Hillary Clinton Defends High-Dollar Speaking Fees

[ravdin]

If you can get people to buy them, sure, why not.

Although if it were just that easy, I'd gladly accept millions of dollars to play baseball, too.

When the offer is made and you go on to complain about your financial hardship in solidarity with most other Americans, I hope you will understand if we don't take you very seriously.

 

[pgwenthold]

When the offer is made and you go on to complain about your financial hardship in solidarity with most other Americans, I hope you will understand if we don't take you very seriously.

True or false: at the time she said that they were "flat broke" they really were "flat broke"

 

[sunmaster14]

It's fascinating to watch a firm believer in capitalism rail against someone successfully take advantage of that system, solely due to rabid partisanship.

Rail? Moi? First of all, I have raised the point earlier in this thread that one of the reasons Hillary is so financially successful is that she is poised to take the reins of a ridiculously powerful and bloated federal bureaucracy, and many savvy (and somewhat amoral) people are investing in her now in the expectation of cashing in big later. That is not actually free market capitalism as I would like to see it practiced. If the federal government were shrunk back to the size I think would be ideal, it is likely that Hillary would not be commanding hundreds of thouands of dollars in compensation for an hour of her bloviating.

That being said, I do not advocate interfering in her money-making binge. If willing parties wish to engage in a financial transaction that both see as win-win, I'm not going to object. It doesn't matter to me if those parties want to exchange money for methamphetamine, or sex, or even something morally objectionable, as here.

One last point is that I don't even mind Hillary. Sure, I don't like her. I think she's an amoral, charmless, political opportunist. But I think she would actually make a half-decent president, relatively speaking. If she were a Republican, I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, because your point is irrelevant. Hillary Clinton made a stupid and disingenuous comment that will just be mocked more as you keep trying to defend it.

Interesting that you think I'm defending her comment as opposed to evaluating your critique. Intentional sidestepping, maybe? Let's try this another way.

Let's for the sake of argument say that on the evening of your 18th birthday you celebrated in part by getting royally smashed. In the years since you may have had the occasional beer or glass of wine, but you simply have never approached the level of toilet bowl-hugging intoxication as that birthday/night.

Now, a couple days ago it so happens I overheard a conversation in which you told the tale of your chandelier-swinging, lampshade-wearing, party-like-it's-1999 indulgence of liquid consumption. Am I right to now refer to you as a drunk?

 

[sunmaster14]

True or false: at the time she said that they were "flat broke" they really were "flat broke"

False. Their net worth in accounting terms might have been negative, but their real-life net worth (in terms of the real resources at their disposal) was probably at least a billion dollars.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Rail? Moi? First of all, I have raised the point earlier in this thread that one of the reasons Hillary is so financially successful is that she is poised to take the reins of a ridiculously powerful and bloated federal bureaucracy, and many savvy (and somewhat amoral) people are investing in her now in the expectation of cashing in big later. That is not actually free market capitalism as I would like to see it practiced. If the federal government were shrunk back to the size I think would be ideal, it is likely that Hillary would not be commanding hundreds of thouands of dollars in compensation for an hour of her bloviating.

That's fair if you can explain why people were paying Palin* to speak after she lost an election and quit her government job and how that was different.


*Sarah, not Michael.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's fair if you can explain why people were paying Palin* to speak after she lost an election and quit her government job and how that was different.

Her MILFiness has a lot to do with it. Also, I think she became a bit of a martyr that people wanted to rally around. Supporting her was a form of protest probably. I can't stand her myself, but I think she was treated very poorly in the media in 2008. She was attacked mercilessly, way before people had good reason to believe she deserved it (which, even today, I don't think she does).

 

[Dr. Keith]

Her MILFiness has a lot to do with it. Also, I think she became a bit of a martyr that people wanted to rally around. Supporting her was a form of protest probably. I can't stand her myself, but I think she was treated very poorly in the media in 2008. She was attacked mercilessly, way before people had good reason to believe she deserved it (which, even today, I don't think she does).

You have a very low opinion of conservatives.

But, I like how you assume that people will pay Palin for speaking because she is hot and only pay Hillary for speaking because she is likely to be president. In your world are people not paid to speak because they have interesting things to say?

 

[sunmaster14]

You have a very low opinion of conservatives.

I was referring to a small subset of conservatives. Do you think that George Will or Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell are Palin fans? Also, I don't have a problem with any of the reasons I listed. Palin is in the entertainment business as far as I am concerned. Nothing wrong with that.

But, I like how you assume that people will pay Palin for speaking because she is hot and only pay Hillary for speaking because she is likely to be president. In your world are people not paid to speak because they have interesting things to say?

Well, I had assumed that Palin's audience was not paying to hear what she had to say and that Clinton's audience was not paying to see her because she's hot. I think I'm on safe ground there. As for whether people are paying top dollar to hear what Hillary has to say, I think that's possible, and I don't deny that she has interesting things to say (although I've heard her book is a snoozer). I'm just a little skeptical that she would be commanding the price she does if she weren't the most likely person on the planet to be the next President.

 

[ravdin]

Interesting that you think I'm defending her comment as opposed to evaluating your critique. Intentional sidestepping, maybe? Let's try this another way.

Let's for the sake of argument say that on the evening of your 18th birthday you celebrated in part by getting royally smashed. In the years since you may have had the occasional beer or glass of wine, but you simply have never approached the level of toilet bowl-hugging intoxication as that birthday/night.

Now, a couple days ago it so happens I overheard a conversation in which you told the tale of your chandelier-swinging, lampshade-wearing, party-like-it's-1999 indulgence of liquid consumption. Am I right to now refer to you as a drunk?

A better analogy would be if I were to say that based on my experience I have shared the struggles of those who have struggled with alcoholism.

 

[Francesca R]

That's just silliness (intentional I expect).

No, honestly. Plain as day your honour the news story announced the price tag of the actual jet. It didn't touch this "per hour" stuff you mention. I was comparing apples with apples. And I have Hillary beat. Yay me.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

A better analogy would be if I were to say that based on my experience I have shared the struggles of those who have struggled with alcoholism.

It seemed to me to be a simple question. I'll try again:

Am I right to refer to you as a drunk?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's strange to see conservative arguing that luxury is evil.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The extended discussion in this thread is a fine example of why the JREF has, I suspect, finally decided to shed the forum.

 

[Noztradamus]

I seem to recall the "dead broke" claim was for the time period immediately following the Clintons' departure from the White House. So it is disingenuous to mock her (and by extension him) in light of the 14-year passage of time.

Who doesn't know of an out of work couple who found themeselves "dead broke" after buying a couple of homes for $5M?

 

[applecorped]

The extended discussion in this thread is a fine example of why the JREF has, I suspect, finally decided to shed the forum.

Yes, that is the reason.

 

[ravdin]

It seemed to me to be a simple question. I'll try again:

Am I right to refer to you as a drunk?

We didn't "overhear" Hillary Clinton describing her cash strapped situation. "Dead broke" were her own words, carefully crafted in her softball television interview to reach an audience of millions. Your question is irrelevant as well as a bad analogy.

The extended discussion in this thread is a fine example of why the JREF has, I suspect, finally decided to shed the forum.

Perhaps so. On that note I'll concede the thread to whomever wants the last word.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh noes, I think Hillary will definitely lose the presidential based on this. It's all I hear about, everywhere I go..........

 

[Regnad Kcin]

We didn't "overhear" Hillary Clinton describing her cash strapped situation. "Dead broke" were her own words, carefully crafted in her softball television interview to reach an audience of millions. Your question is irrelevant as well as a bad analogy.

Your repeated non-answer provides the answer I expected in the first place.

 

[sunmaster14]

The extended discussion in this thread is a fine example of why the JREF has, I suspect, finally decided to shed the forum.

I suppose, being a helicoptor pilot, you like to feel you're above it all.