2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGoldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week
In the meantime, the two parties are moving to ensure that the same faces and choices will be given to voters despite overwhelming discontent over the two-party monopoly on power. With a system protecting incumbents and control of the two main parties, such public opposition remains largely immaterial and business interests are already putting money down on candidates like Clinton and the style of honesty that they crave.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/11/01/goldman-sachs-gives-hillary-clinton-almost-half-a-million-dollars-in-less-than-a-week/
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)kinda like "Protection Money"
Scuba
(53,475 posts)coldmountain
(802 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)If that was asked of her what other answer could she possibly have given?
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Or does the loyalty test only apply to Hillary?
Beacool
(30,253 posts)BootinUp
(47,209 posts)Puts him in the minority.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)That was a real Goat-Fuck.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)that broke in the news in mid June. Cover up from the top floor they say.
Still no report on the re-investigation.
I sure hope this isn't buried with Bill's shovel ready people.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)The ties that bind.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)she were running.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)The democratic system in the US has always protected the two parties and the Electoral College pretty much enforces it. Nothing new there.
Candidates like Sanders, Cruz, Nader the Greens and other Populist (individual, more localized donors) exist to help define the outer extremities and nominally influence the Left/Right Centrist position candidates that ultimately make it to the national election and actually stand a chance of getting elected.
If not already Centrist, they quickly become such, due to the reality of the appointed, federal government Beltway bureaucracy, largely controlled by the Big Money. That's when promises, even those made in good faith, get broken.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)In 2008, Goldman Sachs gave more money to the Obama campaign than it gave to Hillary and McCain's.
This doesn't bother me, let her take as much money from these weasels as they are willing to pay. BTW, $400,000 is not half a million.
"Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054)."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/barack-obama-collected-money-john-mccain-article-1.351304
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think a person would need to draw the line at hate groups and other discriminatory groups but G.S. doesn't discriminate.
I know that a lot of very liberal folks have been asked to speak at conservative organizations and vice versa. Assuming the audience is respectful, that makes a lot of sense so you can hear how folks on the other side think.
And no, this is not influence peddling. If someone gives me money to give a speech, they got every bit of what they paid for when I finished uttering the last word of the speech. That's it, thank you and please pay me the balance, bye.