Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Travis said:
Are you serious about that being illegal?
Click to expand...
United States obscenity law
In Rosen v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin, [1868] L. R. 3 Q. B. 360. The Hicklin test defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences
Click to expand...
Clearly Hillary has corrupted herself with her own speeches, and that alone should be grounds to prosecute her.

Perhaps she is currently in the clear and can't be touched due to some legal technicality. But once Bernie becomes president he will fix that loophole, and Hillary will be stripped of her ill-gotten gains.

Seems like a sarcastic remark since I can't see any way to actually do that.
Click to expand...
But you would like to see it done, right? Bernie will make it happen - just like he's going to put the banksters in prison, raise taxes to 90%, and create unheard-of economic growth while giving us all free healthcare. The revolution is coming, and things you thought were impossible will be fact. Sanders knows what the people want, and one of the things we want is Hillary first against the wall!
 
jhunter1163 said:
Everyone's income sounds a lot more impressive if you add up a lot of years. I'll bet a lot of us here on the board have had over $1 million in household income over the last 14 years. Not that $153 million isn't a lot of money, but over 14 years it's not nearly as impressive.
Click to expand...


Hillary's salary was approximately $200,000 per year; both as Senator (2001-2009), and Secretary of State (2009-2013).

The speaking fees were in addition to her actual salary -- in other words, she made an entire years salary every time she gave a 30 minute stump speech -- which she did hundreds of times. Not bad for a supplemental part-time job.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Hillary's salary was approximately $200,000 per year; both as Senator (2001-2009), and Secretary of State (2009-2013).

The speaking fees were in addition to her actual salary -- in other words, she made an entire years salary every time she gave a 30 minute stump speech -- which she did hundreds of times. Not bad for a supplemental part-time job.
Click to expand...
She didn't give any paid speeches when she was Senator or Secretary of State.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sexist POV: anything Clinton does or earns is corruption. Anyone else, not so much.
Click to expand...


eBay Inc. paid Hillary $315,000 for a 20 minute speech (3/11/2015).

Twenty minutes of "Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf!"

Barking fees.

------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, each former president receives the same salary as a current member of the Presidential Cabinet. For 2013, the amount was $199,700 per year. This number does not take into account the extras the former leader is entitled to including a $96,000 stipend for office staff payroll and free postage for life.

However, no one can realistically be expected to live on such a paltry amount, so Obama has requested an 18% increase -- on his way out the door, no less.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, each former president receives the same salary as a current member of the Presidential Cabinet. For 2013, the amount was $199,700 per year. This number does not take into account the extras the former leader is entitled to including a $96,000 stipend for office staff payroll and free postage for life.

However, no one can realistically be expected to live on such a paltry amount, so Obama has requested an 18% increase -- on his way out the door, no less.
Click to expand...

Are you too lazy to look up the crap you read off of the right wing blogosphere? That's not an 18% increase to Obama's pension; that'll probably go up at the rate that the other living president's pension has been going up... about 1% p.a., not even staying equal to CoL.

That's the amount of increase for the entire budget for provisions for former presidents.

Now, stay with me... We can do the math together. In 2016, there were 4 former presidents still living. In 2017, there will be 5 former presidents still living. That would represent a net LFPI (Living Former Presidents Index) of 25%. The reason he only allocated 18% is because Bill can probably get his hookers and blow money from the cookie jar at 1400 Pennsylvania Ave. next year.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Are you too lazy to look up the crap you read off of the right wing blogosphere? That's not an 18% increase to Obama's pension; that'll probably go up at the rate that the other living president's pension has been going up... about 1% p.a., not even staying equal to CoL.

That's the amount of increase for the entire budget for provisions for former presidents.

Now, stay with me... We can do the math together. In 2016, there were 4 former presidents still living. In 2017, there will be 5 former presidents still living. That would represent a net LFPI (Living Former Presidents Index) of 25%. The reason he only allocated 18% is because Bill can probably get his hookers and blow money from the cookie jar at 1400 Pennsylvania Ave. next year.
Click to expand...


Are you too lazy to look up the age of our current living presidents? Now, stay with me... George and Jimmy are both 91 years old.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
eBay Inc. paid Hillary $315,000 for a 20 minute speech (3/11/2015).

Twenty minutes of "Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf!"

Barking fees.

------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, each former president receives the same salary as a current member of the Presidential Cabinet. For 2013, the amount was $199,700 per year. This number does not take into account the extras the former leader is entitled to including a $96,000 stipend for office staff payroll and free postage for life.

However, no one can realistically be expected to live on such a paltry amount, so Obama has requested an 18% increase -- on his way out the door, no less.
Click to expand...

Is there an argument here, or just bitter bitching ?
 
