Just Because - The HRC Goldman Speeches

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Obviously, for anyone who doesn't care to rehash Hillary Clinton, you can fuck off now as that's what this will be. And only because there has been so much of it of late and almost always a reference to her "corruption" due primarily to her speeches and then only as they pertain to Goldman Sachs and none of the other dozens of equally benign speeches she was paid to give while out of office.

First, though, a prescient quote from one of those speeches:

We have always had this kind of streak of whether it’s know-nothingism or isolationism or, you know, anti-Communism, extremism. Whatever. We’ve had it forever from the beginning. So it’s important that people speak out and stand up against it, and especially people who are Republicans, who say, look, that’s not the party that I’m part of. I want to get back to having a two-party system that can have an adult conversation and a real debate about the future.
...
What I really resent most about the obstructionists is they have such a narrow view of America. They see America in a way that is no longer reflective of the reality of who we are. They’re against immigration for reasons that have to do with the past, not the future. They can’t figure out how to invest in the future, so they cut everything. You know, laying off, you know, young researchers, closing labs instead of saying, we’re better at this than anybody in the world, that’s where our money should go. They just have a backward-looking view of America. And they play on people’s fears, not on people’s hopes, and they have to be rejected. I don’t care what they call themselves. I don’t care where they’re from. They have to be rejected because they are fundamentally un-American. And every effort they make to undermine and obstruct the functioning of the government is meant to send a signal that we can’t do anything collectively. You know, that we aren’t a community, a nation that shares values.

I mean, America was an invention. It was an intellectual invention, and we have done pretty well for all these years. And these people want to just undermine that very profound sense of who we are. And we can’t let them do that.

Ok, so, first up and in no particular order, there were the hacked Podesta emails where Podesta (allegedly) took certain sections (ironically) out of context in order to highlight to members of HRC's campaign team that he thought might be problem areas. I note "ironically" because being taken out of context is the whole shooting match for HRC her entire career, but of course Podesta was doing it amongst people who already knew the proper context and just wanted to highlight how the opposition would cherry-pick and use them offensively.

Clear? So one of the bigger problems he supposedly foresaw was (as formatted): *CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS* and then he provided a snippet (I've bolded it below). This section also fueled accusations that Hillary wanted the foxes to redesign the hen house (I've italicized that language).

Here is the entire answer in context. Recall that this was actually a Q&A, not a speech and it was in 2013, when she was long out of office.

MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians. Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do — I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.

That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom.

And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time.

And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.

I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached.

There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.

And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.

You know, I remember having a long conversation with Warren Buffett, who is obviously a friend of mine, but I think he's the greatest investor of our modern era, and he said, you know, I would go and I'd talk to my friends and I'd ask them to explain to me what a default credit swap was, and by the time they got into their fifth minute, I had no idea what they were talking about.And when they got into their tenth minute, I realized they didn't have any idea what they were talking about.

I mean, Alan Greenspan said, I didn't understand at all what they were trading. So I think it's in everybody's interest to get back to a better transparent model.

And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared,so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.

So people are, you know, a little --they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.

So first and foremost, more transparency,more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together, how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.

And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued liability and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.

Ok, so, let's break it down. The topic--the context--is provided specifically in the question. He's asked her about "regulators and politicians." The concluding paragraphs address both AND put in context her earlier (italicized) comment about getting people in the finance industry to help government fix the problems:

So first and foremost, more transparency,more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together, how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

So, for regulation it must be transparent, open, everyone (government/private sector/investors) on the same page and the finance industry is "the nerves, the spinal column" of that total body. NOT the end-all/be-all, but an integral part, which is absolutely true and as such they--the audience--needs to understand their role as well and what is needed (i.e., transparency, openness, working with government, not in secret) etc.

As for the "political comment" you can see by the opening sentence in the next paragraph the proper context:

And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something, because, for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.

She was clearly NOT saying that Dodd-Frank was a purely political move. She was explaining (and criticizing) how politicians resisted--complained about--regulation (like Dodd-Frank), but they also knew something needed to be done (because their voters were losing jobs and businesses and the press was saying it's Wall Street's fault so do something, damnit), but exactly what you do (i.e., smart regulation like Dodd-Frank) is important. Iow, don't half-ass it; what politicians need to do is to actually fix the problem.

