Clinton about inequality in $12k Armani

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

36 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

@Didymus

 

In reality, ONE paid speech by Hillary Clinton of average is more than a CEO annual salary.  You read that right. Their entire salary for a whole YEAR is less than one average speech given by Hillary Clinton. I've never heard a liberal ever say she deserves less money for speeches, even though they say that CEOs deserve less money when they actually create a good for the public and create jobs. Its shameful. 

One-time events tend to be very lucrative because they are ... one-time events  

Do you not understand the concept of influence? lol

Actors make more from one show that people make in years, only because they are media figures with a lot of influence. If people like a TV show they want to keep seeing that show with the same characters. Millions of people view to watch these shows. The actors receive a fair share of that income, which is obscene compared to how much normal people make because it's a service viewed by an already obscene number of people watching advertisements etc...

These actors then get paid obscene amounts of money to talk about products, because that's how advertising works. You have an influential figure appear with a product, so they get paid an estimated fair share of how much that will help their sales.

Now compare it to political speeches.

Hillary is a politician with an illustrious career as Senator, First Lady, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Secretary of State, and a future Democratic Presidential candidate. She has more influence than most politicians could dream of, regularly scoring top marks as one of the most influential people on the planet.

You have rich people all attending an event, likely purchasing expensive tickets or making generous donations all to be a part of it. 

They want to bring someone influential. She knows that her time is worth a pretty penny. They know that she's going to be expensive, but they don't care. She's very influential after all. Many of the guests would look forward to it. A few only show up just because she's there. It would only add to the atmosphere to have Hillary be present.

So they cough up a couple of hundred thousand for her to appear.

In fact the famous Goldman Sachs speech had her charging lower than her average fee  

What's funny is that Hillary has donated over 18 million dollars to charity throughout her career. That's 50x the amount she made from that Goldman Sachs speech.

Yet for some reason, you think it's a bad thing that she charges these companies money. 

Would you prefer she charge them 300$ a night, so that the companies not divulge themselves from their money as if her time means nothing?

You make no sense. 

 

[teo 609]

34 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

@Didymus

Liberals, and especially supporters of HRC on this forum, always talk about how we need to drastically lower CEO pay. They try aimlessly to paint the picture that CEOs take wayyy to much money and that it could be redistributed to the poor.

In reality, ONE paid speech by Hillary Clinton of average is more than a CEO annual salary.  You read that right. Their entire salary for a whole YEAR is less than one average speech given by Hillary Clinton. I've never heard a liberal ever say she deserves less money for speeches, even though they say that CEOs deserve less money when they actually create a good for the public and create jobs. Its shameful.

Giving speeches is something most of the politicians are paid to do. The people you watch on youtube who tell you "modern feminism is cancer" are also paid to speak. It's not something shameful.
 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, teo said:

Giving speeches is something most of the politicians are paid to do. The people you watch on youtube who tell you "modern feminism is cancer" are also paid to speak. It's not something shameful.
 

The irony being that Gaga makes 200k off her speeches so you'd think it's nothing special to Hillary  

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

One-time events tend to be very lucrative because they are ... one-time events  

Do you not understand the concept of influence? lol

Actors make more from one show that people make in years, only because they are media figures with a lot of influence. If people like a TV show they want to keep seeing that show with the same characters. Millions of people view to watch these shows. The actors receive a fair share of that income, which is obscene compared to how much normal people make.

These actors then get paid obscene amounts of money to endorse products, because that's how advertising works. You have an influential figure endorsing a product, so they get paid an estimated fair share.

Now compare it to political speeches.

Hillary is a politician with an illustrious career as Senator, First Lady, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Secretary of State, and a future Democratic Presidential candidate. She has more influence than most politicians could dream of, regularly scoring top marks as one of the most influential people on the planet.

You have rich people all attending an event, likely purchasing expensive tickets or making generous donations all to be a part of it. 

They want to bring someone influential. She knows that her time is worth a pretty penny. They know that she's going to be expensive, but they don't care. She's very influential after all. Many of the guests would look forward to it. A few only show up just because she's there. It would only add to the atmosphere to have Hillary be present.

So they cough up a couple of hundred thousand for her to appear.

In fact the famous Goldman Sachs speech had her charging lower than her average fee  

What's funny is that Hillary has donated over 18 million dollars to charity throughout her career. That's 50x the amount she made from a single speech.

Yet for some reason, you think it's a bad thing that she charges these companies money. 

 

You sounds so much like Trump just repeating yourself so much 

The fact of the matter is, is that Hillary Clinton is a multi-millionare yet paints the image that she's broke for political gain. At least CEOs provide a good for this country. Hillary has done nothing the past 5 years except syphon money away from her "charity" and sit back as her book royalties roll in from a book she didn't even write. 

2 minutes ago, teo said:

Giving speeches is something most of the politicians are paid to do. The people you watch on youtube who tell you "modern feminism is cancer" are also paid to speak. It's not something shameful.
 

No, most SoS's don't get paid CEO annual salaries for one speech. 

And modern feminism is cancer because it's toxic and moronic and I've formed that opinion myself from my observations, not because someone told me. Forming your own opinions is fun, you should try it sometime boo boo. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, MJHolland said:

You sounds so much like Trump just repeating yourself so much 

The fact of the matter is, is that Hillary Clinton is a multi-millionare yet paints the image that she's broke for political gain. At least CEOs provide a good for this country. Hillary has done nothing the past 5 years except syphon money away from her "charity" and sit back as her book royalties roll in from a book she didn't even write. 

No, most SoS's don't get paid CEO annual salaries for one speech. 

And modern feminism is cancer because it's toxic and moronic and I've formed that opinion myself from my observations, not because someone told me. Forming your own opinions is fun, you should try it sometime boo boo. 

You sound bitter that someone is more successful than you and is wanted for her influence. 

Lay down a bit. Maybe one day you'll be influential enough as to be able to go years doing little in the way of employment but still being desired.

Kinda like Gaga too.

[teo 609]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The irony being that Gaga makes 200k off her speeches so you'd think it's nothing special to Hillary

I mean it's not a bad thing. lol If anyone is willing to pay even 1 million to hear you speak it's your right to do it.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, teo said:

I mean it's not a bad thing. lol If anyone is willing to pay even 1 million to hear you speak it's your right to do it.

Never said it was. People can offer services and it's up to the people in the transaction to agree on how much the provider is worth for their time and energy.

How it is a shocker that illustrious world famous politician and pop stars make millions off speeches is beyond me  

[teo 609]

4 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You sounds so much like Trump just repeating yourself so much

The fact of the matter is, is that Hillary Clinton is a multi-millionare yet paints the image that she's broke for political gain. At least CEOs provide a good for this country. Hillary has done nothing the past 5 years except syphon money away from her "charity" and sit back as her book royalties roll in from a book she didn't even write.

No, most SoS's don't get paid CEO annual salaries for one speech.

And modern feminism is cancer because it's toxic and moronic and I've formed that opinion myself from my observations, not because someone told me. Forming your own opinions is fun, you should try it sometime boo boo.

Look honey you don't know a single thing about me and how I think. And don't get all defensive I actually like that guy with the feminism is cancer speech he's pretty entertaining. Another thing he says is to be open to the free marketplace of ideas, so don't bash my opinion an suggest that it's borrowed and not formed by me just because it's different than yours.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, teo said:

Look honey you don't know a single thing about me and how I think. And don't get all defensive I actually like that guy with the feminism is cancer speech he's pretty entertaining. Another thing he says is to be open to the free marketplace of ideas, so don't bash my opinion an suggest that it's borrowed and not formed by me just because it's different than yours.

MJH is a little bit of a queen. He doesn't mean to insult you it's just the way he talks 

[teo 609]

22 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Never said it was. People can offer services and it's up to the people in the transaction to agree on how much the provider is worth for their time and energy.

How it is a shocker that illustrious world famous politician and pop stars make millions off speeches is beyond me

lol we misunderstood each other. I never said you said it's a bad thing. I was just building to the point that there's nothing wrong with it.(How cool it will be if you responded with "Now I get that you never said that I said that you said....")

But yeah I'll probably have to work for 10 years to make this kind of money.

 

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

The only reason this is a thing is because she is a woman 

You don't have to like her but if you can't see that, you are missing the point.

How much do all those candidates, who are men, pay for their suits? Probably more than most people do in their 20's 

Let's move on.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

14 minutes ago, teo said:

lol we misunderstood each other. I never said you said it's a bad thing. I was just building to the point that there's nothing wrong with it.(How cool it will be if you responded with "Now I get that you never said that I said that you said....")

But yeah I'll probably have to work for 10 years to make this kind of money.

 

Oh I was supporting your argument actually but I see how it can be misconstrued as a criticism  

[SKANK 14,288]

20 minutes ago, AlexanderLevi2 said:

The only reason this is a thing is because she is a woman 

You don't have to like her but if you can't see that, you are missing the point.

How much do all those candidates, who are men, pay for their suits? Probably more than most people do in their 20's 

Let's move on.

 

And so beings the eight long years of people playing The Woman Card..

When Donald Trump was criticized for claiming he would bring jobs back to America while he was wearing neckties made in China no one dismissed that criticism because of Trump's gender.

Yet when someone criticizes Clinton for speaking out against income inequality while she is wearing expensive Armani, people dismiss that criticism because of her gender.

Marco Rubio was mocked for wearing Cuban Heels. Jeb Bush was mocked for putting on a hoodie improperly. Rick Perry was mocked for attempting to look smarter by wearing glasses. Chris Christie was ruthlessly mocked when he wore a baseball uniform, and mocked for being overweight, as was Mike Huckabee. Trump's hair and fake tan are the butt of a million jokes. Bernie Sander's is mocked for having disheveled hair. Every single male candidate in this election has had their appearance scrutinized. It's not about gender. It's about being a public figure.

 

[teo 609]

37 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Oh I was supporting your argument actually but I see how it can be misconstrued as a criticism  

Oh... looks like my English is failing me tonight so I'm going to bed.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, teo said:

Oh... looks like my English is failing me tonight so I'm going to bed.

Goodnight