Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.


Clinton Advocacy for ‘Working Families’ Challenged Over Tycoons Interests

Over the course of her presidential campaign, Clinton opponents have called on the former secretary of state to release transcripts of three speeches to US investment bank Goldman Sachs, given shortly after leaving the State Department.

Clinton received at least $675,000 for her appearances from the Wall Street giant.

Since 2001, Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have received $153 million in speaking fees, with at least eight speeches given by Ms. Clinton to big banks for $1.8 million, according to media reports.

"You can’t stand and fight for working families and the middle class if you are dependent upon big-money interests," Bernie Sanders told a rally of more than 5,000 at Syracuse University on Tuesday.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20160413/1037910471/clinton-advocacy-tycoons.html
 
Last edited:
Yeah because powerful women getting the same going rate for speaking fees as men must be on the take.
 
The Don said:
Kindly point them out then...
Click to expand...

I would be happy to, but first a question: what is your opinion of SG's blatant strawman "powerful women getting the same going rate for speaking fees as men"?

Obviously you would agree that it does not contradict that fact that Hillary Clinton is taking money from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street interests, right?

In any event, that is one.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah because powerful women getting the same going rate for speaking fees as men must be on the take.
Click to expand...

Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical

For right wing hypocrites:
Here’s why....

The law of supply and demand has a prominent place in a free-market society. The demand for goods and services—memoirs and keynote speeches, for example—determines their cost and availability. ...

Clinton was able to command $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs because the company wanted to hear what she had to say. A former elected official has “insight and perspective that others do not,” says Stacy Tetschner, CEO of the National Speakers Association. This knowledge, he adds, “is now that person’s intellectual property, and he or she has a right to share it.”

Besides, Clinton had already left office by that point, so she wasn’t in violation of ethics laws that prohibit government officials from being paid to speak. And then there’s the celebrity factor. Even the high rollers of lower Manhattan aren’t immune to the magnetic pull of one of the biggest boldface names in the country, if not the world....

... if it’s wrong for a Democratic presidential candidate to take money from deep-pocketed American businesses, why is it okay for a Republican Super PAC to be funded by such organizations?
Click to expand...

And for the left:
Former elected officials who choose to run for president are much less likely to have the power to influence legislation because of speaking fees they were paid in the years before they ran for office. The U.S. President may be among the most powerful people in the world, but Congress is the nation’s most powerful entity.

The fracas about Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.
Click to expand...
 
16.5 said:
I would be happy to, but first a question: what is your opinion of SG's blatant strawman "powerful women getting the same going rate for speaking fees as men"?

Obviously you would agree that it does not contradict that fact that Hillary Clinton is taking money from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street interests, right?
Click to expand...

Well that's one (rather partial) way of putting it. The other is that she and her husband are being paid by their clients for providing a service.

The picture in Slings and Arrows' post has the caption

"It's illegal to bribe a politician.....

......unless they're called speaking fees"

and it's a picture of Hillary Clinton. The clear intent is to demonstrate that Wall Street is bribing Hillary Clinton.

An equally partial way of putting it is to say that Hillary is fleecing the banks to pay to allow her to implement her left-wing policies but......

Other politicians who also earn substantial speaking fees don't have to suffer the same innuendo.

It also implies that the only reason a Wall Street firm would hire Hillary to speak is to bribe her. Why isn't she like other well renumerated speakers who command those fees because their clients think that they have something to say and/or they add some cachet to a corporate event ?

Then again, I'm probably not trustworthy in any case because for a lot of the last 20 years I've been taking money from Wall Street and City of London interests *

16.5 said:
In any event, that is one.
Click to expand...

......and the other three ?


* - by me and my company having a number of finance sector clients
 
The Don said:
......and the other three ?


* - by me and my company having a number of finance sector clients
Click to expand...

:confused: That did not at all answer my question regarding Skeptic Ginger's post, which in addition to being a strawman was also a red herring.

That is two.
 
Argumemnon said:
How about you cut to the chase and actually point out the four fallacies?
Click to expand...

Because this is a critical thinking website, and I thought that people would chime in with their own reasons why that comment was fallacious.

For example, had you said that her post was a Non sequitur, I would have heartily agreed with you.

That is three
 
16.5 said:
Because this is a critical thinking website, and I thought that people would chime in with their own reasons why that comment was fallacious.
Click to expand...

It's your claim and your interpretation. I think it's fair that you name and explain the fallacies so we can judge whether we agree with you or not. Otherwise we might name different fallacies or fail to see them altogether and it just lengthens the whole deal.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical

For right wing hypocrites:

...

Clinton was able to command $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs because the company wanted to hear what she had to say ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, this is the key, and it's begging the question to assume that it's true. Right? From my perspective it's far more likely that Goldman paid Clinton $675,000 as some sort of disguised bribe. Who the hell wants to pay that kind of money to hear her drone on. Even if you suffer from insomnia, and you're looking forward to getting some sleep, you can get pretty good prescription medicine that costs far less and is almost as effective.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's your claim and your interpretation. I think it's fair that you name and explain the fallacies so we can judge whether we agree with you or not. Otherwise we might name different fallacies or fail to see them altogether and it just lengthens the whole deal.
Click to expand...

Well, while a helpful exercise, the real point is that the comment to which we are replying was meritless, both logically and substantively.

I've cited three so far, and no one has raised an objection to my analysis.

The fourth is what I would refer to as a type of ad hominem/appeal to "sexism" that follows the following form:

Argument: Hillary Clinton accepted huge sums of money from Wall street Banks while espousing anti-capitalistic rhetoric.
Response: you are only saying that because she is a woman.

What additional fallacies do you see?
 
The Don said:
Well that's one (rather partial) way of putting it. The other is that she and her husband are being paid by their clients for providing a service.
....
Click to expand...

You have summarized the problem. Do you want a president (and a former president) who see Wall Street and other corporate interests as "their clients?" Some of us think public servants should be serving the public.
 
A glimpse into the Clintons' money-laundering operation...

If the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies do their jobs, the foundation will be closed and its current and past trustees, who include Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton, will be indicted. That’s because their so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich Clinton family friends.
Click to expand...
https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom