General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK for men but not women?
What's the issue about Secretary @HillaryClinton getting $225k a speech when Pres Bush 41/43 got $1m/Trump $1.25m. OK for men but not women?
https://twitter.com/BarbraStreisand/status/714522375446994944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)The money wheel never stops spinning...
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Is that what you are saying?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)on what services are rendered. As a recovering accountant I assure you the FIRST transaction for services rendered was prostitution. It's an old accounting joke regarding 'What is the oldest profession--accounting or prostitution? The word infers trading favours. I presume the Big Banks did not pay the Big Bucks without some inference of Big Decisions in their behalf in the future. They do not give their money away for nothing, they are not benevolent, they do not help anyone, rather they take homes away form people and make them homeless. I have worked for the homeless in Albuquerque, donated what I could and have supported local organizations to feed and clothe them and their children. Have you ever visited a homeless 'camp'? Why is is OK for the super-super rich to make millions more money off something like the Haiti fiasco?
Indeed, what is wrong with making money? Nothing, unless you benefit at the expense of others' pain and suffering. It will not stop. Are you ok with this?
http://haitiantimes.com/7-articles-to-read-uncovering-hillary-clintons-haiti-record-14284/
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... you benefit at the expense of others' pain and suffering."
That is well said, indeed. I have come to believe that THIS principal is the fundamental difference between modern conservatives and progressives. Certainly it's not universal (and there are many other differences), but I suspect most conservatives feel that making money on the pain and suffering of others is simply the way it's supposed to happen - and it goes to their core philosophy of life. The whole "zero sum game", "me first", "I got mine" approach to society. It's a mind set crafted over time - especially since the Reagan era.
It explains a lot if you view things through that prism.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Republicans are allowed to drift.
It's called "the double standard."
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...throughout the land and must never fly on a jet. Any candidate or officeholder who doesn't adhere to this standard is No True Democrat.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)as the driven snow. Men, not so much.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And Anthony Weiner (dick pics don't seem so bad now that Speaker Hastert is on his way to jail) and Gary Condit and so on. But yeah, Joycelyn Elders and Shirley Sherrod got the treatment, too.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Cheat, philander, sleep-around, send filthy pics, hold orgies (this is a non-exclusive list obviously)...I don't care. It's just sex and it's between you, your partners, and possibly your spouse if you've agreed to be monogamous. Exceptions for people taking sex-tourism vacations to foreign lands to exploit unwilling or underage partners that would be illegal here and pedophiles...I care greatly about them and feel they should be publicly shamed for being exploitative monsters.
Start taking money from corporate interests in exchange for stated or implied "considerations" and you're scum.
I think the line is clear--who you're fucking has no impact on the ability to do the job. (In most cases) Who you're taking money from does.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And yours is mere spin. nt
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)After all, she was just a former SoS and Senator when she earned her paltry $225,000 for 30 minutes of work.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)Barbara was complaining that HRC did not get paid the same as men, but what she left out was the fact that the two men she cited were past presidents. Seems simple economics that the going rate for a president would always be higher than for a SoS or senator. HRC just needs to be patient, serve out her two terms, and she'll move up in the pay scale.
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)But let a woman try it and right away she's an evil sellout.
bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)Look, there's nothing wrong with anyone, of either gender, being paid to speak. Where I have a problem with it is when the payor is an individual or company that has either been in the pst or will be in the futre a recipient of political action by the payee. To suggest that HRC was paid an extremely large sum by organizations that were not expecting any favorable future action is naive at best.
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)But let a Democratic woman get paid a fraction of what Mr. Puke receives and right away she's dishonest and a scammer.
I stand partially corrected.
brush
(53,785 posts)If someone offered most of us 225k to speak, with no quid pro quo wink-and-a-nod since we were a private citizen at the time, well, most would take them up on it.
I think most people prefer to forget that she was a private citizen.
bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)First of all no one pays "private citizens" almost a quarter of a million dollars to give speeches unless they have some extremely valuable information to impart. Now I'm sure HRC is an engaging orator and can deliver a mesmerizing and motivational message, but frankly on the lecture circuit that's probably in the ten to twenty thousand dollar range. So you have to ask yourself what would compel an organization to pay a private citizen six figures to talk. Quid pro quo takes on many forms, and I have zero doubt that her speech benefactors were unaware of HRC's political aspirations.
brush
(53,785 posts)Men in that position with equivalent credentials were getting a million plus but we begrudge a woman for getting a quarter of that.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)to begin with. How idiotic.
bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)Seems like public service has been very good to her.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But Republicans are not complaining about Hillary taking money for speeches - progressives are. And progressives have been very, very critical about Trump and both Bush's.
So Streisand's point is valid only when directed at Republicans. If you are trying to use her tweet to somehow question why progressives are concerned about a candidate taking money from Wall Street, it doesn't make any sense. Progressives are critical of both Hillary and Republicans taking money from large corporate donors - precisely because it's behavior common to both, and we don't like it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)surrealAmerican
(11,361 posts)... "we expect that kind of corruption from Republicans." That's part of what we hate about them.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)surrealAmerican
(11,361 posts)... are profiting from them too.
So long as you're consistent, I guess you have a point - a point I certainly do not agree with.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts) Candidate takes in big donations, speaking fees, and the like from Corporation X.
Candidate has a history of favoring policy beneficial to Corporation X.
Candidate's family is very tied to and favorable to Corporation X.
Candidate's political allies are all very favorable towards Corporation X.
Super-delegates who favor Candidate X are in part lobbyists for Corporation X.
Candidate campaigns with the promise of "reigning in" Corporation X.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)after he left office.
Nobody asked him to cough up the transcripts when he ran for President.
That's a special Hillary requirement.
Meanwhile, where are those pre-2014 tax returns, Bernie? What are you so determined we not know about? Maybe a tax at an embarrassingly low rate due to so many deductions? Maybe Jane's 2011 payoff from Burlington College when they let her go?
KelleyD
(277 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)of their annual salary) from their speaking fees.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Divisive nonsense question.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)We all don't like Trump or Bush greed EQUALLY as much as Hillary.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You want to change that post?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Just because you want to draw a false conclusion? Ya'll are silly.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Democrats are not supposed to act like that. Yet they do and it's still wrong.
More to the point, who the hell would pay Bush that kind of money to hear him commit word-salad?
Skittles
(153,169 posts)why all the trashing of Hillary but no trashing the men for doing the same thing
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)the people who allowed the biggest terrorist attack in American history AND lied their way into a war? Not so much.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hillary People clearly think otherwise, and I have to wonder why that is.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)I don't demand to see their transcripts becauae they don't answer to liberals and progressives. You might as well ask why conservative voters don't demand the transcripts, it's a good question and they should, but not my concern.
That she says, "But they do it," they being of the other side, speaks volumes.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)In the primary isn't getting paid those amounts for a speech, and some folks want to illustrate the difference between the two candidates in that regard.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)The whole speech thing is sophistry by the guy she's running against
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)We have a winner!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that "argument" shows intellectual heft and/or integrity of the common Bushbot
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jalan48
(13,870 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)It's not okay, but they aren't trying to get my vote.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... Sanders though
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Like Rebkeh says, maybe if Republican voters were demanding it of their candidates, it'd be an issue. But htye aren't doing so, so it's not.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I also do not recall campaign finance reform being a central campaign platform of any candidates twelve years ago Not even Dean's. That year's Democrats were all running on a "Shit the Republicans got wrong" platform.
You really need something better than an attempt at a 12 year-old whattaboutism to justify why you and the rest of Hillary's supporters want the party to lower our standards to a bar set by Republicans.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and had even passed a law to prevent Senators and House members from giving any more paid speeches while they were in office.
But no one ever thought about requiring transcripts till Hillary came along. And all her speeches were given AFTER she left office, when no one knew if she'd ever run again.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm sorry, but really? That's a pretty silly note. As if anyone thought she wouldn't run again. That's precious.
Now. If you've got an answer for my question, "why are we using Republicans to set standards for Democratic primaries?" I would love to see it.
If you don't have an answer to that question, then please go bother someone else.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Barring some random, sudden, unforseeable event, her 2016 run was absolutely certain. anyway. Answer or no?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Since I remember how old Reagan seemed when he was President, I didn't imagine that she would want to be almost as old -- or that her opposition would be even older than Reagan.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The last thing I'd want to do is pay money to listen to a politician spew bullshit. You can turn on cable news and get that for free.
But to answer the question....this is the Democratic primary. So really for the time being, we are focused on the Hillary vs Bernie race. Streisand listed all Republicans. Why is the Republicans setting the standard? Because Donald Trump charges a million for a speech it makes it OK for Hillary to charge $225k?
I'm tired of this "they are doing it too!" crap. That's the argument 10 year olds make. We are supposed to be better than them.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)She must have made an impression, she went back more than once.
Response to kpete (Original post)
U4ikLefty This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I give great lectures on what is currently in my pocket.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)Lady_Chat
(561 posts)Seems like it is ok for men and not women, same goes for the Iraq War Vote...fine for Biden, Kerry and Edwards. Go figure.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not because she's a woman, but because she's a Democrat.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Not too bright, or disingenuous? Your call.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)but progressives that are up in arms about Hillary's speaking fees never have or would support any of those Republican men.
That's like saying I'm a sexist because I hate her music...while ignoring that I also don't like male singers that record Broadway standards, traditional pop, and disco either. She's keyed in, in her assessment, on the wrong signifier as being the important signifier.
It has nothing to do with Hillary's gender and everything to do with her behavior being inappropriate for someone who claims to be a progressive Democrat. I'd criticize Sanders as harshly if he'd ever made a speech to Goldman Sachs or Citi or J.P. Morgan for that kind of money.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Why would they have a problem with Trump doing whatever he wants?