If you're taking money and making speeches at Goldman Sachs, yes. I'm not even mad at Goldman Sachs. being skeezy is how they make money, their shareholders expect it. I however expect my representatives to go to bat against them, not lube me up for them. If you take money from a party and get friendly with them, it's reasonable to assume you are, on some level, at least a little beholden to them. Especially if that single speaking fee makes you more than most of the US sees in a year.

I'd be more inclined to believe this line of thinking if their was any evidence that Clinton actually did this on ANY issue. She hasn't.

We don't know, do we? You could be absolutely right. She could be going in there and talking about baking cookies and hugging puppies. Or she could be telling them to not worry, fund her election and she'll make sure things quietly blow over. Also if you don't mind building a new oil well in Iraq I'd appreciate it. She's certainly flipped a LOT of other positions (can cite if needed), who is to say what she tells us and what she tells their boardroom aren't entirely different? The point is we don't know and we can't know until she tells us, and you're arguing whether she legally has to. Do you really want to elect someone you know nothing about because they don't have to reveal what they tell to their biggest fans? This whole argument is so confusing to me. Why the fuck wouldn't you want to know? She's going to be running your country too. It really smacks of either naivete or outright subversion.

Also if you don't mind building a new oil well in Iraq I'd appreciate it. She's certainly flipped a LOT of other positions (can cite if needed), who is to say what she tells us and what she tells their boardroom aren't entirely different?

I'd love some evidence. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up my ass.

Do you really want to elect someone you know nothing about because they don't have to reveal what they tell to their biggest fans

It's a speech. It's not like hid evidence to invade Iraq.

This whole argument is so confusing to me. Why the fuck wouldn't you want to know? She's going to be running your country too. It really smacks of either naivete or outright subversion.

Because it's a non-issue to me. Various politicians have made speeches in the past and had no bearing on their political careers. The only reason it is an issue now is that it fits the BernieBros narrative of her being with the establishment, so she must be corrupt!