How do we know this? Very next and concluding paragraph:

And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued liability and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.

She is talking to a bunch of financial analysts and compliance people. She was asked her opinion on "regulators and politicians" in the wake of the 2008 collapse and basically what roles everyone plays going forward. Her response was to say that everyone--both in the private sector and government--needs to work together to fix the problems and to be open/transparent and smart, so that it is actually the problem that gets fixed and not some half-measure that does no good. Politicians (Republicans, really) need to accept that regulations MUST be implemented and the finance industry needs to step up and help the politicians with those regulations to ensure that bad actors in their midst can't get away with it or else face "continued liability and other problems down the road."

Iow, perfectly benign and intelligent response. Everyone helps to fix the system, or everyone faces dire consequences.

So, here's the challenge. Post your own cherry-pick (along with at least a link to the speech it came out of) and argue why you think it stands on its own and won't change with context.

In short, prove that her speeches/q&a's somehow prove/demonstrate "pay to play" or otherwise her "corruption."

 

[Harry Bosch]

Obviously, for anyone who doesn't care to rehash Hillary Clinton, you can fuck off now as that's what this will be. And only because there has been so much of it of late and almost always a reference to her "corruption" due primarily to her speeches and then only as they pertain to Goldman Sachs and none of the other dozens of equally benign speeches she was paid to give while out of office.

First, though, a prescient quote from one of those speeches:



Ok, so, first up and in no particular order, there were the hacked Podesta emails where Podesta (allegedly) took certain sections (ironically) out of context in order to highlight to members of HRC's campaign team that he thought might be problem areas. I note "ironically" because being taken out of context is the whole shooting match for HRC her entire career, but of course Podesta was doing it amongst people who already knew the proper context and just wanted to highlight how the opposition would cherry-pick and use them offensively.

Clear? So one of the bigger problems he supposedly foresaw was (as formatted): *CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS* and then he provided a snippet (I've bolded it below). This section also fueled accusations that Hillary wanted the foxes to redesign the hen house (I've italicized that language).

Here is the entire answer in context. Recall that this was actually a Q&A, not a speech and it was in 2013, when she was long out of office.



Ok, so, let's break it down. The topic--the context--is provided specifically in the question. He's asked her about "regulators and politicians." The concluding paragraphs address both AND put in context her earlier (italicized) comment about getting people in the finance industry to help government fix the problems:

So first and foremost, more transparency,more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together, how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

So, for regulation it must be transparent, open, everyone (government/private sector/investors) on the same page and the finance industry is "the nerves, the spinal column" of that total body. NOT the end-all/be-all, but an integral part, which is absolutely true and as such they--the audience--needs to understand their role as well and what is needed (i.e., transparency, openness, working with government, not in secret) etc.

As for the "political comment" you can see by the opening sentence in the next paragraph the proper context:

And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something, because, for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.

She was clearly NOT saying that Dodd-Frank was a purely political move. She was explaining (and criticizing) how politicians resisted--complained about--regulation (like Dodd-Frank), but they also knew something needed to be done (because their voters were losing jobs and businesses and the press was saying it's Wall Street's fault so do something, damnit), but exactly what you do (i.e., smart regulation like Dodd-Frank) is important. Iow, don't half-ass it; what politicians need to do is to actually fix the problem.

How do we know this? Very next and concluding paragraph:

And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued liability and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.

She is talking to a bunch of financial analysts and compliance people. She was asked her opinion on "regulators and politicians" in the wake of the 2008 collapse and basically what roles everyone plays going forward. Her response was to say that everyone--both in the private sector and government--needs to work together to fix the problems and to be open/transparent and smart, so that it is actually the problem that gets fixed and not some half-measure that does no good. Politicians (Republicans, really) need to accept that regulations MUST be implemented and the finance industry needs to step up and help the politicians with those regulations to ensure that bad actors in their midst can't get away with it or else face "continued liability and other problems down the road."

