.
     
  4. BooeyBanana

    BooeyBanana Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    10,253
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,439
    Likes Received:
    2,450
    She has a lot to say about Socks the Cat. I'd pay big money to hear that, wouldn't you??
     
    WUT7272G7C likes this.
  5. lastlaugh

    lastlaugh Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    24,029
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,342
    Likes Received:
    5,695
    Proof positive of what people are really paying for with these speeches.
     
  6. bennymuso

    bennymuso Italian by name, British by nature

    Reputations:
    33,792
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,590
    Likes Received:
    3,469
    I'd like to speak into her vagina, with my cock.
     
    stash likes this.
  7. Divorce Chicken

    Divorce Chicken white punk on dope VIP

    Reputations:
    138,851
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    14,110
    Likes Received:
    31,182
    [​IMG]
     
  8. GaryPuppet

    GaryPuppet Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    234,889
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    25,298
    Likes Received:
    48,608
    Who the hell would be dumb enough to pay that kind of money to listen to her?

    Her dad I can see. But Chelsea, really?

    :facepalm:
     
    MadWoman777 and Mike Huntslooce like this.
  9. yaddc

    yaddc Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    103,392
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    23,038
    Likes Received:
    20,592
    shes the bagman of the operation
     
  10. CrucifiedAGT

    CrucifiedAGT He's Around VIP

    Reputations:
    333,702
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    11,655
    Likes Received:
    24,464
    Its called a bribe. Duh
     
  11. Lou Loomis

    Lou Loomis Feel the Gern

    Reputations:
    56,402
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,244
    Likes Received:
    9,716
    gonna need access to all the holes for that much scratch
     
  12. Miss America

    Miss America Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    15,108
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    723
    Likes Received:
    2,832
    For what? To keep her clothes on?
     
  13. moosetracks

    moosetracks Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    3,511
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    837
    Now i know the white privilege Hillary speaks of.
     
  14. SouthernListen

    SouthernListen I don't follow the crowd. Sorry about that. VIP

    Reputations:
    240,232
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    38,677
    Likes Received:
    39,390
    Woof likes this.
  15. SouthernListen

    SouthernListen I don't follow the crowd. Sorry about that. VIP

    Reputations:
    240,232
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    38,677
    Likes Received:
    39,390
    Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President
    04/15/2016 09:31 am ET | Updated Apr 15, 2016


    [​IMG]
    LUCAS JACKSON / REUTERS
    The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.

    Please don’t take my word for it, though.

    Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.

    Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.

    In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.

    Nor should we do here what Senator Sanders kindly declined to do at the Democratic debate last night, which is mention any of the proof — voluminous as it is, as Sanders conceded in a post-debate interview that cited Elizabeth Warren’s criticisms of Clinton — that during the housing crisis Clinton acted precisely like a politician who’d been bought off by Wall Street.

    As Politico has noted, “During 2007 and 2008, when the housing market collapsed and while [Clinton] was also running for president, the Democrats controlled the Senate. Of the 140 bills Clinton introduced during that period, five [3.5%] were related to housing finance or foreclosures, according to congressional records, including one aimed at making it easier for homeowners facing foreclosure to get their loans modified. Only one of the five secured any co-sponsors — New York Senator Charles Schumer signed onto a bill that would have helped veterans refinance their mortgages.”

    Two years. One legitimate bill. And even then, only one co-sponsor — a same-state Senator.

    When a Congressional bill gets no co-sponsors, either it’s an unserious bill or it’s a bill whose sponsor did nothing to push it. Neither possibility is in Clinton’s favor.

    But enough of that.

    The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?

    Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

    Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).

    Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:

    1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

    “Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

    [link]

    2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)

    “[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

    [link]

    3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)

    “In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”

    [link]

    4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)

    “Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”

    [link]

    5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal

    “She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”

    [link]

    6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)

    “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”

    [link]

    7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico

    “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”


    Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:



    1. It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.
    2. It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.
    3. It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.
     
    sstressed and Dirty South like this.
  16. SouthernListen

    SouthernListen I don't follow the crowd. Sorry about that. VIP

    Reputations:
    240,232
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    38,677
    Likes Received:
    39,390
    Feel the Bern. :owned:

    Hillary Clinton delegates won from voters 1125
    superdelegates 520
    Total 1645


    Bernie Sanders delegates won from voters 1318
    superdelegates 39
    Total 1357

    In American politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. According to Democratic Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz, superdelegates exist to avoid putting party leaders in the position of running against grassroots activists. [1] These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates who are selected based on the partyprimaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidentialnomination. Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate who did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.
     
    cg256 likes this.
  17. yaddc

    yaddc Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    103,392
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    23,038
    Likes Received:
    20,592
    Hope she gets a face lift with the money
     
  18. yaddc

    yaddc Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    103,392
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    23,038
    Likes Received:
    20,592
    Hillary got the front door covered Baby girl has the back door covered, They dont need Bill no more
     
  19. Ingens

    Ingens VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    28,053
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    6,940
    Just wait until she runs for president. :facepalm:

    [​IMG]
     
    1Vegasgirl likes this.
  20. joe361

    joe361 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    195,238
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    4,173
    Pay her! Why the fuck would you marry her?