• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Chronicles in the Trials and Tribulations of Hillary Clinton - Working Class Warrior(s) Speaking Fees

 
 
 
How do ex-presidents being paid for speeches equal buying influence? Ex-presidents are no longer in positions of power to do anything.
 
ZiprHead said:
How do ex-presidents being paid for speeches equal buying influence? Ex-presidents are no longer in positions of power to do anything.
Click to expand...
Corporations aren't spending 100's of millions for nothing. No ex-president has anything valuable to say to help a business' bottom line. Remember Bush Sr not knowing what a supermarket check-out scanner was? You think he has the expertise to help a company into the 21st century. How about Bush Jr and his record of business failures as well as political failures. Yet both of them are on the corporate speech gravy train. They pay so current politicians know what to look forward to if they play ball while in power.
 
Harry_Bosch said:
barbos said:
Fixed for you.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. This has been going on for 200 years. Because a woman is using the system, everyone is up in arms. Where was all this fake outrage when Bill Clinton, GW, Reagan and every other politician was paid for their speeches.
Click to expand...

But Harry, that is what got us here...200 years of creepy crooked politicos. Being a woman does not make Hillary any less creepy or crooked. My advice to you and Max is the same advice I give my friends...vote for Bernie Sanders.:D
 
dismal said:
Metaphor said:
maxparrish, are you upset that the market has voluntarily paid the Clintons for their product?
Click to expand...

Depends. What's "their product"?
Click to expand...

The speeches that they deliver. That's what companies are paying for.

Precisely why they're paying for them is anyone's guess. Perhaps the senior executives need a speaker to turn their shareholder-funded holiday into a 'corporate retreat'. Perhaps being seen to pay outrageous fees to have empty platitudes directed at you is a conspicuous consumption of the corporate elite: we're doing so well, we're paying a Bush for advice! Or perhaps the companies really do think that there are good business or motivational dividends that can be yielded from the speeches.

The point is, the Clintons have a product and the market is paying for it voluntarily.
 
Metaphor said:
dismal said:
Depends. What's "their product"?
Click to expand...

The speeches that they deliver. That's what companies are paying for.

Precisely why they're paying for them is anyone's guess. Perhaps the senior executives need a speaker to turn their shareholder-funded holiday into a 'corporate retreat'. Perhaps being seen to pay outrageous fees to have empty platitudes directed at you is a conspicuous consumption of the corporate elite: we're doing so well, we're paying a Bush for advice! Or perhaps the companies really do think that there are good business or motivational dividends that can be yielded from the speeches.

The point is, the Clintons have a product and the market is paying for it voluntarily.
Click to expand...

It is just a way to avoid limitations on campaign contributions. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on here. It could be called corruption. It could be called business. It is pretty much the same thing in Oligarch America.
 
Metaphor said:
dismal said:
Depends. What's "their product"?
Click to expand...

The speeches that they deliver. That's what companies are paying for.
Click to expand...

Heh. I seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard her that Hillary is not that gifted a speaker.

If we accept that Hillary's large speaking fees are a product of her wonderful speeches we are left to puzzle over other observable facts.

Why doesn't she use her speaking talents to sell out large auditoriums?

Why don't people flock to her campaign events where her wonderful speeches are being offered gratis?

What is this magical something in her speeches that makes them so uniquely appealing, but only to wealthy corporations with business before the government?
 
dismal said:
Metaphor said:
The speeches that they deliver. That's what companies are paying for.
Click to expand...

Heh. I seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard her that Hillary is not that gifted a speaker.

If we accept that Hillary's large speaking fees are a product of her wonderful speeches we are left to puzzle over other observable facts.

Why doesn't she use her speaking talents to sell out large auditoriums?

Why don't people flock to her campaign events where her wonderful speeches are being offered gratis?

What is this magical something in her speeches that makes them so uniquely appealing, but only to wealthy corporations with business before the government?
Click to expand...

It seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard him that Justin Bieber is not that gifted a singer.

If we accept that Bieber's large singing fees are a product of his wonderful songs we are left to puzzle over other observable facts.

Why doesn't he use his singing talents to entertain corporate executives?

Why don't people flock to his youtube channel, where his wonderful songs are being offered gratis?