Iow, perfectly benign and intelligent response. Everyone helps to fix the system, or everyone faces dire consequences.

So, here's the challenge. Post your own cherry-pick (along with at least a link to the speech it came out of) and argue why you think it stands on its own and won't change with context.

In short, prove that her speeches/q&a's somehow prove/demonstrate "pay to play" or otherwise her "corruption."

Yea, this is just one of the several Russian Bot ploys to split the democratic party. The dem party is made up of many different groups: urban professionals, blue collar workers, and etc. Their strategy was to depress blue collar turnout or convert them to the Donald by creating this false schism between them and the urban professionals. It's really sad how some people are so easily deceived...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yea, this is just one of the several Russian Bot ploys to split the democratic party.

The false equivalency tactic. But if I'm not mistaken, that was actually first unleashed by the Sanders followers--itself an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street, which was behind Sanders' rise--and was a heavily repeated attack that I think the Russians (and the GOP), simply picked up on and helped "weaponize."

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, this is just one of the several Russian Bot ploys to split the democratic party.

The false equivalency tactic. But if I'm not mistaken, that was actually first unleashed by the Sanders followers--itself an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street, which was behind Sanders' rise--and was a heavily repeated attack that I think the Russians (and the GOP), simply picked up on and helped "weaponize."

There is a group on the left that believes that it's possible to win an election without the moderates. But to be fair, there are many moderates who think that we don't need the far left to win. The truth is we need both the far left, regular left, moderates, and some right moderates! The left can only win with significantly more votes than the right. 50.1% of the vote won't win us an election. But I digress!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yea, this is just one of the several Russian Bot ploys to split the democratic party.

The false equivalency tactic. But if I'm not mistaken, that was actually first unleashed by the Sanders followers--itself an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street, which was behind Sanders' rise--and was a heavily repeated attack that I think the Russians (and the GOP), simply picked up on and helped "weaponize."

There is a group on the left that believes that it's possible to win an election without the moderates. But to be fair, there are many moderates who think that we don't need the far left to win. The truth is we need both the far left, regular left, moderates, and some right moderates! The left can only win with significantly more votes than the right. 50.1% of the vote won't win us an election. But I digress!

Well, there is what should now be called the Sanders radical fringe, which only consisted of about 6% of all Democrats once the much louder noise they generated finally died down.

Unfortunately we are in a new era with a medium that does the exact opposite of what the Fourth Estate did; it amplifies only the fringe--which editors and journalists used to correctly ignore--making it seem as if it is the mainstream, when in fact it is not. Whether that trend will continue is still unknown, because the medium is still too young and technology moves so quickly (almost as fast as the fads it generates), but that was a key component in everything that happened in 2016 and today.

The point being, we don't ever need to really give a shit about the fringe, because they will always act in a manner that keeps them on the fringe. Susan Sarandon is an excellent example of this, as well as Sanders, for that matter. They deliberately take positions that they know can't ever be assailed, but at the same time can't ever be implemented. the "magical ponies" positions. That ensures they are never proved wrong (by anything they propose ever having a chance of being implemented) and can always piously point their fingers.

It's the mirror left side of the spectrum to the right side nutjob evangelicals and the like. They were there with Nader as well, but nobody remembers him or that election and because the new medium didn't exist then, he got forgotten much quicker than Sanders deserves to be forgotten.

But I digress too.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, it’s been a while now and no one has taken me up on this? I thought this would be a hotly contested thread, loaded with deplorables at the very least, just dying to dig into these speeches that somehow prove Hillary is corrupt and was paid to play and all that other idiotic blather that has been non-stop spewing out their asses for years now.

So we can finally bury this idiotic horse? Sanders’ bots? Nothing? Here’s you chance! We have the speeches and the Podesta emails and a golden opportunity to show exactly how any of it proves Hillary to be corrupt and “worse than Trump” and “establishment” and a “corporate whore” and all of the other Russian fueled nonsense that came frothing out of her opponent’s mouths that all helped to put Trump in the Oval, so have at it!

Make an actual case based on her actual words and not just more arguments from incredulity. It should be easy, it’s all right there for you. Podesta even (allegedly) did the heavy-lifting by picking out the sections he felt would be particularly problematic.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, it’s been a while now and no one has taken me up on this? I thought this would be a hotly contested thread, loaded with deplorables at the very least, just dying to dig into these speeches that somehow prove Hillary is corrupt and was paid to play and all that other idiotic blather that has been non-stop spewing out their asses for years now.

So we can finally bury this idiotic horse? Sanders’ bots? Nothing? Here’s you chance! We have the speeches and the Podesta emails and a golden opportunity to show exactly how any of it proves Hillary to be corrupt and “worse than Trump” and “establishment” and a “corporate whore” and all of the other Russian fueled nonsense that came frothing out of her opponent’s mouths that all helped to put Trump in the Oval, so have at it!

Make an actual case based on her actual words and not just more arguments from incredulity. It should be easy, it’s all right there for you. Podesta even (allegedly) did the heavy-lifting by picking out the sections he felt would be particularly problematic.

The Russian bots have been awfully quiet lately!

 

[Elixir]

Well, it’s been a while now and no one has taken me up on this? I thought this would be a hotly contested thread, loaded with deplorables at the very least, just dying to dig into these speeches that somehow prove Hillary is corrupt and was paid to play and all that other idiotic blather that has been non-stop spewing out their asses for years now.

So we can finally bury this idiotic horse? Sanders’ bots? Nothing? Here’s you chance! We have the speeches and the Podesta emails and a golden opportunity to show exactly how any of it proves Hillary to be corrupt and “worse than Trump” and “establishment” and a “corporate whore” and all of the other Russian fueled nonsense that came frothing out of her opponent’s mouths that all helped to put Trump in the Oval, so have at it!

Make an actual case based on her actual words and not just more arguments from incredulity. It should be easy, it’s all right there for you. Podesta even (allegedly) did the heavy-lifting by picking out the sections he felt would be particularly problematic.

The Russian bots have been awfully quiet lately!

Seriously I think they're still around, but they are concertedly beating the far left drum. At this point, Pootey and the Gang know that they are not going to recruit many more trumpsuckers, so their best bet to maintain power is to push a faction of the left all the way to the left field wall, and hope they nominate some commie who can bleed off maybe 18% of the vote in 2020. That might let Trump win again with 42%.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm genuinely shocked at the lack of responses. These "speeches" have been at the center of every allegation against her--literally everything--and now here's the opportunity to really let slip the dogs of war and provide irrefutable evidence--her own words!--to prove every allegation against her, and nothing.

 

[starwater]

geez man let's move on. Let the Clintons go.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

geez man let's move on. Let the Clintons go.

You're missing the point. I started this thread because others (including alleged progressives) couldn't stop shit-talking Clinton and claiming her speeches somehow proved she was a "corporate whore" and other "pay to play" accusations. Now here we have the texts of the speeches and the chance to definitively prove the accusations against her and nothing.

Which in turn proves they were the ones full of shit and they never had any evidence of their accusations, which in turn means they were all manipulated into believing she was corrupt when in fact she wasn't.

The deeper point being that these people still cling to these baseless opinions that were programmed into them.

That's a very important distinction in any on-going post-mortem to help us determine what happened and how it happened and how to stop it from happening again going forward. In Hillary's case, the dominant programming came from the relentless Republican hatred machine aligned against her from her days as First Lady in Little Rock, not just the WH. They knew she would be a threat to their power base and never stopped attacking her over the past thirty years.

So the question goes to why did progressives buy the lies and the hatred (and continue to spread them)? Again, here is an opportunity for any such person to definitively evidence--using her own words--her corporate corruption.

For years now the argument has always been based on a fallacy (argument from incredulity). Now the evidence is there to make a legitimate argument and if not, abandon the false opinion. That's what intelligent people--skeptics and "free thinkers"--do; assess the evidence and form opinions based on the evidence, not on social programming or the like. That's what a cult is all about, after all.

 

[Harry Bosch]

geez man let's move on. Let the Clintons go.

What makes you think that the Russians won't try to help the Republicans in 2020 also?