Wasn't Sarah Palin getting similar amounts for speaking fees in spite her "accomplishments" amounting to only a failed VP bid and resigning in disgrace from being governor?
 
Travis said:
Wasn't Sarah Palin getting similar amounts for speaking fees in spite her "accomplishments" amounting to only a failed VP bid and resigning in disgrace from being governor?
Click to expand...

Speech inflation: Why Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and others get massive speaking fees
Though speakers fees are often kept confidential, we do have a few estimates of what famous ex-politicians make:

Bill Clinton supposedly made around $225,000 for a gig last February.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and one-time Republican presidential hopeful, is said to have pulled up to $270,000 for a speech.
Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor, former Republican vice-presidential candidate, and all-time cable news and tabloid fixture—is said to have made $115,000 for a speech in 2011.
These are just the big guns. Even the fringiest of also-rans—think Howard Dean and Herman Cain—have big-time speakers agents and can pull in serious coin for giving a fluffy 45-minute talk. Given that most of the declared 2016 candidates on both sides of the aisle have a fairly slim chance of becoming president, perhaps financial incentives, rather than the pull of public service, has some impact on just how many people run for high office.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin Has Earned an Estimated $12 Million Since July
Since leaving office at the end of July 2009, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee has brought in at least 100 times her old salary – a haul now estimated at more than $12 million -- through television and book deals and a heavy schedule of speaking appearances worth five and six figures.

That conservative estimate is based on publicly available records and news accounts. The actual number is probably much higher, but is hard to quantify because Palin does not publicize her earnings. She reputedly got a $7 million deal for her first book, with the bulk of that money due after her resignation as governor, and will earn about $250,000 per episode, according to the web site The Daily Beast, for each of eight episodes of a reality show about Alaska for the The Learning Channel. She has managed to keep a lid on reliable figures for her earnings from a multi-year contract with Fox News and a second book deal with HarperCollins.
Click to expand...

Sanders is painting what is normal for a celebrity as corrupt. Clinton got speaking fees as a celebrity not for some quid pro quo from Goldman Sachs. Sanders should be bitching about the pay that goes to all celebrities.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Speech inflation: Why Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and others get massive speaking fees

Sarah Palin Has Earned an Estimated $12 Million Since July

Sanders is painting what is normal for a celebrity as corrupt. Clinton got speaking fees as a celebrity not for some quid pro quo from Goldman Sachs. Sanders should be bitching about the pay that goes to all celebrities.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the fees, it is the fact that she got the fees from the Wall Street banks while "promising" to come down hard on them, yet at the same time refusing to release the transcripts of what she said to them.

Clinton got speaking fees as a celebrity not for some quid pro quo from Goldman Sachs.

So says the Clinton Precinct Captain.
 
16.5 said:
JUST IN: Clinton camp warns: No more Dem debates unless Sanders changes "tone" http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...de-new-york-debate-depends-on-tone-of-sanders

God damn, if she wins the nomination, the Republicans are going to eat her for breakfast.
Click to expand...
Looks like Clinton is the one calling the shots in the Dem race. Sanders is trying to go negative while trying to get another debate in, but he is the one having to ask Clinton. This makes Sanders look pretty weak and ineffectual. Assuming your right wing source's spin is correct, of course.
 
Brave Ms. Clinton ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head, SHe bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Ms. Clinton turned about
And gallantly she chickened out Bravely taking to her feet
SHe beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Ms. Clinton

Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and mad at the tone
Yes, bravely she is throwing in the sponge
 
It is getting annoying for the man who said he never runs a negative campaign to continue to imply Clinton is bought off when he can't point to anything other than she earned high speaking fees as do other celebrity politicians.

And making demands if he wants her support like, everything on his platform, when she has similar platform but with important differences.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It is getting annoying for the man who said he never runs a negative campaign to continue to imply Clinton is bought off when he can't point to anything other than she earned high speaking fees as do other celebrity politicians.

And making demands if he wants her support like, everything on his platform, when she has similar platform but with important differences.
Click to expand...

Curious that the Clinton Precinct Captain is complaining about Sanders "going negative" (pointing out facts about Hillary's deplorable record is "going negative"?) while Clinton has the entire Brock propaganda empire going all negative all the time.
 
16.5 said:
Brave Ms. Clinton ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head, SHe bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Ms. Clinton turned about
And gallantly she chickened out Bravely taking to her feet
SHe beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Ms. Clinton

Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and mad at the tone
Yes, bravely she is throwing in the sponge
Click to expand...

You really think "running away" characterizes Sanders begging Clinton to 'give him another debate, pretty please, but don't mind my negative campaign', and Clinton responding with 'if you want another debate, little man, you should stop the negative stuff'? This really makes Sanders looks bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom