US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3744

On May 05 2016 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Everyone is also forgetting the potential curve ball Trump could pitch before November. Say he gets a copy of a speech Clinton gave to a financial group.

Could easily happen I imagine.

On May 05 2016 14:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:

...the speech would, with 95% likelihood, be a generic inspirational pep speech she gave to employees.

Moreover, if it goes down that route, Trump has decades of making similar speeches so yeah.

On May 05 2016 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote:


It wouldn't come from Trump from the public's perspective, he would just mention it afterwords while bragging he didn't need a superPAC/Wall street money to win his primary. He has the added bonus of no one thinking they were paying ~$250k/hr to speak, to the next president, which all of the people (beyond Wall st.) clearly thought they were doing.

I don't know how people seriously think "Oh they just wanted to listen to a pep talk and pay to take pictures with Hillary on Wall st. How could anyone think they wanted to gain influence over the types of regulations she pushes on them!?"

Doesn't help Hillary said "They aren't giving me much money now" after they gave her superPAC $15 million. She seems to think about money in a very different way than most Americans.

On May 05 2016 12:10 oneofthem wrote:
stalin was to the left of hillary on some issues too, this means he had some good in him since left=good

On May 05 2016 13:45 LegalLord wrote:
I'd definitely like to see the Bernie candidacy do something to move Hillary to the left. On social issues, I'd say she's progressive enough. On economic issues, I'm not her biggest fan but I'll also admit that my knowledge of the merits and demerits of trade agreements isn't strong enough to properly assess her candidacy (seems like economists aren't able to reach a consensus either). On FP, she has a generally terrible history and I'd like to see her take a less hawkish approach to it all.

GH is correct about that Bernie forced her to move to the left on some things, to the point that she's tied herself to Obama on a lot of issues when she would have otherwise moved to the right. That's probably ultimately a good thing.

On May 05 2016 19:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


What could these transcripts say- what could Hillary have realistically said during her speeches to financial groups- that would wreck her? Like Romney's "47%" moment or something?

On May 05 2016 22:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
Those speeches aren't going to have anything interesting. I also find the insistence that they are somehow materially different from the speeches she gave at colleges, tech companies and so forth kind of amusing.

I'm sure if I tried I could find someone who attended one of her much reviled GS speeches. I'm sure if i tried a bit harder I could even find someone who wasn't paying attention at one of those speeches.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “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.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

On May 05 2016 22:13 WhiteDog wrote:
We should create a StealthBlue appreciation thread for everything he forwarded to us in this thread and elsewhere imo.