What is this magical something in his songs that makes them so uniquely appealing, but only to teenagers with no taste in music?

Why does dismal think that his opinion about what others should value is more important than theirs?

It's their money. They can spend it on Bieber CDs and MP3s if they want. No matter how fucking crazy it seems to you or I.
 
bilby said:
dismal said:
Heh. I seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard her that Hillary is not that gifted a speaker.

If we accept that Hillary's large speaking fees are a product of her wonderful speeches we are left to puzzle over other observable facts.

Why doesn't she use her speaking talents to sell out large auditoriums?

Why don't people flock to her campaign events where her wonderful speeches are being offered gratis?

What is this magical something in her speeches that makes them so uniquely appealing, but only to wealthy corporations with business before the government?
Click to expand...

It seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard him that Justin Bieber is not that gifted a singer.
Click to expand...

Unlike Hillary, he does (or did) seem to be able to sell tickets to actual people acting in their capacities as individuals.

Call me when the only gig Justin Bieber can get is playing for huge dollars for Goldman Sachs and we'll discuss why only Goldman Sachs thinks he is such a great singer.
 
dismal said:
bilby said:
It seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard him that Justin Bieber is not that gifted a singer.
Click to expand...

Unlike Hillary, he does (or did) seem to be able to sell tickets to actual people acting in their capacities as individuals.

Call me when the only gig Justin Bieber can get is playing for huge dollars for Goldman Sachs and we'll discuss why only Goldman Sachs thinks he is such a great singer.
Click to expand...

So now the Clintons have to sell tickets to 'actual people' acting in their capacities as 'individuals' for their speaking fees to be legitimate?

What other rules have you dreamt up so that the free market can be more free? Would there be more freedom if we banned Goldman Sachs from hiring a Clinton?
 
dismal said:
Heh. I seems obvious to most everyone who has ever heard her that Hillary is not that gifted a speaker.
Click to expand...

Neither is Oprah, but she still performs to packed out stadiums.

If we accept that Hillary's large speaking fees are a product of her wonderful speeches we are left to puzzle over other observable facts.
Click to expand...

Whoever imagined that? If Clinton were any of a million corporate lawyers people wouldn't pay 2c to listen to her. But she's not a corporate lawyer. She's a former first lady and presidential hopeful. People want to hear her opinions on shit.

No skin off my back if they do. People go to church to be lectured at by the insane of their own free will too.

Why doesn't she use her speaking talents to sell out large auditoriums?
Click to expand...

Because the proles couldn't afford her?

Why don't people flock to her campaign events where her wonderful speeches are being offered gratis?
Click to expand...

Because you get what you pay for?

What is this magical something in her speeches that makes them so uniquely appealing, but only to wealthy corporations with business before the government?
Click to expand...

If you're making an accusation that Clinton will remember Goldman Sachs when she's President and give them special favours, then I suggest you put the accusation directly and furnish evidence of it. (Which will have to be in the future or never, because she's not President and may never be).
 
The fees don't prove anything about buying favours, but it does show Goldman Sachs believes Clinton is aligned with them, she's their kind of people.
 
When people are giving politicians a lot of money to give speeches that are not very good, nor in the least enlightening, they are paying for something besides the speech.
 
I think this story is more enlightening about her relationship to Wall St.

[YOUTUBE]12mJ-U76nfg[/YOUTUBE]


NOW with Bill Moyers. Transcript. February 6, 2004 | PBS

WARREN: President Clinton had been showing that this is another way that he could be helpful to business. It wasn't a very high visibility bill. And when Mrs. Clinton came back with a little better understanding of how it all worked, they reversed course, and they reversed course fast. And indeed, the proof is in the pudding. The last bill that came before President Clinton was that bankruptcy bill that was passed by the House and the Senate in 2000 and he vetoed it. And in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton took credit for that veto and she rightly should. She turned around a whole administration on the subject of bankruptcy. She got it.
MOYERS: And then?
WARREN: One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the bankruptcy bill. This is a bill that's like a vampire. It will not die. Right? There's a lot of money behind it, and it…
MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed…
WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.
MOYERS: And?
WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
MOYERS: Why?
WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom